3. Conceptual PUD Review for the Highlands
-
"
~
J
J
l..
L
:t
2:
-
~
J
-
-
')
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
3
PC DATE: 1/15/97
CC DATE: 2/10/97
3/1 0/97
CASE #: 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP and
96-14 SPR
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Concept PUD Review, The Highlands
Re<:i\:lest for a hmd lise plan amendmeftt from Resideatial Lo'l/ Dellslt)' to
Residential Medil:lfll Deasit)' for the aeI'thern half of the par-eel; PUD rezonIng for
appmximately 50 aeres of pmperty fr{)m /'.. 2, .^..griealmral Estate to pun. R,
Plarmed Unit Development Residential eoaeef)tl:lal alld preliminary request for
mixed doosity resideatial de'/elopmoot; site plafl feyie\'/ tor 67 eottagt: ho~ilfI6
192 villa homes; pr'0limiaary slibdivisloR reqaest of 295 lots, 2 OHtlOtS-tHld
associated fight of VIii), The Highlands.
LOCATION:
Northeast comer of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5
APPLICANT;
Residential Development, Inc.
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen., MN 55317
Toll.) 'J j4-oLJ 15
PRESENT ZONING:
A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE:
50 acres+/-
DENSITY:
5.86 units/acre (gross)
6.8 units/acres (net)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
N - RSF, Windmill Run subdivision
S - 01, Bluff Creek Elementary, A2, vacant, Highway 5
E - RR, single family home
W - A2, single family home, vacant, bluff creek
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low point
of appmximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor
which is located in the southwest comer of the pmperty. A small wetland, designated AI0-14(1) on the
City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the
proposed north Highway 5 collector road.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: North 33 acres - Residential Low Density, South 17 acres - Residential
Medium Densitv
Exhibit A
LOCATION MAP
.
-
"-
-
-
-
I
~
.
~
I
..
'.
')
,
,/
(
,
,
.
A
,.
I(
f,
LAKE ANN.
lA~
ANN
PA K
.....~
~/~V- ;-
fJ.'.f:'~'~.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Update
The city is required by statute to render a decision within 120 days of submittal of a
development proposal. In order to meet this deadline, a final decision must be made before
April 11, 1997. Based on scheduled City Council meetings, a decision on the development
must be made by March 24, 1997.
Neighborhood meetings between the developer and neighboring property owners were held
on February 25 and March 3,1997, to discuss possible revisions to the plan that would
make the project more acceptable for the neighbors. While no final agreement was
achieved, there appears to be movement to a consensus on the direction of the design of the
project. Discussion centered around proposals containing 248 dwellings.
Attached are two sketch plans for a 248 unit project. One plan consists of 36 traditional
single family homes, 44 cottages, and 168 townhouses. Within the low density area, 118
units (36 single family, 44 cottages, and 38 townhouses) represents a net density of 4.43
units per acre. In the medium density area, there are 130 townhouse units representing a
net density of 7.04 units per acre. The second sketch plan (with neighbors' input) consists
of 36 single family, 38 cottages and 174 townhouses. Within the low density area, 128 units
(36 single family, 38 cottages, and 54 townhouses) represents a net density of 4.82 units per
acre. In the medium density area, 120 townhouses represents a net density of 6.5 units per
acre.
The applicant is proposing a mixed density residential development on approximately 50 acres.
Within the development are standard single family detached houses (34) on slightly narrower
than normal lots, cottage homes (67), similar to those proposed in the North Bay development
north of Lake Riley, and eight and twelve unit townhouses (192).
In staffs initial discussions with the developer, staff informed the developer that we would
support a mixed density development of the site provided that the number of units proposed
would remain within those that could be developed based on the existing land uses for the
property. Staffhas calculated the total number of units at 268, which was determined by
multiplying 33 acres oflow density by 4 units per acre and 17 acres of medium density by 8 units
per acre. Within this framework, staff felt that we could support a mix of housing types within
the development layout. Additionally, staff suggest that the applicant incorporate lower density
adjacent to the existing residential developments to the north (Windmill Run and Royal Oaks
Estates). Staff also required that the developer connect to Windmill Drive to provide linkages
between the neighborhoods.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 3
This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-2 District. While single
family detached residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the
district, the project must still comply with the highway corridor district intent which is to attain
high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development
must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest
extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and
proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors,
architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified
sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of
open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must
provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation
from adjacent properties.
Staff believes that the concept of the plan is generally good. However, there are several issues
and revisions to the plan that need to be addressed prior to granting preliminary approval.
Following is a list of issues that need to be resolved prior to moving the development forward:
I. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor.
2. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelter/bus
cut-out.
3. The developer shall expand the gathering space/public space within the development. The
proposed tot lot is too small and poorly located for the balance of the townhouse units.
4. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter of
the project.
5. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the
natural features on the site.
6. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and
provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior
materials must be made.
The applicant's original proposal contained 293 dwelling units: 34 single family, 67 cottages,
and 192 villas. This represented an overall gross density of 5.86 units per acre and a net density
of 6.6 units per acre. Within the northerly 33 acres there were 165 units proposed (34 single
family, 47 cottages, and 84 villas). This represents a gross density of 5 units per acre and a net
The Highlands
January 15,1997
Page 4
density of 5.5 units per acre. In the southerly 17 acres, 20 cottages and 108 villas (128 total
units) were proposed. This represented a gross density of7.53 units per acre and a net density of
8.9 units per acre.
In response to the Planning Commission hearing and staff comments, the applicant has prepared
a revised concept plan for the development. This plan contains a total of 268 dwelling units: 32
single family, 48 cottages, 32 single loaded townhouses, and 156 villas. This represents an
overall gross density of 5.36 units per acre and a net density of 6.02 units per acre. The northerly
33 acres contains 144 units (32 single family, 48 cottages, 16 single loaded townhouses, and 48
villas). This represents a gross density of 4.36 and a net density of 4.83 units per acre. The
southerly 17 acres contains 124 dwellings (16 single loaded townhouses and 108 villas). This
represents a gross density of7.29 units per acre and a net density of8.4 units per acre.
The net density of the surrounding development are as follows: Royal Oaks Estates - 2.13 units
per acre, Windmill Run - 2.41 units per acre, the proposed Lake Ann Highlands - 3.56 units per
acre. Typical subdivisions average 10 percent dedication for right-of-way. Ifwe were to apply
this percentage to the Highlands site, staff estimates, based on maximizing the density of the
existing land uses, a net of 241 dwelling units within the project (119 units in the northerly 33
acres and 122 in the southerly 17 acres). Additional units may also be provided for the provision
of low and moderate cost housing.
Staff believes the applicant is moving in the right direction in their revisions to the concept plan.
The applicant, through the reorientation of the cottage units, has provided additional
transitioning of density within the development. We believe that a gathering place/open space
should be located in the center of the villa units. Additional vistas between structures should be
provided to the Bluff Creek corridor. While the applicant appears to have developed a
reasonable alternative to the Bluff Creek setback, a resolution of the Bluff Creek corridor
preservation area needs to be finalized.
The idea between a concept PUD review is to determine if there is a basic consensus on a
proposed development. The city provides the developer with direction in bringing the project
forward for preliminary development review. Approval of the concept statement shall not
obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a
planned unit development district. A four-fifths vote of the entire council is required for concept
approval.
Staff is recommending that only the concept be approved to allow the applicant to undertake the
modifications to the plan and address the issues outlined in this report.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
The City Council reviewed the proposed development at their February 10, 1997 hearing. The
Council tabled the item to permit the developer to prepare additional revisions to the plan
consistent with issues addressed by Council as part of their discussion of the project.
In the interim, staff requested that the applicant verify the areas of the proposed development.
Based on the analysis, the area designated as low density residential is 30.14 acres and the area
designated for medium density residential is 19.66 acres. Since staff originally calculated land
use areas using a Land Use Map with a scale of one inch equals 1,000 feet and the applicant's
calculation is based on survey information, staff accepts this number. The applicant has also
provided a breakdown for right-of-way and wetland areas within the project. Based on these
numbers, the applicant has calculated a maximum net density of 254 dwelling units.
The applicant has prepared a revised plan (stamped received Feb 19, 1997) that incorporates the
reduction in the total number of units from 268 to 254. The plan eliminates six of the cottage
units north of the Hennessy property and replaces them with four "traditional home" lots, reduces
the number of structures from six to five north of the Bluff Creek conservation area (creating a
view corridor down the private street), accesses the Hennessy property from the east, and
eliminates one of the 12 unit villa buildings, creating additional open space in the center of the
development. This represents an overall gross density of 5.1 units per acre and a net density of
5.63; a net density in the northerly 30.14 acres of 4.89 units per acre and a net density of 6. 7]
units per acre in the southerly 19.66 acres.
The applicant has scheduled meetings with the neighbors on Thursday, February 20th and
Saturday, February 22 to review the proposed revisions to the plans.
BACKGROUND
In March 1995, the city approved a preliminary plat (94-14) for 92 twin homes on the northern
portion of the parcel and the first reading of the rezoning of the property from A2 to R4. On
April 8, 1996, the city granted a one year extension until March 13, 1997 for this development.
As of December 1996, housing types are distributed as follows: detached single-family homes,
4,924 units (78%); twin homes, 218 units (3%); townhouses, 593 units (9%), and multi-family,
594 units (9%). The proposed development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city
and provides housing alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing
Availability Policy No.8 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "The development of alternate types
of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes. Chanhassen is
committed to providing housing alternatives. The future land use plan is evidence of this
commitment. Land designated for future single family units (1990 - 2000) will accommodate
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 6
approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate
approximately 1,500 units. As future development occurs, it is anticipated that alternative forms
of housing will increase as a component of Chanhassen's total housing stock."
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1 0 13 feet and a low point of approximately 940
feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor which is located
in the southwest comer of the property. A small wetland, designated Al 0-14( 1 ) on the City's
Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 50 acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development - Residential. There are three components to the PUD: single family detached
housing, detached townhouse type units, and townhouses. The following review constitutes our
evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD
Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scemc VIews.
Findin2. With modifications, the development will preserve portions of the Bluff Creek
corridor located in the southwest comer of the site.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 7
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
FindiD!!. The proposed development, through the mixing of residential densities within
and individual project, efficiently and effectively uses the land.
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.
Findin2:. The proposed development is compatible with surrounded uses. Through the
incorporation of the recommendations contained in this report, staff believes that the
project will reflect higher quality design.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Findin2:. The development has attempted to transition development from low density to
medium density entirely with the project. The development provides life cycle and
affordable housing opportunities. The applicant has proposed a development that is
unique to the community and fills a niche in the housing needs for current and future
residents of the city.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Findin2:. The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan subject
to approval of the land use amendment for the northerly 33 acres for low to medium
density residential. This amendment is necessary to permit the internal transfer of
density, to permit reduced lot widths for the single family detached housing, and to permit
the zero lot line cottage homes. Staff is recommending that the development be revised
to maintain the maximum density that would have been permitted under the existing land
uses for the property.
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.
Findin2:. The applicant is preserving the Bluff Creek corridor. A sidewalk is proposed
for the north-south road to permit residents of this development and the subdivisions to
the north to access the trail on the future Arboretum Boulevard.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 8
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Findine:. The proposed development will provide a diversity of housing types affordable
to a wide range of income groups. Housing prices, as proposed, will range from $80,000
to $250,000. Most, if not all, of the villa units will be within the range of housing
affordability as defined by the Metropolitan Council ($120,000 for ownership housing).
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Findine:. The proposed mix of housing types provides energy conservation through the
efficiencies related to site development.
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.
Findine:. All appropriate traffic management techniques will be incorporated in the
development. The applicant is providing internal street linkages between this
neighborhood and the neighborhoods to the north. City comprehensive land use policies
require that "Development should be planned to provide adequate street linkages." City
comprehensive transportation policies provide that "The city will promote the provision
of street connections to maximize safety and ease of access." In addition, rather than
provide a straight connection of Windmill Drive to Arboretum Boulevard, the applicant
has created a street intersection, causing traffic to turn and discouraging through traffic.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
.
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Diversity of housing types
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (trees, topographical features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
.
.
.
.
The Highlands
January 15,1997
Page 9
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The applicant is proposing a mixed density residential development on approximately 50 acres.
Within the development are standard single family detached houses (34) on slightly narrower
than normal lots, cottage homes (67), similar to those proposed in the North Bay development
north of Lake Riley, and eight and twelve unit townhouses (192).
Traditional single family lots abut the northern property line. The 34 homes are planned to be
marketed from $180,000 to $250,000. The lots immediately adjacent to the Windmill Run
development are proposed with a minimum width of 70 feet. Single family lots south of the
proposed Windmill Curve are proposed with a minimum width of 65 feet. Proposed setbacks of
30 feet front, 25 feet rear, and 5 feet for garage side and 10 feet side for the living area. Proposed
lot sizes range from 9,130 square feet to 30,289 square feet.
The cottage homes are proposed to be built by Rottlund Homes. The product is a single family
home with a two car garage, typically 30 feet wide by 70 feet deep with a separation between
units of 12 to 15 feet. Cottage lots are typically 3,200 square feet, 40 feet wide by 80 feet deep.
The price range planned for the cottage homes are $130,000 to $200,000. Cottage homes are
proposed single-level units that range in floor area from 1,376 to 1,608 square feet typically, with
potential increases in square footage for walkout units. Buildings are proposed to be 20 feet
behind the curb.
The villa homes are townhome units in three 8-unit and 14 12-unit structures. These structures
are two story, two bedroom units with one and two car garages. Floor plans range from 1,128 to
1,300 square feet. Exterior will be brick with maintenance free trim and siding. Unit prices are
proposed to range from $80,000 to $110,000. Buildings are proposed to be 22 feet behind the
curb.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
DRAINAGE
The site falls into two watershed districts (Figure 1). Approximately half of the site drains
naturally to the east branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west branch of
Bluff Creek. It appears that the propose grading and drainage plans intend to maintain a similar
drainage pattern.
Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed
in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be
anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to
intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 10
street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the streets created
hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the
summer.
Phase I
The stormwater runoff for this phase of the development is proposed to drain to the east branch of
Bluff Creek through a proposed wetland and stormwater pond located behind single family homes.
It is important that this project must maintain pre-developed stormwater runoff rates for
discharges to the east of this site and to the northwest. There is also a proposed storm pond on
the east property line of this site. Staff recommends that this pond be used as a temporary
sediment basin for this area until a regional stormwater pond on the adjoining property to the east
is constructed. This action would be consistent with the City's goals of regional ponds as described
in the SWMP.
The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer.
Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This mayor may not
include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed
project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff
receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch
basins. All temporary and permanent storm water ponds must be in place before
infrastructure construction can proceed.
Phase II
The runoff from this phase will be directed to the west branch of the Bluff Creek. This stormwater
is proposed to be routed to a stormwater pond on the southern edge of the property. Staff
recommends that this pond be sized to treat runoff from the future Arboretum Boulevard in
addition to managing runoff from this development. The pond should be sized to meet Walker
standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This can be accomplished by over-sizing the proposed
pond at the low point of the site or constructing a two-cell pond on the east and west sides of the
proposed intersecting road. This ponding basin must be in place or constructed as a part of the
overall improvements of phase II.
According to SWMP, a water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this development to
treat stormwater runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek. It is anticipated that this basin will be
needed for future improvements to TH 5 and to take the runoff from the lots along Galpin
Boulevard and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this water quality basin is to be used and modified
to pre-treat the runoff from TH 5, as well as the adjoining watershed before entering the west
branch of Bluff Creek.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 11
The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer.
Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This mayor may not
include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed
project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff
receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch
basins.
Wetlands
There is one agricultural/urban wetland on-site that will be impacted by the proposed frontage road
alignment. The applicant should avoid impacts, and if they cannot, they will have to complete the
necessary delineation, sequencing and replacement plans and apply for a Wetland Alteration Permit
(W AP).
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetland
located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for an
ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure
setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland
buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City
will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20
per SIgn.
Bluff Creek
The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of the Bluff Creek.
The Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point
at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek are also DNR
protected waters. The City ofChanhassen has recently completed the Bluff Creek Watershed
Management Plan (figure 2). In this plan, recommendations for this upper area of the Bluff Creek
include a 300 foot setback buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational
and educational trail corridor. This area has been identified for shallow marsh restoration and big
woods re-vegetation projects (figure 3). Staff recommendation for this project will be maintaining
the natural vegetation and landscape below the existing 966 ft contour. This setback is based on the
existing topography and watershed of the creek in this area and maintains all of the primary Bluff
Creek corridor and a transition area within the secondary corridor. This recommended setback
varies from a minimum of 125 feet to 300 feet along this area. Staff feels this is necessary to
maintain the integrity of the creek's natural features and to buffer from the intense development of
streets and homes through this site. The most intense impact will occur at the point in which the
underpass trails connect from Arboretum Blvd. and TH. 5. This area will also be the site of the
needed storm water ponds for this area. Because of these factors, staff is investigating the
feasibility of a big woods restoration project be established in conjunction with this project. The
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 12
applicant may have an opportunity to reduce some city administration fees for participation in this
project.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the
stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place
and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the
plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for
storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions
model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and
therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the
optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be
constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas
along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year
and 100-year 24-hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water
elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed
conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker
Pondnet model which essentially uses a 2 Yz-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and
calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using market values ofland in the City ofChanhassen plus a value of$2.50 to $4.00 per
cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been established at $1,530
/acre for multi-family residential developments, $871/acre for medium density duplex
developments and $800/acre for single family residential development. This proposed development
of 49.9 acres would be charged a water quality fee based on the final acreage of each of these
developments. Estimated costs for this plan are based on assessments of 22.1 acres at $1,530 for
multi-family, 11.4 acres at $871 for medium density, and 9.6 acres at $800 for single family
residential, resulting in a total water quality fee of $51,422.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 13
Storm Water Ouantity 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. Low
density developments will have a connection charge of $1 ,980 per developable acre and medium
density residential units have a connection fee of$2,975 per acre. Estimated water quantity fees for
this plan are based on assessments of9.6 acres at $1,980 and 33.5 acres at $2,975 for a water
quantity fee of$118,670.
SWMP Credits
The applicant will be credited water quality fees where they provide NURP basins to treat runoff
from 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.
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 final platting.
GRADING
A majority of the site is employed in agricultural use. The entire site, with the exception of the
Bluff Creek Corridor, is proposed to develop ponds, streets, driveways, and dwelling sites.
Given the size of this project, it is unclear whether or not the entire site will be graded with the
initial phase. The applicant should provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork
calculations and a schedule of grading events.
As part of the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade, a frontage road (Arboretum Boulevard) will be
constructed adjacent to the site. This development will connect to the proposed Arboretum
Boulevard in the future. The site grades should be compatible with the future upgrade of Trunk
Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The preliminary design for Arboretum Boulevard has
recently been given to the applicant to be incorporated into their plans. Therefore, some minor
adjustment of the grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard may be necessary. In addition, the
exact location of Arboretum Boulevard where it crosses Bluff Creek may be shifted slightly. The
grading plans propose earth berms adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard
(County Road 117). Landscape plantings along the frontage road should be maintained a
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 14
distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design
standards. No berming will be permitted within the city boulevard areas.
Given the rolling terrain of this parcel, the site will be graded to create walkout, lookout, and
rambler-type dwellings. Staff is suggesting that the applicant's engineer look at creating
additional walkout-type units since they are the most preferred type dwelling unit by
homeowners.
In an effort to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, the plans propose a 100-foot wide corridor
adjacent to the southwest property line. Staff recommends that the setback be maintained from
the 964 contour line to preserve the natural amenities. Eventually, a trunk sanitary line and trail
system will be constructed within this corridor. This area should be preserved by either a utility
and conservation easement or outlot which would be dedicated to the City.
UTILITIES
Utility service is available to the entire development. Sanitary sewer and water service is
available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has
limited serviceability to only the northerly portion of the development. In conjunction with the
City's Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer improvement project, sanitary sewer has been
extended underneath Trunk Highway 5 to serve the remaining portion of the development. Plans
propose on extending a lateral sanitary sewer service from the City's trunk sewer to service the
entire development. The utility improvements within this development will be constructed in
accordance with the City's standards. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities
will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. Utility and drainage easements
will be required over the public utilities that fall outside of the right-of-way. The easement width
will be determined upon the depth of the utility. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide.
The applicant is proposing to extend the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive south to
the future frontage road consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The applicant
will be given credit for installation of this 12-inch trunk waterline by a reduction in their hookup
fees. Typically, in a development ofthis size, the applicant would only need to install an 8-inch
waterline, therefore, the applicant will be given credit for the cost difference between an 8-inch
and a 12-inch waterline.
Along the westerly portion of this development immediately adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an
existing homestead abuts this development (Hennessy parcel). The applicant, in conjunction
with the overall development improvements, should intend on providing sanitary sewer and
water service lines to serve the parcel. This requirement is typical for new developments to
ensure continuation of the public utility system.
The Highlands
January 15,1997
Page 15
Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required in conjunction with
final platting. Construction drawings will need to be submitted at least three weeks prior to final
plat consideration. Construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City
Council approval. The developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the
City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval.
STREETS
Overall, the street system is fairly well designed to accommodate the development's traffic and
provide continuity between the neighborhoods. The applicant is proposing both a public and
private street system. The north/south public street will provide residents to the north (Windmill
Run) access to Arboretum Boulevard without having to travel on Galpin Boulevard. This
north/south street will also have a sidewalk system that will connect to the existing sidewalk in
Windmill Drive to bring pedestrian traffic south to the trail system which is to be constructed in
conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 upgrade. MnDOT will be providing an underground
pedestrian crossing at Arboretum Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5 (Attachment No. I). This
will provide an excellent pedestrian route for all the neighborhoods to access the school south of
Trunk Highway 5.
Staff and the applicant have reviewed the previous staff report on Lake Ann Highlands with
regards to Windmill Run's neighborhood concern of traffic using their neighborhood as a
shortcut to and from Arboretum Boulevard to get to Galpin Boulevard. Staff strongly believes
that it would be poor planning from a transportation and public safety standpoint not to connect
to Windmill Drive. Staff does not believe the proposed street alignment will provide a shorter
route for traffic to/from Galpin Boulevard. The development contract for Windmill Run contains
a condition of approval that acknowledges that Windmill Run will be extended in the future.
With Phase I of the development, the proposed east/west public street will connect Windmill
Drive to Galpin Boulevard. When Phase II is completed, it will provide an alternative route to
proposed Arboretum Boulevard for residents north of this development.
All of the public streets proposed in the development will be constructed in accordance with the
City's urban street standards (3 I-foot wide, back-to-back with curb and gutter) within a 60-foot
wide right-of-way. The applicant is also dedicating right-of-way for future Arboretum Boulevard
and Galpin Boulevard. The proposed right-of-way for Galpin Boulevard, however, will need to
be increased to 50-feet wide to accommodate future upgrading. Galpin Boulevard is proposed to
be upgraded to four lanes similar to the section of Galpin Boulevard south of Trunk Highway 5.
Prior to this upgrade, this development will be required to construct with auxiliary turn lanes
along Galpin Boulevard similar to the Windmill Run development to the north. Since Galpin
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 16
Boulevard is currently under Carver County Highway Department jurisdiction, an access permit
will be required for all work within the Galpin Boulevard right-of-way.
The development is proposed to be constructed in at least two phases. The exact phasing limit is
in question due to the traffic impacts on Galpin Boulevard. The southerly access via Arboretum
Boulevard is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with MnDOT's upgrading of Trunk
Highway 5. This segment of Trunk Highway 5 is not scheduled to be constructed until some
time in 1999. Staff has requested the applicant perform a traffic study to determine the limits of
development before the level of service at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard exceed capacity.
The applicant is proposing private streets to serve the villas and cottage homes. The proposed
private streets range from 20-feet to 28-feet wide, similar to the Mission Hills development
adjacent to Trunk Highway 101 south of Trunk Highway 5. Staff has received comments and
concerns from the Public Safety Department and residents in Mission Hills with regards to the
streets being too narrow in some cases. City code requires a 24-foot wide minimum private
street unless the street serves less then four dwellings at which time the street may be 20-feet
wide. The private streets will need to be constructed to meet 7-ton per axle weight design
criteria. Cross access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded
against the benefited parcels.
Staff has pointed out a couple of design changes for the applicant. One change involves
providing access to the Hennessy parcel directly west of the development. The other change is
the intersection spacing on the first street east of Galpin Boulevard. The applicant will be
redesigning the street system in these areas to account for the changes. Construction access to
the site shall be limited to Galpin Boulevard.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for both the private and public streets will be
required prior to final plat consideration. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The private streets
shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-
1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles."
EROSION CONTROL
Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and development plan
and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff also
recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion
control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or
sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Rock construction entrances shall be
provided and maintained at all construction access points.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 1 7
MISCELLANEOUS
The parcel has both deferred and pending assessments for trunk sewer and water improvements.
The pending trunk sewer and water assessments are estimated at over $440,000.00. This is based
on 180 units (sewer at $1,050 and water at $1,375). In addition, there are 18 deferred (green
acre) sewer assessments in the range of$12,000.00. The number of trunk sewer and water units
pending and/or assessed to date are 198 and 180, respectively. Once the final plat configuration
is determined, the actual number of lots will be subtracted from the number of units already
assessed. The difference in units will be subject to sewer and water hookup fees when the
building permits are issued. Currently, the hookup fees are $1,190 per unit for sanitary sewer and
$1,555 per unit for water. These fees are annually adjusted to reflect construction cost changes to
the local Minneapolis region according to the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost
Index. The applicant will be receiving credits against these hookup fees for the oversizing cost of
the l2-inch trunk watermain on the north/south street. Staffwill calculate these credits upon
completion of the utility construction and apply the credit accordingly.
PARKS AND RECREATION
On January 28, 1997, the Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed "Highlands"
development. Following a staff report, applicant presentation, public comment, and discussion,
the commission made the following recommendation:
That the Park & Recreation Commission recommend the City Council apply the following
conditions of approval regarding parks and trails for The Highlands.
1. The dedication of a public trail easement through the east/west commons area from
Highlands Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail
within this easement. The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in
constructing the trail from the city's trail fund.
2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
3. The development ofa "commons" within the plat.
Commissioners Roeser, Manders, Scott and Howe voted in favor. Lash and Berg voted against.
The motion carried by a 4-2 vote. Commissioners Lash and Berg voted against due to the failure to
specify that a children's playground must be a component of the commons. As the motion stands,
the specific contents of the commons area are at the discretion of the applicant.
The Highlands
January 15,1997
Page 18
LANDSCAPING
The former farm fields have limited vegetation existing along the Bluff Creek corridor and
Highway 5. Some tree removal along the creek will take place as a part of construction.
Applicant has provided calculations for reforestation and found that 400 trees are required.
According to the plant species schedule included in the development plans dated 12-13-96, a
total of 672 trees will be planted. A breakdown of the total includes 231 evergreens, 202
ornamentals and 239 overstory trees. Species selection of the overstory trees is consistent with
the landscaping guidelines for the upland area in the Bluff Creek Management Plan with the
exception of the 27 Norway maples. This tree is not native to the area nor has it proven to be a
success as boulevard plantings. Staff recommends the applicant include a species of oak rather
than the Norway maple in order to promote a 'Big Woods' community.
Of greatest concern with the proposed Highlands development is the location of Bluff Creek
running through the southwestern comer of the property. In the Bluff Creek management plan,
development in this area of the watershed was recommended not to encroach withm 300 feet of
Bluff Creek. The applicant has afforded only a 100 foot buffer strip from the property line along
the creek and is proposing 'cottages' to be built within 15 feet of the buffer strip. Construction
of a home requires at least a 20' radius around the home for access of equipment and materials.
Not only will the homes be closer to the Creek than is advised, but the buffer will be encroached
upon by construction. Staff is recommending that a buffer from the creek be provided within the
development using the 966 contour. This condition will require a redesign of the cottage units in
this area, shifting units to the north. This setback is based on the existing topography and
watershed of the creek in this area and maintains all of the primary Bluff Creek corridor and a
transition area within the secondary corridor. Within this area, the city would want to see the
revegetation of the disturbed area with native vegetative links as outlined in the Bluff Creek
Study.
Since this is the first development to take the recommendations of the Bluff Creek Management
Plan into consideration, it is extremely important to keep in mind the precedent this development
will be setting. The proposed Highlands development is an intense use of the land in a sensitive
area near the headwaters of the Bluff Creek watershed. When determining the appropriate buffer
width along Bluff Creek, the city must look at maintaining as much of the natural features and
vegetation as feasible.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 1997 to review the proposed
plan. Based on the concurrence of the applicant, the review of the project was done on a
conceptual basis only due to many of the changes to be made to the plan. The Planning
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 19
Commission voted 3 to 2 to "note" PUD #96-4, The Highlands, and recommends that staff and
the developer work to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council to incorporate
the recommendations that they heard by the Planning Commission and eliminate or work out
many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the staff report.
Staff would like to note that 29 of the 51 conditions contained in the staff report are boiler plate
conditions found in conceptual/preliminary reviews (conditions 3, 4, 6-20, 22, 25, 29, and 30-
38). The balance of the conditions are more substantive in nature and will significantly change
the design of the project. In addition, the applicant has complied with conditions 26, 41,42, 43,
44,49, and 51, eliminating several of the substantive conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council grants conceptual approval ofPUD #96-4, sketch plan dated 3/5/97, with the
following conditions:
1. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species listed in Bluff Creek
Management Plan.
2. Prepare a vegetation restoration plan for slope leading down from road to the wetland in
southwest comer and adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor.
3. Revised grading and drainage plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation
elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
4. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
5. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and
utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall
provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over
the private streets within the development.
6. Upon completion of the public improvements, the developer shall dedicate to the City the
utility and streets improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility
easements for permanent ownership.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 20
7. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval.
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 street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private
streets shall be constructed to support 7 -ton per axle design weight in accordance with the
City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles."
10. Ifnecessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
11. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and I DO-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 predeveloped and post-developed stormwater
calculations for I DO-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 Pondnet model.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
14. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 21
15. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate right-of-way for Arboretum
Boulevard.
17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along
the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study.
18. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 2 feet above
the 1 OO-year high water level.
19. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3: 1 thereafter or 4: 1 throughout for safety purposes.
20. 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.
21. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a utility, drainage and conservation easement up to
the 964 contour line adjacent to Bluff Creek. This area may also be deeded to the City as an
outlot.
22. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill
Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch
and a 12-inch water line.
23. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard.
24. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and
a schedule of construction events.
25. The applicant shall dedicate a 50-foot wide strip ofland for Galpin Boulevard right-of-way.
26. The require building setback from the Bluff Creek should be at the existing 966 contour.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 22
27. Phase II stormwater pond shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from the future
Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given for
oversizing this pond.
28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for
cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based on a schedule in accordance with
the prescribed land use zoning.
29. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk
fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements.
30. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance 9-1.
31. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen
Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992 regarding
premise identification (copy enclosed).
33. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No
parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No
parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire DepartmentlFire
Prevention Policy No. 06-1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking
fire lane signs.
34. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.502.
35. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around
designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 1 0.204( d). Exception, when buildings are
completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this
section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 23
36. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 1 0.204(b).
37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
38. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991
Uniform Fire Code Section 100403.
39. The applicant needs to revise the plan to better protect and preserve the Bluff Creek corridor.
40. The lot width for lots in Block 3 should be increased for a better transition form the existing
single family development to the south.
41. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land or funding assistance for a bus shelterlbus
cut-out.
42. The developer needs to enhance the edge treatments and landscaping around the perimeter of
the project.
43. The applicant should create view corridors within the project to maximize appreciation of the
natural features on the site.
44. The applicant shall provide additional architectural details for the cottage and villa units and
provide material specifications. In addition, assurances that there will be variation in exterior
materials must be made."
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Memo dated 10/15/96 and Resolution from District 112
3. Letter from mark G. Pryor to Ladd Conrad dated 1/7/97
4. Letter from David & Cinda Jensen to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/8/97
5. Memo from Mark Littfin to Bob Generous dated 12/30/96
6. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous dated 1/8/97
7. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
The Highlands
January 15, 1997
Page 24
8. Fax from Jim Knutson to Robert Generous dated 1/9/97
9. Letter from John & Dani Hennessy to Chanhassen Planning Commission dated 1/12/97
10. Sketch Plan for Hennessy Parcel
11. Letter from Henry A. Wanserski to Planning Committee dated 1/1/5/97
12. Letter from Todd Hoffman to Rick Murray dated 1/31/97
13. Figure 1, Watershed District Map
14. Figure 2, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, pp. 51-53
15. Figure 3, Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, Project Map
16. Memo from Rick Nau and Aaron Heumann to Miles Lindberg dated 1/22/97
17. Planning Commission Minutes for 1/17/97
18. The Highlands Area Calculations
19. City Council Minutes of2/10/97
20. Reduced Sketch Plan Dated 3/5/97
21. Reduced Sketch Plan (248 Plan with Neighbors ' Input)
g:\plan\bg,highpud.doc
12/18/96 18:32:4&
&12-937-5739->
I
&12 941 3438
612-937-5739
l'Age 2
Al)bRE88: I
15 Choctaw Circle
I
I
I
CITY OF 'CHANHA88&N
810 COULTeR DRIVE.
CHAN~A.8EN. MN ."
(112) 187-1100 i
I
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPL~CAnON CITY u; Lni'lij'lf'\;).;;EN
O~ERl Lars T. Conway
ADDRES.: 4415 Freemont Avenue South
\
i Minneapolis. MN 55409
11-1'>.""'.".........
..1'- 'G ~ ~:""f~ ~'~
~r\~f! . .-' ".\0
O l=" r; 1 ':; 109('
_.J '. JO
AP~LlOANT: .
Residential Development. Inc.
Chanhassen. MN 55317
. . .
Tm;.EPHONE koa~ ,Ime) " 934-6238.
, t'-tPHONE:
. i
r1...JL ~tnP~11e~s1ve PI.n Amendment
1.'_ ~hdlt\ona~ u.e Permit
11._ ' aoa'lOn of ROWl!allmentl
:
12. _ V.rlance
13. i Wetland AlteratIOn Permit
14._ Eonlng Appeal
~.:_ ~ .dl"~ cava'lon Permit
'" i i I
_.;_ t~tlm us+ permit
. . I
, . i
D.l....:L pl4nn~ 1I~" DevelOpment .
. . i
i i
e. --X- R~on(~ \
15, _ ~onlng Ordlnanoe Amendment
7.._ 8~n prrtn~8
8.;..- 8~n p~~ ~'VIIW
ii' ;
1
,~..::k. (.~l~lalo~
i :
-:::p... Not ~Ioatlon Slgne
....lL eacWow for FIling F.etlAttomey eol'"
$1 00 CUP/SPRlVACNARJWAP
$4GO Minor SUBlMttt. &. Bound.
"2 ~,<-:'r 00
TOTAL Fe! $ 2- ~ T" ~. ..
.
..:...:;L Sll~ PI~n ~evlew
A lIat. ~f .~I ~~p,rty owners within IDO tee' 01 ,he bOundar~ of thl property mull
Inol~ Wllh,ttal appllCltlOn. i
I I
Twenty.slx lull all8 toldld cop", Of the pl.na mUlt be 'Ub~lttld.
t . i i
8141" X 11" AeCJuCICI copy of tn.na.-rency tor .-eta pI.n Ita"".
. NOTe. When ml."tl~e applloatlons .... prooesBld. the appropriate I" ~ha" be el\a'\lad for sitch application.
.. Escrow will be required for other applloatlons through the development contract
. ~
118/9& 18:33:15
&12-937-5739-)
I
&12 941 3438
612-937-5739
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
.+--
I
\
\
I
I
~R~SENT ZONINQ J A - z- I
~llbuESTEDi Zoi.lIN~ P ut> ~ ,J<.. I
r'Fl~SENT LAND ullcl DESIGNATION. ~J V 2. .J~. dw.. 0.:<,i':~J~.:\"".J S Y 2. {,\d ,;"""" \l.eA \\-.g
RBbuESTED LAND ~8E DESIGNATION ~ \\\ rJ\.4~(;wy" I,. ~S\ I.f\h'~
REASON po~ THIS ~EQUE8T ~~'lk,,^-\'C\l S,",l~c.{'
~~OJECT NAMei \ The Highlands
~ATION
;~~AL DesdRIPTION See Attached
~/~
IPPlloati m~st be completed In fu I and be typewritten ar clearly prl ed and mult be aoooJ1'1)anlec1 by alllnfarm&tlon
and plans re ,Ire b~ applicable City ()rdlnanoe provision.. Before fll no this applloatlon, yau should confer with the
Plannlnll DeP . nJn\ ~ datermlnllhO .poclllo OIdlnallCaand p_dur~al requirements applicable to your applicatiOn.
Thl' II to oe~l t~hat I am maklng applloatlon for the deecrlb.d aotlon by he City and that I am responsible fOr complying
! all City", ~I ~'~t. with flgard tO~hll request. This application 8 Id be proce88ed In my name and I am the party
m the ett " u d, oontact regardl any matter pertaining to thle plloatlon. I have attaohed a ooPY of proof of
o erehlp (elt er Y of owner'. Du lcate Certificate of Title, Ab8tra~ ot Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
aut~rtzed pi , on :to ~ak. thlt appllcatlon and the fee owner hi' alsa 8 ned thl. application.
I .' I .
I W$I keep I' elf: I~otmed of the dea411nes far submlaalon of matertal \ and the progress of this applloatlon. I further
un*ratand I a cSl q~1 fe" may be :charged far oonaultlng f8e., .ea IbUlly t'"l'.Ile8, eto. with en estimate prior to any
a~thor1za'lon ,prtc ~d with the atudy. The dOcuments and InfOrmatlan1 have 8ubmltted are true u.d ~f{t.,~ toJ tM t~~st
of my knOwte 'e.; i,
i
I "$0 ; hat i fler the approva' ar granting of the permit. such dermlt8 shall be Invalid unlels they are recorded
aO~'D t the t , he roperty tor whloh the approvaVpermlt Is granted wl~htn 120 days with the Oarver County Recorder's
Off he'or a: ocumen\ returned to City Hall Records.: .
, i
Date
, /'
/ i/L--/<!-/'l-c-~ cr~~-s-"'1'
Bi~ature of ". Qwn, r '
L "1 I' I'''') r:L
~"oatlon ReCeived on <---.:1" I ,.
Date
Fee Paid '~':5 c;{.J( C' ,) Receipt No. (: )/-J~ c
I
TIll .ppnoen\ lhi>1lI4l COntICIltIII tor I copJ 01 \hi Ill" IIpoI\ .J.lllh win III lvalllblo on Frlda, prior 10 1111
mMtlng. If not cbn,.ct8cl. a OOPY Of the report will be mailed to t",applloant', add"".
I
I
i
I
,
1
\
i
i
/ /2- - ;/(.. ~ <-~ -;;.
<>--
..
.-
School
District
112
Office of the Superintendent
David L. Clough, Ph.D.
110600 Village Road
Chaska. Minnesota 55318
612/368-3601
October 15, 1996
To:
City and County Planners and Planning Commission Members
City Council Members and Administrators
Carver County Board Members and Administrators
Dr. David L. Clough, Superintendent \f:jt. ~
District 112 c:::.:-t[T .
From:
Re:
Attached School Board Resolution
Attached is a resolution that the District 112 School Board unanimously approved at their
meeting on September 26, 1996, asking cities and counties to consider the implications for
school bus transportation in the planning of residential developments.
School Board members asked me to convey their appreciation to all officials involved in
planning in Carver County for the good job you are doing even though faced with the
dynamics of rapidly growing communities. Board members understand these pressures as
they themselves struggle to accommodate student growth in District 112 - the
metropolitan area's second-fastest-growing school district.
Thank you for your continued collaborative efforts with District 112. Please call me at
368-3601 if you have questions or suggestions.
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 1996
GITY OF CHANhASSE:\!
Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education.
,.'.".....
~'6. ...
- ,~....
EXTRACT OF MINUTES
OF MEETING OF SCHOOL BOARD OF
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 112, CHASKA, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to due call and notice thereot: a regular meeting of the School Board of Independent
School District No. 112, Chaska, Minnesota, was held on the 26th day of September, 1996, at 7:33 p.rn.
The following Board members were present: Businaro, Johnson, Lawler, Olson, Von De Bur, Welch,
and Whitney; and the following were absent: None.
Board member Von De Bur introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION TO ENCOURAGE CONSIDERATION OF
TRANSPORTATION IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Minnesota school districts must provide safe, timely, and cost-effective student
transportation services, even with decreased funding; and
WHEREAS, an efficient transportation system requires short (distance and time), expedient routes
with students required to walk reasonable distances to the bus stop as permitted by Minnesota Statute;
and
WHEREAS, dead-end roads and cul de sacs require buses to traverse a distance without picking
up or dropping offriders (consumes bus time without producing riders); and
WHEREAS, use of dead-end roads and cul de sacs often requires a bus to back up in order to
reverse direction (for safety reasons, a practice not allowed by policy unless no alternative exists).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all city, township, and county planning officials
and elected officials are urged to consider the safety impact of having students walk out of dead-end
roads and cui de sacs and the inefficient high state and local government costs when transportation is
required in such subdivisions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the municipalities involved be urged to place a moratorium
on neighborhood platting that does not provide interconnecting roadways and/or safe and adequate areas
for bus turnaround.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the municipalities involved be urged to provide bus
shelters for students and safe sidewalks and/or cleared trails for students walking to school or bus.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of providing government services such as
school bus transportation be considered along with snowplowing, police and fire protection in all future
neighborhood plats and planning.
The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member Lawler
and upon vote being taken thereon, the motion was passed unanimously.
ATTEST:
~1+1I(/}lfJdJ&v
Ke y H on De Bur, Clerk
L.and u..
BROWN & HOLMAN, P. A.
DOUGLAS .J. BROWN
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
8085 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426-1351
(612) 591-9950
FAX (612) 591-9202
PAUL W GODFREY'
DAVID C. HOLMAN
MARK G. PRYOR
.JEFFREY G. CARLSON
PENNY F. HELGREN
PAULA LARSON-RICHARD
KIM D. AMUNDSON
DOUGLAS .J. MciNTYRE
BETH GIEBEL MANDEL
. ALSO ADMITTEO IN WISCONSIN
January 7, 1997
Mr. Ladd Conrad
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
My wife Sharon and I reside at 7541 Windmill Drive in Chanhassen. We would like to
express our concern regarding the proposed Highland Planned Unit Development which is to
be discussed at the January 15, 1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
Our lot is on the southwest corner of the Windmill Run development, which borders the north
side of the proposed Highland Planned Unit Development. Thus, our lot sits directly adjacent
to the northeast corner of the proposed development. Thus, the development of the parcel
will have a direct impact on our home. We have concerns about the proposed development,
which include both the housing density of the proposed development and a lack of a gradual
transition between housing of varying densities.
After living in south Minneapolis for a number of years, we decided to build a home in
Chanhassen. While going through the decision-making process, we looked at a number of
different communities and visited a number of different lot sites in each community. Because
a nwnber of the communities we looked at were not fully developed, a number of the lots we
looked at were surrounded by undeveloped land. In those cases, we made it a practice to
contact either the adjacent landowner or the community itself in order to make some
determination as to what type of adjacent development we might expect in the future. In
particular, we were looking for an area which would be less crowded than the area we were
leaving.
As with the other lots we looked at, prior to selecting the lot at 7541 Windmill Drive, we
contacted the City of Chanhassen and inquired into potential development in the areas
surrounding Windmill Run. We were referred to the Chanhassen "staff' and subsequently
were told that we could review Chanhassen's long-term land use plan. We reviewed the long-
term land use plan which showed that the area surrounding the Windmill Run
development was designated as "R-4". We asked the "staff' what "R-4" meant, and were
told that it meant that future development would be detached single family homes, similar in
Mr. Ladd Conrad
January 7, 1997
Page 2
nature to the homes to be built in our development. With that information in mind, we
choose our lot.
In the spring of 1994, we were informed that a development of twin homes was being
proposed for the parcel of land where the Highlands development is currently being proposed.
We voiced our opposition to the twin home development on the grounds that the City had
lead us to believe that the property would be developed as detached single family homes. We
were only then informed by the "staff' that the "R-4" designation did not mean single family
detached homes, but rather, it meant 1 - 4 housing units per acre, regardless of the housing
configuration. (We were also disturbed to find out that the twin home development had been
proposed prior to the development of Windmill Run, but had been delay due to the failure of
the City to make a decision as to where the frontage road, Arboretum Boulevard, was to run.
For some reason the "staff' failed to inform us of that proposed project when we inquired as
to possible development adjacent to Windmill Run). Ultimately, the zoning change to R-4
for the twin home project was approved by the City Counsel in March of 1994. However,
apparently due to financial considerations, the twin home project did not go forward.
We are now faced with a request by Residential Development, Inc. to change the zoning of
the parcel to Residential Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel and PUD
rezoning from A-2 to PUD-R for mixed density residential, including 67 cottage homes, 192
villa homes and 36 lots to be developed for single family homes. This represents an even
more dense development than the previously proposed twin home development.
We are very disturbed that the proposed development is not consistent with the housing
density outlined in the long-term land use plan. We relied on the plan making the decision
where to build our home and were assured by City representatives that we could do so. The
proposed development is a significant departure from the housing density provided for in the
land use plan. The proposed development calls for 297 housing units on approximately 50
acres. This represents a much more dense development than could be possible under the
provisions of the land use plan.
One of the reasons that we chose the lot at 7541 Windmill Drive was because it was
surrounded by land designated to be developed as low-density housing. After living in the
City of Minneapolis, we were hoping to move to an area with less dense housing, which
would result in "fewer people per acre," less traffic, less noise, and a somewhat more
"private" lifestyle. Had we known that a development of this type could be built immediately
adjacent to our property, in spite of the provisions of the land-use plan, we would not have
chosen either the lot or the development that we did. We recognized that the parcel adjacent
to our property would eventually be developed, but in making our decision, we relied on the
land use plan and the assurances of the City representatives as to what it meant.
Mr. Ladd Conrad
January 7, 1997
Page 3
In addition to providing for a housing density that is much greater than provided for in the
land use plan, the pn;>posed development does not provide for a gradual change in housing
densities that is the hallmark of a well-planned community. Our observations are that a well-
planned community contains several different densities of housing, with gradual transitions
between the different densities. The Windmill Run development has approximately 58 single
family homes on 30 acres, with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. The proposed
development provides for only one row of lots for single family homes, on lots of
approximately 11,000 square feet, and a second row of 14 lots of approximately 9,000 square
feet between the Windmill Run development and several rows of cottage homes on the west
side of the development and an extremely large and dense area of villa homes on the east side
of the development. This represents a drastic change in housing density, with a minimal
transition area. The proposed development simply does not provide for a gradual transition
between housing types.
A better alternative would be at least two rows of lots for single family homes of a similar
size to the lots in Windmill Run immediately adjacent to Windmill Run. Then, two more
rows of smaller lots, such as those already provided for in the proposed plan, would provide a
gradual transition from the single family homes in Windmill Run to the more dense cottage
homes and ultimately the very dense villa homes. In addition, four rows of single family
homes, in gradually decreasing lot size would also be much closer to the housing density
provided for in the land use plan.
In closing, we would like to reiterate our opposition to the proposed development. It is not
consistent with the provisions of the long-term land use plan on which we (as well as may of
our neighbors) relied on in making our decision to build our home. If the land use plan is not
going to be followed it is of little use to anyone. Also, there must be a much more gradual
transition between housing densities than is provided for in the proposed development in order
to ensure the development of a well-planned community.
Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
Very truly yours,
/0/}-7&0-
Mark G. Pryor
MGP/jaf
D:nid & Cinda Jensen
2173 Brinker Street
Chanhassen. ~\'IN 55317
JanUJry 8, 1997
Ch~mhassen Planning (' OmlT'jsslon
Chanhassen City Hall
D~.\r Pl~lllning Conu:u:"sion \kmbl.:r',;:
Uur l<lIml~ moved lWIll Saint Louis Park 10 Chanha:>sen o\~r 1\\0 ~cars ago. \\"c made
this mo\\: after three years of sa' ing :md lnokjng for just the ri:;ht community. ()ur intent
,vas 10 find a hom~ in a commumi) \\b..r(.; \\e \\uulJ \\ant our children 10 gr0\\ up. \\\:
did no! focus on one specilk area to tind what '.ve ":ere l(l()~ ing lor - \Ve con-.:idered the
\.:olfununilies of Stilh\akr, "'J'lvli. Dd..mu, nl'UiiV, SL :\L.li.i~L <lllJ .\nuLI just lu ri.ln~.: .\
fe\~ ~1111ply pm. \ve \\ere look!n<J tor a C011lmumtv wltn a 'imal1-town keJ
In (-ur ,"::11';;h, \\'c vj':ited chllj\.::he(~ ~nd ,,\;; tl1kcd "yJth cdUl:1!nrS cl!y rbnners. 10:::>1
bllsm~ss 0\\ n-;1's amllu":~IJ rcsilknls.
in the <-;l1l1tlQ of ] 99..J.. .likr Wh!n<! (1Ut. dn!dn:n 10 tbe l 'ha<-;~a ('nntfllUml\ ( enkr. \\,,=
J. ....._ ..
\1>lh..l1 li".... Rullluml IL;li~ .,k\ llup'l1\.T;1 ;:1 Y\'inJmln Run in C1Llik,<;,,('n. 'IYC' :llr..:a.h
l.r,,:w \\t liked ('hanhCl"en. and \\-e hked \Vh,lt \\<;' ,,;1\\ at Wmdmtlll\.uH.
L;.;, \ ',ur 111''1 m.tc;..::~t m tl~': \\'inJmin r~lln n:l:;hl~n.'hAocl ! cr'nl'1:.tctl H,:'!~ (1':'ner01l(~ 'It
('11\ i lail ,md db~U~:-'i..:J pl'iwlld Ul '.dUtJHllilb ~unuuJ.iJmg ",\'mdlluh RUB anJ l~u.\ ..1 ,hib..
E <;tat:., ~ 11' ni:n:'rm~'" il1f')nl1ed 1;;(' t!-l1! th.' bnd dirccllv <:nnth nt the \~ 'indmiJ1 H. nn
J;:\dUpllii.:lit \\.i;, pl.ll.ll~ll tu b;.: lk\duPld .1;:, iviv den:"it) .':ll1~L J..illiil) Jl;,li",nli.ll I \ ~"ii...l.;
City H:l1! :1gain ju,t pnnr to making nllr lin"1 d<::'l'1"lnn ;lhpllt Wi,-,dlmii t~ un :1"<1 t,d~ e.t
\\irL. Juhjl I(d~1..... :' L. :'....1:,j.... \.,11U~\ \...tl lill' lh,: C.....)lLpl..:hl...l1.~i\1.: LiLt! ll.,=\.. p1...Li Ct ,1 \~."'lL.L:h,,!";"7I..n.
"fl' R:1<:k pninted out thaI the :In:" ;"ou!h 01 \\,i-Hdl11!11 Run \\'(1" pJ,lPned 10 be /()!h:'d the
~,.ilil-': <1-., \\'imhnil1 Run and, iL.rl'L~ i\:, .uu1J L". ";l:,:~,,: :" m.'" ,:r~,J L,! ':L.'''. Thi:;
111fol111~Hjon \\oil" ver~ Important to LIS III mahing OUI de~islOn 10 blllld our hOIlll; al 2173
DrinJ ':1' Street.
RCCtmtl), \\i.: \"i..:r-.: inlonn;.;d about a proposed dc\doplll~ntlalk:d rill "ll1ghbnlb" th;il
\vould occupy apPfCl'.;imately 50 acres chrectly ",outh (If Windmill Run The pro]1o"ed pl:m
is a peD asking for the ~ntirl.' arC.i 10 b.: rezoned as mixl:d lllt:Jiulll J-.:nsit). The
developer'" plan include'- huildmg high density housing on appro"tlnateiy a third ot the
J,md 092 units Oil 15.7 .l..:rcs). \Y-.; Jrc ;;lfOngl) opposed to thi:; propOSJ1. 1'1d:) plJpG::.1 i.~
not in keeping \'lith the c0mrrehensive phm nor 1S 11 in keepmg wtth the injnrmation
1:, jl1, ", ,.,' 1 ,11,) "c 1,\ rol'" TT .111111' 'i' tt) t'}., n,'" 11,\ ,,(\f'C'l'l' "vwe., T"l ,l,lij:011 t1'I'"
\.ill\...lwl...~ 1-....-1-t.1...~"'-+'_\... \" ~...-' '_"" ,___..~ .!....L.~"ti" lJ '\,. j"" 1,,,,,,,,...j \0".... '_"1. i- l";I~''''' .._. f_I-_...1_ , .._;.'"
prnnn<-;all!' not 1T1 h.C<;;J)1T1g. \"lIb lilt: deCISion lOII~ COUll-.:Jl made on :\ian.h L.,. j <))). !Ill
1 _ .._~ ~ i*~d, to nU.\.cd lo\'\ d 2n:-~jt\'
When \\e made our d~cision 10 raise our i:uml) ill CharJlasscn and tv make a substantial
investment in building our home, \ve did so with in:fonnatlOn about this growing
conunuruty !forn the city planners at Chanhassl;;n City Hall. We visualized and looked
fonYJrd to J growing, 1m\' density ~~ngJe family neighborhood to ollr ~outh We do not
believe that the proposed '}lighlanJs" dcvdopmt:nt is in suppol1 of Chanhassen' s
comprehensiye land use plan and we believe the proposed plan will unduly increase
density, traine and safd)' in our neighborhood.
\Ve know you have not yet made a decision on this matter. As you are called upon to
make a planning decision for the city of Chanhassen. we sincerely hope you ,vill follow
Chanhassen's comprehcnsive land lL'iC plan and reject the medium density PlJD proposal.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and hstening to our cone-ems.
Smccrdy,
-v?~ I~
rLa-r
David Jens~n
C'ind:l .Temen
CLJlih~bs<.:n Rt..'sid-.:nts
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bob Generous, AICP, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Chanhassen Fire Marshal
DATE:
December30, 1996
SUBJECT:
Request for a land use plan amendment from residential-low density to
residential-medium density for the northern half of the parcel; PUD rezoning
for approximately 50 acres of property from A-2, Agricultural estate to PUD-R,
planned unit development residential conceptual on preliminary request for
mixed density residential development; site plan review for 67 cottage homes
and 192 villa homes; preliminary subdivision request of 295 lots, 2 outlots and
associated right of way located at the northeast comer of Galpin Boulevard and
Highway 5, The Highlands, Residential Development, Inc.
Planning Case: 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP and 96-14 SPR
I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire 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.
1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance 9-1.
2. All private roads must be assigned street names. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building
Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
3. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29-1992 regarding
premise identification (copy enclosed).
4. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width not less than 20 feet. No
parking fire lane signs shall be determined once street widths and locations are finalized. No
parking fire lane signs shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy No. 06-1991. The Fire Marshal shall designate location of all no parking
fire lane signs.
Generous
December 30, 1996
Page 2
5. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection, is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.502.
6. Submit radius turn dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for turning around of fire apparatus. Submit turn around
designs to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 1 0.204( d). Exception, when buildings are
completely protected by an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions of this
section may be modified by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
7. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of
fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.204(b).
8. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
9. Additional fire hydrants are needed. Please refer to plans for location. Pursuant to 1991
Uniform Fire Code Section 10.403.
ML:be
G:\safety\ml\highlands
CITY OF
CHANHASSEH
,-
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
General
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new constructi,on and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted. ~,
Other Requirements - General
~-
~~: .~-
1. Numbers shall be a contrastlng color frorThhe background.
2. Numbers shall not be In script
3. If a structure Is not visible from the s~et, addltlonafriumbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved. :;f "
4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement #3 must stlll
be met
5. Admlnlstratlve authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary.
ResIdenUaJ Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit)
1. Minimum height shall be 51/4".
2. BuildIng permits will not be f1naled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department
Commercial Requirements
0.&
1. Minimum height shall'be 12".
2. Strip Malls
a. MulU tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main, en,~nce and on all back doors.
'.~.,$
f:..~~';~
3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance.
~~
C_
Approved - Public
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #29-1992
Date: 06/15/92
Revised:
Sa~ty Director Page 1 of 1
tJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~
&-16
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Carver County Government Center
Administration Building
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192
Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025
Administration
Parks
Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Surveying & Mapping
~ I
~
CARVER
COUNTY
January 8, 1997
Etf,:~' ,'.
FROM:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner . J
Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer 'r~
Planned Use Development
The High~and.s, Residential Development, lilC. (96-.~ PUD,96-2 LUP and U6-1 '. SPR)
N 0 9 "'" (
JA " I:..
TO:
CITY C'r \'.>1" ., ,,,.~~-
SUBJ:
Following are comments regarding the land use plan amendment for The Highlands transmitted
to Carver County by your memorandum dated December 16, 1996.
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
80' 100'
Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
11 O' 120'
Urban Undivided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
100' 110'
Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended
190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor
shown would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the
recommended needs for a 2-lane urban roadway. Other plats along this corridor have
provided for a 50 foot from centerline road dedication. This road may eventually become
under the jurisdiction of the City.
The city may wish to consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width
may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-or-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within
the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway
department.
Affirmati\'e Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Pnnled (/1] 10(;; Post-Consumer RI'C\'c/ed Papa
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration.
6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed
within the road right of way.
7. A permit for access from Carver County will be required for the proposed access on to
CR 117. Requirements for that access may include construction of right turn lanes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
VVednesday,January15,1997
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
SUBJECT: The Highlands Planned
Unit Development
APPLICANT: Residential Development, Inc.
LOCATION: NE Corner of Galpin Blvd.
and Hwy. 5
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Residential Development, Inc., is requesting a land use plan amendment from
Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density for the northern half of the parcel;
PUD rezoning for approximately 50-acres of property from A-2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development-Residential conceptual and preliminary request for mixed density residential
development; site plan review for 67 cottages homes and 192 villa homes; preliminary
subdivision request of 295 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way located at the northeast
corner of Galpin Blvd. and Hwy. 5.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an 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. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
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 Bob Generous at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on January 2, 1997.
~/3D!qh
I~
!
\-Uan R. & Mary J. Olson
'461 Windmill Dr.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
Ieruy & Cynthia Wanserski
521 Windmill Dr.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
.teven & Judith Selinger
480 Windmill Dr.
:hanhassen,MN 55317
Jel & Susan Reimers
495 Crocus Ct.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
:harles Peterson & Bonnie Botten
496 Crocus Ct.
:hanhassen,MN 55317
villiam Thompson & Mary Floto-
bompson
491 Tulip Ct.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
'imothy & Joy Bott
490 Tulip Ct.
:hanhassen,MN 55317
'imothy & Bonita Mihalko
198 Brinker St
:hanhassen, MN 55317
:athleen Haldeman
059 Brinker St.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
effrey Stone & Wendy Loushin-Stone
103 Brinker St.
:hanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey & Nancy Steinke
7481 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sharon Pryor
7541 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James & Jeanette Fiedler
7500 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Lynch & Amy O'Shea
7475 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Cheryl Kohler
7510 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael Ronningen & Dawn Cook-
Ronningen
7471 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edward & Kathy Loveridge
7508 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jean Kingsrud
2027 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Carol Oberaigner
2075 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Amit & Ruth Diamond
2117 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Marke Feyereisen & Wren Schafer-
F eyereisen
7501 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Margaret Manning
7460 Windmill Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jon & Naomi Noelder
7511 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephen Toroio & Virignia Bell
7476 Crocus Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Pamela Schwartz
7509 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Cynthia Sebold
7470 Tulip Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ron & Diahann Potter
2180 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Joan Joyce
2043 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Brian Erdman & Dawn Harris
2091 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Colin & Desiree Brown
2131 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Julie W ojtanowski
2145 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sideny Scorse III & Rebecca Scorse
2187 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
4890 Co. Rd. 10 E.
Chaska, MN 55318
Theodore & Marlene Bentz
7300 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Bluff Creek Partners
123 N. 3rd St., Suite 307
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Brian & Jennifer Monteith
2159 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Cinda Jensen
2173 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Steven & Nadia Janson
2199 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John Hennessy & D. Rengers
7305 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Douglas & Theresa Bentz
7280 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
Darleen Turcotte
7240 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
1. P. Links Inc.
c/o John Przymus
642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael Gorra
1680 Arboretum Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180
BARTON-ASCHMAN
141 001/003
BAI=ITClN-ASCHMAN ASSDCIA TES, ,NC.
III 7Jdr4 Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612) 332..0421
FlU: (612) 332.6180
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET
Date:
To:
Firm/
Agmli)':
Subject:
Sendu:
1- '1- 0/ ?
R~I- be"ffe~
Time: LiZ CD A.M. I P.M.
-
r ?1- 2 ~Z.f
Fax # 1}'7 r:'J;?
~I.u~s:'" pf~ fly!'
I' rAe-li,qt, !~d!f," Jevl~
.J ,;:,., Y;.l) -k ~
Job #
YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ .3 (including aJV~ sheet)) PAGE(S). IF YOU
DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (612) 332..0421.
M/ If-/: "" c.lW'ltJ/'7 Ye.V7e W "r ~/$ aNt Cdm/.-..I'
1k1~I'~ed .Je.,e/~~ ~/"",,- aJ; ft., ~ /Pv./ I'
'1/1- ~ /-'1 ^" .
HARD COPY;
o WlLL
o WILL NOT
FOllOW IN THE MAlL (check one)
cc:
01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180
BARTON-ASCHMAN
IaJ 002/003
Comments to Planning Case: 96-4 PUD, 96-2 LUP, 95-14 SPR
Development at northeast quadrant of TH 5-Arboretum Boulevard with Galpin.
1. Access point (if allowed) to Arboretum Blvd. is about 10 feet to hi~h. Profile grade for
Arboretum Blvd is approximately the same as TH 5 in this area.
2. Berm and alleyway parallel to Arboretum Blvd and TH 5 is about 10 feet too high for the
same reason as in 1.
a. Proposed pond is in area of proposed beebo for trail underpass and creek crossing of
Arboretum Blvd. Depending on pond outlet to creek, perhaps developer can give easement for
trail between pond and creek and access around the pond and back to Arboretum Blvd aloni
the proposed street connection. Trail is about 12 feet wide.
4. Probably need easement along Arboretum Blvd for grading during construction. Developer
should avoid placini landscaping in this area untill Arboretum Blvd is completed.
5. Utility connections and elevations are unknown at this time.
Comments are the result of a quick preliminary review and comparison to approximate
locations and elevations which were developed in a planning study for Arboretum Blvd. The
comments are not based on accurate design details and do not address issues which may arise
during final design studies for TH5 and Arboretum Blvd.
01/09/97 16:16 FAX 612 332 6180
BARTON-ASCHMAN
'l ~~~r\ :'" \ ,\
\,', 'i i'~'~ poo: ::' ;.111;1 d
. \", . ~>. II
~ ~ . I 31 ""\'
'; "<'~ - : > < I - \',~ \
',~ ~:I ~ ~ \ ,
20' ati \-., "Ii
- ~ t ,- 'V- ~ I..> ~
r ~ I; \) ~1 '-.(
· -~ ~ ~) '--t "J\
> < II I~ ~) ,\ ~
S
- i~ ~ 1 \
_ f~~" D
3 r-I,tr~ \~ ~ \
,~ < 1"" ~ \..1 (\
\ ~ i.-> "'rJ
,,\ t - ,:r 71fr- ~ l) ~
, , J z.. \1i '\ \".
i ~ >
i ~ '" ~ r ~ I
~ ) .c I' __ ~,
J -::-- - ~
-.\
.l~
\
--
IW"'" '\
Q~
I L
I
.J
I
I L
1
>
I,
l-
::;.. m
~ w
~..,
I~ f- U
-
-
==
::
^-
-m
)1
i'" 'i7 ~' a.r::: t
... ,) (.
1_ ~ .. J,. ~
. - \1]) 1 Z' 4
-
oM.! ~
r ~ J.l1- 1.
I ,I 1...
r'
) (. 'lfI ,,>'
t. ~ r- g it --"
J' .. ~
-
~
-
.,~ ..Lf
J ~ .. I
- () ~ I'
..-v-
...--....-14 .,.. ~ /'
~~
~
~~ ~
-.---
.~
/
/
------
~
,/
/'
"\
l5~
\~
b ~
Lj~
1~1
,~ v~
\ '1-.,\ J ~ ~
'/ .. , ~~
D~ j '(!l~ I
~~, ~ ~ ~ /
,~~
~ ~ v~
~'
'\.....~ ~ ~ ~ """ /
v /
~~
,^,f:o~ -
" -
~
..
~
.
'-9
CJ.:
)
~
(
..,..
'\" ~
t
f
~
10
~. "
11;:
t'
~
f
/
/
/
f\....-
C'-"
f'....
~.
--::
-
-\-
"::::J
,
I4l 003/003
From: John & Dani Hennessy
7305 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
To: Chanhassen Planning Commission
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rei Public Hearing
The Highlands PUD
J an . 12, 1997
Dear Commission Members,
We have lived in Chanhassen in the same location for
almost fifteen years. We bought our home in May of 1982
and have really enjoyed the rural life which is sadly, for
us, coming to an end in our area. We know that change is
coming and would like our property. to fit into that change
as bes tit can. We like our home and where we are, and
both of us are disappointed that the developer seems to
have absolutely no sensitivity to - fitting us into their
proposed development with similar housing types. In their
plan they have isolated our single family home away from
any other low density single family housing that they
propose to build next to the existing homes in the recently
built Rottland neighborhood. Instead, they have surrounded
us with a very different style and density of housing
product that is not zoned in the Comprehensive Plan for
this land. Our home needs to be incorporated with other
single family detached homes on the minimum 1/3 acre lot
size so that we can be a part of this neighborhood. The
Comprehensi ve Plan was designed with this in mind. Our
home, although quite a bit older, is basically in the same
styling as the homes in the Rottland neighborhood and would
blend in nicely with them. Many developers and builders,
including Hans Hagen and Lundgren Brothers, build new
single family neighborhoods around older existing homes
very effectively.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for low density single
family zoning for the northern half of this property. We
ask that you adhere to this plan as it really is the best
plan for the community. Our Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan
was developed with a great deal of hard work and
invol vement of many people over several years, and the
al tering of the approved zoning in the plan should not take
place without the same community involvement and support.
Should you rezone this property to higher density, at bare
minimum, we would ask that you require the developer to
extend the single family traditional homes around the front
of Galpin Boulevard to blend with ours. If the Cottage
Home products are allowed to surround us completely, as
proposed, our property value would be lowered and would
create a hardship for us in the future should we decide to
sell.
We do not have anything against the Cottage Home
product where the land is zoned for medium density,
however, it is unfair to our neighbors and to us to allow
this when we have all understood that the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan was for low density single family
detached housing on minimum 1/3 acre lots. There are other
options available in the southern half of the property for
the developer to put higher density housing.
We also ask the Commission to require any Cottage Home
product builtin the medium density area to be arranged in
a more creative fashion other than the proposed "Air Force
Base" style cookie cutter barracks squeezed into tight
parallel formation. This is a beautiful rolling piece of
property that can and should be developed in harmony with
the surrounding areas. The developer has a great deal of
experience and should use this opportunity to showcase his
talent and creativity. The present proposal is mundane at
best. Thank you for your consideration.
John & Dani Hennessy
7305 Galpin Blvd.
Excelsior, MN 55331
I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I 'I ,,'
,_I I I I I I I I I I I II II
:(; " I " I I I I I ,: 1I
I' I I I I ! Ilil
: I .1u~iMLy I
It I , )1 I
I / _-l--11--~
'W' I _"..... ~~ ~ -,-~ ~~ I
, , __ ~ -..-: t-- ../ -
,/, L~ --c..or [_~ ~ --:.. ;1',," i'
" : _"" ~>_ r- e. I =-- ,Ai
/f .0::: -A \ / - - - -f- -J... - I-- -I _1- -,..-.....;
'f I/"" r--/. - ).......
r! ! ::-=-,flCl I I I I leI I ,....... 71
, ,rJ ~ ~ - ............. I
-~
,
I ~~ ~~ ~\~.\'""\,~ -\ J r - / ^
_ V- _- """'-L..... . , " / toO..
~ ~_ ~ ~1"'" ,--""no. ~~-'JU;;; ... // /~'\..
Jkw~ "~\.~\J\JQ\"\\JI t'C ~/~~
~f. CJ!f, 'f,j I......~~:'\.. '''',/ /~ Wi,
7 0Jd (J I~~~"- / ,-,",'" A ~
r rJfiI tlJ r A UJi:">. ...,. / / / ~
_-I j f"tl a.JB' --
_ l '" aJ aJ 't:J" / ~ t:J ~
;y~~ (~lJ r:l'" --.;:~~ ,~ IJ)~ #.b~"
V"<D""~ 'fj"' 7 ' ~u^ ~
~ _ ' 9~ A 'iJ fi "' I ,1" ~- '"-. "" J.
--_oY~~~U~~!1 I~ -,T - :~'JL~;:: ~
"~~~~~ I frm r ,,. 1tm:l~/-1
-'J'o.-/ :.-~ A ~4 I I' ," '" : k ~.7 F ~" I
....... ~/' o:-"\.. I' ~
_ ....... ~/1'i.A '~ I -.....-.. ... ~ ...... -'''''
,,\c.. Y"'_"- I) I~ L..(
Y#"/ ~ :-..... ,.. 11.. L-. l... 1-" l...
\ c.. '- ~ \ I .-l ~t! ....1 _.. ~ ~ _' I
"VIII"'"o>'" \ \ 1-1 U r.... LoJ.....1 " i-: ~
" " \ \ '~,::. ... . - .. ..
'\ \ .,.,.. EO r"q" '" "I j
\ \ ,1 ill Llllll I T
\ \ " r. ... ~
, '~,.. j mm iT"
'\. 1.0 -
, II II w --1 I
,.~ ~ '
.." .. ~I_ T
\
\
---1 \
I
\ \,.,. n.. irr fT l'
1
L ----
l ---
---- --- -- ---
-
--,
-
A~ --
_ 'SORt -
_ 7U.., .......
_ 8 .......
_ 0(;( .......
__ €'v4RO .......
....... .......
.............. ""-
....... "
....... "
" .......
.......
'"
"-
"
"
"
,,~,E~~ ,~!!2,~~~I'!P~S 'm'~""
rll.1 33 28 .. "
;< 115
IIV!?!
~
-----
-
rll.2
o
33
120
1$3
lUTAI.
)]
61
174
268
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
SKETCH PLAN FOR HENNESSEY PARCEL
\ \
.
.
.
: IrzeE L(~
'15~ -t..
-
_n:_ .J~ /5} _ t ~q7__ _ ___.______ __________
1____ ---- ---- - ----
. t,(l,,-A/ o-.f ~../~ ~~
>---.- -------.---- - .. ' 0'--..-.--------------.--- .." ----.---
~
~ /-f-v(/ -H'- # /
--~ -'--.---------,.------.-- ..- -. n (f------~------_..-.- ....--- --..-----..- --.-
-- , ~ --
'j__ _ ______-'.-:__~ qO____hU 1~ In-1K~___ _____________
"
'1---
______:___ ~~, ;V~.
'"[ - --- ( -----------.---.--.---. - -----
- : I 55 1
_ ..____.~.;. _ m.___ ________ ___ _ _ _ . ~ J . _ __ __.. ._. ____ __ _ _n -
1"hv -". ,,- I
_ ..: ___ A __ ~ --ee.~-- _ ~~~ .l-fr~
-
~____ _____________H____~~; _2p ---.tl1;Jv.J~5 ____13t~- ~
_____ /;.Pv.d~P/'fl".b/d- _________________ ____ _.___ ___
_. _ ~ Lo/'~~__~hYl-b..<V1 S /
_._ __-2..A~__~__~_~_pCl~'I_~.- _-h? ~_ ~
. - ,}1
---,- -0/ n_.~~~~~~--*{J/- -- - W-Uf/V'-0.-qtvi"
___.___~-- /_5_" l<1'~L1 ___~~/ ~
,.,.. - t p',' /
---H~1JJ~~-- 'P..)P./Yl/'~~ ~ b~,v(o//J"'r1';'VV-r
,
J; " .
__ ______,___~~ _ ~_L~~-C-_~-----J:~~- ~~".....tf-~.I..-I..... (
______._____~~_~-dlil~~-W~~ __~~____;:)../~~+
-tJ..v () .IJ /) /
_ ______ ~________ -p!7-0p-~>>4 a_.fJ~2..ft?1-""~/:7r.
_n_J.__~!:!':!_d~~~~ t7PF/),/'~~- -/-0 -I-~
;l ,I.....!J ~ ~ I
_ _ -1/1A)?O$~---t:M4"I!/JOp/'!-:'/.?f-- fj~ __ _ l-r
I ~ _~ _~____~~~--- ~!-r./.I,j .-r.J,..2./ 1'1''7!'
t:-~~~ 1..-~ ~ r.j~J w.Jt~.A-/
4/~-t'M_-:f./~ -f~ ~ -~ ~ -I-~
~~_ _ ~ -;-~J; ~l~-t/ -ft; he-
/1 1...- /0 ~
~u:?-tf' 1< 4-- ~ ~ow ct~p
, I
! .._.~------- -- -~-- -r" -.------~-- -- - ....... --
________ __~----~~d-~J (~__~~_~
, /' (1" i to
n____________ .. ~---..tzI&---~-~~~- .:::g_~ _I 7?o~ O~rtL-
I __ ,
______=-_~ n_, t---j~~f~:~f.:g)~4d'5'--) -
:+.._ ~. __.p ._...___ .__ _.. ._ _ _ m_
-q ~-- - -~-J-- - - ---- ._. -- -- -- - - -- - --
! ! R.pAIlfU-A/ fi ;("U~
--H_u,--- 0____.' __.~/r":":_~_- ---0' ----01.--. ---"-.-------- ~ u_
, /
_____ __:...__ _ -:tJ~7?.t{ -A ~___ W k!Y-$ e..E::~~
I r. ~
~ :;--;, I W ~.(/M.I j / D.I7IVJZ..;
- --- - - -- -, - - .
__ --, _. __ _n'_ _
,i ~~~ IIJ_..
__ _. _________ ~ n_. ______n__ ___'n _'n' ____ -t----Lv.'Cf-'-"--.-..------- _
- ___ __ -------i------ --- ------- -- -~ ~n2 11_--
CITY OF
CHAHHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
January 31, 1997
Mr. Rick Murray
Residential Development, Inc.
15 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Park and Trail Dedication Fees for The Highlands
Dear Mr. Murray:
Per your request, the following breakdown of park and trail dedication fees for the proposed Highlands
development has been calculated. This calculation is based on the concept plan showmg 32 tradItional
home lots, 48 cottage home lots, and 188 villa home lots.
Park Dedication Fees:
80 units @ $1,200 =
188 units @ $1,000 =
Total
$ 96,000
$188,000
$284,000
Trail Dedication Fees:
80 units @ $400 =
188 units @ $333 =
Total
$ 32,000
$ 62,604
$ 94,604
Total Park and Trail Dedication Fees:
*Based on today's rates. Subject to change annually.
* $378,604
Per city code, one-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the
city's approval of the subdivision. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building
permits are issued: rate in effect when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900 ext. 121.
Sincerely,
~.,~
/~/
Todd Hoffman
Park & Recreation Director
.~~ -----..
. -----
c: '-- DuL Generous, Semor Planner
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
/, 24
. 9C2.2 ...... BC 1.1 9
.24' /JC I'U .......
A.... ~_;/94U \ BC-A 1
~ 24' BC2,~,"
, ..,....,.-~.. .--., . -
._~-.~. -..... . '--
- ... ,."L. J
...... -..--
,
BC2. , 6... .J
f4.8CZ.'7 /
Lake Ann Highland.
FIGURE 1
<> . J:igure I
~/f7UIlE ~
V, ReCOVVlVVleVldatloVl5
V.A NatlAral ResolArces
A 1 IAplaVlds
This section recommends a series of projects and practices necessary to
achieve the vision and goals of the Steering Committee.
Recommendations in this segment focus on restoring wetland
communities and re-establishing big woods forest species on upland areas.
This segment of the Bluff Creek Corridor and the sites addressed below
are shown in Figure 9. The corridor boundaries are defined by existing
wetlands and recommended 300 foot buffer strips along either side of the
Bluff Creek. The following plan of action is recommended:
· Site I a - Shallow Marsh Restoration
This site is within an existing wetland located between Hazeltine
Boulevard and Galpin Avenue. The plant community is dominated by
reed canary grass with small amounts of nettle, willows, jewelweed,
elm and boxelder present.
Wetland restoration of this basin will involve the reestablishment of a
mixed emergent marsh wetland community. Mixed emergent marsh
are typically dominated by a variety of emergents. Different types of
bulrush commonly occur in the deeper portion of the wetland and
are dominants. This community changes into a fringe of wet meadow
grasses including prairie cord grass, spike rushes and a variety of
sedges.
The hydrology of this wetland has been altered by a ditch which
exists in the southeast portion of the wetland. Artificial basin drainage
has altered the hydrology and caused a shift of plant species tolerant
of standing water or saturated soil to reed canary grass, which grows
best in seasonally flooded conditions. Reed canary grass is a
colonizing. invasive specIe which out competes native species
following disturbances from agricultural use, drainage, filling. siltation
and others. Its aggressiveness allows the formation of persistent
monotypic stands of the species. Wildlife values of the wetland are
reduced from a loss in plant diversity and cover that other emergents
proVide. The wetland likely existed as a higher quality emergent
marsh prior to the drainage.
Bluff Cree~ Waters~ed Natural ResC>V1rces MaVlaaemeVlt PlaVl
,
Page 51
..--,~,>>
~,
Restoration of this wetland will involve the removal of reed canary
grass and restoring the hydrology and mixed emergent marsh
communities to the wetland. Removal of reed canary grass often
needs to include herbicide treatment in combination with a
prescribed burn (when possible). This, combined with increased
water levels. should remove reed canary grass. It may not be
practical to treat the entire site with herbicide or to do a prescribed
burn. The areas that will have sustained water levels of 12 inches
should not need to be treated with herbicide or bumed because of
reed canary grass's intolerance to sustained water levels. Areas with
less then I 2 inches of sustained water levels will need to have some
type of treatment to remove the reed canary grass.
Restoration of the hydrology could be accomplished with
construction of a control structure at the wetlands outlet. The
following considerations need to be addressed before the control
structure is constructed:
t
I
I
I
I . Flows - Special considerations need to made to insure the
control structure discharge capacity will be sufficient to handle the
existing flows.
2. The control structure should not allow bypassing.
3. Consider potential conflicts with adjacent lands
4. Create an appropriate hydrologic regime for the restored
wetland
If feasible, a control structure with potential for water level regulation
IS preferred. It allows maintenance on the outlet and control structure
when needed and will help control plant succession - a benefrt to
waterfowl.
,
{
i
~
,
,
Revegetation of the site may occur naturally over time. If quicker
and more dependable results are wanted then the area should be
planted and seeded root stock can accelerate the process. An
economical solution is to allow the deeper areas to revegetate
naturally and seed the saturated soil areas. It is important to establish
plants quickly in the saturated soil zone to reduce the chances of reed
canary grass coming back to these sites.
· Site I b - Restoration of Big Woods Vegetation
Buffer strips of 50 to I 00 feet should be established along Bluff Creek
and along cJl wetlands within the corridor. A mixture of tree and
I
I
BhAff Cree~ WarersVled Naruml ResolArces McmaqemeVlt P!aVl
Page 52
~~)Jl
'" _.........,...., ~.~~
... .... - "l .
FEB-04-1997 12:06
~
B It W INC.
Planning
T r.m:'l'vrnltivn
F.nginetmn&
L:rbiln ()esi~
'I1trcsh~'r 5<l\J;lr~'
700 Third Street So.
'iinnt>a plIlj~.
'\C'>l 55415
612/370-{liOO
Fall 012/370-1378
Denver
Milwaukee
:'v1in.n~apoljs
Orlando
'?hl~Jlj~
Ponland
San Di~o
Scilttle
BRW
612 370 1378 P.02/05
Memorandum
DATE:
January 22, 1997
TO:
Miles Lindberg
FROM:
Rick Nau, AICP
Aaron Hellm~nn., EIT
RE:
Lake Anne Highlands Development Traffic Analysis
As you requested, this memo addresses two questions about the Lake Anne
Highlands Development located. east of Galpin Road and north of Trunk
Highway (TH) 5 in Chanhassen, MN. The first question is, how much of the
proposed development can be accommodated by the one access to the project
area off of Galpin Road? The second question is, how much of the traffic
generated by the proposed development is expected to use the roadway system
through the residential development immediately to the north of the project?
Directional traffic counts were collected by BRW, Inc. along Galpin Road
approximately y.. mile north of TH 5 on January 21 and 22, 1997. The hourly
counts are provided in the attached Table 1. The counts indicated a split of
approximately 67%/33% southbound to northbound in the AM peak hour and
33%/67% southbound to northbound in the PM peak hour. The major and
minor directions were found to be slightly less than 100 and 50 for the peak
hours, respectively. In order to generate a conservative analysis, the major
direction was rounded up to 100 vehicles in the peak. hours and the minor
direction was rounded up to 50 vehicles in the peak hours.
The trip generation of the proposed land uses are based on national average trip
generation rates from the Trin Generation Manual. Fifth Edition published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1991. The number of daily,
AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by each of the proposed
land uses are shown on Table 2. The table includes the amount of
development proposed for each land use tor each year of development up
through the Y car 2000 when the project is proposed to be 1ully developed.
Traffic generated by the proposed development was assumed to be oriented
equally to/from the north and south along Galpin Road. In addition, the
background traffic counted on Galpin Road was assumed to have a growth rate
of 2 percent per year.
FEB-04-1997 12:07
BRW
612 370 1378 P.03,'05
Miles Lindberg
January 22, 1997
Page 2
Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis was performed at the intersection of
the project access road with Galpin Road using the procedures documented in
"Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the 1994 Update to the Highway
Caoacitv Manual (HCM). The analysis reports the level of service (LOS) for
the minor street movements and the major street left-turn movement onto the
project access road. The results indicate that for the Year 2000 (full
development of the project) the intersection movcmcnts arc expected to operate
at a LOS B or better in both the AM and PM peak. hours. LOS B operations
indicate little delay and no signiiicant vehicle queuing. The analysis sheets for
the Year 2000 AM and PM peak hours are attached to this memo.
In conclusion, we fOWld that the one intersection from the project area to
Galpin Road is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by full
development of the project. Furthermore, with no queues expected to form at
the intersection, few if any vehicles are expected to gain access to the
development by way of the roadway system through the residential
development immediately to the north.
ASH/attachments
cc: File #4305AOO
FEB-04-1997 12:07
BRW
612 370 1378 P.04/05
TABLE 1
AVERAGE CAlLY TRAFFIC COUNTS
GALPIN ROAD NORTH OF TH 5/ARBORETUM BLVD.
TIME VOLUMES
...--.
OF HOURLY HOURLY
DAY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND TOTAL PERCENTAGE RANK
. . ..... - -
12:00 AM 11 0 11 0.7% 19
01:00 AM 1 1 2 0.1% 23
02:00 AM 0 0 0 0.0% 24
03:00 AM 1 3 4 0.3% I 22
04:00 AM 0 5 5 0.3% 1 21
I
05:00 AM 3 19 22 1.4% ! 17
,
,
06:00 AM 13 48 61 4.0% 14
07:00 AM 38 93 131 8.6% 1
08:00 AM 54 66 120 7.9% 4
09:00 AM 42 52 94 6.2% I 7
10:00 AM 29 45 74 4.9% I 11
11:00 AM 66 40 106 7.0% 5
12:00 PM 45 49 94 6.2% 7
01 :00 PM 33 41 74 4.9% 11
02:00 PM 53 46 99 6.5% 6
03:00 PM 49 41 90 5.9% 9
04:00 PM 82 43 125 8.2% 3
05:00 PM 88 , 40 128 8.4% 2
i
06:00 PM 64 24 88 5.8% I 10
I
07:00 PM 36 35 71 4.7% I 13
08:00 PM 26 19 45 3.0% I 16
09:00 PM 32 18 50 3.3% 15
10:00 PM 12 7 19 1.2% 18
11:00 PM 5 , 4 9 0.6% 20
Totals 783 739 i 1,522 100.0% ,
I
Source: BRW, Inc. counts from January 21-22,1997.
01/22/97
U:\LAKEANNE(2).WK4
FEEHJ4-1997
z
o
l-
e:(
a::
w
z
,,", W
!.Ie)
.Jo.
n_
(0:::
-I-
~I~II
~ 12"
i5!;
00
~ ~I:;
Q .
~ i~
~m6
Wo"
~~..
ill...:>
~oo
<( lti '
... II
a
~ ~ ~
~l:!
il:!1'- --~-.
.....
i5~
!:I 0
...
~ ~,
0:
=
~ .til
~ ::: l)il.
w I:l 1-"
~ ~ ~li
... ~ 611
ClI:
...
... :;,1
, I
IT
~il
~l
~.
I-'~.'
:l! 0('
015
1= ....,
~ '
w...."
Z :::Jii
~ 0;:
~ g'l
"
i5 1-'''
~ c(il
.: III 15:,
;j ~1..'
. :!:
::E Zl~
0( !'lio
'"
"'1 .
"'g
i
...
ii
..
~
c
ClI:
...
i!
I!
I
11111
Elil
:.l
'"
:::>
o
Z
0(
a:
lij,
,.
12:08
o
'"
~
ll>
'"
..,
'"
~
~
~
o
In
lit
o
II>
~
'"
In
...
~
~
-Jl
;r,
'"
.~
;r,
...
'"
~
~
~
ll>
,Q
~
#.
...
r~
~
Co
'"
~
...
~
'c;
:::l
CJl
.~
~
~
;2
~
0;
'J
:'I!
oil
OJ
~
~
~
u..
~
U5
...
'"
oJ>
~
o
N
...
o
'"
o
U>
~
~
lit
o
ll>
lit
o
II>
'" ell
;!
'"
'"
~
~
lit
~
lit
'"
'"
...
ci
2
~
o
....
!i
~
,~
0'
'"'
'"
~
...
~
~
o
~
10
:I
11
....
"
~
OJ
a
:!:
E
"
'c;
g
'8
o
u
.~
!ii
1l
OJ
~
o
'"
'"
~
s
..
~
~
lit
o
ll>
lit
o
II>
~
'"
II>
~
~
~
lit
...
'"
lit
'"
...
...
ci
~
.'>
..
ll>
.0
"..
<>
~
,~
0'
'"'
'"
~
...
~
...
o
~
:::l
'0
{j
..
~
...
N
"
g
~
~
BRW
o
..,
'"
on
lD
N
'"
ID
'"
~
~
~
a
ll>
lit
a
ID
Ql
~
ll>
...
lD
..,
s
~
'iF-
a
'"
#.
o
...
'"
ci
~
<>
..,.
2
:.'<
<>
~
~
...
~
o
'"
'"
ci
~
5
...
'"
oIJ
T3
~
...
'"
'"
~
ill
OJ
>-
a
....
'"
'"
S!
~
~
~
~
'"
lD
lit
'"
lD
..
..
~
II>
...
In
'"
~
o
~
lit
\J)
..,
lit
ll>
U>
~
0:>
'"
o
N
~
.~
<>
o
~
#-
...
...
~
lD
N
'"
o
.~
:::l
CJl
.5
~
'"
'"
(i
i!!
-8
';;j
"
a::
.:!-
E
..
u..
i
U5
'"
Jl
'"
...
o
co
N
'"
'"'
o
!:l
~
~
~
'"
ll>
lit
'"
\J)
ell ...
o
...
o
~
'"
N
~
o
~
lit
...
..,
lit
co
co
'"
o
o
N
"'
~
"'
l!'!
o
o
~
*
...
...
"#-
...
co
o
J!I
'c;
:::l
."
..
..c:
u
.l3
OJ
a
"
E
::J
c:
E
~
j
~
~
""
''i
"
cz:
o
...
..,.
'"
....
'"
o
~
~
~
lit
o
III
lit
a
"'
o
lD
In
~
111
'"
~
o
~
lit
...
'"
lit
lD
cc
...
o
<3
....
II>
...
In
.,.
~
o
U>
on
o
CD
'"
~
~
~
111
lit
~
III
ell
o
N
c
....
o
CD
all
o
~
lit
'"
'"
lit
...
CD
en
..;
<3
ail
o
....
~
o
l:;
o
~
o
'"
~
~
lit
o
ID
lit
a
III
..
..
<:>
....
In
...
111
N
il
<:>
~
~
"'
'"
lit
II>
cc
N
..
<3
...
o
N
~
a
...
..,.
o
N
N
o
N
'"
~
~
lit
o
lD
lit
<:>
In
... co
~
~
In
'"
ill
o
~
lit
...
..,
lit
U>
U>
... CD
o 0:;
'" '"
... '"
"' a
N '"
111 ~
>Il
C
o
~
'fl 'fl ;il 'i/.
o c c c
o 0 c C
,... ~----~_.:-_..
.p
~
...
~
...
...
<q
o
~
10
:;l
~
':i
III
~
'"
U>
OJ
III
~
j
o
...
:;;
<0
,~
~
'"
'"
....
o
.!l
~
on
'"'
..
'"i
-S
CD
.,..
~
;;;
"
)-
.p
"'.
~
:F
CD
'"
'"
o
~
:::l
00
I
...
...
(i
'i
-8
'~
~
.:!-
c:
~
u..
J1
?
iii
$:
:=
;!;
...
~
...
...
In
o
.fI
.'"
;:)
-g
..c:
"
.l3
'"
c
~
E
::J
:~
8
"8
o
v
-a
~
.,
""
.~
Q:;
~
o
'"
'"
o
'"
'"'
~
lit
o
ID
~
o
II>
~
In
'"
In
....
il
a
~
~
...
'"
~
<0
cc
.J>
~
...
>l:
i'-
-
II>
o
,\t!
<:
:;J
1l
'!i
~
N
N
-
Ql
i
.!;
o
I-
.,
...
""
o
o
CD
a
a
CD
~
~
II>
~
...
on
...
o
II>
""
'"
111
'"
;f-
a
5:
~
....
..,
'if.
'"
"'
...
o
o
N
'"
.:D
<3
~
a
o
-
....
~
'"
,-
0'
-
N
'"
<::>
21
g
'"
~
N
"'
"'i
'3
;,
,..
;;>
jj
i
I
I
612 370 1378
o
....
'"
o
'"
....
o
~
~ ~
o
en
~
o '"
N N
'" '"
~
o
'$ ~
a 0
o 0
il
~
;Je ;Je
~ ~
~ ;Je
~ ~
;f-
a
on
::
... cc
o
...
o
...
111
...
In
~
'"
N
111
'"
;f-
a
s:
;f-
a
s:
~
111
'"
~
~
'"
~
on
'"
~
'"
CD
~
...
o
o
'"
'"
'"
o
N
on
N
~
on
~
o
a
..-
-,@
ci
a
..-
~
~
'"
.f'
~
...
."
0'
'"
N
iF
...
-
'"
d
111
d
~
:::l
00
,;
~
,~
:5
1l
~
u
.:3
<Il
a
....
....
;;
~
'2
~
';:;
'"
Cl::
F.
~
8
""
;3
OJ
lJ..
~
OJ
""
;;;
~
"
~
;ii
o
'"'
'"
'"
o
...
a.
..
a
o
...
111
...
111
'"
;f-
~
~
-;..
'"
<f!-
CD
cc
CD
o
'"
..
on
'"
U'l
~ ~
~ 0
...-- ~
....
0'.
..,
...
oF
...
~
""
d
..
'i
::;)
'0
..
~
:C
<C
...
,~
~
OJ
~
~
f5
-
P.05/0S
o
G!i.
.. ~
"'~
ill::
~;:-
co -
W
Z
:z
C
w
"
~
='
::;
S!
'"
'"
'"
'i!o
c;
...
;i.
;:;
~
....
...
o
CD
~
111
'"
~
...
~
i
'#.
U>
'"
l;ll
...
U>
...
o
1::1
'#
~
s:
':1
"
:i
'"
~
~
.0
o
~
.,
'"'
;;
'it
'"
r_
:;
<
'"
~
:o:i
~:;
>-~
., '<
;;q;
a-'
c: :n
~~
~ u
~~
III ;j
~~
g-~
~ "
~ ,~
"''IT
." "
Co
~~
.<>.:
C71
" "'
~ ::L
f~
~ ,1
2~
~~
: ~;
~ ~
~{
"'-
:,') ..=
~
::i
;;.
~
'"
111
d
...
:
.~
~
=-
"
~
=;
w
~
CD
'"
'"
;;
=<
~
~
o
~
.:;
'0
~
10
!
~
"
Q
:;
~
'"
a
o
N
~
'"
Ql
"...
~
~
~
.-
Ih::"~
"
~
;
o
JJ
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Peterson: We have a motion to open it to a public hearing. Anyone who would like to make a
presentation. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing.
Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd.
Conrad: No, nothing. Looks fine.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: No comments.
Peterson: With that, I have none either. Is there a motion?
Conrad: I make the motion Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West
Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Skubic: Second.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the following condition:
1. Access for Lots I and 2, Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a
joint driveway off West 78th Street."
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. INC. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT
FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR
THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL: PUD REZQNING FOR APPROXIMA TEL Y
50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL: CONCEPTUAL AND
PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA
HOMES: PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND
ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5. THE HIGHLANDS.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bill Scose
Brian Erdman
Brian & Jennifer S. Monteith
Nancy Mancino
Julie Wojfanowski
D. Cook-Ronningen
William Thompson
Steve Janson
Tom Campbell
John Hennessy
Mark S. & Wren Feyereisen
Cindy & Henry Wanserski
David & Cinda Jensen
Joan Joyce
Bonita Mihalko
Naomi Noddner
Allan Olson
Virginia Bell
Amy O'Shea
Rick & Margaret Manning
Steve Monson
Pam Schwarz
Rick Murray
Lee Glover
Tim Whitten
Bob Payette
Joe & Jean Bray
Dean Gregory
Andrea & Mike Salvador
Wendy Stone
Richard Neff
Terri & Hani Gidani
Joan & Ken Weis
Jon Noeldner
Charles Peterson
Susan Reimers
2187 Brinker Street
2091 Brinker Street
2159 Brinker Street
6620 Galpin Blvd.
2145 Brinker Street
7471 Tulip Court
7491 Tulip Court
2199 Brinker Street
2065 Majestic Way
7305 Galpin Blvd.
7501 Windmill Drive
7521 Windmill Drive
2173 Brinker Street
2043 Brinker Street
2198 Brinker Street
7511 Crocus Court
7461 Windmill Drive
7476 Crocus Court
7475 Crocus Court
7460 Windmill Drive
8850 Audubon Road
7509 Tulip Court
15 Choctaw Circle
15 Choctaw Circle
The Rottlund Company
Sathre-Berquist, Wayzata, MN
2126 Majestic Way
2101 Majestic Way
2086 Majestic Way
2103 Brinker Street
2150 Majestic Way
2117 Majestic Way
2101 Majestic Way
7511 Crocus Court
7496 Crocus Court
7495 Crocus Court
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Technical question first. Due to the fact this is now a conceptual approval, will that
require a motion this evening or not?
3
THE HIGHLANDS
DEVELOPER: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INC.
DATE: 2-11-97
GROSS SITE AREA:
49.80 ACRES - TOTAL
30.14 ACRES - LOW DENSITY AREA
19.66 ACRES - MEDIUM DENSITY AREA
GALPIN LAKE ROAD ROW (30'):
WINDMILL CURVE ROW (60'):
HIGHLANDS BOULEVARD ROW (60'):
WETLAND:
0.38 ACRE LOW DENSITY AREA
2.02 ACRES LOW DENSITY AREA
1.16 ACRES LOW DENSITY AREA
1.08 ACRES MEDIUM DENSITY AREA
0.11 ACRE MEDIUM DENSITY
NET SITE AREA = GROSS AREA - ROW - WETLAND
LOW DENSITY AREA:
30.14 ACRES GROSS
(0.38) GALPIN LAKE RD.
(2.02) WINDMILL DRIVE
(1.16) HIGHLANDS BLVD.
26.58 ACRES NET
MEDIUM DENSITY AREA:
19.66 ACRES GROSS
(1.08) HIGHLANDS BLVD.
(0.11) WETLAND
18.47 ACRES NET
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE UNITS = NET AREA X UNITS/ACRE
LOW DENSITY AREA:
MEDIUM DENSITY AREA:
TOTAL UNITS:
26.58 X 4 = 106.32 UNITS
18.47 X 8 = 147.76 UNITS
254.08 UNITS
E;o;.
~1.
. ~/
./~
..j(
/ /
"r-lll ..' "
~ .
I
~ ~. \ : -.
; .
~ -
I
~ ~ ~ i;'l,.I I-
l..I ~~....~i.ll,.Ii;'1I 1-11
IIV........ '....t...- II I-
i
,
I
,
(
j
1'\ i..;h
.....
I
!
i
.
,
~I I
!
~. I
1
,
~ i
,
-'-"j(."~'~_~ h""""": .,.,....~.~ IA ".. . " ~
" ':-';~ i- ':e~;' :~-~~..,-:;1i:~f.::~;f;: L~' tl ""~~~~.~ '-,,"
~ ;\-. '.'-'-':'-"'~'~"~~~":'. .~;.~~ ~"'lx~~~~~
~;.. .. -. - '-_:~: : " ~ -.'D~:~l.~ijt~{it~f d:;:.~:;~J~J~Fi~l;
.. '1"':""i~ .....---"'-1.+_.._..............._... -r-I,.....c-.......___:... _..~L-:~~ !J:t_,
- ~..,'+.. ~ ....... ...,...~,':"~~. "i;~~'.''''--l.......t.",'"'T".",?""....A.:.!(
'-. -_ .... .~.;.L:.L.~l~-....~s~ .~"'t~~i~:;,.-:..t::)~~ :il:':~!
! ,. - ...~~;.ti;g~~;'\ - ~ .f.Z...r~J~.t !~.i~t~~... ~ ~..,.. ';..:'
-, ". .<.~'!~ ,-rEi;, rrr~-I"I'~",~d''',-, "';'\11., "
, h_. .. .I.~. .'~~:;';~f~ ~ · rt ~~l~;+r"~t!,.~JU~_~.
-- '" -.- -:.=-~-:L....+-tk'~. .~;..?~.:... ..t!1.''''~1->-~:;:''.'f1.:.~--~~:tl~I'"~::"
' . 'a 'D ;.l ~"T":'~"~~ .. -rt ~'~'i~.''''''' +. ~'''1' ~... -.t;,. iJ.~'
- .' .. - .0;::;[ ...., '-'-"" ~~ '" ~. rH~.'I':......" ,., . .'" . ._ _, .
.... .. ( "1\ar.. :~::r~.. - ~~;~-st;i~:~~~~~.~~:;;:': '~-s~':: ".:
., e~i..:~ .-....'l{........--.-,........./_.,........ .:..-..1.,.....
' I :C-.:- . ~i.-...:~l '; ::-.:::' ~ :'~. :~::: _-!.~..: .:..;-:_ ::~ ~.~._
r~_ - ~',,-?j>, ~:__::f't~fr;tt%t;G' (
. l j (j.. . ... _'.~., ~~", _.
~ 'II , .-. L----J "jZIJ;::/iJ -,~ -,;,
. : I '" \JYA ~ r;-ry...//
! i - L~'Cs\Y'\ b\-yf
\) '/. 'T' r H- ~\ X :.-l /
~ :w@'. 'B.~II R~J:1/
j iH- , ....J:r\' ~ ,,,
~. " ~~\~~~?Jl~ \, v /0-E/
7 IllK ~ r71 (f/~'
.! -.L. !~/, VJLJ\ ~~/'0~Ji.~J 1 i k(;1
, '" V ~ EIV- ~ (:::;i t [TTTTfTTIT.\ 'ri --
~ \'- V / j \ \Y / L! It--....@/l ~l'~\:r-i
t IJ'. f! '~T,;;-'""1
j \ r--; I I I/f#' . ~,-1 f-J..
"~'I. n.' -..--- ~.'-" I--;;.~ -- ...~.~'~~~:;~':
;:"_:I~ 'r -c' j -:~ ~ ~~~~~ ~<
.. ,. ..., .'1. .'..... ~ .L -, -':;::' ~O" ~ ~ j?~ ~t: ;
~ ~
~. --. '. :......- ~ -
_, . ;.; '.~...: 1', ~. r- ~_.
........ ,. :'.~ -"~;._?
-"
....
! -,~' ~
I -~..
I
...
.~
.1
"
~~~~
.)~~
I- ~
'ill fJ ~~ ~
~~
~ I~~.~~~-.:..-
\j ~~~. ,~~ j~.~:;
\ ... ~'~~ ~."i-:_"
~~r I ; Il.L \K.qf~~ '~~ .
=J!~/" ~~~~~~ y
.~'-:...:...J...l...U ; ! i, h ,,' ---: ~~""~".\. v '
/r. II, ~~ .~ ."""i;"\.K~.
11'1.l!lli";l ~_~~~~~ i
~~ ,,'\. "''' ""'~ i/ -:
~ V--r--JMC ~'----!hJJi!1 ~.
.,.~ -,__ ~:::7", :>i ~ ..........., !
~
I
I
I
I/bi;.j
::::~~v j:
;;.- ~\ ,
'v -
K,
I
I
I
~I
uij
( 1/'
,---) // I
--~-f 0. .J2lJ;y/,j
, ' ~~' " I I; '""---~~/ I
I \ ...J " I' fl,
I . 7'-........ 1'.4 L '
~ ('" \ \ Y \ r-.' -----\ \d~ I /
--. .....---- j \ - \/. , ------' \---.1....... ,
- '\ ~' ,- i ' I
,~ I'Y' ~. :'-"1/ I
~_.~ . f, . l- l
'. ,;i 1'. r- ",-II; ('~I -/1
;_J ~ ?".... \ ~ /' / I!. I \ \ -- 'y- 0 I
~\~-/ '/ ,\\1---(,-//
I ,/'~\<t"''r~'~ "'./ .1
' /' ; ", ' \! -- ....\L'i-. ;..--:!
..r / I . ',. / / i--' ,
--- ~.I it \ '1',/ . /~.\ j 1 j!
, i~ i /.~ - t
\ . - . '-, ~ ,/ /", ,. "~:
!---"..~ ....~ I : ,: : ~ ~: '
I / - ~ ....--'-1 ' r !: .
~ t \ I J '\~; ,,-l .---r- .1 , . --,-
-~-./. t\ I j---4. r- /'! f I i I ! 1 I I r.
. n .;. : :' I . 'I" I iI',
/'-...::::. Ln .. \ ~ 1---J ,- '---" !' '.,!. l..1. L ' '_/ /l
/ l. !:r / f'-.'i//:-'---,/ i::- r _'--'-""_ _ ~.. _ ,,/- t.-
" /i: ; ~.,.-., i ~ J : ~ f' ! J 1 ~ ' /, " ! ~ '\.. ", ;
./; ~~ ~ J . L .! t I I I I \ ~ ,~
~--- I ~V I ~-..! l i j , I I i f i ,
\ " , . I I 1 I~
::;J\. 'iJ \\ 111;~rYi- fA f! ~
l- \, -4 ,(,: '; · '" rir--1
I ~ ~~ I ~ 11 i
>\'-- i ! I '. ~.LLJ L '1 j H
\ ~- j I j , '] 1 f[l HH
\ , I. f ,
\ I ' .'
i
:
~
-'-'--.J
OR\'IE
GROSS AREA
30.14 ACRES
LOW DENSITY AREA
MEDIUM DENSITY AREA
CD
o
c
J;1
~~
~,.,~~.-, ::0
0.\" ,.,CRES 0
GROSS AREA
19.66 ACRES
SCALE lw=200'
THE HIGHLANDS
I
I
I
I
I
t')
..q-
o
O'l
I
I
I
\
\
I I I
S' I
- I
0; I
: I
~ '6' !
d 1"-
~ L/
C) _
J
G:' . .-
~
~
J
, ~~ i ,
-~l.__ _~~ ----...L__
.. ~,-
--:: ~(( ~ ~
...- .-- -- --
""""-,-_1- 1--- ~'- __1-.:l ,,-- f---f.-i_
\1\ ~ to ~ ~ 4;:' A / -
..-,,/'\\ \. '\ ~ "....
,-- \ ~', I
FJt1h1 \ ..~\ VA' ~~ ~t7t7~ ~ ~
'." :11 ~~1f.~~\ \~ '/.../ J...IJ .1/ /r:'n - ~ t7 tJ 11
/:,::~...~, 'P~:;'~~'o.:;~: !2(jM~
c 't ... ......" r I ..L. I.J I -.-{l -t""1I ...IJ.-...... -t-...r"'
f:Sj! .................... " \ ilT Tl ; ~~ - -r 'J;! -l I
: ~ \ \r U ; c-1 rl
...._ :. ~ \ L L _ \ r I--' -\
-(,:.::...........~ ~ S '. r rJ.J.. u'-;~ .- 'r-
"IJIJTT '\..... ..........;.-1...[; .l.1Olf.1ll ,1, Tn \ \ ~ '"r .L W I \ \-- ~ ~ \,-'
~ ~~l ri1f' I J~ I ; t::: ) f'+ la.. 11-)
~f ~ PRlVA" ROAD is ~ PflIVA" RO~ -- \ /r'" j
- 11::0 \~
f....I.:.. ~ 0 ; L ~ 1 ~~ \ c. L.L J i
~, -, 'T t 1 I -.. T ~ ! 1',' ~ r "1" 'f'O '-
~ .... ..k1Jj Ii" ~_ "'\
~~ ~ ~ \. ~ /Slf" rl r '
v.iiUNil~ ~1 - ::--:~ ~ ~
.';:;;-Lo I 1;;; ~~' .l"'~ 5lv( I L I '
\ '\ t ~~.., N 'I::. I, f I I 'f' \..
.,,!r-'''- /./""\ I J.. I
\ \t):~r~ '.1
\ \ ~ \\ .J.. L i
\ \. k .........-"'~~'..L[ or 11
\ '\ \--'t ~-\.~ l I :IT
\ '\:~~-\~.l I 1!,~
- "'~~;\ ~ [.
\ \~ \~ ----
,...., - j '" \ - - - - - - - -
- : q\ '----
, I .-1UloI 8~" '!:!:.
~.'
_ -""""""'"..~.........., r_
I"V\......... ~~ ___
1-- --
~
-<.;?
01
"
I
I
/
..-/~~
4
I
I
I~ -L
~ I
1-----
-
-
/
-- /
".-
..-
~
- - . - - ~
-.-
a:lNSERYA1IQtI Uo5EMOtT
HOME TYPE
~ADI11 INAI. HOME LOTS:
.COTTAGE" HOMES:
"VIlLA. HOMES:
FOUR HOMES / BUILDING: 20
SIX HOMES / BUILDING: 12
EIGHT HOMES / BUILDING: 24
~VE HOMES / BUILDING 132
TOTAL: 268
HOMES ACRES
32 12.6
-48 12.3
25.0
I
2.54
3.90
7.52
50
5.36
-.M..
~
.....
0IDffi
II'lt 'INl
1HE HIGHLANDS
--
I IIDIlEN1IAL 1IE\tLClPlENT. INC.
@ illbd' =
I ~ lW'llRIH1DGCl1JlB'1'. INC. . ! ! I
\..:/ _____IIL_.__ I' '::
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Aanenson: Yes. It does go to the City Council. Although technically the conceptual approval has
no legal standing. If it came back under the preliminary. If you were to give it conceptual approval
and even added to conditions and made any modifications, when it went to the City Council they
would also review those and make any modifications they would have. If the application came
back under preliminary, and you felt it didn't meet what you gave it conceptually, it doesn't have a
legal standing. If they haven't reviewed responded to what our issues were, we're not going to give
you preliminary approval. So whatever direction you give them tonight, if you've missed
something, you still have another opportunity under the preliminary process to add additional.
Joyce: So nothing's binding as far as what we do tonight?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Joyce: I have a couple quick questions here Bob. Number one, a couple times in our packet it said
8 and 10 unit townhouses. It says it on page 1. It says it on page 7. I just wanted to clarify.
They're 8 and 12 units aren't they? There aren't any 10 unit houses at all.
Generous: That's correct.
Joyce: All right. Ijust wanted the Commissioners to be aware of that. This might be a premature
question but I was just curious to ask, because of the comparison to the North Bay cottages. Is the
City considering targeting those cottages for the kind of financing that was used in there? The TIF
financing or anything like that that you're aware of?
Generous: Not at this time.
Aanenson: It's never been discussed.
Joyce: Never been discussed. One other item. On the project there was a pond on the eastern side
of that project. I understand that's temporary. Dave, maybe I can ask you that. I understand it's
kind of a temporary pond right there.
Hempel: That's our request. We do with our regional stormwater management plan show a
regional pond just to the east. There's a low lying area that's very conducive to stormwater
ponding. This easterly pond that you see would be a temporary sedimentation pond and also rate
control to meet the pre-developed runoff rates so we would not be flooding the properties
downstream.
Joyce: Once it went from temporary to another status, would it connect to another pond or would
it?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Hempel: It would remain there until the downstream regional pond was constructed on the property
to the east. Once that was constructed the pond could be removed.
Joyce: What would be slotted to be in there?
Hempel: It could be slotted for open green space. It could be placed on a buildable lot. That's
been done in the past in some developments.
Joyce: So there could be an option to build on that?
Hempel: If the plat is designed that way, yes. If the intent is in the future, yes.
Aanenson: To take that further Kevin. If you're concerned about something like that, I think that's
certainly something you can certainly address in the PUD contract. That's the purpose of the PUD.
If that's something that you wanted to address.
Skubic: A little bit more clarification of the proposal. Would we be voting on the rezoning, the
land use amendment tonight?
Generous: No.
Skubic: That is not part of the.
Aanenson: That's never done until we're ready to record the plat because we wouldn't want to
rezone it unless the project's for certain and ready to go and be recorded.
Skubic: But wouldn't we be implicitly approving it if we approve the concept? I mean because
that would be required for concept approval wouldn't it?
Generous: Concept has no standing. It provides direction for the applicant. It's almost like, the
way it's advertised tells people if they want to do this project, these are all the things that have to be
done.
Joyce: Ifwe deny this, will this still go to City Council?
Aanenson: Correct.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Just a couple things, and they're probably not questions but I think as we, at our public
hearings some issues that I'm real interested in and maybe staff, Kate or Bob you can talk about it
right now but maybe we'll flow into it. I'm real interested from the neighbors talking about the
transition from their property, from the Windmill Run subdivision into this. I'm curious about
specifics and the transition. From staffs standpoint I'm curious about the Hennessy property
incorporation or lack of incorporation. Also interested in how Bluff Creek fits in here visually,
5
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
which we probably haven't seen, and maybe that will be a later on issue but it's the most significant
asset in the property and it's not visualized for me so those are issues that I sure hope we talk about
in the upcoming minutes.
Peterson: Bob, do you want to address any of those prior to the applicant making a presentation?
Generous: They might be able to address it. They've already been working on some revisions. We
haven't had the plan sets to look at. We are requiring that access be provided for the Hennessy's.
There is the PUD requires a larger setback between the properties so we are getting some separation
from that. They did try to, they contacted Mr. Hennessy to see if they could purchase the property.
Aanenson: As far as the Bluff Creek, if! could just to that. That's one of the issues that we think
needs to be further articulated and again under the concept, we're just trying to flush the issues out
but that's something certainly we think that needs to be further developed.
Peterson: A couple of the conditions that I hadn't seen before that I was more interested in. Item
number 15 where it says that it shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump
pump discharge from the units. I haven't seen that before. Is that.. .to this property or?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, actually that has been incorporated over the last few years. A lot of times
we've just brought that forward to the applicant before even doing the report. Be aware that this is
going to be a requirement and make it a requirement as a part of the construction process. This was
taken out of the previous staffreport from back in 1994-'95 when it was first coming out that we
did have a problem with sump pump discharge. Streets creating ice problems this time of the year
or the algae slim build-up in the summer so it's been working very well for us and the last few years
we've incorporated that in the recent construction projects.
Peterson: Thank you. Talk about, staff you made a recommendation that the lots shall be, a certain
amount wider in the single residential area and you didn't really specify how wide. You kind of left
it open. Was there a specific reason why you didn't give a recommendation as to the width?
Slightly.
Generous: Well no, it was to get input from Planning Commission, residents.
Peterson: Probably my questions also. With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to
address the Planning Commission? State your name and address please.
Rick Murray: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Murray with Residential Development and with
Bob's help, since there's a number of our neighbors in the audience behind us, it's probably
easier to view it on the screen than it is the boards. Commissioners, good evening. Thank you
for allowing us to have this presentation and thank you for the opportunity to get input from both
yourselves and the neighborhood. We have had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood and
with Mr. Joyce. We had them at the Rec Center last Saturday and some of the input that we
received was very helpful. The staff, the ongoing conversations with staff over this past month
and a halfhas also been very helpful. The plan that's up there and the plan that's in your booklet
6
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
was not the plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday. The plan that the neighbors and I
discussed Saturday, and the plans that you received on Saturday, most of you, were revised to
reflect meetings that we had with staff about density and the distribution of units. A couple of
road locations. The parts of your staff report that talk about the separation from property lines
that are permissible in a PUD. There was some information that we simply didn't have in the
original drawing. Bob, if you could put up. This plan still incorporates our basic concept, and
the concept is literally having us absorb the transition between the single family housing to the
north, within our own plat, and transitioning that down to the high intensity use that we, well is
exhibited along Highway 5 and that we feel will be exhibited along Arboretum Boulevard when
it's constructed. The north end of the site, the loop road that connects Galpin to the existing
neighborhood is designed as a residential loop. The T intersection was at the direction of staff
and the intent there was to slow traffic down and discourage a short cut or cut thru through our
site down to Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The low density transition through the
site comes about 2/3 of the way through Mr. Hennessy's property. It's the north 33 acres. I don't
happen to have that on an overhead. If you walk through our densities on this particular site, we
tried to stay within the low density features of your ordinance. The top tier, Bob if you could put
the next overhead up, just a moment. And the reason I'm jumping into densities is that's what
the neighbors and we discussed for the most part of Friday, or I mean on Saturday. And I'm sure
that we'll listen, that we'll hear that again this evening and hopefully be able to address some of
the specific questions. The low density that transitions through the site is about 2/3 through Mr.
Hennessy's property, which is just north of the access road. I'm just south of the access road. In
that first tier of, just south Bob. Right there. Just to that tier and it goes across to where the pond
is on the eastern property line. North of that is approximately 33 acres and that's what the comp
plan designates as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Now the north side of our site, that north 13 acres has
got 33 units on it and that's at 2 12 units per acre. The area that's contained in the cottage homes
is approximately 15 acres. There's, well it's actually slightly more than 15 acres because the
density that's calculated in the cottage homes is 3.9 units per acre. The density that's calculated
in the villas is 10.7 units per acre, and of course the south end of the property where the Bluff
Creek corridor is 5 acres and obviously there's no density in either that or the right-of-way. The
density that would have been on that Bluff Creek area and the right-of-way area, both areas
which will be owned or restricted and benefit to the community, has been transferred and is
transferred to the medium density area of the site. Transitioning on this site was actually much
easier to do prior to the movement of the Arboretum Boulevard to the south as a frontage road
along Highway 5. When Arboretum Boulevard actually came through the middle of this site,
approximately where the access road to Mr. Hennessy's site is. Bob you might point that out
because that's, and that's exactly where when we did our first calculations we were under the
impression that north of that line or where the old, or the existing preliminary plat is, was the low
density area and south of that line, the line's just a little bit higher than that I think Bob.
Anyway, the initial calculations that my engineering firm had received was 26 acres north and 24
acres to the south. We thought we were dealing with 300 units. That's why the previous plan
had 292 units on it. We were in error. The information that we picked up was inaccurate. When
it was pointed out to the staff, we revised that plan and this is the plan that's been revised to
address the 268 units. The density is transferred off of, the area has been put over into the
medium density area, which is shifted from literally the south part of the property to the south
and eastern part of the property. It's shifted there because we were looking for reasonable
7
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
transition between our own product lines. The transition between the single family to the north
and the cottage homes, or the detached townhomes in the central area, takes place across the back
yards and the ponding area. The transition between the cottage homes, which are 3 Y2 - 3.9 - 4
units per acre, to the villa homes, is more intense and we tried to do that through the public road,
which is a pretty standard transitioning tool. When the road was on an east/west axis, that
transition more or less took care of itself within the aspects of your comp plan. Because it had
low density, low density housing to the north and medium density housing south of Arboretum
Boulevard itself. When we revised this particular plan, the 5 acres that's on the Bluff Creek
corridor was revised to be 100 feet from the creek bottom and the line that goes across there is a
surveyed line. That is not in compliance with your staff recommendations at this time. The staff
recommendations would move that line about 125-150 feet up into the soybean field. The
surveyed line is the edge of the vegetation and we were proposing a 20 foot setback from the
edge of that vegetation with our buildings. Staff has indicated that the Bluff Creek corridor, the
City's spent a lot of time, energy and effort on looking at that and they wanted to see a greater
buffer area. Greater protection area. We haven't had time to address that yet. That would be the
impact, or roughly the impact on this particular plan. If that is incorporated and it ends up being
5 Y2 or 5.2 acres. The issue gets back to where would we get to this 10.7 units per acre on a
medium density because it exceeds your medium density. And the answer is, we got it from the
donation, so to speak, of the right-of-way to the south. The excess right-of-way to the south and
the Bluff Creek corridor to the City. There literally are somewhere around 40 or 45 units that
need to be displaced. To the north where we kept the single family in lieu of 4 units per acre,
there's 13 acres and we displaced another 1 Y2 units. Or 20 units to the north so the redistribution
of units on this site was approximately 60 units and that's where, although the densities stay
within the low density requirements for the 13 acres to the north and for the 15 acres to the west,
the grouping of the density within the villa areas hit 2.7. Adjacent to the villa areas, which is
transitioned to the west by the public right-of-way, adjacent to it to the east is the area that Dave
referred to as this stormwater management plans. Regional ponding area and it's to the south of
that is medium density guiding property. So it would be a similar usage with a regional or
community ponding area incorporated around it. The pond that we show there, to answer
Kevin's question, will be much reduced from as it's shown here. When we drew this it was, we
were under the impression that staff had wanted a permanent pond that would be kind of a tier to
the regional pond. Since talking with Dave again and after we had finished this particular plan,
that pond would be a temporary pond. It would probably end up being about a third or a half of
the size that it is represented there. Most of the area in that back yard, or all of it will eventually
be green space. About 50% of it at this point in time would end up being green space and be
incorporated into our plan. Single family. Each of these units, and I'm going to introduce Mr.
Whitten from Rottlund Homes in a few moments and he's going to go through the particulars of
both the cottage homes and the villas. I'll speak to them very briefly before I introduce Tim.
The single family area, the lots that we're proposing there range from 65 feet, in the southeastern
tier, to 80 feet along the northern tier. They all face the public right-of-way. They would all be
served by a public road. There's a large percentage of them which will end up being walkouts.
Especially those in the southern tier of lots. Where the opportunity exists in the northern tier of
lots we're encouraging our engineers to incorporate those as walkouts as well. They're just
better received in the marketplace. The cottage home, these single family of course transition
across back yards and the ponding area to the cottage homes. The cottage homes reflected
8
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
stepping down through the site, using the terrain of the site. We have a slope that runs from the
north to the south down to Highway 5. The cottage homes on, and this is being a little bit broad
brush but the cottage homes on the north side of the private roads will predominantly be slab on
grades. The cottage homes to the south side of the private roads will predominantly be walkouts.
So we step our way down the site. The cottage homes are all served by private road which are
association maintained and association owned. As far as a burden on the public works
department, that's a burden on the homeowners association and not the public works department.
The cottage homes are bordered on the west by the new public road running north and south. On
the south by the Bluff Creek corridor and on the west by Mr. Hennessy's property. Mr.
Hennessy's property is about 50% guided for low density and about 50% guided for medium
density. The units in the space that we have abutting his property, actually abutting his property
in that very northeastern, northwestern section is 3.4 units per acre. It's slightly less dense than
the rest of the cottage homes as a whole. Staff recommended that we supply an access to Mr.
Hennessy's property. We supplied an access approximately where it would best use or might
best fit the area of his property that would logically be developed. There would be an association
covenant that would allow him access through and across, ingress and egress through and across
our private roads incorporated in our association documents. Transition into the villa units is
through the public road and they abut the properties, the abutting properties to the east, as I
mentioned, we medium density and the regional park area. Staff report spoke to a contour line,
and that's the contour line in dark blue. That's along Bluff Creek. We haven't addressed that
yet. We are looking at several options to see how that will best fit. We're here today, or this
evening to solicit your comments and your suggestions. We're also here to listen to our
neighbors and encourage them to make their comments and hopefully come out of this evening's
meeting with some suggestions that we can go onto the City Council with incorporating them
into a plan that works well for the community, the neighbors, and our property. With that I'll
introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes. He's going to speak to the particular types of
homes.
Tim Whitten: Thank you Rick. Good evening. I'm Tim Whitten. I'm Vice President of the
Rottlund Company and I'll try to cover the things that Rick didn't cover. I'm going to use some
boards.. .the best position for the easel I guess. I guess I jump back and forth a little bit. First I'll
speak about the cottages. There 61 cottages proposed on the site that Rick had mentioned, and
the cottages are detached townhomes. They're targeted towards the empty nester market and the
retiree market. As mentioned before we have this product going in the North Bay project, just
north of Lake Riley. We also have introduced this product in a project in Plymouth, Minnesota,
and so we have a little bit of history and our buyers are kind of halfway between empty nesters
and retired buyers. And it's designed specifically for that product for most of the product on this
site and what we proposed in the past, it fit on one level and that's what our buyers are looking
for. And what's a little bit different on this site is that because of the terrain we're introducing a
new version which is the walkout version. So you still have the same living space on the main
floor, but included is a walkout expansion space. The units vary in two types basically. There's
a two bedroom unit on the main floor, and three bedroom unit, and they vary in square footage
from 1,350 square feet to about 1,600 square feet. And we have designed it in the site plan
orientation purposely to angle along the street at about a 30 degree angle. And that is to create
more variety in the site plan and to create private spaces. So along this streetscape as opposed to
9
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
the lining up all the units straight onto the streets and having all the garage fronts face the street.
You turn it at an angle so you get a broader view of the units and to get a view of the front door.
Now on half the units we're really promoting the front porch and the other half of units will have
side entrances. It also creates private spaces so that this becomes a private entrance space, front
yard, this unit as well as this one, this unit. The same with the rear yards. Creates more private
spaces. As opposed to being zero lot line where you really have one side that has no windows of
the adjacent unit, we're actually mixing it up a little bit where this portion has no windows...
landscape screening and this becomes private space for this unit. It also allows for the units to
have exposure on all four sides of the units. It also lessens the amount of units that we have
within the narrowest portion of. .. These are platted as townhomes so our plats are, they actually
have the property line with a box around the units. To equate it to a lot, it'd be approximately a
47 foot wide lot by about 120 feet deep. Rather than platting it as individual lots, we're platting
it as townhomes. That is mostly for the reason of the association and the maintenance of the
property. That's one of the things that these buyers are looking for. No maintenance advantage.
These are going to be priced, and we have history in Plymouth of this product, between
$140,000.00 to about $200,000.00. Right now we're going up to about $180,000.00 but with the
walkout version, of which we have quite a few, that will move the price up a little bit higher. On
the plans themselves we have a number of different exteriors, just a couple of example exteriors
that we have. To give you a little bit of an idea of the two different types. One is the...which
promotes the front porch. It also allows for side entry garages. It's shown in the plan that we can
create some variety down the street by having some of the garages load in the side. Then we
have the three bedroom version, which is a side entry to that. But in effect with the four different
plans, basic plans that we have and each plan having two to three different elevations, just kind
of the sampling of the number different elevations that we can create, that we would have, like I
said, two elevations for each plan. Vary from two to three elevations per plan. They vary from
hip roofs to hip and gable combinations. The gable roofs. And then with the four different plans
that we have and then with the four to five different color palettes that we would incorporate, in
fact those units can be flipped from one side to the other and side loads. We could virtually have
a different unit on every site. Every 61 of the units on this site. To talk about the villas a little
bit, and if you're familiar with the villas in Mission Hills. It's something along those lines where
we have the, as mentioned before, we have the 8 unit buildings and the 12 unit buildings. With
the new site plan that Rick presented, we're incorporating some, what we call row type villas
where they're actually more traditional townhomes where they can have walkouts and the reason
staff request was to because of some of the grading situations that if we can incorporate a product
that would not only give the diversity but also adapt to the grades a little bit more. So we are also
including that into the mix. Here, this is a focus on an 8 unit building. So we have the back to
back type units, which this is, and we also have the more traditional row. As another, also on the
cottages we incorporated the walkouts type to adapt to the topography. We kind of come from a
history of grading sites to adapt to the product and here we're trying to actually create the product
to adapt to this particular site. We have two types of units in this building where we have the end
unit, which have two car garages and the interior units which have single car garages. The
difference between this building and the Mission Hills, like I said, we've actually enlarged the
interior units slightly. We added 2 feet. That allows us to get a little bit bigger unit on the inside
but it also allows to add that space to the single car garage so we oversized the single car garage.
It's a little bit compared to what we have done. The row townhomes are similar to this where
10
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
they're arranged in 2 car garages on the outside and single car garages on the inside. They're
slightly larger and they have the walkout expansion option. This particular product, our smallest
unit approaches 1,200 square feet and our larger units are about.. . square feet on the ends. When
we get into townhomes, we're approximately 1,250 square feet for the interior ones and about
1,450 square feet, not including the lower level of the walkouts. That type of product. The
architectural style is really we're focusing on a colonial townhome type oflook. Where we're
adding some shutters and lap siding and that's the kind oflook that we're probably...work with
staff as far as the, and the Commission and the Council regarding the color palettes and so forth,
and how much variety deemed appropriate. All the products that we're showing are, would be
vinyl siding with asphalt roofing and brick accents and to promote the maintenance free aspect.
Price range in these go from, it shows $80,000.00 in the packages. It's probably going to
approach a little bit more of a $90,000.00. The lowest price range for this type and probably
moves up to about $110,000.00 to $115,000.00 price range. Here, as in our townhome version,
we go from about $100,000.00 to about $150,000.00, depending on the location of the site.
Some of the points Ijust want to highlight on this particular product, or both products, is that it's
all owner occupied. One of the things that historically that we have found is that both these
markets have very few children. In the villa products we have about .2 per unit. And in the
cottages, .1 is actually a little high than what our history so there's very few kids. In one
development we had, in 40 units there are 2 children in the cottage type. As mentioned, it is all
private streets and that we have associations that will maintain the exterior and the landscaping
with sprinkler irrigation systems. And they have regulations to, and covenants of which to guide
them. And the empty nesters and the townhomes, we get this information from our traffic
consultant, is that to factor in just an understanding of the traffic because I'm sure that's going to
be one of the issues that are brought up. Is that the amount of trips per day in the empty nester
product is about 4 trips per day. In our villa is about 6 trips a day and that compares to single
family which is about 10 trips per day. One of the things that we're kind of focusing on and
we're doing this in other projects is the product diversity. We're finding that in established
communities like Chanhassen where the people that have lived in Chanhassen for 30 years are
looking for an alternative. Don't really have that alternative so the cottages are an answer to that.
Also to the children of the families ofChanhassen, to have a place where they can actually buy a
home in a moderate price range or below $120,000.00 is something that isn't as available to them
as we might like and so it's really addressing those two markets and giving some diversity in this
housing type, that I think this development does offer. And I'd be happy to answer any questions
regarding the housing type at this time or at any point. Thank you.
Peterson: When you talk about the townhome villa. . . what percentage of those units are there
from the total? Approximately how many units are there going to be from the townhouse down?
Do you have any idea yet?
Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
Peterson: How many of the townhome villa style, the number of what those would be.
Tim Whitten: The villa style, we have a total of 174 and how much would be row townhome and
how many would be the back to back? We have three buildings of the row type to make up for
II
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
the grading. The grade issue along that pond and I think there's 18 of those units. So it would be
subtract 18 from 174.
Joyce: Are those sixplexes?
Tim Whitten: Yeah.
Peterson: Will there be two associations within this development then?
Tim Whitten: Correct.
Peterson: The villas would have one and then the townhomes will have the other?
Tim Whitten: Yep. They have some different interests and concerns and so we found it best to
have it separate. We've also, if there's common elements, we have developed master
associations that can be an umbrella so you can tie the two together. So if that's of interest, that's
something we can certainly look at.
Peterson: One of the points that staff recommended was more play area perhaps or, and part of
your rationale for not putting it in there was some of the. ..earlier?
Tim Whitten: Yeah, that's something that we come across with both these products on occasion
is that, is putting in the totlots. We're open to putting in an amenity. We're not always sure that
a totlot's the appropriate one. And so in some cases we actually make recommendations to the
City and we could even put aside the same amount of money and the same amount of land and
put it in escrow and have the association kind of decide what's appropriate. Or if the City could
determine what it is. We're not against the land space or totlots or anything. It's just really what
is appropriate for that type of user is the only issue.
Rick Murray: ... that area that will become green space...it might be more appropriate that that
gets incorporated into some sort of gathering spot. In discussing with the staff.. . maybe it's a
better gathering spot.. .so that's been, we're investigating that too.
Peterson: Thank you.
Conrad: Different designs you mentioned of the cottage type. How many would there be?
Tim Whitten: Well we really have four plans. We'd have two types of the sod line grade. We
have two types of the walkouts. And we are actually looking at generating another type of plan.
So somewhere between 4 to 5 different plans of which each of those would have different
elevations so as you would go down, I guess if you multiplied it by at least 2, and in some cases
we have 3 elevations for some of the plans, there'd be somewhere between I suppose a dozen to
16 different elevations available. Then what we do is for the colors, we're trying to be that
balance between better alternative townhomes but not as diverse necessarily as single family so
you get some threads and consistencies of architectural elements and colors and materials. So as
12
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
opposed to having five different bricks, maybe we'd have two. Having five different colors, but
we'll mix them up. We typically have about a five color palette so then you take that 12 to 16
elevations and multiply it times the 5 different color palettes and that's what we, plus like I say,
this could be reversed. There could be a side loaded garage or it could be a front loaded garage.
And with that we can create a lot of diversity.
Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain, is that correct? We don't have
different sizes or profiles of these units?
Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain.
Tim Whitten: These elevations? No, it's actually just the designs as I'm speaking about the
elevations. Along with that there will be a variation due to the fact that some of these will be
walkouts and that's added to this.
Peterson: How many meetings have you had thus far with the neighbors? One?
Rick Murray: We had the one open house on Saturday and then 4 or 6 neighbors that met with us
on Thursday.
Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Thank you. I'd like to have a motion to open this for
a public hearing.
Joyce moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing.
Peterson: With that in mind, obviously we have a lot of people in the audience this evening. We
want to hear your respective thoughts and opinions, and also realize that time is, we don't want to
have you or us be here until 3:00 in the morning so if you would please limit your comments to
those that you feel are relevant and that may not have been said before. As the meeting goes on, I
will apologize in advance if I interrupt. With that, would anybody like to make a presentation to
the commission?
Cinda Jensen: I'm not bringing up water because I'm going to talk long but just because I have a
little sore throat here so. My name is Cinda Jensen and I live at 2 I 73 Brinker Street and my
husband David Jensen is going to help me out with a couple of transparencies here too so. Now I
think we're going to work from transparencies that show this second site plan, as opposed to the
first site plan since, even though we're talking conceptually, if we do get into a few details, we're
going to work with the developer's second site plan which shows a total of268 units. Okay.
And Chair, I think I was at one of the last meetings with the twin home development that ran
until I :00 in the morning so I will try to keep my comments concise and non-repetitive, but at the
same time I do have several points to make so I'd like to refer to my notes if you don't mind.
Okay. First of all I need to point out that several of my neighbors in the Windmill Run and Royal
Oak neighborhood, which is just north of the proposal that we're talking about tonight, have
13
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
asked me to speak on their behalf, so I am representing more individuals. We'd like to voice a
very strong opposition to the proposed Highlands development plan. And we're opposed to this
plan for a number of reasons but bottom line, we feel that this plan is not in keeping with the
City's comprehensive land use plan. We think that it is not also in keeping with the City's
preliminary recommendation for low density for the majority of this area that was made back in
March of 1995. We also think it's not in keeping at all with information that several of us
received directly from City Planners before we purchased our homes in this area. And we also
feel that this represents dramatic increases in density, not only to our neighborhood but also to
the comprehensive land use plan. We do not feel that the City should amend it's comprehensive
land use plan and we don't feel that the density should be increased in this area. I want to point
out here that we certainly recognize the field that's behind us is going to be developed someday
and we are not opposed to development. We're also not opposed to Rick Murray and his
development staff. It's his current plan that we're opposed to. With that said however I just
want to reiterate that we do not want to see the City amend it's comprehensive plan and increase
the density in this area and instead we would rather see the City endorse development which is
consistent with the comprehensive plan which still can achieve some of the objectives that the
City would like to see. I think we can be creative here. This particular property can be
developed in other ways besides amending the comprehensive plan, and we feel that it can still
be developed that will show natural and gradual transitions of density and still incorporate
different housing types. In just a little bit one of my other neighbors will speak and part of what
she would like to share is a rough proposal of an idea of how we think this land could perhaps be
developed that would recognize diversity in terms of housing styles but would still stay within
both the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan and would not move away from what the
comprehensive land use plan is showing right now. At this point though I would like to discuss
two items, and the first item I think is very important. It's a reminder for those of you who were
on the Planning Commission 2 years ago. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Farmakes and regarding the
situation with the twin home development proposal that was in front of us at that time and the
concerns that our neighborhood had with that twin home proposal. For those of you who are new
to the commission since then, hopefully you've had a chance to find out some of the history on
this particular twin home development proposal that was in front of the commission 2 years ago.
Either by reviewing the Minutes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council Minutes
surrounding that particular proposal. But at any rate I believe it's important to recall, and I
should qualify that. I think we believe it's very important to recall the fact that many of us in the
Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood specifically received information from the City Hall
that informed us that this particular 33 acres of this land was to be developed as single family
homes detached, SFH. Another reason that we were opposed to the previous development is
that we did not see a gradual and natural transition of density types with the way that the plan
was laid out, and if you review the notes you'll see that. I'm sure many of us in this room have
selected to live in Chanhassen for a number of reasons, many of which we probably share.
Maybe it's because of the less crowding, parks, the open space, great churches, great schools,
neighborhoods, and businesses and so forth. But whatever we all chose reasons to live in this
community. I want to say in the case of my family, we looked and saved for just the right
community for over 3 years and approximately 2 years ago we moved our family from St. Louis
Park to Chanhassen. And when we were looking for a place to live, I can remember at the very
top of our list we had, we were looking for a community with a small town feel and we looked at
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
a number of communities. I can remember dragging all 3 of our kids along in the car and
checking out Afton and Stillwater and Delano and St. Michael and Anoka and Chaska and a
whole lot of them but we felt that Chanhassen offered what we were looking for and we felt that
it really did have that small town feel. From our first interest, and this is I think real key here.
From our very first interest in Windmill Run we visited City Hall on two occasions and we
specifically talked with city planners and we asked them exactly what was to be developed
around the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood. We were shown the comprehensive
land use plan and we were told that this land, approximately 30 acres south of us, was to be
zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And I want to
underscore zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And it
was upon that information that we made our decision to build our home at 2173 Brinker Street.
The fact is that several families in our neighborhood, and if you look at the Minutes from the
meeting from November 2nd of 1994 or December 7th, or if you review letters that this
neighborhood sent to both the Planning Commission and City Council members, you're going to
find that a number of people did the same thing that we did and they took the steps to contact
City Hall to get information of how this land was going to be developed. Many of the
individuals in our area were told that this area was going to be developed as single family
detached homes. Similar to our neighborhood. And I've got to just tell you that I had a picture
and my picture was, we have about 30 acres in our development with 58 homes and they weren't
all developed at the time that we moved in. But I had a picture that about, approximately that
same amount of area to our south was going to be developed very similarly with similar homes
and similar lot sizes, and that was my vision. I mean that's what I picture this, a continuity of our
neighborhood to the south, and I know that I'm not alone on that and a number of neighbors feel
the same based upon the information they received from the City. But here we are today with
another developer, a different developer who's proposing to even further increase the density on
the same 33 acres ofland than we were told would be developed as single family homes. We
don't think it's right and we also don't really enjoy bringing up this issue of misrepresentation
but the fact is it happened. And we think it's important to the development plan that's in front of
you today. The second item I would like to discuss is with regards to density, which is obviously
a very big issue and Rick brought that up earlier. We'd like to point out, actually I'm going to
take one step further back and I'm going to come back here. I do want to show one transparency
at this time that also speaks to the fact that we were, received misinformation from the city. This
is a map, most of you have seen this because this has been sent to your house by one of our
neighbors, Dawn Ronningen, who lives in Windmill Run. This was a map that she was given
when she visited City Hall before she purchased her home and one of the city planners used this
map to outline what was going to be developed to the south of Windmill Run. And you can see
up there where the HC121etter is. You can see SF, single family showing for about 33 acres right
south of us and then there's an indication of mixed medium density below that. At that time
when this was shown to her she was told that SF would be developed with similar homes and
similar lot sizes. She also looked at several other communities before they moved here and Eden
Prairie and Chaska were two of the communities that they looked at, and in their guidance SF
stands for single family detached. So I think it just is another point showing that, how obvious it
was to us that this was is exactly how we thought this land was going to be developed and we
were going to see an extension of our community. Thanks for letting me go back. Now David
do you want to just put the next transparency up? 66%,66% or 33 of the 50 acres that this
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
developer wants to develop is currently designated for low density development, and obviously
this would be an enormous benefit for the developer if they could have all of this land reguided
as medium density. We do not think that this makes sense for our neighborhood or for the City
to increase the density here. The developer's currently showing a site plan that places 268 units
on approximately 50 acres. This represents 180% increase in density as compared to our
Windmill RunIRoyal Oak neighborhood where we have 58 homes on 30 acres. Now granted the
developer is showing single family homes up on the upper tier, but many of those homes are on
smaller lots sizes than what would even be called for under R-4, low density zoning. I want to
point that out. Plus if you look at the definition for low density, it says predominantly single
family detached, so once again our expectation from our neighborhood, all the way down to the
line. David, do you want to point the line across. That is, we've overlayed two transparencies.
The one that has the line on it with the slash marks. That's showing, that's picked up exactly
from the comp plan that shows where the land designation is. R-4 to the top, low density and R-
8 medium density on the south. Another big density issue for us is that this developer is
introducing high density, I repeat high density housing into an area that is not guided by the
comprehensive plan to show high density housing. We are showing right now 15 acres. Dave,
do you want to point that out? 15 acres of property, or one-third, approximately one-third, just
short of one-third of this entire area is showing high density housing right now. And that is you
know clearly not on the comprehensive plan. In addition you can see how far it climbs into the
low density housing designation. I understand in talking with Kate Aanenson that 6 acres of the
50 acres is required for, a full 50 acres is required for public roads and a small wetland. And I
also understand that these 6 acres are calculated into the net density for the land, which according
to the site plan we would have looked at would have been 6.8 as a net density. I also understand
though in talking with the City and the developers that several other acres are, of this land, are
seen as land that should not be developed. For example the Bluff Creek easement. The City has
informed me that although these items are necessary for the development, they need to be there,
they do not count toward the density calculation and instead the density is transferred or
compressed back into the developable land. In addition I think the developer does benefit with
all of these private roads. The private roads through the cottages, the private roads through the
villas, because these roads also do not need to be included into the density calculation. So I ask,
with a sizable chunk ofland that's already seen as land that should not be developed, which
already compresses the density into a smaller area of land, it does beg to question why would the
City even want to consider amending it's comp plan and even further increasing the density on
this property. Particularly in an area which contains the headwaters for both the east and west
branches of Bluff Creek. Recently I asked Kate Aanenson if all of the land in Chanhassen were
to be developed as designated in the comprehensive land use plan, would we have sufficient land
for medium and high density and she said yes, according to the calculations based on our growth
numbers. She also showed me the progress that has been made with the 1995 land use effort,
which I understand has allowed us to be able to increase medium density to the overall
comprehensive land use plan. So with all of that, I ask again why would we want to take the
comp plan and amend it and further increase density in this area when we have a very sensitive
area and we're already compressing density back into this land? I want to point out one other
thing in terms of density. That on November 2nd of 1994 when the previous twinhome
development was being proposed, Kate, you made a clarification to the commission stating that
the City was not recommending medium density for this area. And I'm certainly not trying to put
16
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
you on the spot but I do want to recognize that the staffhas supported staying within the
comprehensive land use plan previously for this area. The last thing I'd like to say on density is
just, I find it odd that the community has to come out to defend the comprehensive land use plan
and that if the City put that much effort into developing a land use plan, and then when it comes
down to actually needing to use it, which is today. I mean this is the time, and we don't use it,
what good is the plan? What's the effort, you know all the effort that goes into it. It seems like
lost effort. If diversity of housing types is an objective of our city, we believe that this still can
be done without amending the comp plan. In closing we'd like to simply ask that you,
commission members, reject or deny the developer's current proposal to amend the
comprehensive land use plan and to increase the density on this area. We do not believe
amending the plan is in the best interest of our neighborhood or our city. Instead we ask you to
look for thoughtful development of this land which stays within the comprehensive land use
plan, benefits the neighborhood and the city, and incorporates the ingredients of a well planned
community. And in just a minute one of our other neighbors, Joan Joyce will speak and one of
the things that she plans on sharing is again a rough outline of a possible way of looking at
developing this land that would still stay within the current land use make-up as well as
introducing diversity of housing types and keeping natural and gradual transitions with regards to
density levels. Thank you for your time.
Peterson: Thank you for your comments.
Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I reside at 2043 Brinker Street, and I'm one of the many
property owners in the Windmill RunIRoyal Oak development that was told by, told that the
majority of the land south of my neighborhood was going to be single family homes on lots
similar in size to the lots on Windmill Run. A majority of our decision to build our home, to
build where our house is, was based on the concept communicated to us from the planning staff
at the City Hall. A continuation of our neighborhood would be in fact single family homes,
detached, on lot sizes, on lots that are equal in size to ours. We were not at the time told single
family housing included twin homes or any other diversity of housing other than single family
detached. It is very unfortunate to feel as though we must continue to compromise our
expectations of what the City had in mind for this property as compared to what is now being
proposed. It is also unfortunate to see that there isn't more of an attempt to create a more
definitive neighborhood that allows for safe streets, less traffic, and a sense of community for the
neighborhoods in this area. I've become very familiar with the term diversity of housing over the
past 2 12 years, and although I think every community needs some diversity of housing, I strongly
believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. I'd like to show you an
overview of this area that we're considering with regard to this proposal. I thought it necessary
to take a look at this with regard to how this whole thing connects with the existing property to
the north, Windmill Run! Royal Oak development, and as you can see the lot sizes in the
Windmill RunIRoyal Oak development are about 3 homes per acre. This gives you a comparison
of exactly the density difference between the two areas. Personally I think it's ridiculous.
There's very little green space to the south. I can only imagine the view of anyone of a number
of homes from the northern tiers looking up to the top of the knoll that a lot of this development
is going to be placed on. To me it's almost going to be as close to looking at some sort of a
skyscraper when you see row after row after row of homes looking down upon this single family
17
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
neighborhood of detached homes to the north. To me it's a hodge podge of overly dense, poorly
planned, cookie cutter houses with little or no green space and no personality whatsoever. This
is diversity at it's worst in my opinion. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I don't see any
transition between the housing types. The high density in the cottage homes, the high density
villas and the cottage homes are to me thrown together. There isn't any natural break between
the two. I think the developer's claiming that division to be a road, which to me is not a
transition. It makes no sense to me at all. We do have another overlay here that I would like to
put up. And I'd like to say that I'm certainly not a developer. Therefore I don't claim to know
specifications needed to reflect setbacks, easements, drainage, or anything like that so this is
more of a conceptual plan. I think it reflects a better match with what the comprehensive plan
really is. I've also drawn in the line noting the difference between the low density on the
comprehensive plan and the medium density. Dave, can you point that out please? Right there.
That I believe is where the line is reflected, upon referring to the comprehensive plan. I think
this makes a lot more sense. It also incorporates the Hennessy property, which we all know
pretty much where that is. That is a single family detached house on that property. 1 think it's
important to be sensitive to the idea that this ought to be incorporated into a neighborhood and
not just left unconsidered and stacked up against a bunch of cottage homes on very small lots. I
firmly believe that these proposals definitely need to be turned down. 1 don't think it's even a
matter of approving a conceptual plan. It just, I think there's so much to be done to better
accommodate what ought to be put in this area that I think the whole thing ought to be just turned
down. And I'd like to give you a copy of the overview of the two comparisons between the two
so you have these for your files. I'd like to thank you for your time and I'd like to ask if you have
any questions at this time.
Peterson: Commissioners, any questions?
Joan Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission?
Virginia Bell: I'm a little shorter so I'll move this down. My name is Virginia Bell and I live at
7476 Crocus Court which is part of the Windmill Run development as well. I'm also opposed to
the concept and to the idea of amending the comprehensive plan here and I wanted to talk for just
a few minutes about the comprehensive plan. When this proposal came out I went to the library,
or actually I asked one of my neighbors to go to the library and get a copy of the comprehensive
plan and I read through it. And I might admit at the time that we moved in we did not move, I
did not read through the comprehensive plan. But in reading through it I was struck by the fact
that the vision that is encompassed in the black and white here in the comprehensive plan is the
vision of Chanhassen that I had when I moved in and when we chose to move here. Looking at
one of the sections called housing, I read that Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a
diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a
policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes.
That's the vision ofChanhassen that was included in the comprehensive plan that was approved
by the City Council, approved by the Met Council and it's frankly the vision that I had of
Chanhassen when I moved here. It's the vision that was communicated to me by the planning
18
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
staff, by the people at the schools and the other people that I talked to. I too, like my
predecessors, visited the Chanhassen planning staff before we moved in and spoke with them.
What is being proposed here is obviously not low density and it's obviously not predominantly
single family homes. As you've heard from the speakers who preceded me, most of the property
that is being discussed here is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density. And low
density is defined in the comprehensive plan as from 1 to 4 units. It is also defined as
predominantly single family housing. What is being proposed here would transform the
neighborhood that I live in, the Windmill Run neighborhood, and the Royal Oaks neighborhood,
into a neighborhood that is not predominantly single family but instead is predominantly multi-
family housing. If you look at the numbers, I've heard the fellow from Rottlund Homes tonight
talk about his product. He's talking about entirely a townhome product. Everything that is going
in there, the cottage homes and the villas are a townhome product. So what we have left is a
neighborhood, including ours, an extension of our neighborhood going down, that becomes
predominantly multi-family. That was not the expectation that I had or that my neighbors had
and that's not what it is guided for and is represented in the comprehensive plan. I think the
issue before you tonight is whether or not you want to approve an amendment to the
comprehensive plan that is such a fundamental and basic amendment to the plan that results in
the transformation of an area that's been guided for low density into an area that will become
high density and medium density. That is a profound change to the comprehensive plan,
particularly in a community which has stated that it has a policy of being primarily a low density
community consisting primarily of single family homes. As many of you probably know, the
State legislature has recently enacted a statute which gives even more weight to our
comprehensive plans, which says that we can't put in a zoning ordinance that is contrary to the
comprehensive plan. Obviously the legislature believes that there is a lot to a comprehensive
plan and as Cinda said, why put in our effort into this comprehensive plan if we're simply going
to amend it every time a developer wants to make a change. I think reading through the
comprehensive plan I was struck with the way it all sort of fits together. It's a web. In guiding
the various areas for low density or medium density and high density, the other services in the
community are tied to those densities. And by amending the plan and upping the densities,
you're obviously making changes. Impacts to the schools, transportation and other things.
Another reason not to amend the comprehensive plan. In conclusion I, on a personal note, I think
I live in a wonderful community and a wonderful neighborhood and the kind of neighborhood
that I think we ought to be trying to emulate. There are 50 or more kids under the age of 10.
There's a lot of diversity. We have a lot of people. We have single parents. We have people
from other places, other countries. It's an absolutely wonderful neighborhood. And I'm really,
I'm happy and proud to live there. I think by doing what we see in this plan tonight and
transforming this neighborhood from a single family neighborhood into a multi-family
neighborhood, predominantly multi-family, there's a possibility to destroy that wonderful sense
of community that we have here in Chanhassen and I hope you don't vote for that, thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Ken Weis: I'm a little taller. My name is Ken Weis. I live at 2101 Majestic Way. I'd like to
talk a little bit about services. The gentleman from Rottlund discussed services in the fact that
the community would be serviced by their own system, but the road is not specifically the
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
problem. Today we have service problems with the growth of Chanhassen, specifically on the
mail side. The delivery of mail is getting later and later in the evenings. Density of housing. As
he suggested in his plan, we have multiple families in the area with a higher density in his
proposal which creates a larger avenue of cars and activity, which just puts additional strain on
Galpin, on the service roads and on Highway 5. We currently have, as you well know in the last
couple days, several incidences of traffic accidents on TH 5 with the density. If you add another
150 homes over the normal allotted density, it creates that much more traffic. So Galpin will
have to be expanded. Highway 5 will have to be addressed, so on and so forth. Thank you for
your time. Any questions? Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Jon Noeldner: I'm a little taller yet. My name is Jon Noeldner. I live at 7511 Crocus Court and
all of you probably received a letter my wife and I authored dated January 6th. That was mailed
to you. I just want to reiterate a couple points that my neighbors have made, and those being
we're new neighbors to the neighborhood. We just moved in the end of October. Like the
previous people who built there before us, we bought an existing home. I, myself went to the
City Hall. Looked to check where the frontage road is going to be going. Looked to check how
the land uses south of us was going to be, and at that time which was about 6 months ago I'd say,
I was told this is zoned as this under the comprehensive land use plan, that's how it's going to be
built up. Single family homes and I wasn't told anything else and that played a big important
factor in us purchasing our home. I just wanted to reiterate that fact and hope that you vote not to
approve this development. Thanks.
Brian Monteith: I guess I'm short. My name is Brian Monteith and I moved in about 2 years ago
February and I also authored a letter to you all and sent it to your homes, I hope you don't mind,
dated January 6th, and Ijust wanted to say a couple things. I moved here from Washington D.C.
area, the suburbs of Maryland where it's very, very highly dense population with a lot of
development that went on, that's very similar to what's being proposed here. And just what I'd
like to say is that the overall quality of life that we enjoy today in Chanhassen is going to be
severely compromised if we're able to allow this to continue. And I state this because I know it
because I've lived it and you really don't want to go through anything like that. It really detracts
from the overall things that we take for granted today as being overall the part of life in
Minnesota that we've come to enjoy since moving here. The other thing that I'd like to say is
that the figures that were proposed earlier by the gentleman from Rottlund, .1 kids per house in
the Mission Hills development over there must be very, very highly questioned because once
again coming from an environment where I came from, there were absolutely more than 2 kids
per house in those types of homes and Ijust find it very hard to believe. The reason I bring that
up is that the impact to the schools, Bluff Creek in particular, who if you've been there and if you
have children that go there, you will know that they really can't even afford to have one more kid
attend that school because it's over crowded as we speak. I haven't heard any plan, or I haven't
seen anything that says that we're going to add additional schools in the time frame that would be
consistent with the building of this development and I would urge you to take that into
consideration. The last point that 1'd like to make, which hasn't been brought up yet, is the
overall impact to traffic in our neighborhood in Windmill Run. Today, in a typical summer, my
20
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
children will be out with the other children in the neighborhood riding their bikes in the street. I
think by extending the road of Windmill Drive into this new development, it will severely impact
the overall affect of traffic increase in our neighborhood. What I think that does is a bigger issue
than what we're talking about here, which is density. It puts my children and other children in
danger and I am very much against that as a part of this overall development, so I would urge you
to take my comments under consideration and hopefully voting this down. We moved to
Chanhassen, very happy to live in Chanhassen but we dido't think we would be impacted by
something like this and I believe us all to be reasonable people here. I'm not here for any other
reason than to do what's right and hopefully you will be as well. So thanks.
Peterson: Before we get too much farther, I guess I'd like to pause just for a second before
anybody that would be in support of this, loses their fortitude to come forward. So if there is
anybody in support of this project, I'd ask that they come forward now. I had to ask. Anyone
else that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing.
Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Thank you all for your comments. Commissioners.
Ladd, do you want to take a stab at this one?
Conrad: Sure. Someday we'll get this land developed and we won't have to keep meeting like
this. I appreciate, I think the last time you were in I said this and I'll say it again. I appreciate the
work and effort you've done. It's always a pleasure when people present as well as you have and
makes some good points. Again we're hit, and it's hard to tell you what we know and maybe we
don't know much up here but it's hard to get into issues and get us out by I :00. It becomes a
balance. Obviously what we've got to do is figure this out. A few things, as I've always said, I
really support neighbors and their neighborhoods and try to meet expectations. On the flip side
of the coin, before I say too many positive things that way, Chanhassen really does have some
problems. The housing diversity is, we don't have it. We're not providing the homes that we
need to have so this plan, and I'll state up front in terms ofPUD, is not bad. It's looking, if you
can do PUD's, which we never get to do. We do cookie cutter things basically. That's what we
do. That's how Chanhassen develops. Here's a chance on the positive side for Chanhassen to do
something that's a little bit different. And again I heard you say a lot of valid points. It's just
hard to not appreciate what you said. Yet, and it's easy to discount diversity but we don't get it.
We don't get developers coming in here with diversity. Period. And when you do, you've got to
take a look at it so, that may tell you, I'm not real popular today but I'm willing to look at this.
From the standpoint. There are 50 some points of staff concerns. I guess what I'm saying
tonight, I would entertain looking at this again. I'd sure be interested how City Council reacts to
that because I think, as we talked about before, there were expectations and communications
made and that always bothers me what people bought versus what we're thinking of doing if we
make a change. Specifically on the plan, the concerns, I think we've talked about them but I'm
just going to relate to my concerns that I saw here. Besides maybe the 50 some points that have
to be addressed and some of them are template things in the staff report. The issues that I really
have, when you get into mass, bigger projects like this is visual diversity and I tell you, that's a
21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
tough one to deal with. I really don't want, if we ever get into housing diversity in Chanhassen,
that doesn't mean it's stamped out. It means that we have some variety here. Ijust don't want
to put up quonset huts when we start building more of the lower income or townhome. The
products that are selling, we don't have products in Chanhassen that are selling right now so
that's why RottIund's considering this. To put up things that are selling. That doesn't mean we
have to take it. It's got to fit but on the other hand, we need the design alternatives and that's
why I was asking some of those questions on design alternatives. I've got to be positive we're
not putting in blocks here. There has, and I just have to be positive about that. Every time we
preach bringing in denser things and every time you see it on paper it looks awful. I tell you, it
scares you when you see it all of a sudden, you see them all and you say well is that creative and
is that whatever and it makes me nervous. Yet on the other hand, there's some nice things to
what I saw. The overall, if we were to go forward with this, the overall density or the overall
quantity of housing has to be under what it was originally guided for in terms of density, and I
think the developer's coming back and saying those things so that's maybe not appeasing to the
neighbors but it has to fit into what it originally was guided for, overall. The Hennessy property
has to be incorporated. I think I heard some things that it is, but it, I wish it was part of this
overall property. It looks like it's going to be a chunk out there that's not incorporated but that
incorporation is important. The totIot was an issue with me. I really like, again you want places
for people to recreate and gather and do those things. Whether it's the totIot or a gathering place,
again every time you see a footprint of stuff like this, you say well where are people going to go?
Well that leads me to the Bluff Creek aspect and Bluff Creek is the biggest asset this project has
and I didn't see how it fit. There are a lot of words here that said we've got to do things but I just
didn't see how Bluff Creek fit into the overall plan of this and that's got to come back. We have
to see how it's integrated. We have to see how it becomes an amenity to Chanhassen and to this
development and to everybody in the area. I need to see the Park and Rec recommendations on
this also, and I don't think they've met yet. That's just, again that always bothers me when we
don't get to see what they are talking about and incorporating it into what we see. We have to
turn the ponds in this property into an asset. The holding ponds rather than just being there so I'd
like to see how those can be turned into an asset. Those are my comments Mr. Chairman. Those
are my comments.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I have a question of staff regarding the 92 twin homes. Is that still a possibility if this
does not go forward?
Generous: Sure, they can come in and final plat that.
Skubic: Thank you.
Aanenson: It does expire in.
Generous: In March.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Skubic: March 13th it says. I concur with what Ladd has said. That we certainly need some
diversity in the city, but at the same time on this particular development we certainly are
concerned about the neighbors and preserving their investments and I think their investments are
both financial and emotional. I'm sure you're not pleased with what you see when you look out
your back yard. It certainly has a price of some sort associated with it. I think that both the
applicant and the residents have to make a better case. There is an economic sacrifice if this does
go through as proposed here. I know it's talked about on both sides but I'm not convinced that
this development will decrease the value of the homes in Windmill Run. Perhaps that can be
quantified somehow. And I also agree that the Hennessy area, the homes around it should be
single family or residential homes as opposed to what's there right now. I think I could support
something, some sort of a PUD here. Not nearly as extensive as what we have here. One of my
concerns is, when I look out from Windmill Run and I look at the knoll area and I imagine all
these symmetrical homes on a hill there that's not going to look like what you expected out there.
It's not going to look like a single family development. So that's one thing that I would hope
could be alleviated in some way so that the visual view on that knoll is more pleasing. I'm not
sure what that means, probably single family homes. There's also questions about the contour
required around Bluff Creek. I think there was a contour line of 966 feet and. . . from the creek to
that contour varies significantly and I understand part of it goes onto what was previously a
cultivated field and I don't understand what benefit it would be to preserve the creek to have the
preservation area extended to that area beyond the tree line. Regarding, more regarding the
density, I suspect that with this development so close to the elementary school, that we probably
would see a greater population of children in this area. . . what the applicant has suggested. This is
a different geographical location than what it was compared to I suspect. I don't, I doubt that the
other ones were across from an elementary school. That's all I have to say.
Peterson: Thank you. Kevin.
Joyce: Well I'm a little more, a bit more familiar with this property than the other
commissioners I think but I will try to be as objective as I can about my comments. First off,
looking at this, maybe you fellows have more insight than I do but I'm totally confused. I've
seen three plans so far tonight and I don't know which ones to follow. I mean we got a plan
Thursday. I know I met with the developer and looked at another plan and then there was a plan
presented tonight that took into consideration the Bluff Creek easement and I guess this is a
conceptual plan but I look at it as kind of a conceptual, conceptual plan. I'm really kind of
uncomfortable about it because I just, I think having 50 conditions like this, that the developer
really is just kind of throwing something up and seeing if we'll bite is my feeling. I would have
liked to have seen a lot more preparation. I think a couple phone calls could have reduced a lot of
these conditions. Given us a better view of what they're trying to present to us. It's very difficult
for me to take the three plans and incorporate them into something that, see what they're trying to
do here. I know that Rick Murray tried to explain it verbally but well it's an important project I
think. 50 acres with a PUD and I would have liked to have seen something a little more
organized and I didn't see that tonight. So that was just I guess a consideration of the process
itself. Specific points I'd like to address is that you have the 33 acres that are guided for low
density and 17 acres are guided for medium density. We've already heard, obviously there were
expectations from the neighborhood about what those 33 acres were to consist of. They thought,
23
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
were led to believe, whatever that the lots were 15,000 square foot lots with 3 per acre. In
actuality the City's guided the 33 acres at a maximum of 4 units per acre or lots of at least 11,000
square feet. I guess I'll revert back to the first plan. I looked at the single family portion of the
first plan that had 34 single family homes on it and of those homes you had 5 of the 34 exceeded
15,000 square feet. 17 of the 35 were between 15,000 and 11,000. Then we had 12 of the,
excuse me, 34. 12 of the 34 were below 11,000 square feet. So even in the single family portion
of this development, over a third are below what we consider R-4 square footage. The plan also
suggests putting, not only high density in the 17 acres that it's guided for medium density but it's
actually putting 12 plexes, high density in something that's guided low density. I think that's a
stretch. I have a very hard time considering a proposal which is just 8 plexes and 12 plexes on R-
4 guided land. You know you're in essence doubling and tripling the guided density. I think that
really should be considered in any sort of conceptual plan. The developer's using a PUD to
distribute the density inside this project area to get it to medium density. My opinions of, or
ideas of what the intent of a PUD is, there are various that we get in our packet. Preservation,
desirable site characteristics, sensitivity development in transitional areas, create a unified
internal order. Gives us some flexibility for higher quality than a standard zoning district. It
certainly allows for diversity of housing types that the City certainly does need. I think the PUD
essence is really to enhance a property. That would be more than what normal zoning would
allow for. And I think there should be a compelling reason to have a PUD. I think that's part of
the idea of a PUD. That we're doing this for a certain purpose. The way I look at this project
however, I don't see any green space. I don't see any gathering areas. To me it's really not that
imaginative. It's certainly not that unique. And I see that the developer's using the PUD process
to kind of use some mathematical gymnastics to put as many units as he can on this property to
make it available for as many possible units as he can under the guise of a PUD. So I've got a
problem with that. One aspect of this development that is addressed through the PUD is certainly
the intent of the diversity of housing. Or I'll use that, how many letter word. More than four
letter word, affordable housing that we hear so much about. I believe that's really the catalyst for
this project. We all know the City is under a lot of pressure because of the mandate of the
Livable Communities Act. I know that the planning staff, Kate and Bob, are under a lot of
pressure by the goals that were set by the Metropolitan Council. I also know developers are
eager to build these 8 plexes and 12 plexes because they're profitable and they're easy to sell.
But if this is the only criteria we're using to develop these things and change comprehensive
plans for the sake of diversity or affordable housing, I kind of see it as the tail wagging the dog
rather than the other way around. I just, if that's the purpose for all our planning, what's left.
There's property due east of this development that is guided medium density and high density,
but once again going back to the PUD, I don't see the compelling issue why we have to change to
an R-4 density up to medium density with pockets of high density in this area. I also don't think
the citizens of Chanhassen that happen to live near or adjacent to an open field would have to
worry about 12 plexes being rather close to their homes because, regardless of land use, because
of this issue of affordable housing. I think the City has a comprehensive plan that should be
followed. I think my neighbors made a huge decision, certainly the biggest investment of their
life, and they use the comprehensive plan as a guide post and I think the City should live up to
it's agreement with the people who bought in this neighborhood that the comprehensive plan will
be followed. But I'm very uncomfortable moving this even past the conceptual stage and I would
vote against it.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and did not pick up his comments.
Peterson: ., . direction you could give the developer.
F armakes: I would like to see these. . . to put with, in other words not be cut off. . . the point was
made to the development to the east. That's an important point. .. We don't want to see a wall of
high density corridor for 4 miles running down Highway 5. The point is that's probably what
we're going to see based on what proposals are coming forward...
Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not that dissimilar to my fellow commissioners. I think
that I am actually not opposed certainly to having a PUD on this property, or on these properties.
I think that there is strong potential of having that. What I have seen tonight I don't feel as
though presents me with a compelling reason to rezone, particularly we talk, Jeff mentioned the
Highway 5 corridor. I think that we are having this development in the Highway 5 corridor even
puts a higher standard on what we put on that property. That means that it needs to have a higher
standard of a uniqueness that a feel is there within the design. I think that the single family
homes were kind of left out of the conversation tonight. I do like the, I think the townhouses
have... architectural lines. From my perspective they still may be a bit dense but I like the styles
and the way they've integrated them into the contours of the land and they seem to have. ..at least
a certain amount of variety and I got some sense of that tonight. Again it's conceptual but I
certainly want to see more definition to that before I move ahead. That was one part of the
presentation tonight that I did find interesting. I too agree that the open space is an issue. The
Hennessy property is an issue. Bluff Creek integration, or the lack of integration needs to be
worked on. .. .density of the villas.. . closest and most visual to Highway 5 doesn't fit in there as
densely as it is presented. I too, I think we need to do some more work before we move it onto
Council. I don't think that I'm comfortable at least with.. . something that is still at this stage of
progress. With that, do I hear a motion?
Joyce: I'd just like to throw this motion out. I don't know how far it will get but I'd like to
throw the motion out that the Planning Commission deny this conceptual plan.
Skubic: ..discussion?
Peterson: I think we're going to need to. Comments to that.
Skubic: That would mean it would be passed onto City Council is that correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Skubic: If we table it it would come back before us and...
Conrad: My preference is to get it to City Council. I think the neighborhood is here. They've
expressed their concerns. Their concerns will stay the same. I'm interested in where the City
Council would be in terms of their commitment to certain of the issues that this brings forward.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
And I don't want to, personally I don't want to screw around with it. Ifwe don't see a
commitment on their part to even consider this. So my recommendation would be to so note this
case and to have staff. I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm telling you if Kevin's doesn't
pass. I would so note this without a recommendation pro or con but to have the developer and
staff incorporate our comments and prepare better material for the City Council to review. And
to get their feedback. Weare in the concept plan right now and I think, I'm really interested in
how much more time we want to use if the City Council's not interested in exploring a PUD. If
they're not, I really don't want to, I don't want to fine tune this because we're going to be wrong.
And these folks are going to be back and I guess my perspective is they should hear what the City
Council has to say.
Joyce: Kate, this is not binding then? If this goes to City Council and they approve it, we can
really come back to square one again, is that correct?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Conrad: Yeah, we're not committing to anything Kevin.
Joyce: Well that's my motion.
Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Is there another motion?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission notes this planning case,
whatever it is staff, and recommends that the staff and developer works to prepare better
materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they
heard tonight by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or to work out many of the 50 some
points that were addressed in the planning staff's report.
Peterson: Is there a second to that motion?
Skubic: Second.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission notes pun #96-4, The
Highlands, and recommends that the staff and developer work to prepare better materials
for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard
by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or work out many of the 50 some points that
were addressed in the planning staff's report. All voted in favor, except Joyce and
Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Peterson: Kevin, would you share with us your opposition.
Joyce: I think Ladd made a good point. I think, in my opposition I have to ask you a question.
Are you saying that you're denying this?
Conrad: I said I've noted it. No, I have not denied it.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997
Joyce: So how's this going to City Council?
Conrad: The way you see it. The staff will work on it. They'll probably, I would assume the
developer will have one firm plan presented. I would assume the developer and the staff will
incorporate many, well I hope they'd incorporate some of the things that we've been talking
about. You know I've got some issues on Bluff Creek and issues on gathering spots and what
have you and Kevin you've got issues on, you've got a lot of issues. They probably can't
incorporate those but views and vistas and design. You know my assumption would be that
there's going to be some work done by the developer and staff to make the presentation a little bit
more solid to the City Council. My hope would be that the City Council expresses some kind of
opinion about whether a PUD is appropriate here, and the densities. That's my, because there's
no use in us screwing around with it if the City Council is not prone to doing this. And a lot goes
back to communication that's had in the past and expectations and see how sensitive they are.
They are the elected body and I guess I, normally I'd want to send up something a little bit better
and I'd want to see what it is but right now I think there's some overriding issues that no matter
what we do in terms of sending them a prettier piece of paper, the overriding issues may be more
important than the specific detail that we have.
Joyce: I agreed with your position on not tabling it. I think bringing people back in every
Wednesday night to try and figure this thing out is not right. I feel that what you're saying
though is a neutral stance and I can't vote for that so I have to take a negative stance to that.
That's my reason.
Peterson: My primary reason for voting nay is simply I would rather send a cleaner plan to, and
ensure that the clean plan is going to Council prior to that and I can empathize with your
position. I'm almost on the fence but I'm more biased towards sending Council a cleaner plans
for them to review prior to. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate the comments.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SBA. INC. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE
LOCATED AT 1455 PARK ROAD.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Gary Goll
Jason Funk
Terrie Thurmer
Doug Cowan
Michelle Johnson, APT
1455 Park Road
2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan
7625 Metro Blvd., Edina
1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington
1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington
27
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
U.S. POSTAL CARRIER ANNEX. VERBAL UPDATE.
Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. There's a letter in your packet from the Post Office explaining the
progress that's been made and that Mr. Braslau has finished collecting his data, but he has not finished
his report and he expects to have that report done this week. As soon as we have it in our hands, you
will have it in yours.
Mayor Mancino: So that should be, I'm sorry, the end of the week?
Roger Knutson: Sometime this week they told us. They were thinking the middle of the week but by the
end of the week.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Council members to Mr. Knutson on this? Is there anyone in the
chambers that would like to come up and to address the City Council on this? Have any questions or
comments.
Bill Kemble: I just have one quick question...
Roger Knutson: It's my understanding, we've suggested, we've given him some options of the 25u" 26th
and 27th, and that's in their budget and that shouldn't be an issue. Depending on hiS schedule, one of
those dates. We'll let you know.
Bill Kemble: Have they responded at all?
Roger Knutson: No. No, they have not.
Mayor Mancino: Bob, this went out on February 6th so maybe in the next few days they will respond.
But we have also asked, excuse me I'll tell you one other thing. We have not only asked for the meeting
with the U.S. Postal Service but to have the sound consultant there too. Okay. Anyone else wIShlOg to
address the Council on this issue? Okay, thank you.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY
TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL:
PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2.
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA
HOMES: PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND
ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY: LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN
BLVD. AND HIGHWAY 5. THE HIGHLANDS. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. INC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steve Toroio
Jon Noeldner
7476 Crocus Court
7511 Crocus Court
2
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Name
Address
Jennifer & Brian Monteith
Mark Pryor
Wren & Mark Feyereisen
Cindy & Henry Wanserski
Margi & Rick Manning
Bill Anner
Bonita Mihalko
Douglas E. Domine
David & Cinda Jensen
Jeff Steinke
Allan & Mary Jane Olson
Ken & Joan Weis
Joan & Kevin Joyce
Virginia Bell
Rick Sathre
Lee Glover
Richard Palmiter
Dean Gregory
Richard Harbar
Dani & John Hennessy
Jeff Stone
JoAnn & Richard Neff
Judi & Steve Selinger
Nadia & Steve Janson
2159 Brinker Street
7541 Windmill Drive
7501 Windmill Drive
7521 Windmill Drive
7460 Windmill Drive
935 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata
2198 Brinker Street
2149 Majestic Way
2173 Brinker Street
7481 Windmill Drive
7461 Windmill Drive
2101 Majestic Way
2043 Brinker Street
7476 Crocus Court
150 S. Broadway, Wayzata
Plymouth
Bloomington
2101 Majestic Way
Richfield
7305 Galpin Blvd.
2103 Brinker Street
2150 Majestic Way
7480 Windmill Drive
2199 Brinker Street
Mayor Mancino: Before we begin the staff report, let me say that what I just read I don't think are the
specs that we're reviewing tonight. According to the staff report I read, the site plan review before us
tonight is for 32 single family homes, 48 cottage homes, 16 single loaded townhomes, 48 villas in the
northern 33 acres, and 16 single loaded townhomes and 108 villas in the southern 17 acres. I want to
make sure that we're all on the same page. We're reviewing the same thing. Is that correct Mr.
Generous?
Bob Generous: Yes Madam Mayor. Mayor, Councilmembers, thank you. Also I should clarify, part of
the original submittal we put the whole packet together, what would be required to bring the project
forward and they had a total number of units. After discussion with the applicant we decided that it'd be
more appropriate to bring this to you as a conceptual review ofthe project. Under the PUD conceptual
review allows you to get a grasp of the entire project and provide the developer with some directions on
how...get consensus of the Council that yeah, we like this idea and these are the things that we need to
address. And with that, so what the notice does is they do seek conceptual approval. Those are the
approvals that would be required after preliminary steps to permit this type of project to go forward.
Given the land use map amendment, the rezoning, the subdivision and the site plan for the multi-family
dwellings. The applicant originally submitted a project that had a total of 293 dwelling units. This is
divided into a townhouse section, a cottage home type section, and then single family detached housing.
As part of the review at the Planning Commission stage, the applicant received some input and came
back with the revised plan that you specify the request... Since then the applicant has reduced the total
number of dwelling units to 258 units. What we've had them do is they pulled off, they've taken out the
3
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
straight connection of the north/south road and moved the road to the left and they've reduced the
number of single family detached homes by 2 from their original submittal. They've transitioned
additional detached housing.. . area of cottage homes.. .And they reduced the area that the townhouse
products were being proposed and. .. When we initially met with the applicant we requested that they
bring a project in that... total number of units on the site that would be permitted under the existing land
use and for that we managed to calculate the northern 33 acres at 4 units per acre and the southerly 17
acres at 8 units an acre, which are the high end oflow and medium density residential property. ...1
believe how they calculated what the medium density and the low density areas were and then in this
proposal they drop it down to... Currently the site has a 92 unit twin home project that has preliminary
plat approval. This preliminary plat is in effect until March of this year when it becomes void if it's not
final platted. The issues that we have within this project were one, the protection of the Bluff Creek
corridor which runs along the southwest comer of the site. Recently the City adopted the Bluff Creek
study which recommended some design guidelines... What the applicant has worked out.. .they would
preserve all the existing trees along this section of the Bluff Creek and down to approximately where the
ponding area, the future underpass for Arboretum Boulevard and Highway 5 when Arboretum Boulevard
and Highway 5 come forward.
Mayor Mancino: Is that on the medium density?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: It's guided in the medium density?
Bob Generous: The medium density is the 17 acres, right. So what in essence we've forced the
developer to do to preserve this area is to develop this area to the north.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Which is also amended for the developer, okay.
Bob Generous: In addition, we've looked at some possible design criteria that's basically the one thing
would be to provide additional sight lines or a view shed within the corridor. Specifically from this pomt
down into the Bluff Creek corridor. .. By realigning these areas, they get an east/west view COrrIdor. The
City will be providing a regional storm water pond to the east of this project and so you would get a vista
across the top of that... The real issue in this development is the total number of units that would be
proposed or approved with this project. Again staff started out by saying we'd use the 268 total number
of units allowed them to slide the development around on the site to make it work a little better. To get
some nice transitioning and to open up the and preserve the natural features of it. From there we're
looking at, we believe that to make.. .townhouse portion of the project, they should possibly remove the
one structure and create a common open space for all the townhouse units around it. In addition we
believe that while they're providing this open space area and they would... putting a trail corridor in, that
maybe they should eliminate these two units also so that... Staff believes that this project does do a lot to
implement portions of our comprehensive plan and we are recommending conceptual approval of the
project at this time. They are subject to the applicant addressing these conditions and issues outlined in
the staff report. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Generous at this time from Council
members? Bob, I have a couple. Could you give me a little bit of context here. East of the lower 17
acres, which is guided for medium density. East of that what, the land use plan, that's also medium
density?
4
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So it kind of parallels it and then it goes to high density, correct?
Bob Generous: As you get closer to Lake Ann.
Mayor Mancino: Lake Ann. And on the northern part of this parcel, the northern 33 which is guided low
density, east of that is mostly low density also. Correct?
Bob Generous: Correct. I think there's ajog in the medium density that comes up part way and is
adjacent to that area.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And that continues, that low density continues all the way over and above the
high density?
Bob Generous: Correct. I don't know if it shows up very well.
Mayor Mancino: Just so we get some context of what's around us. And what's across the street too.
Bob Generous: This is the medium density in the diagonal lines. This is the northerly 33 acres. This site
is guided for either medium or low density immediately east of this low density area. This is medium
density and then this site is Lake Ann Park.
Mayor Mancino: Do you know that I don't have, this for 1995, mine doesn't shown that above the high
density is medium density. On my land use map. Is that newer?
Councilman Engel: You mean the piece just southwest of Lake Ann? Abutting Lake Ann?
Mayor Mancino: Ah, okay. And then across the street from the said property is, to the west side of
Galpin is single family low density, okay. And the adjacent property that is south of Bluff Creek is also
medium density. In that little comer, on the real comer of Galpin and TH 5.
Bob Generous: Well medium density, I believe it's commercial also. Or mixed density.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, it could go either.
Kate Aanenson: Either way.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay, thank you. That gives me context. So you have basically put, allowed
density transfer throughout the entire 50 acre parcel? I mean you have seen it that way instead of
splitting it up as low density and medium density, you've just put it all together as medium density?
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Berquist: In '95, did we approve the Lake Ann Highlands? That was for 92 townhouses,
184 townhomes. 184 units total. That was a preliminary plat approval, right?
Bob Generous: 92, yeah.
Councilman Berquist: The 92 pads. Okay. That's the only question.
5
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Senn: And to clarify something you said, you said that preliminary plat becomes void in
March of this year if it's not taken to final plat. The other option is the builder can extend the
preliminary plat, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Council has to approve the extension.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that but they can request.
Bob Generous: They can request an extension.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: And this property has not been rezoned at all until final plat.
Bob Generous: Correct. The way we structure it is at preliminary plat we do the first reading of any
rezoning and at final plat we'll also include the second reading.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so nothing's been rezoned here. Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here and
would you like to address the City Council please?
Rick Murray: Yes Madam Mayor, distinguished Councilmembers. My name is Rick Murray. I'm with
Residential Development. This proposal is our proposal. With me this evening, my development team
and consulting engineer, Rick Sathre, who's been helpmg in this city previously and the Vice President
of Rottlund Homes, Tim Whitten and the Land Management Director, Richard Palmiter. As we go
through our short presentation this evening, both Rick and Tim will have aspects of our concept which
they'll be explaining to you. As you're aware this site does have a first reading ofa preliminary plat for
92 units, twinhomes adjacent, or on the property that's adjacent to the property owners to the north and
the property owner to the west. My involvement in this plan or plat was when they realized that that plan
might not work out on this site and I was approached by the seller and was asked if this would be a site
that I would be interested in working on in Chanhassen. My home has been in Chanhassen for the last 17
years. I developed several communities in Chanhassen. It was a very compatible and good working
relationship and I appreciated it very much. In working with the staff, the evolution of the plan that we
have before you this evening, I've also enjoyed that experience. Even in working with the neighbors,
I've enjoyed that experience and their input has been helpful and I think you'll find it reflective in many
of the changes that we've done to our concept. It was never our intent when I approached staff and
approached the seller, of out stepping the bounds of your comprehensive land use plan. We were trying
to fit into the comprehensive land use plan. When we originally drew the line across the property,
somehow we figured that this property could accommodate 300 units under your comprehensive land use
plan. We were somewhat surprised when we found that 292 didn't work under the plan, but adjusted it
to 268 so it did fit the underlying land use plan. We've had a couple of meetings with the neighbors. We
have realigned our central road through the site to better accommodate two things. One is the short cut
that might be taken by people trying to transit either north or south along Galpin Lake Road and avoid the
traffic light at the new Arboretum Boulevard, in fact they did want to short cut and I think our road
alignment now according to our engineers definitely discourages any kind of short cut action. And the
other intent there was to provide a better view, pedestrian or both pedestrian and vehicular view of the
Bluff Creek corridor itself. We have, Rick will go into that sight line as he has some cross sections
across the site that will help you better appreciate how this opens up to that area. Of the 51 issues that
were pointed out in the staff report of January 15th, through our meetings with the staff and through
6
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
meetings with neighbors, those issues have been reduced I think to three. There remains some question
about density. Although we are at the staff recommendation of268. There remains some concern about
a 964 contour around the Bluff Creek area, which Mr. Sathre will discuss. The 964 contour comes up the
hill, oh probably 150 feet into the soybean field. In reading the Bluff Creek study, it recommends that all
vegetation between 125 and 300 feet of the Bluff Creek be protected. We are protecting all the
vegetation, existing vegetation within that corridor. We will protect it. I don't see the necessity of
protecting 100 feet of a soybean field and that's where the 964 contour really doesn't fit our particular
concept very well. The other issue that we'd like to work out with staff remains this central open space
area in the villas. We've kind of designed and clustered our units so that our central open space would
be between the housing types, i.e. the cluster homes and our villa homes. That will also be pointed out I
think in our cross sections and our site plan. With that I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Sathre and he will go
through our criteria for planned unit development and what we're requesting.
Rick Sathre: I'm not sure for Council which is the best approach here. I have some big boards, some of
which will be very unwieldy but we'll do our best. I'm Rick Sathre, oh excuse me.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Rick. Are the cameras catching that? Can everyone see where, oh we don't
have any, nobody can see it.
Rick Sathre: What would make sense?
Mayor Mancino: Rick, can you push it back a little bit? Let's see. That would be fine. Is there
anybody from this side would like to move and stand over here so you can see during the presentation?
I'm sorry we, what did happen to the TV's? Did somebody come and take the TV's, excuse me? Will
they be installed at a future time? Okay.
Rick Sathre: I've been blacked out here too.
Mayor Mancino: I know Hennessy's are here. Do you want to move over so you can see the
presentation? Anyone else? Sorry to do this. You may have to share your chair with someone else.
Rick Sathre: Now that everybody's over there that wants to see it, how about if I put it over here.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, good idea. Give everybody a few minutes to get settled.
Rick Sathre: Okay, and I'll try to duck.
Mayor Mancino: And for the rest of the people who are over there, I mean it won't be fun.
Rick Sathre: My name is Rick Sathre. I'm with the firm Sathre-Berquist in Wayzata. We've done quite
a bit of development work in Chanhassen through the years and I'm very pleased to be hired by Mr.
Murray and Residential Development, Incorporated to work with him on this site. My initial discussion,
Ijust want to cover two points right now. One of them is to talk about the site itself, and for that purpose
I'm going to ask Lee to put an overhead up. We'll talk very briefly about the site characteristics. I think
that's going to be upside down. This is a map, a 2 foot topographic map of the site. You can see a faint
line up at the top of the site, top of the map is the border between the single family neighbors to the north
and this 50 acre site. Off to the upper left is Galpin Lake Road, Boulevard. The Hennessy property is in
the little cut-out there. Thank you Bob. And the creek corridor comes down and through the site and at
the bottom is existing two lane Highway 5. The site features. Through the center of the site that red and
7
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
green squiggley line that you see going through the site is the ridge line of the property. The area that's
north and east of that ridge, the arrow's point where the water goes. In general, the vast majority of the
site drains off to the east to one of the branches of Bluff Creek. The south and west portion of the site
drains southwesterly down to that part of Bluff Creek, or that branch of Bluff Creek that actually crosses
through the site. You can see highlighted with the dark arrows that have the three dots in them, that's
highlighted in blue, that's actually the channel of the creek and you'll see the green area and the black
sculpted or scalloped edge, which is the existing tree line. We went out in the field with my survey crew
and located where the canopy came to. The edge of the tree canopy so that we could show everyone
where that drip line was. Rick Murray, I'm going to approach the overhead for a second to show you the
964 contour.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Rick Sathre: I have to put on my glasses because I've got myoId eyes. The 964 contour, I'm going to
trace it and I probably should do it with a color. Kate, can I borrow something. How about a red line. I
don't know, I guess that's about... we get away from the creek at that point. We've chosen in our
planning to use the drip line of the trees as an important line of demarcation as opposed to the 964 or any
other contour just because in some places you get out into the field. You get out in that soybean field but
we know the trees are important so we're, as we go into the site plan we'll talk about how we've sited
units versus that tree line. I'd like another graphic now. The second part of what I wanted to speak about
initially is the PUD and why should this site be processed as a PUD. What is it about thIS site? What is
it about the City that makes a PUD makes sense? Well number one, our goals are to stay in touch with
your comprehensive plan. We don't want to put more units on this site than make sense with the plan.
We're not trying to push the envelope. Number two, from a community standpoint. Arboretum
Boulevard is going to cross through this site. The new frontage road for TH 5 will cross through this site
soon and it's at the very south edge of the property. If you allow us to do a PUD, we're transferring, we
wish to transfer the density internal to the site and give the City the right-of-way for that road. So there's
a give and take. There's an opportunity for a dedicated right-of-way as opposed to a purchased one.
Number three, from a community goal standpoint. Our site plan, our concept has very little public street.
We have Windmill Curve, an east/west street and Highland Boulevard, a north/south street which would
form the spine of the development. The rest of the roadway, all of the rest of the roadway system IS
private. It would be homeowners association, owned and maintained so the public works department
would not have to do that. It would greatly reduce the burden on the public works people. From a
neighborhood standpoint, why a PUD? Well number one, compatibility. We can work with our own
internal transitions. I guess I'll talk about both neighborhood issues at once. Ifwe can use the PUD to
slide density around, we can pull it back away from the neighborhood, back away from everybody and
put it in the middle of the site. And if you use the standard subdivision ordinance, rules, that flexibility is
gone. It's, you get more like the plat that was approved preliminarily before with the twmhome
neighborhood. The structure of the standard ordinance doesn't allow density transfer. It only allows
minimum standards. So we think that a POD makes a lot of sense from a neighborhood standpoint so we
can pull density away from the neighbors. The land itself. The creek corridor, the Bluff Creek corridor
in the southwest part of the site, in the PUD we can move the density out of the corridor, away from the
corridor and put it where it's better suited, which is in that farm field area. Number two. We're working
with the landform. We're not doing a grid sort of plat. The graphic I showed you about the ridge line
and the contours of the land, we're working with the landform. That's another benefit of a PUD. We're
not stuck in some sort of a grid. Third, a perpetuation of the long views. I've got some cross sections I
can show you. We're going a long way with this PUD concept to allow every single person that would
live in this neighborhood and every single person that drives through it, or near it, to enjoy the common
features of it that would otherwise be platted in individual lots. And lastly, under the land categories, the
8
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
shared access. The shared vistas. Each and every person in this community would have, in this
neighborhood, would have access to all the common homeowners association open space, which is the
creek corridor area and the centrally located open space areas. So the flexibility that the PUD affords
allows us to do these things.
Mayor Mancino: Rick, may I ask you a question about that? If you could clarify it. You're asking, not
just for a PUD. I mean we have a couple PUD's. We have the single family detached residential PUD,
which is very specific. And we have a single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is more of
a medium density. So you're asking for the single family attached or clustered home PUD, which is a
medium or high density PUD, correct?
Rick Sathre: Well Your Honor, I think the staff has suggested that we would perhaps be zoned PUD-R.
But I think they're also suggesting, and we concur that that zoning, under the PUD, is site specific. It's
plan specific. It's not open ended so that once the Council establishes the number of units that might be
built on this site, that would be a contract basically between the developer and the City. So it's not an
open ended.
Mayor Mancino: So this does not follow any of our, this doesn't follow any of our ordinances?
Kate Aanenson: What it would require is a comprehensive plan change, and that's the heart of the
discussion. Whether or not the Council is changing the comprehensive plan. You cannot do the smaller
lots, the smaller than 11,000 or the twinhomes under the low density. What we're saying is if you take
the total number of units, and as Mr. Sathre indicated, you'd give it PUD-R.
Mayor Mancino: Which means it's medium density.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, overall medium. . .
Mayor Mancino: Overall medium. I just wanted to make sure. And our medium density for PUD allows
minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet.
Kate Aanenson: Right, but as Bob indicated earlier, when you give this the second reading, whatever the
final say is as far as an approved plan, that's what the total number of units.
Mayor Mancino: So you're saying, you're asking us to change it so it could go down to 3,600 square
feet? So it doesn't follow any of our.
Kate Aanenson: This is what's before you tonight. We're not talking about re-writing the PUD. We're
saying approve this plan based on a concept.
Mayor Mancino: And this plan is not based on any existing ordinance that we have on PUD's?
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is.
Mayor Mancino: And which one?
Kate Aanenson: We're changing it up to a medium which does allow that flexibility of cluster zoning.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
9
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Kate Aanenson: We're taking it out, we're re-guiding it from a low density, which doesn't allow
flexibility to get it to a medium.
Mayor Mancino: But as we do that, the minimum lot size in a cluster home PUD is 5,000 square feet.
Kate Aanenson: You're still under the low density.
Bob Generous: That paragraph of the ordinance has 5,000 and then the next sentence says there's no
minimum.
Mayor Mancino: However, in no case will gross density exceed guidelines established by the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan is what the next.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what we're saying. It's not going to exceed that, whatever you decide
that final number would be, that's what the zoning would be.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, because we would be amending the comprehensive plan.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's what the discussion is about.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Rick Sathre: Your Honor. The real point and the reason that the staff has discussed amending the comp
plan, we're pulling density away from the neighborhood to the north. We're pushing density out of the
creek corridor. We're putting in dense, or as a result of that, the density ends up in the middle. Well,
that density is in effect straddling the line between the 33 acre low density area and the 17 acre medium
density area. Rather than respecting this line, we'll pulling densities.
Mayor Mancino: We're putting them altogether in the pot.
Rick Sathre: Yes. We're pushing it into the middle.
Mayor Mancino: And how small are those lots? What's the smallest lot size?
Rick Sathre: Well the way that Rottlund would prefer to plat the lots, the lot line is only 4 or 5 feet
outside the unit wall. The land is owned in common so how many square feet would be shared? I'm not
sure how we would calculate that right now.
Mayor Mancino: Well the cottage homes are 47 x 120. Is that 5,600 it's about the smallest lot size?
Rick Sathre: If they were platted that way. The way they actually would prefer to plat it is go 4 or 5 feet
outside the structure wall. Plat this very small lot and have the rest of the land in a commonly owned
open space.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, I understand.
Rick Sathre: So the actual reallot could be very small.
10
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And then to have common space.
Rick Sathre: Right. But they'd have over 5,000 square feet of perceived lot area. I would like to sit
down for a minute and ask Tim Whitten, from Rottlund, to address a few issues and then I'll be back.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much.
Tim Whitten: Good evening. Mayor and members of the Council. Again, I'm Tim Whitten, Vice
President of the Rottlund Company. Also Richard Palmiter is here with our land development
department, and if you have any questions as we go through the presentation, we can both try to answer
those. First, I'd like to talk a little bit about the marketplace that we're going after with the products that
we're proposing. We have really, excluding the single family to the north, as mentioned by Rick, is the
cottage homes in the middle band. And then our villas and villa townhomes on the southern portion of
the site. And our cottages are targeted towards the empty nester and retiree market. So we're going after
an alternative type of buyer than is probably more traditional for Chanhassen being the single family
home. And we're finding this as an opportunity in a lot of the communities around the Twin Cities
because there are a lot of people who have lived in their communities for 20-30 years raising their
children and then they're finding, they're looking for an alternative life style, and in many cases they
have to leave their community to find that alternative life style. So Chanhassen isn't alone in this
particular market that is needed. And also in the villas and villa townhomes, we are targeting towards
the young professional, singles and couples. And they are, typically the people that grew up in
Chanhassen, either have jobs in Chanhassen and are looking for home ownership opportunities in a price
range they can afford. So those clearly are our two targeted markets. We're using the site plan, and the
PUD concept as a tool to be able to try to create those opportunities that we wouldn't otherwise have
under current ordinances. And in a theme as far as planning the concept, we're clustering them together
and trying to build a theme. We're doing more and more mixed use developments where we'll take a
number of different products and different markets and bring them together in one community. And so
we're clustering these together and then linking them together with the trails, so obviously we have this
group as a cluster oftownhomes, row type townhomes... walkout conditions here, slab on grade... And
then we have more of... Then we have the two clusters of the detached along with the single family. And
connecting these with trails and open space. The other advantage, obviously clustering them together is
to create that variety throughout the development. Ifwe did everything as one unit type and did it kind of
anomogous throughout the site, we wouldn't get a lot ofthe opportunities. As we go down Highlands
Boulevard, coming from Highway 5, or soon to be improved Highway 5, we get the exposure of the creek
on one side of the pond, and trees. You have a villa type townhome here. You have only this much
exposure into the villas from Highway 5, which we can work with the City as far as how to landscape
that portion of it. We get different views of the types oftownhomes here, with the villas. You will get
into more ofa.ootype where you create an open space, which we're promoting as a common gathering
space within the site for all of those within the community to be able to experience. And also for those to
use the trail from outside the community.. . opportunity to have an activity here... we have short range
views and then we have the long range views, working all the way up to single family. That's an
opportunity that we've been able to take advantage of with the PUD process. The other thing is to be
able to maximize the potential of the site, or take advantage of the site in a sense of taking those total
number of units and being able to put them in the right locations. And so that we don't raise the land
costs and development costs. Ifwe just took this and developed 50 less units on there, all the prices of
all the product would have to go up. Land development doesn't really change much in price. The roads
are basically in the same locations, and the land prices don't change. It gives us an opportunity to take
some of that savings, of being able to do this number of units and attribute it to a certain portion of the
product. We are looking at a theme and taking advantage of the opportunity to cluster these together and
11
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
we term it a New England village kind of a theme. And we take that from the architecture and the
planning and the trails and the open space and we work that all the way through into the architecture, into
the colors and materials and the landscaping and the monuments, and take that just as far through the
process as we can so we can create something that's a little bit more special than just a number of
sections oftownhomes or single family homes. And with that I'd like to talk a little bit about the product
themselves. First I'll talk about the cottage homes targeted for empty nesters. In the middle of the site.
Here we have, actually the site plan shows one building pad size... With that though we really have a
number of different unit types. And we are showing a sample.. .give you a sense in a larger scale of what
we're proposing. As Rick was mentioning the lot sizes. If you equated it to a lot size, our minimum
would be like you say, 47 foot wide by about 120 foot deep. You have a number of different varieties of
sizes. That's pretty much our minimum. What he's referring to is the townhome.. .that we would really
only have a lot size.. . but that's a preferred situation for us. It doesn't have to be that way. It certainly
could be divided into lots, if that's something that's more desirable. This is again targeted for empty
nesters so we're looking at slab on grade. That's what they're looking for. We have developed this...last
year to respond to that marketplace. One of the things that was good for us was more variety in product.
More of an opportunity to be able to adapt to the different wants and wishes of the different buyers. ..care
of this through a more conventional row of townhomes of 4 units or 6 units, you don't have that kind of
flexibility. It allows us to give different elevations and different color schemes. Different things that we
wouldn't have available are also. And this terrain, as Rick has mentioned, there's a rolling hills on the
site. This allows us, by detaching the product, to be able to kind of move with the site a little bit better
than the larger building. We've taken advantage of that by turning it to the street at about a 30 degree
angle. What that allows us to do is create more private spaces. So as opposed to being more general
spaces for everybody, or very private, or semi private. It allows us to create more private spaces in here,
but this is an area that is really dedicated to this unit. And then that's their front door and then their rear
door, with the rear back yard. . .is also very private so as opposed to having them lined up and having zero
lot lines...we're able to concentrate those areas into certain criteria. It also allows us to create the
most...somewhere between 12 and 15 feet between the buildings. That...next to each other in more ofa
soldier fashion... This allows us to break up the garage doors and have some side load opportunities and
to give a little bit different view as you go down the street.
... which are 3 bedroom units and 2 bedroom. In this location they vary in size from about 1,400 square
feet up to about 1,700 square feet. We are proposing to develop a new type of product, a version of thIS,
which is a walkout. To give them a basement so that we can adapt more of the site.. .so you can have
more walkouts. That allows us to spread that square footage and maybe move It up to about 2,500 square
feet of finished space in a unit. It also creates more variety as far as the views from the exterior that you
get. A lot more undulation as far as the exterior elevation and what not. The price range we're
proposing is in the range of$140,000.00 for our 2 bedroom and going up to about $200,000.00. That's
been our experience. And since we have first introduced this product, we have found that the buyers are
looking for a little bit more diversity on the exteriors and so forth and we are proposing more variety on
the exteriors. And I can give you a sample of that. This is some of the type of exteriors that we can say
are half graded and we're adding to that. We would have somewhere between 3 to 4 unit types with that.
We would have 2 to 3 elevations per unit. And you would have the variety of whether it was a walkout
or wasn't a walkout. Whether it was a side loaded garage or a front loading garage. And we have
virtually been able to create a scenario where you could get a different, something different to each of
these units you know up to 80 units. Some of the images that we've created are, this would be more of
the front porch for the 2 bedroom unit and then creating the image of a side entry for the 3 bedroom unit.
Weare proposing a color palette of five colors, and with that if you add that to the mix of the
numbers.. .and all the different elevation options and you have as much diversity as we possibly can
offer. It's trying to be a balance between, or offer the advantages of single family along with the
advantages oftownhomes. Where you still get the association to maintain the exteriors. We're
12
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
proposing these will be vinyl exteriors with brick accents and the landscaping is maintained and all the
exteriors of the buildings and properties are maintained by an association. .,. villa product, we have
really two product types that we have introduced and I can talk about it briefly here. We have the cluster
units which are 12 and 8 unit clusters, which are back to back. Similar to what we have in Mission Hills,
if you're familiar with that. And through staffs comments and so forth we have introduced the row
townhomes to be able to take advantage of some of the grades...and maybe soften some of the edges and
create some more variety. So you really have slab on grade and walkout conditions so we have a number
of different building types in this group. Again it's targeted for empty nesters. We have made some, or
proposing some differences to what we have offered in Mission Hills. And again trying to kind of take
off of that New England village theme so that we can take some of the elements of architecture that we're
introducing in the cottage homes and bring it into the product as far as the type of siding type of
architecture. We're introducing picket fences and then we would coordinate the colors of the brick and
the siding and so forth and make them be a compliment to what we're proposing for the cottage homes.
These are all two story and in some cases walkouts. We have two car garages and then some single car
garages. Our square footages range from 1,128 square feet to about 1,300 square feet for the villa type,
which are back to back and they range from under $100,000.00 to about $120,000.00. And there are
differences. We have 2 bedroom units and 2 bedrooms with a loft. The villa townhomes, the more row
type town homes shown here will be larger and they would go from about 1,250 square feet for the
smallest unit and go up to about, close to 2,000 square feet. And they would range in price of about $110
to $150,000.00. They also have an association to maintain the property. One thing I didn't mention on
the cottage homes is typically our experience is that we have .1 to .2 children per unit which is
somewhere between 1 child per 10 to 20 units. That hold trues pretty much for our villa homes too. This
is something that is a moving target as far as the numbers or percentages. We're looking at that as far as
what our averages are with most of the developments that we have in the Twin Cities. Also, from our
experience and from our traffic consultant, that these types of buyers, in the cottages average about 4
trips a day. In the villa homes it's about 6 trips a day and that compares to a single family that averages
about 10 trips a day. One of the things that we're taking advantage of the theme.. . try to incorporate
some of those ideas into the other portions of the site as far as our entrance monuments. We have the
main entrance monuments and secondary entrance monuments shown here. We'd like to work with the
City as far as what kind of potential we could do with the open space and kind of the village square.
Where that should be located is one issue that's still being discussed and whether it should be centrally
located in here, in this portion of the site or whether that should be in addition to the open space here or
combine. We're more than willing to work with the City regarding that. Also, as far as what's in those
areas. A gazebo might be something that just kind of gives the point of destination. Something for
people to kind of have a point of reference, and that's something that we're willing to talk about and
work with the City. Some of the, our feelings as far as a compliment to the community as far as how the
PUD affects the plan, or how to take advantage of that PUD planning concept, is just the fact that we are
connecting to the existing trails. And that can connect through a walkway going across TH 5 to the new
park and to the school. Connecting up to the north. Potentially connecting out to the east. To invite and
expand the open space. To give this the open space an opportunity for everybody to experience as
they're walking through the trail system, along with the creek and bluff and existing tree area. Obviously
Rick mentioned that the advantage ofthe PUD as far as a single family, being able to offer that up there
and yet still keep our densities so we can save some of the development costs and put it towards the
attached townhomes down to the south. To be able to offer a development that has landscaping that's
controlled by an association. This entire area, as far as the cottages and the villas are maintained by an
association with an irrigation system. You wouldn't get that in normal developments and that's
something that's an advantage here. Architectural review committees, as far as the association to
maintain the exterior. You're not going to get purple and orange units in this development. You're
going to be able to maintain those color palettes that we agreed to through this process. To create some
13
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
of the variety of views. We can work with the City as far as how we work with the view coming from
Highway 5. And with that, as far as views, as kind of a segue into that, Rick has got some sections that
he has cut through different portions of the site that can kind of show you how some of those views have
been created. Thank you.
Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again... We've got three cross sections shown, and the staff can't see them.
The yellow one is called AA, the orange one is called BB, and the pink one is called CC. This board I'm
going to throw up here as BB and CC. We'll look at BB on top first, which is, it goes from the cottage
homes down through the kind of open space areas, through these slab on grade walkouts villa units and
down into the creek corridor. Let you get a feel for special relationships. Here's a cottage home. Garage
floor, 1002. Walking out at 994. Sliding down through the open space. Not really sliding but there is a
long gradual slope down the sidewalk, across the Highlands Boulevard, and then through the large open
space, the central open space area. We've got a slope down near the road and then the open space area
and slab on grade home. Two story home down, the road was at 984 and we went 1002, 984. Now this
unit's down at 972 Y2. When we cross the street we have a walkout down to 963 and then a slope down
into the creek corridor. The creek at that point is about 940. So we slope down from 1002 down to 940
on this orange cross section. The pink cross section, across the road, 1 love that one too because
everybody that drives up and down Highlands Boulevard would go by this big open space. And what
they'd see, we haven't shown the landscaping that would come back onto that slope because we're not to
that stage of the proposal really but the villa unit up on the plateau, up at 975. Highlands Boulevard at
966.5, so about 8 feet lower. Slope down to the pond at 949. That would sit down about 17 feet below
the road, and then the slope continues down to the creek, again at 937 or so. So there's a tiering affect of
the cross sectional dropping as you go across the site.
Mayor Mancino: Did you pick the less dense sections?
Rick Sathre: Well you'll see a better picture of cutting through on the yellow one. Good question
though. We wanted you to see the specIal relationship where next to the open space. But now this big
monster board, and we're going to use both easels for. Can everyone see it? This end of the board is the
top of AA. It starts up in Windmill Run, about Lot 3, Block 3, and I'm not sure who's home that is but.
The elevations up there are in the 990's. The house would be about 997. Through the backyard areas
you come into our northern single family lots. The ground is a little lower in between our first home
which sits about 6 feet lower than the home in Windmill Run. Across the street the home would be about
the same elevation but it could walk out back to our ponding site. Central pond that's between the single
family and the cottage homes. Across the pond we've got a cottage home that's a walkout in the back.
And the highest point of the site is found at this location. Another walkout unit across the street, down
toward the, this unit walks out toward the pond. These units walk out towards the spine of open space
and then this unit is shown here, and we've gone down from 1003 at the cottage home down to 982, so
we've dropped down 20 feet more or less to the villa. And then there's a plateauing or a general flatness
through, down to where we cross the road here at 978. Then we drop down across through the pond and
out to Arboretum Boulevard and the Highway 5 area. I think what's important about this, number one is
you can see the spaces, the special relationship. This cross section is drawn at 1 inch equals 20 feet, both
vertically and horizontally. So it's true to life, and the buildings are true to life. These are the Rottlund
buildings. And the other thing to recognize I think is that the sight lines from the northern part of the site
are blocked by this, the hill form that's in the middle of the property. But not when you drive down the
road. I don't know how helpful this will be but we'll take this monster down and put that away unless
there's other questions. Highlands Boulevard, another thing that I really am excited about, about the
project is, this has been an evolutionary process frankly. The road now, as it sneaks down through the
site and you get down to Arboretum Boulevard, there is some roll to the road. You go up and down some
14
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
and from the central open space area, you'll be able to see, as you round that curve in the road, this curve
in the road, you get the long view down and across Highway 5 out to all the open space that's south of
the highway. Or as you're talking down the sidewalk, now this is the eye height of somebody that's 5
feet tall and they'll be able to look right down the road, over the Highway, over Arboretum Boulevard to
the long views. So there's lots of nice features to this site topographically. There's lots of exciting
opportunities. Lee, would you put that... This board, nobody will be able to see this little chart so
maybe you can focus on it on there. I wanted to talk about density transition. And neighborhood
densities. The staff I believe has mentioned that we got, or the 268 units on 50 acres. The overall
density is 5.36 units per acre. But within that area, within that site we have different densities in
different parts of the site. This chart, both on this map, the Council's got it I believe as well. The single
family neighborhood on the north, there's 12.6 acres up there with 32 homesites. 2.54 units per acre, you
know right in the middle of the low density guide plan range.
Mayor Mancino: Rick, is that gross or net?
Rick Sathre: That's gross. That includes the street. That's a gross density. There's about 2 Y2 acres of
road in that portion of the site.
Mayor Mancino: So translate that. Can you calculate quickly?
Rick Sathre: Oooh. We'd have about, we'd have 32 units on about 10 acres net. So it'd be about 3.2 I
suppose if you pulled out all the road right-of-way. Cottage home neighborhood, which is mostly private
streets, which is in the central portion, in this portion. The cottage home neighborhood area. Again,
totally lying within the low density portion of the guiding. It's 48 units on 12.3 acres for a density of 3.9
units per acre. So again it's, we're not pushing the envelope, I don't believe. in that, up to 4 units per
acre. The villa, with the townhomes, the walkout and the larger buildings, the 8's and 12's, those are
clumped together for density purposes. Villa homes of different types are 7.52 units per acre. Again
that's a gross number. There's about, well in the upper density range or in the comp plan higher density
area there's a little under one acre of roadway in Highlands Boulevard. So what you'll see when you
look at those numbers, the 2.54, 3.90 and the 7.52 is this progression from the 2 plus density that's in
Windmill Run, gross or net, it's something over 2 units per acre. You see the transitioning as we move
away from the single family neighborhood. And I think the other thing that's important to note is that,
that where the line between low density and medium density in the guide plan is somewhere in here. The
33 acres and the 17 acres. It's only in this segment ofthe villa area, right there, that's over that 4 unit per
acre number. Okay. And that's because we're density transferring away from the periphery. We're
pushing it into the middle so we get over that, the 4 units per acre number in here. So we're in
compliance basically everywhere except right there. So doing the PUD allows us to put the density
where it makes sense, we think. So the comp plan hopefully would help the City to establish what the
maximum density on the site should be, and then we want to use the flexibility of the PUD to push the
density internal to the PUD to make the best sense of it. And now I'm going to ask Rick to come up and
close.
Rick Murray: Thanks for bearing with us. We are pretty proud of our concept. We spent a lot of time
working with the staff and with the community and hopefully coming up with something that works for
the community and uses the site in an effective and efficient manner. As has been pointed out this
evening, we are requesting the land use plan amendment. The amendment is not structured or targeted
towards densities as much as it's targeted to be able to use the sites in a manner that allows the
community the two principle areas that you focused on in this community. Bluff Creek corridor is being
kept intact, just the way it is today and will be kept intact just the way it is today with the exception of
15
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
the pond and the trail that the City will install on the south and west side. Actually I think the trail, from
what the Parks people told me, will be off of our property on the west, or southwest comer. Other than
that, that Bluff Creek area will be intact. It does provide the City with the access point for the underpass
that will allow pedestrians underneath TH 5 over to the city park area to the south. That will be the land
that you acquire for the head of that underpass. It will allow a pond sizing of which will hold the storm
water capacity from Arboretum Boulevard when Arboretum Boulevard is constructed. And it will give
you the right-of-way for the Arboretum Boulevard. It also provides the connections, as everyone's
explained, both pedestrian and vehicular, to provide efficient access and use of the land. We're not
requesting the land use amendment to accommodate density as we see it. When we designed this concept
and designed this plan, we were trying to be sensitive to the land use plan's requirements for densities.
That's, from our perspective, been somewhat of a moving target. We adjusted it when we found out that
we weren't there from the staff report in January 15th and in the staff report this evening it sounds like we
still might not be there. But our intent is to get a plan that works well on the site. We've been through
this. We like the prospects of the marketplace and we think it efficiently and effectively uses the land.
We would request that you give this consideration this evening and pass on the concept and the PUD so
that we can continue on the process. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Rick. An excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Do any Council
members have any questions for the applicant? For Mr. Murray at this time.
Councilman Berquist: I've got a couple quick ones if you wouldn't mind. Sometimes my questIons get a
little, perhaps too involved so I mean if you're not comfortable answering them, feel free. Given the site
and give the location, Mr. Whitten referred to land costs and development costs. What currently is the
cost of the land and what are you, given the 268 unit configuration, what's your anticipated cost to
develop that sIte?
Rick Murray: Just off the top of my head?
Councilman Berquist: I suspect you've done the...
Rick Murray: The cost of the land is simple, Councilman Berquist. The cost of the land is 2 million
dollars.
Councilman Berquist: How much?
Rick Murray: Two million dollars.
Councilman Berquist: So $40,000.00 an acre would be an accurate division?
Rick Murray: $40,000.00 an acre. The other part of your question however is a little more difficult. I
could certainly get that answer to you. I'd like Mr. Sathre to investigate it a little bit further. We have
some rough numbers, but they're typically broken out by different unit styles and I can't remember them
off the top of my head. I'm doing three other projects like this. Typically they would be in the range of,
oh total development cost would be $15,000.00-$16,000.00, in a broad brush.
Councilman Engel: Per acre?
Rick Murray: Per unit. That's just, that's a real, I mean I'm quite...a lot of stuffthere.
16
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Berquist: Close enough.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: Not right now thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. I know there are many of you here tonight that would like to address
the City Council. I certainly welcome you to do so. Please come to the podium. State your name and
address, and should you have any questions, please direct them to me and I will refer them to the proper
Councilmember or to staff.
Doug Domine: Good evening Mayor Mancino and Councilmembers. If you can just bear with us a
moment. Weare providing some handouts for each one of the Council members and getting set up for
our overhead presentation so if you'd just bear with us a moment I'd appreciate it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Doug Domine: Good evening. My name is Doug Domine and I reside at 2149 Majestic Way, which is in
the Royal Oaks subdivision. And my purpose tonight really is to introduce five homeowners in the Royal
Oak and Windmill subdivision that represent several of the residents that have some concerns regarding
this project. These individuals are going to present, in sequence, a series of brief presentations to
highlight these specific issues. Before we begin I'd like to state, we are not opposed to a quality
development in the Highlands area, that we're discussing this evening, and we do appreciate the
involvement of the developer and his staff and of city government in helping us and being responsive to
us through this lengthy process. What we are concerned about, Madam Mayor and Council members, is
that Chanhassen should work very closely with our comp plan in conjunction with the Livable
Communities Act. We think that's a void in this argument that's been presented this evening.
Particularly with regards to issues of compression, density and transition. And our first presenter tonight,
I'd like to introduce Jenny Bell from the neighborhood who will cover some of the issues, and we'll
move as I indicated, very quickly through this. Thank you. Jenny.
Virginia Bell: Thank you. Good evening Mayor Mancino and members of the City Council. My name
is Virginia Bell. I live at 7476 Crocus Court, which is in the Windmill Run development. I live on the
northern side of that. I urge you tonight, members of the Council and Mayor, to not approve the
conceptual plan that has been put in front of you, and I urge that for primarily one reason and that is
because it does violate the comprehensive plan. I feel that it violates the comprehensive plan in a
significant way and for that reason the Council should not approve the concept. As I look at the
comprehensive plan it exists as a statement of our values and our vision. It's a covenant. A land use
covenant between the City and it's residents. I think what is being asked here tonight is to approve a
concept that involves essentially breaking that covenant between the City and it's residents and I urge
you not to do that. 1'd like to take a moment and look at some portions of the comprehensive plan
because I feel they're central to what we're talking about tonight. This is a statement that's taken out of
the comprehensive plan. And it states, Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of
housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being
primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. I think this is important
because it states that the comp plan envisions a diversity of housing but within the context of a
community of primarily single family homes and low density. And as you well know and we've talked
about it, there's also a definition oflow density in the comprehensive plan and I think it's important just
to take a minute to focus on it because it is central I think to what we're talking about. I think there are
17
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
four key concepts here in the definition of low density. First of all the predominant type of development
within this category is single family detached housing. Secondly, densities are to be calculated on a net,
not a gross basis, and we've heard some density calculations in the developer's presentation. Some of
those I believe are gross and we need to recalculate those into net densities. The net densities are to be
1.2 to 4 units per acre and there's an average density that's quoted there of 1.7. As you know there's also
a medium density category land use which goes up to 8 units per acre, and the comp plan says that that's
the category that is reserved for or is to be set aside for townhouses, twin homes and that sort of thing. If
we look at the comp plan itself and look at what this area is guided for. The 50 acres under
consideration. As you heard in the developers presentation and some of you brought out, the top two-
thirds of the proposed development is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density and Cinda, if you
could find that map and we can just put that up. Cinda, if you could just point out where the 50 acres
that we're talking about again is what's Cinda's pointing out on that map and the top two-thirds of that is
low density. guided for low density. If! might borrow your map here. As I think we saw when the
developer was making it's presentation, this low density area is everything above a line approximately
along this private road here.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Say that again please?
Virginia Bell: The low density area is approximately above the private road that we see. As you can see
we've mapped it out here. This is the developer's proposal with the comprehensive plan overlaid on it so
you can see where the low density line runs through the development. And you can see that a substantial
number of the townhouses are above the low density line, as are all of the cottage homes. Now we've
gone through and calculated the densities in this area ourselves and we've calculated them on a net
density basis. And that's a httle small. If! could dIrect your attention back over here to the developer's
map. Our calculations show that the net density of the cottage homes is in the range of something
approximating 4.2 to 4.3 per acres. And again we are working with net, trying to work with net density
numbers which is what the comprehensive plan calls for. So all of the cottage homes are above the
density levels called for in the comprehensive plan. All of the. ObVIously the townhomes WIth densities
according to the developer m the range of7.5. I don't remember exactly what his number was but again I
think he was using a gross density number so if we use a net density, we're going to be even up higher.
Those numbers, those densities of all of these townhomes which are in the low density area, are up close
to 8 units per acre. So at the very top, if not above the medium density limits here in the low density
housing area.
Mayor Mancino: Virginia, did you take into account the open space that's allotted for there? The green
area.
Virginia Bell: Yes we did. Yes we did. If we look at all of the area in the proposed development that's
above the low density line. In other words, all the area that's supposed to be developed low density,
other than the single family homes, and we take all of that area and calculate the density, that density is
approximately 5.6 units per acre, and again we're trying to calculate that on a net basis. The bottom line
is, this is an area that is guided for low density and what is being placed on here is medium density and,
when we get to the townhouses down at the bottom, high density. And that is contrary, directly contrary
to the comprehensive plan. In addition the comprehensive plan envisions this low density area as being
primarily single family housing, and what we see being placed on here is primarily townhouse housing.
Cottage homes, set out as a variation oftownhomes and the villa townhomes. The proposed development
is also I think inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the reasons that I think Mayor Mancino was
referring to, or referencing with respect to the PUD ordinance. What is being placed on this land is a
multi-family PUD. And if we look at our city ordinances, a multi-family PUD is reserved for land that is
18
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
guided under the comprehensive plan as low density. And Cinda if you could find that section, we have
taken part of the ordinance and blown it up for you so that you can see how that reads. This is out of the
Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-508. Generally, single family attached, cluster, zero lot line and
similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed or designated for medium or high density
residential uses by the City of Chanhassen comprehensive plan. And what these are, are cluster zero lot
line dwelling types. Obviously these are zero lot line housing types as well. So these types of units are
not supposed to be put on areas that are guided as low density under the comprehensive plan. There are a
couple other places in the ordinances where this concept is also expressed. In other words, no multi-
family PUD on a low density area. And Cinda I believe it's 2505, if you could find that. The Section
about density transfers. This is Section 20-505, Section C(3) out of the Chanhassen Code. And what it
says is density transfer in single family detached areas will be evaluated. And the second sentence says,
density transfer eligible for multi-family areas are not permitted to be applied to single family areas. And
we just saw how the low density area is designated as the single family area and the medium to high, the
multi-family area so there can't, according to the Code, you can't be transferring densities between areas
that are low density and areas that are medium to high density. So the plan that we see in front of us is
inconsistent with the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and the City's PUD ordinances for at least three
very significant reasons. First of all it's putting the medium and high density onto the area guided for
low density. And secondly, it is placing on that low density area predominantly multi-family housing,
not single family housing. And thirdly, and very importantly, it is using and placing on a low density
area a multi-family PUD which the Code sections say are not supposed to be put on a low density area. I
want to emphasize that I, and many of the other homeowners in our area, do not object to the diversity of
housing concept and recognize that the area at the bottom of the proposed development is guided for
medium density and there are going to be some medium density housing down there. So as a concept we
are not objecting to this portion. On a conceptual basis. What we object to is the introduction of the
medium and high density housing on the low density area. We object to that because when we moved
into the area, we moved into a low density area which we understood, and what the comp plan very
clearly provides, was going to be part of a larger, low density neighborhood. By placing multi-family
housing and medium and high density in what we understood to be an extension of our neighborhood,
you're changing the character of our neighborhood, and you are beginning to overwhelm the single
family housing in the low density area with multi-family housing. That changes the character of the
neighborhood. It changes what we were buying into when we moved to Chanhassen and were guided by
the comprehensive plan. As many of you who were here when we objected, and discussed the previous
development that was going to go on this, many of us were told about the comprehensive plan by
planning staff. And planning staff discussed the fact that this was going to be low density and single
family housing. So most of us moved in with the expectation that this would be low density. I think the
residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks relied upon the comprehensive plan and the
Council should not be changing that comprehensive plan. In a sense you shouldn't be breaking that
covenant with the residents. The land use covenant. I think this has implications, not only for the
residents of Windmill Run and the residents of Royal Oaks, but it has implications for our whole
community. Ifwe begin to change the comprehensive plan, break that covenant with the residents here, it
can be broken anywhere. What purpose is there for a comprehensive plan if it can simply be amended
and changed simply because the developer wants to add more units and to make his plan fit. I also think
that this is a very visible area. One of the things that we saw in the developer's presentation was the
height up here where the cottage homes are. That's a very visible area and this is a very busy intersection
of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. What people are going to see as they drive through are those
cottage homes, and later you'll see some pictures of what those cottage homes look like in place, and
they're row after row of garage. And so what you're going to see as you drive by and look up on that
knoll, is that row after row of garage. I don't know if that's the kind of impression that we want to leave
as people drive through the city of Chanhassen. I think this is also precedent setting for our community
19
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
because it's a PUD, and because it's one of the first developments along the Bluff Creek corridor with
the new Bluff Creek, as I understand it, requirements in place. As a PUD, as I read through the PUD
ordinance, I understand that the PUD is supposed to be a trade off between the developer and the City.
As I look at this, I don't see much ofa trade off. There's supposed to be enhanced environmental
sensitivity, high quality of development, provisions of public and private space and recreational space.
There is some common space up there but for this entire development there is absolutely no recreational
area. No totlot, that type of thing, and frankly there is very little open space for what we see here. I
don't see an enhanced quality of development as compared to elsewhere in the City of Chanhassen. Nor
enhanced environmental sensitivity. The developer said that the PUD was not being used to increase
density. I think that's exactly what's going on here. The PUD is being used to increase density. Raise
density from, it's supposed to be on a low density area, from a medium all the way up to a high density
area at the edge along here. I think what a PUD, this PUD would result in, is a winning situation for the
developer. A winning situation for the land speculator, and a losing situation for the residents of
Chanhassen, and those of us in Windmill Run and Royal Oaks in particular. I want to add on a, just on a
personal note that I think we live in a wonderful community and I think this is a wonderful neighborhood.
There's a lot of diversity in our neighborhood. We have a lot of children. We have a lot of empty
nesters. We have single family parents. Or excuse me, single parent families. We have a wide variety of
people. It's a wonderful, wonderful neighborhood. It's a wonderful place to live. I think if you begin to
overwhelm that neighborhood with multi-family housing, I think you're going to destroy the character of
that neighborhood. You're going to destroy the feel and the character that that neighborhood has. I don't
think you should be doing that. I want to point out one more thing, and that is as we saw on the land use
plan, there is medium density planned for next to this. There is also either medium or low density above
it. Beyond us is Prince's estate which isn't going to be developed. If you allow this PUD to go through
with this level of multi-family housing, we are going to be an Island of single family housing in a sea of
multi-family housing. That's just not what we bought into and bargained for when we moved to
Chanhassen. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Brian Monteith: Good evening. My name is Brian Monteith. I live at 2159 Brinker and I live there with
my wife and two children and we, like a lot of the other neighbors that we live adjacent to, moved in with
an understanding that there was going to be a different type of development put behind us. And basically
what I've been asked to do is to come up here and set the stage for what I think is being proposed here
and then put up a couple of numbers as it relates to what is really, set the stage for where we are and help
to understand what is being proposed here, just from a numbers perspective. Also add to some other
considerations that haven't yet been addressed but I promise to be brief. Basically what we have is today
66% of the land that is under consideration is being guided for low density and 34% is presently guided
for medium density. So that is where we are today and then what we have is preliminary approval for
this type of zoning since 1995. I'd also like to point out that the land itself is compressed. We
understand that based on Bluff Creek and the Arboretum Boulevard that's going in there. We understand
that certain sections of the development poses a development challenge because of that. Now what is
being proposed here, Cinda the next chart, is 70% of the housing is being proposed as multi-family
housing on a piece ofland that is presently guided 66% of which for low density housing. What that
means in number is 188 of268 houses is going to be multi-family houses. That is not consistent with
what it's presently guided for. And only 12% of the houses being proposed are going to be put in for
what it's presently being guided for. So I think that's very, very substantial and very much in conflict
from what a lot of good work went into this comprehensive plan. The other reasons that I think are very
key here are issues that have been brought up in that medium and high density zoning exists just to the
east and I think that's very important consideration here. Why change something that is presently zoned
20
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
for something that is, why change something where it's presently zoned when you have something
directly adjacent to that which would be a better fit for a development like this from a density
perspective. Although the developers tried and it's been a pleasure working with Mr. Murray to try and
accommodate our concerns. I mean when I look at this plan, it's very much a stacked unit development.
There's very little green space overall when you consider that there's 268 units and it also, it sets a
precedent here that if we start changing things around, as it's already been described, we will set a
precedent that will enable that to happen more and more in the future and I don't think that's a precedent
to set at this point. We do feel as a development...transitions here. The transitions of being that most of
the density is up near the middle of the plan is not acceptable to us as a neighborhood. It's very visible
for us and overall I think the word that I'm trying to look for is, this is not just dense, it's very intense
and that is something that I think we ought to deal with. The other thing that comes to mind is that this
development plan really isolates the Hennessy home. I mean they have not even considered taking that
into account as being part of the overall neighborhood and I think the developer could have been a lot
more creative in how he worked in the transition of the Hennessy home as an overall part of the plan.
Some major concerns that I also have, have to do with the overall traffic. I mean I come from the East.
There are a lot of trails in the East. If you come here to Minnesota there's trails around but not
particularly where we live and on any given summer day you'll have my children and my neighbor's
children out in the street riding their bikes and such and that's where kids ought to be but with the way
this development is proposed, even though the developer has worked with us to try and move the road a
little bit, I think there will be an increase in traffic in our neighborhood and I believe that what that does
is it puts my children in danger. And I think that that's something that really makes me angry because
my children in danger, I don't think there's any reason to do that. As it relates to base level services and
the school impact. I think if you go to Bluff Creek School on a given day, you'll see one thing that's
common throughout and that's that the classes are very full. Even if you added you know 10 to 15 kids,
which would be consistent with what I think the gentleman from Rottlund said, even though I think the
number of children would be significantly more, I think that will put an undue burden on the schools
there and I don't see any new construction going on in new schools as we sit here today. So in a nutshell
I think this development is much too dense. I'm not against the concept in spirit, other than the fact that
it is very, very dense and I think that is the major thrust of our objections as it relates to this plan. Thank
you very much.
What I'd like to do now is introduce another neighbor of mine, David Jensen who will take you through
the density numbers.
David Jensen: Hi, my name is David Jensen. I live at 2173 Brinker Street. Our back yard is facing this
development. I'm here to walk you through the density numbers, which don't show up really well there
but you have them in your packets I believe and I'll do my best. Again, one of the big issues we have is
all the density numbers that we hear coming from the developer have been gross numbers. And so
looking at the plan and everything, everything that we're seeing pretty much is based on that acreage. So
to just go through the numbers here, starting on the left. There's 33 acres zoned for low density
currently, or planned for low density and 17 acres gross for medium density. As I understand the City's
plans and everything, net acreage is supposed to be gross acreage minus right-of-ways and wetland areas
and so forth. Talking with city planners, we had heard at one point that 6.9 acres of this property that's
being developed was right-of-way acreage and there's another 6,000 square feet of wetland. So based on
our numbers, we came up with, rounding that off to 7 acres. We broke that up as putting 5 acres up in
the top 33 acre parcel and 2 acres in the bottom 17 acre parcel. And taking that acreage off of the gross
acreage gave us 28 acres net in the low density development, and 15 acres net in the medium density
development. Now going by the comprehensive plan, looking at the minimum plan, or zone for the low
density, they're talking 1.2 units per acre. Taking the 1.2 and multiplying it by the 28 acres net, that gave
us total units there at 33.6 units. In the medium density they're talking the minimum there is 4 units per
21
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
acre. Taking the 4 units per acre, multiplying it by the 15 acres, that gave us 60 units. So going by the
comprehensive plan minimum, we came up with 94 acres being developed on those 50 acres. The next
column there, we're looking at the comprehensive plan as guided. This essentially is what the
comprehensive plan felt would be the averages for the certain developments and that's based on gross
acreage. In looking through the plan they have averaged 1.7 units per acre gross for low density, and 4.6
units per acre gross for medium density. Again, taking those and multiplying those by the gross acreage,
1.7 units times 33 gross acres came up with 56 units on the low density. The 4.6 units times the 17 gross
acres came up with 78 units on the medium density. Adding those together, we come up with 134 units
on the total development. The next set of columns, this next set of numbers is a Livable Communities
Act. Livable Communities Act essentially asks the communities to come up with a plan on how they
plan on developing the land that they had in their areas and what kind of densities would be put on there.
In talking to the city planners, it says in the plan that the City of Chanhassen submitted, they expected 1.8
units per acre to be developed on the low density and the number that we also got for the medium density
from Kate was, we'd have to push that all the way up to 8 units per acre just to make up what we've lost
in the past at medium density developments. Taking those numbers out and multiplying them by the
acreage again, this is again net acreage. We come up with 50 units on the single family, low density
acreage and 120 units on the medium density and summing those up is still only 170 units on the entire
development, and that's going by the Livable Communities Act. The next column is the comprehensive
plan maximum. This is the maximum units that could be developed there according to the
comprehensive plan. There they're saying 1.2 to 4 units per acre net on the low density zoned parcel, and
taking the 4 units, which was the maximum and multiplying it by the 28 net acres, we come up with the
number of 112 units on the low density development. Medium density, the maximum there is supposed
to be 8 units per acre times the 15 net acres, comes up with 120 units. Summing those up we have a
maximum that could go in there of about 232 units on these 50 acres. And the fourth column or last
column there is essentially the developer's calculations. They took the zone numbers, 1.2 to 4 units per
acre and they multiplied those by the gross acreage instead of the net acreage. So taking 4 units per acre
times the gross acreage, you come up with 132 units. Taking 8 units per acre times the gross acreage
again in medium density you end up with 120 units. Adding that together gives you the 268 umts. Now
we have some charts here also to give you a little visual of what these numbers really look like. Again,
the first bar on the left is the comp plan minimum of 94 units per acre, or I mean 94 in the development.
The second bar is a comp plan average of 134 units on the development. The third one again, the LCA,
the Livable Communities Act goal is 170 units on the development. The fourth bar is the maximum
according to the comp plan and that's 232 units on the acreage. And the last bar there is the RDI plan
which they have 268 units that they're trying to put in there. We have one more chart and that is looking
at the density. Instead of just total number of units, we're looking at density here too. And we added one
bar here. This is essentially, the second bar here, the WRRO, that's Windmill Run, Royal Oaks average.
So the comp plan minimum has it at 2.2 units per the development. Our current developed area, we're at
2.3 units. The next, the comp plan average, we're at 3.1. Going by the LCA goals puts it up to 4. The
comp plan maximum is 5.4 units per acre and again the RDI plan, they have at 6.2 units per acre. In just
looking at the chart you can see, they might want to call it a transition but it's a mighty steep transition if
you ask me. That's it for may little act here. Now if you don't mind, I'd like to introduce Joan Joyce
who has...
Mayor Mancino: Is there a back-up? Did somebody check these numbers for you?
David Jensen: Check the numbers for me?
Mayor Mancino: Just kidding.
22
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street. My back yard abuts this
development, proposed development. I would like to take a look at RDI's Plan #3 and go through to
explain some of the features that we feel definitely don't measure up to what a good development would
be. It does not comply with the PUD ordinances. I would like to point that out. We feel that it is
insensitive to the Bluff Creek watershed. We feel that it's going to be a very congested look from
Highway 5 and it does require the City to amend it's comprehensive plan. First of all I'd like to start
with, do you want to put up the comprehensive plan and show the designation of where that line goes
across. I think we've seen this a couple oftimes before so I'll be brief. But I did want to point out how
much of this development is not in sync with the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. To start with,
I'd like to look at the villas and discuss the compression of the villas with regard to the Bluff Creek
watershed area and the Highland Road. What we're dealing with here is, because of the Bluff Creek and
the road, we end up taking a number of 12 plexes and various other combinations and compressing them
down into a much smaller area. Therefore creating what is going to appear as a high density area from
the Highway 5 corridor. According to Section 20-505, referring to buffers in the city code, it states that
buffer yards are, we believe, by the way I'm jumping ahead of myself but because of the compression, we
believe because of the compression here, that this land is intensely used and that's been referred to
before. So going back to the city code with regards to land use for intensely used purposes, the code, the
ordinance reads, buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity
uses interface with lower density uses. In these areas a 50 foot buffer yard is to be required where the
interface occurs along the public street, and a 100 foot buffer yard is required when the interface occurs
on internal lot lines, and I don't see any suggestion of buffer areas in the villas. A buffering of the villas
at all. Now I'd like to move on to the cottage homes and discuss Section 20-508. That refers to the lot
size. There is a minimum lot size required of 5,000 square feet. RDI's plans are proposed at 3,200
square feet. We also think that there is something to be said about the VIew of what these cottages are
going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. Particularly the southeast corner, as you're coming up.
You will see the villas and then behind the villas you will see the cottage homes up on the top of the
knoll, and that will be visible. I believe the top of the knoll is 1013 feet. So that is something, I've been
out there with my children sledding and you can see for miles around. Perhaps right now we might want
to pull up the slides of what these cottage homes look like. We find that these cottage homes are very
much a repetitive look. They're bland in color. There isn't a lot of distinction from one cottage home to
the other. Basically what one would end up seeing is row after row after row after row of garage and
similar structures with regard to rooflines. In addition to the fact that you can see on the upper left
picture there appears to be a space between two cottage homes, 4 trees in there. Just complete, I see no
green space. I don't see, I can't even imagine what that would look like from the Highway 5 corridor.
Now I'd like to go back to the overhead for the, thank you Cinda. I'd like to also look at the single
family lots on this area. According to Section 20-506 in the PUD ordinances, that refers to single family
detached houses. There is a minimum lot size requirement of 11,000 square feet with an average lot size
being 15,000 square feet. RDI's proposal here has 12 lots that are approximately 9,000 square feet. It
also states within the ordinance that there is a minimum width requirement at the building setback of 90
feet, and they have stated that the width of the lot is 70 feet on the northern side of the road that
continues from the Windmill Run neighborhood, and also a 65 foot width on the southern side ofthat
road. Now I'd like to talk a little bit about green space for this plan. As you can see, there isn't too
much to talk about. Maybe we ought to progress to the next slide. We go back to the overhead of the
RDI's plan #3. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, we need to stick with that. One other thing I wanted to mention
before I move onto a conceptual plan that we've put together, is Ijust really, really feel for the neighbors,
our neighbors to the south of us, John and Dani Hennessy. They have sat through I don't know how
many meetings watching proposals being put forth to the City Council and I'mjust amazed that they can
sit in their seats and be so pleasantly quiet knowing full well how much they've been ignored. They've
lived here for a number of years. They're on a 2 acre lot. I have yet to see a development, or a proposal
23
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
that incorporates them as a single family detached house, and once again I think that's something that we
really need to consider here. They've been a member of, residents of Chanhassen for quite a number of
years from what I understand. I would like to move on now to a conceptual plan of our own that we've
put together. We do not claim to be developers and so we've tried to make it simple. I'm sure there are
things in here that you would find are not appropriate, but once again we are not developers. We wanted
to show you what something would look like reflecting a density that we feel is a little bit more
appropriate for this area. And this plan that we're going to show you incorporates a number of things
and I'd just briefly like to go over those. Cinda, would you like to put the smaller slide up for that?
Okay. This is the plan. It abides by the comprehensive plan. It abides by the Livable Communities Act.
Goals. It provides diversity of housing. It offers small cluster of housing types, therefore creating a
neighborhood atmosphere. It provides trails, green space and proper transitions, and it's a much better
view from the Highway 5 corridor. Now let's put the overhead up that designates low density. High
density. Thank you. We looked at this and tried to come up with again something that we thought would
follow the comprehensive plan with regard to density. And in a minute we'll take a bigger look, a closer
look at this overall conceptual plan that we have, but as you can see, what this does is provide a little bit
better scale with regard to a single family neighborhood and how it relates to higher density areas
according to the comprehensive plan. Thank you Cinda. This comprehensive plan I think provides a lot
of opportunities for transition between housing types. There's a much more gradual transition from one
type of housing to another. First of all, I'd like to go over these, what we have here with regards to how
many single family homes and how we came up with that configuratiOn. We looked at the Livable
Communities Act and we realized that there were some goals set forth that the City wanted to guide by.
So we took those figures which are 1.8 for low density and 8 for mediUm density and we calculated them
out according to the net density that we reflected in an earlier chart. The net density for the low, or the
net density for the upper portion of the area is 28 acres and we multiplied that by 1.8 to come up with 50
single family detached homes. In the lower portion, the 17 acres to the south. We took off the 2 acres to
come up with 15 acres and we multiplied that by 8 which is the maximum allowed in a medium density
area and we came up with 120 units. We have included those 120 units to be the cottage homes and the
villas. We have grouped those together because under the PUD ordinances those are considered to be of
the same housing type. We feel that, actually what I'd like to do is, okay. Cinda, do you have the
overhead that states how many cottage. We had 17 cottage homes in this conceptual plan. Okay, so I
just wanted to clarify that. I wanted to break down the higher density units between VIllas and cottage
homes and I don't happen to have those figures in front of me but I can go through that because I think I
know them pretty well. I'm sorry for the delay. Okay. You do have these in your packet?
Mayor Mancino: What page number are you on?
Joan Joyce: It is the page that is directly, the next page after the large conceptual plan. It's called
conceptual plan and it starts out with the 49. Right after our conceptual plan.
Councilman Engel: There you go.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Joan Joyce: The way this lays out here, we have 49 is what we ended up doing. We put in 49 single
family detached homes on 28 lots. 17 cottage homes. Then we put in 8 fourplex villas, which amounts
to 32 more units. And those are the villas, right there. Thank you Cinda. Right along the Bluff Creek
corridor. We put in sixplex and they're half the larger units. Then we put in 3 eightplex units to come up
with 24 units and we put in three l2-plex units. We believe that this is a much better distribution of
density. There's variety in here. There's more green space. Again the lower right hand portion of the
24
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
villas lends itself to future development to the east, which is also designated as medium density. So I
think that follows very well and I think it's a very logical thought out plan.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me Joyce, can I ask you one question. On your densities, you used for your
low density guide the exact same density that your neighborhoods are, the 2.3.
Joan Joyce: No, we used the 1.8, which is what the Livable Communities Act goal is guided for, and in
doing so we took that density, which is ending up to be a lower density, and pushed it together up to the
northern portion to allow for a little bit more green space. Those lots are drawn to be equal to the lots in
our, in the Windmill Run development. They are of equal size or smaller but predominantly they follow
the PUD plan. Now again I'm not a developer so I can't.
Mayor Mancino: Ijust wanted to know what density, net density you were basing it on.
Joan Joyce: We did base it on the Livable Communities Act.
Mayor Mancino: So it's a lower net density than in your neighborhood, okay.
Joan Joyce: We also thought that it was appropriate to put in a trail system through the area, and that
runs north of the cottage homes. Through the temporary pond. We think that's a very logical place. We
also put in four areas of common space throughout the development and those again provides a little bit
of buffer between the housing types. We put in two cul-de-sacs in the single family detached housing
area up to the north. And we put in three cul-de-sacs being smaller, more like turn around cul-de-sacs for
the cottage homes. And then we put a center island down in the middle there. Again, I think all of this,
or they're small aesthetic features that contribute to a higher quality plan for this area. Another thing that
we wanted to do, we think again it makes sense, is to incorporate the Hennessy property and so we
changed several of those to single family lots and then again there's the possibility of them to turn their
driveways so that it comes offthe cul-de-sac. And one thing we did not do in this plan was we did not
alter the roads. We left them where they are. Although there are concerns with residents in our
neighborhood with regard to that road going through, that is a concern of ours and we would like to look
at that further down the line. Right now our biggest concern was to, our biggest effort here, we wanted to
show you some idea of what a more appropriate density would be in that area. Are there any questions
at all?
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from Councilmembers? Thank you, none.
Joan Joyce: Thank you. Now Kevin Joyce would like to come up and say a few things.
Kevin Joyce: And just a few things. Very quickly. Kevin Joyce, 2043 Brinker Street. My job is to
summarize our presentation, which is actually a very easy chore to do because I think it was very well
organized by our group. However I'll admit that I'm a little worried about some of my fellow neighbors,
particularly after this weekend. When we were putting together this presentation Friday I overhead my
wife and other neighbors citing by memory various City Code sections to be included in our presentation
so I think some of my fellow presenters know more about the Chanhassen City Code than should be
considered mentally healthy for the normal person at this point. I think they did a great job. I commend
all of them. Basically what I'd like to do is distill this down into two fundamental issues. And the first
issue is the economics or the price ofthe subject property and the second issue is the goals our city has
committed for diversity in housing. It boils down to a very simple equation. The price of the property.
The higher the price, the more density is necessary to achieve diverse types of housing. With that said
25
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
this project is requesting the following compromises in order for the project to go forward. It's basically
asking the neighbors to compromise their expectations of 2/3 of the property to the south of us being a
continuation of our neighborhood as presented to them by the City when they invested in their homes.
They're certainly asking you to compromise on the comprehensive plan to inflate the densities to allow
for this project. It's asking to compromise the Highway 5 corridor study, which I know some
Councilmembers are intimately familiar with. I think you all had higher expectations than some of these
12-plexes, very similar to the Dell Road, Highway 5 thing that are suggested in this plan. We're also
compromising the PUD ordinance, which Jenny covered. The plan certainly addresses housing diversity.
But in practicality compromises the other seven aspects of the PUD ordinance which gives benefit to the
City ofChanhassen. So there's a lot of compromises from our neighborhood. A lot of compromises
asked for the City. What have we got on the other side of the equation? Certainly the single family
aspect of the plan is a feature that I think our group is very happy with, and it helps move this project
towards something. The change in the road connection from the original plan also shows that the
developer's listening to our concerns, and that's important. But the density remains unchanged from the
original plan. There's 268 units, we've discussed. 188 we consider high density, which actually are high
density. I think there's a telling point. 268 units are probably the benchmark on whether this project is
fiscally feasible for RDI. It goes back to the basic equation. We've got all sorts of compromises over
here to wedge this density into this plot of land. What about the cost of the property? What about the
seller? Is the City willing to request all these compromises. The zoning contortions, the PUD
interpretations, so the seller gets a premium price he's asking for this site? Now no one is here faulting
the owner in getting the most money he can for his property. However we do fault, find fault rather in
asking us to compromise our neighborhood with artificially high densities. Also asking the City to
amend it's land use plan so the seller gets his price. The idea of this PUD I think is intriguing, but the
concept with the related density levels just doesn't work. And considering all the related factors,
particularly the economic factor, I don't think it fits here. As we saw, there are other parcels ofland in
Chanhassen. The land right adjacent to us that was shown to the east, that's guided for this kind of
project, could accommodate this project, then it would certainly fit in there. So in closing, I think we like
certain aspects of this project. I think we're a group that's reasonable. We like to work with developers.
You know in good faith. But personally my concern, what I think the neighborhood is suggesting here is
the density over shadows all the other good aspects of this project. We just can't get away from where
the high density is in the guided portions of the low density. So unless we see something baSIcally
radically ditferent or certainly a lot lower densities, I would ask that you turn down this request. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council? Rick. Oh, go ahead
John.
John Hennessy: Good evening Mayor, Councilmen. My name is John Hennessy. My wife Dani and I
live at 7305 Galpin Boulevard. We wrote a letter to the Council and I would like to summarize our main
points for the record. The property in question is guided by the land use plan for certain densities. We
do not feel that the circumstances are such that either the benefit to the City is so outstanding or that the
quality of the project is so innovative and exciting that there's enough compelling reasons to amend the
comprehensive plan. The only example I can think of where the City has amended the comp plan is for
Villages on the Pond. And that project meets both the City benefit and the excitement innovation
criteria, in our opinion. We are not against a PUD or two PUD's for this property as long as all of the
guidelines are adhered to. In our case the issue of sensitivity of transition is a major concern. Our two
story detached home will not blend at all with zero lot line detached single level cottage townhouses.
Homes and lots of a similar nature to the ones in Windmill Run, the neighborhood to the north, would be
more appropriate adjoining our property and in keeping with the requirements for a PUD sensitive
26
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
transition. We have lived in our home on Galpin for 15 years and I would have to say we're pretty darn
happy right where we are. We would ask the Council not to make us the island in the sea of density, but
a part of the neighborhood that looks like it belongs there. Lastly we'd ask that you give a little extra
consideration to the area along the Highway 5 corridor. This is the gateway to Chanhassen and any
development visible from the highway should reflect on the pride we have in our city. Thank you.
Rick Murray: I have several comments this evening. I'll only respond probably to two of them. First of
all, we learned about the net density calculations with the staff report and then some further information
later this afternoon. The amount of right-of-way and wetlands on the site is 4.42 acres total. Not the 7 as
reflected in the charts that you're looking at. It does have a significant impact on the 232 units on that
chart. It would allow approximately 245 units on a net density basis. It's always been our plan to meet
your comprehensive plan. If you'll check staff reports and discussions that we've had with staff, 268
units weren't our magic number. We responded to that number and staff with recommendation. We
think the 268 units fit well on the site. We think it provides a level of opportunity of housing, which are
life cycle housing in Chanhassen and we can provide that on this site. We do have to accommodate the
costs aspects on our subdivision and our project. If the focus, and it seems to have been this evening, is
on density and the net is the issue, we'll adhere to that. It is going to have an impact on the affordability
of our housing. Unfortunately in this world it's very seldom that you get everything that you are after in
one particular parcel. We wanted to provide a substantial amount of this property as affordable housing.
Provide that kind of opportunity in Chanhassen because in Chanhassen there is a gap. Predominantly
single family houses. We saw that on the screen tonight. We have predominantly single family houses
in our housing stock in this community. We have had ever since I started developing here. We need to
focus a little bit on getting some diversity in opportunities which this community has done in the last
couple of years and I see it transitioning it towards and I applaud that effort because there are some
communities in the metropolitan area that aren't making that kind of step forward. And that's all I'll say
about that. The next issue, I want to bring back our cross section because the Highway 5 corridor has
been mentioned a couple times this evening. And from Highway 5, there are going to be two units. Two
buildings. These two and possibly part of that one that you will see from Highway 5. The rest of it,
because ofthe terrain differential, will be hidden. Granted part of them will be hidden by those first two
buildings. But when you're driving down... you're driving down Highway 5 and you're looking
across.. .looking back up into the site, you're going to see the end of that building...
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry Rick, are we traveling west to east or east to west? Where are we looking
from? Oh I see.
Rick Murray: Okay, let's travel from east to west. You're looking back up into the site.
Councilman Engel: Right to left on your long map is bottom to top on your yellow line?
Rick Murray: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Say that one more time.
Rick Murray: From, I was talking about, there's a visual aspect right here on Highway 5 looking back
into the site.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I was just trying to figure out where the pond was.
Rick Murray: As you travel Highway 5 you're going to get...
27
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Engel: Where the pink line intersects the yellow line.
Rick Murray: .. . changes the point of view or image as you travel the highway. Looking this way, at
these two units, it pretty much shelters everything because it is such a plateau that's behind it and it's
above, well above the level of the highway. As you're traveling west to east, you're looking back across
that expanse which covers the creek, and back through this way. You'll see predominantly the end of the
buildings. ..
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason has a question.
Councilman Mason: Rick, what about is the, what's the difference in elevation between Highway 5 and
that first home, give or take?
Rick Murray: 950 or 31 feet.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
Rick Murray: It's 31 feet higher...
Councilman Mason: Right, understood. Right, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Murray from Councilmembers? Thank you. Anyone else?
That's it for tonight?
Councilman Mason: It's only been 2 hours.
Mayor Mancino: I'll bring that back to Council. Yeah, Mr. Hennessy.
John Hennessy: I've driven this road for quite a few years and as I come...I can see the homes up in
Windmill Run quite vividly. All of this will be visible from Highway 5...
Mayor Mancino: I know that too. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? This is it. Okay, seeing
none. Let me bring this back to Council. First before we start with comments, do any Council members
have any questions of staff? Mr. Murray. Any calculations? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Bob and Kate, are you ready? If you took the first cul-de-sac as you come in,
adjacent to the Hennessy's there. Okay. And shorten that cul-de-sac and put four single family lots
around it, okay. Reducing the density there from 6 units to 4 units. And if I'm counting everything right
beyond that, where the line is on the comprehensive plan, basically where this proposal sits is within 2 to
3 units of meeting the net density requirements on the north portion.
Kate Aanenson: No. We still shifted some of the villas are still villas in some of that area, which is
making it higher.
Councilman Senn: Well the villas are but I'm just saying the overall density of, the net density of the 33
acres is 124 units, right?
Mayor Mancino: No, 144. At 4.83 units per acre. The northerly 33 acres.
28
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Kate Aanenson: ... what you're looking at, the chart that they put up showing the low density. . .
Councilman Senn: No, what I'm saying is if you take the 33 acres and decide on a net density acreage of
around 31 acres times 4 units, that's 124 units, right? Okay. So effectively, under the comp plan,
there'd be an allowance of about 124 units on the 33 acres.
Mayor Mancino: On the 31 ?
Councilman Senn: That's what I'm asking, okay. Okay, so basically, give or take a unit or two.
Mayor Mancino: How'd you get to 31? How you'd get to 31 ?
Councilman Senn: I'm using net. I'm using 33 to 31 acres. Took 2 acres out and 31 times 4, okay?
Mayor Mancino: But is 2 acres correct? Yeah, that's what.
Rick Sathre: Net's essentially 3.2 acres.
Councilman Senn: So out of the 33 acres? Not the 17 now?
Rick Sathre: No. There's 3.2 acres in the northern 33...
Mayor Mancino: But what about wetlands or retention ponds?
Councilman Senn: So then you're roughly at 30 acres?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: So roughly 120 units, okay? Okay. And if you take the 120 units, I mean with that
changeover by the Hennessy's, it seems to me you're within a halfa dozen units at best of meeting the
coverage requirements on the north 33 acres.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, you'd have to take out 24 units because right now those 33 acres
contain 144 units. 32 single family, 48 cottages, 16 single loaded townhouses, and 48 villas. The
northern 33 and that's on page 4 of the staff report. So to get it down to 120, you'd need to delete 24
units. According to staff report. Is that correct? Okay. It's at the top, paragraph on page 4. Because
I've highlighted it too.
Councilman Senn: So you've got 20 units. Boy, then I'm still confused because I'm not seeing that. I
mean you've got 48 single family units, right?
Rick Murray: 48 cottages.
Mayor Mancino: 32 single family.
Bob Generous: And then 48 cottages, 32 row townhouses and.
Mayor Mancino: 48 villas.
29
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Bob Generous: 16 row townhouses and 48 villa units. On the northern 33 acres right now. For a total of
144 units.
Mayor Mancino: With a net density of 4.83.
Kate Aanenson: So you were figuring 30 at 4 units an acre, that's 120 so they've got to make up the 24
units.
Councilman Senn: So 24 units off. Of the north portion. Okay. And the south portion, what's the
differential there?
Mayor Mancino: The south portion, the net density is 8.4. We're very, very close to the net medium
density of the comprehensive plan.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: So that does follow, so the concern obviously IS for the northern.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe up to 5 units on the south or something like that.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, do you want me to.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I mean if somebody else has a question, go ahead. I'mjust trying to.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else that has a question at this point? Otherwise I'll start asking for
comments. Is there any Councilmember that would like to start with their comments?
Councilman Mason: Sure. Why not? I'll even keep it fairly brief. That I'm aware of, the comp plan has
been amended four times, I'd say in the last 3 years. Less than that, 2 years. Autumn Ridge, Villages on
the Pond, the Highway 5 corridor study and the Bluff Creek study. So it's not that it's never done. It
does happen. Something I wrote down here, as the needs of the community change, so plans get
amended. So I don't, and incidentally I'm not sure the comp plan should be amended right now but I just
want everybody to know that it has been done and certainly as a government body sees fit, the option is
there to do that. I basically am in agreement with what's being said by just about everybody tonight. I
take a little exception to part of the report that you folks did about the quote, about single family. And
yes, we are primarily a low density community. I don't think we can ignore the changing times and the
different and the diverse peoples that want to move into these communities. We cannot ignore that. And
we have to deal with it and one way to make a community more diverse, to make a community more
affordable, is clearly to play around with density issues. I think you folks know that. That can't be
anything new. So I'm a little concerned about that. It seems to me the north end of this plan we're fairly
close. I share Mr. Hennessy's concerns about the homes next to his area. Councilman Senn was poking
around with that cul-de-sac and the plan was similar with what you folks had with single family homes.
That certainly looks a whole lot better to me than what's there now. I think with the, having said that the
comp plan's been amended four times in the last couple of years, I know the whole comp plan is up for
review, when Kate or Bob?
Kate Aanenson: We're doing it this year.
30
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Mason: Yeah, doing it this year. This may not be the most prudent time to amend that plan
right now. Having said that, I suspect that the comp plan wouldn't change a whole lot for this area
anyway. As I think we're close here, I think as I mentioned to the neighbors yesterday, I'm not as
concerned in that area about density as they are. I think with the, particularly if that one cul-de-sac gets
changed into four homes instead ofthe six there, there's quite a buffer of single family homes. I've got
to believe with some maneuvering around, and perhaps even increasing the densities some on the
southern end of this, we've got a workable plan. Conceptually my view, and I'm certainly only speaking
for myself right now, is the concept is doable. I'm not convinced that the comp plan should be amended
right now. And I' 11 let it go at that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: I don't know if! can be brief but I'll sure try. I moved here 5 years ago and one of
the, in fact the only question I can remember asking my realtor at the time was, what's that berm running
across the back of that open space going to be and I was in Chanhassen Hills Estates, I believe is what
that neighborhood's called, and the guy said that's going to be the proposed Highway 212. But don't
worry about it, it's been on the books for 20 years. For most people your house is probably going to be
your biggest investment. For most people. So you probably take a little extra care, especially if it's your
first home you're building, and I just said why don't we go over the hill and look at those homes. You
end up paying a lot more for the land and the house but I didn't have to deal with that every night
wondering when they were going to come back and prove me a bad gambler so I didn't buy there. And I
did it because I was basing my decision on what the City was telling me, and the County was telling me
they were going to do with that land. So if they had come back just last year when the debate was going
on about where they're going to put 212, or if they're going to put 212 somewhere and they decided well,
we decided we're going to put it north now just by your house. I would have had a little problem with
that because I built and paid more based on what they told me. I had an expectation. So J think from that
standpoint I totally understand the neighbors in Windmill Run having a problem with the zoning being
changed from where it was when they planned to build there. If they had known it, I would bet there are
several that probably would have just looked elsewhere in Chanhassen. There was a lot of places to look.
For me as well as anybody else. And you make a change or else you make a bet. It's up to you. With
that said Mr. Murray, I believe in Wild West capitalism. You make as much money as you can with your
assets. That land's your asset. By my calculations, you get time to run your numbers up here. My
mind's not as sharp as prior to having my children but doing the math by hand and Steve's dime store
calculator, you're going to have about six and a quarter million invested in that land. That's using the
$85,000.00 per acre development cost, which comes from $15,000.00 a unit, that you figured it would
take to develop it. Divide it by 50 units times 268, or divide that 50 acres times 268 units. You've got
$40,000.00 an acre in your acquisition cost. Add that up, it comes to about 6 and a quarter million.
Using the same numbers for your 268 units broken into 32 single family, 48 cottages, and 188 villa units,
with the average price for the range shown in the staff report, you can turn about $32 Y2 million in total
sales revenue, give or take a million. All right. Now the neighbors numbers bring it down to 170 units
and applying the same per unit costs, roughly, brings about $23 million in revenue on the same property.
I'm not a developer either. Just playing with the numbers. I'm sure you can correct me here. I know
there's some hidden costs and there's some carrying costs on land. I'm well aware of that. But I think
there's room to move here. Hold on, let me finish then go ahead. They're not saying no development.
They came up with a plan I think, I don't mind it either but as a, if I faced with a decision today, and I've
got to say we either change the zoning or we don't, ifthere's neighbors against it, based on the fact that it
was zoned something else when they built, then I'm against changing the plan. But I believe in self
determination as well. If you can come to an agreement with the neighbors and I don't see four rows of
neighbors there but maybe only one row. I can be pragmatic about it and I can say the neighborhood
31
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
wants the change and they like that development. I can go for it under those circumstances. And I know
my math's not perfect but you've got to do something when you're up here listening for 2 hours.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Murray, wait until we're all, I'm sorry. Wait until we're done. Thank you.
Councilman Engel: That's all I can think of.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead and keep going. I'm still figuring.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Engel: Use Steve's calculator.
Councilman Senn: I don't have one, that's why it's taking me longer.
Councilman Berquist: It's Don's. Do you want to borrow it?
Councilman Senn: Not from what Engel says.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: As with everything else, I scribble furiously and try to make sense of it later.
There's a number ofthmgs that I really like about this and 1, while people were talking I told Nancy this
reminds me of the Super Bowl because both teams have done a tremendous job of preparation. They've
both done a tremendous job of presentation. I don't look at it as a competition. I hope that there will
never be in this forum a winner take all sort of result but it's really been wonderful to watch. So I
applaud you, Rick and your team as the developer and I applaud you Kevin, and your team as the
neighbors. It's been great. The comp plan was finished in, it's never finished. The comp plan was
implemented in 1991 and to my way of looking at it, unless there is a very compelling reason to amend It,
I'm not willing to amend it on the strength of one Council meeting and one presentation by a developer
or a neighborhood. When Mr. Murray first called me, and I think we traded phone calls a couple of times
and we finally touched base one day, and he walked me through this verbally over the telephone and told
me from a conceptual point of view what it was that they were attempting to achieve. I liked it. I liked
the aspect oftransitioning into higher densities as we moved south in the project. I liked the idea of mix
of housing styles. I liked the idea of an interconnecting road with the Windmill Run area, but an
interconnecting road that provided a minimum amount of likelihood of shortcutting and traffic increase.
I felt from a public safety point of view, from a school bus cost point of view, from a snowplowing point
of view and from all the other points of view that you look at when you're talking about building
infrastructure, I thought that an interconnecting roadway was something that I would like to see done, but
I'd also like to minimize the effect on the existing neighborhood, and I believe that that plan moves in
that direction. Let's see here. Regarding the right-of-way, to give them some specifics. Regarding the
right-of-way dedication, and unless I missed my guess, and I very possibly do, the right-of-way
dedication that would take place for the southern alignment of Arboretum Boulevard would take place as
a result of development regardless. I mean it's not, if the property were to become developed, were to be
developed, we as a city have the right, if you will, to say that property is there. We've chosen this
alignment for our road and we'd like it deeded over. So I don't look at that necessarily as a give and take
sort of a situation. I'm concerned about the Hennessy's. While John was up here talking I wanted to
32
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
interject a little bit of humor and say, I'll let him eat pizza but I thought that probably wasn't the
appropriate time and I'm not sure this was.
Councilman Mason: You mean very little humor.
Councilman Berquist: Very little humor. Very little humor. The Virginia Bell talked about
comprehensive plans being covenants. And I think that that's a very appropriate description. I think a
comprehensive plan is a covenant. But it cannot be cast in stone or in concrete. It has to be something
that we believe in is right but it also has to be used as an evolutionary sort of a device that allows us to
make changes and benefits the entire community. Frankly I like the direction that this development is
headed in, but as it currently stands I do not have a good feeling for the benefit to the entire community.
I don't know that I could honestly feel in my heart that it does that. We also have other medium density
to the east. If we allow it to happen, the entire Highway 5 corridor to the northern side could become a
picket fence if you will, of medium density housing and I really would rather that didn't happen. Does it
make sense to approve a land use amendment without defining the acceptability of a particular or without
defining project acceptability? I'm not certain that it does. The fear that I have is that if in fact this is
not blessed, that you'll say well we couldn't make it work and you'll go away. Honestly, the numbers
that I ran and that Mark ran while people were talking, support a land cost significant, well. I don't think
I should get into that. I think I'm done.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Oh go ahead, throw a big number out.
Mayor Mancino: Unless you want me to go ahead and you can end up.
Councilman Senn: I don't care. I can probably do it at this point. I don't know, I guess I'm more tom.
mean I appreciate really where the neighbors are coming from in terms of what you'd like to see. In
evaluating the developer's plan though I like the plan. I like the concept. Okay. I'm not going to say it
doesn't need tweaking, because it does. I think it needs some tweaking around Hennessy's there and 1
think it needs a little more tweaking in the north, which I'm going to say at least in my mind can let it
tweak in the south a little bit too. The reason is, my fear in this whole thing is, if we draw lines and just
kind of say everything's got to happen according to this line, what you're going to get is somebody
coming back with a plan that everything north of that line is going to meet 4 units per acre, which I don't
think if what you want to see either. But I'll tell you one thing you're not going to get. You're not going
to get all single family detached homes north of that line. And I think that's what you'd like to see, but
it's not economically feasible. So effectively, unless you take this tweak it and work with it to get it
where you need to get it, my fear is what you're going to see ultimately come back is something that
meets this magical 4 units per acre north of that line. And then you're also going to get something
coming back south of that line that's going to meet that magical number of 8 units per acre, which we
would probably bend on for affordable housing, as we have in the past. In fact our ordinances allow us to
even bend further on that as a result of that. And to me to draw that kind of a line and take that kind of
approach is not the right way to deal with this piece of ground. I think this concept is the way to deal
with this piece of ground where you start up by the neighborhood with the single family homes and
increase the densities as you move to the south. I think what's got to happen from there though is the
tweaking needs to be done and we need to get the units more in line with what we need from a net
density standpoint to stay within our ordinance requirements and I don't think that's out of the realm here
and I don't think that's a reason to trash this plan so to speak. You know the developer's got to decide
whether, you know given that's economically feasible or not. That's a decision only the developer can
33
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
make for himself. But I don't want, I mean I don't want to see people leave here tonight kind of with a
yeah or nay on a concept approval that's going to lead everybody to believe that oh well, we're going to
get all single family houses above the north line and we're going to get high density below and we're just
going to keep standing pat on our position until we achieve that. I don't think that's going to happen.
And ifit does happen, I think well no I'm certain, that won't happen. I think what may happen is a worse
situation where you're going to get this magic line, 4 units here and 8 units there. And I think again, that
would just be a real kind of travesty for this piece of ground. Steve, I don't share you comments at all as
it relates to Arboretum Boulevard. We've never dealt on that basis and I don't think we should start
dealing on it now. They're already furnishing quite a bit on the project so I don't think we should be in
the business of requiring people to also furnish major roadways going through their property with no
compensation for takings. That why we created condemnation and takings in the first place. To be fair
to both sides.
Mayor Mancino: Except for that isn't true on the north side of Highway 5.
Councilman Senn: Huh?
Mayor Mancino: On the north side of Highway 5, the frontage roads.
Councilman Senn: Y eah. Yeah, just relating to the frontage roads basically. So you know I guess from
my standpoint, I mean I would like to provide the direction from nobody's standpoint other than mine
that this concept's fine. The concept just needs to keep being tweaked and I think we know what the
issues are now as it relates to net density, which ifI'm hearing the developer correctly. I don't think they
even understood until they walked in here tonight. And out of all fairness that needs to kind of go to the
next step now and I think see where this can go and conceptually again I think this is really on the right
track.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, I'll make my comments. I have attended various meetings on this proposal,
including the Planning Commission session, the Park and Rec Commission meeting. I've spoken with
the developer Mr. Murray and have met with various neighbors and have also read your letters. 1 have
visited the Rottlund cottage home development in Plymouth and I'm very aware of their Mission Hills
development. You might say I've had some time to process this proposal. After listening to your
presentations and studying our comprehensive plan and city ordinances this past week and weekend, I'm
very clear about answering the core question, whether we should say yes to request for land use plan
amendment from residential low density to residential medium density for the northern 33 acres. Our
comprehensive plan is what guides this community. We spent hundreds of hours creating this plan.
Making sure that it reflects our community's values. It is who we are and it guides where we are going.
While studying it this weekend, and wondering to myself whether a 1991 document is still relevant and
valid today, I reviewed a section called housing availability, under the Housing Section of the plan.
Policy number 8 and let me read it. This is on page, excuse me, this is on page 22. Policy number 8.
The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single
family homes. We thought about this in 1991. Chanhassen is committed to providing housing
alternatives, which I am very much so. The future land use plan is evidence of this commitment. Land
designated for future single family units, 1990 through the year 2000, will accommodate approximately
2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of housing will accommodate approximately 1,500
units. We've already planned for alternative housing. It's in our comprehensive plan. It is in our land
use plan. That's why we have medium, zoning for medium density housing. That's why we have high
density housing. I think that our comprehensive plan has looked ahead for the land that's in the MUSA
line and that we are very well planned. So for me, I would like to, or I would not be in favor of amending
34
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
our comprehensive plan to call for medium density in the northern 33 acres. I am certainly fine with the
concept plan in the southern 17 acres. But I would like to see the northern 33 acres stay within the low
density or low density PUD residential housing. Is there a motion? I think we've done good planning. I
think we've put it out there. We have agreement from the community on it and if we do want to change
it, we need to go back and decide this as a community and it needs to be done community wide. Right
now the Planning Commission in 1997 will be reviewing our PUD ordinance to decide whether that
needs to be revised, and hopefully residents will come out and we'll have due process so that they can
make comments about our PUD ordinance. And that will also happen for our comprehensive plan
changes that we'll be making this year. Otherwise this is it.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? I think Roger Knutson has two points that he would like you to consider.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Roger Knutson: A couple of possibilities you may want to consider. Well actually there are three. First,
you can obviously approve it as is or with conditions. Second, you could table, you have several, even
zeroing in on one issue essentially. There are several issues here. Planned unit development, land use
plan amendments and what not. You could table this entire matter. Send it back to the developer to
adjust what you've said here tonight and bring something else back. Or if you decide to turn it down,
then I would recommend that you direct our office, in conjunction with the staff, to prepare Findings
consistent with denial and bring that back to you. Not actually deny it tonight but direct us to prepare
Findings consistent with denial and then bnng that back. Those are the three options as I see it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Senn: I'll move number two.
Mayor Mancino: Ah Rick, that's what I was going to ask you. Have you heard enough comments from
us tonight?
Councilman Senn: Hey Rick, you don't have to answer that.
Mayor Mancino: To give you concrete direction.
Rick Murray: I absolutely have direction Madam Mayor. And I appreciate working with the neighbors.
I think the evolution ofthis plan has brought it from totally unacceptable to places where gee, there are
some light at the end of the tunnel here and hopefully that's where we're going. I appreciate Roger's
comment because I'm trying to get out of my seat. Let's see ifthere's some time, give us some time to
work on this a little bit. Our goal here is to get something that works for the whole community and the
neighbors and the project. Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist's numbers, we think you forgot
the cost of the construction of the home. You've got my land development costs pretty close and I'm
sitting here scratching my head and saying, you know $28 million bucks. That's about right. What's
wrong here? Then the gentleman from Rottlund taps me on the shoulder and says, we haven't built our
units yet Rick so.
Councilman Engel: I agree. I agree with that. Like I said, I've got those kids now. Do you get money
back when you sell those homes though?
Rick Murray: No.
35
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Engel: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Can we, I'd like to take a minute and make sure that you did hear direction and staff
did too so that we're very clear about what we want to see.
Rick Murray: I'm very clear about what you want to see.
Mayor Mancino: Oh well then, would you let me know what it is you heard us say.
Rick Murray: I heard the comments from the Council to be, that you would rather see me stay within the
land use guide plan as it exists today without amending it. We will take a very hard look at trying to do
that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Rick Murray: I think Councilman Senn was attempting to get there but there's some land uses here that
you might not end up with this product. I don't know if it's compatible with your, I mean that's the
problem that bothers me because the market that we're attempting to get to might not be compatible with
those land uses. For instance the cottage homes may disappear. We might end up with twins. We mIght
end up with the same product that the neighbors have backing up to them in their present preliminary
plat. Because that's what's acceptable in this particular zoning district. That's the kind of adjustments
that we'll have to look into.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. That you're going to be looking at.
Rick Murray: Sure. We attempted to do that transition and it's just not working out the way we were
attempting to do It so.
Mayor ManCInO: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: My comment on the, my sense of what I'm hearing from Council right now is that, I
don't, I'll only speak for myself. I don't want to give up affordable housing on this. That's my feeling,
and I said at this time I'm not convinced a comp plan change is necessary.
Mayor Mancino: But the affordable housing comes in, if I'm not mistaken, in those lower 17 acres is
really where the affordable housing.. .
Rick Murray: It's all part of the whole.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. But that's where you're picking up most of the $80 to $120,000.00.
Rick Murray: Depending on where they're ending up.
Councilman Mason: I mean I would like to see this tweaked. I would like to see this worked out. I'm
hoping and assuming that this will get tabled tonight for that to happen, but I have some other concerns.
My only concern is not just the comp plan here.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
36
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Engel: I want to add one thing Nancy.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: He's correct. I don't have the cost of the homes in those numbers. I just wanted you
guys to be aware of that. Who cares? It can't be much.
Councilman Senn: That's the cheapest part of developing in Chanhassen you know.
Mayor Mancino: Any other changes that you listened to?
Rick Murray: There's a great concern for Mr. Hennessy's property. We had taken a look at doing two
things with that piece of property, one of which is surrounding it with single family, like a couple of the
gentlemen were suggesting. And another was trying to incorporate it into our project, or part of our
project. With, quite frankly the extension of this line, the 964 onto his property, doesn't leave me
anything to develop so it's really not a possibility. There would be three cluster homes on his site. It's
better off at this point in time, from what I can see, being a single family home on a 2 acre site with a
nice back yard.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Rick Murray: To make this a cul-de-sac, single family homes, they're going to be coming around the
comer with single family homes so their building area is surrounded, it's not a huge hassle.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Rick Murray: There was concern with open space, and we have addressed that. it will probably be
addressed in somehow getting from 268 down to 200 and what, do we know what our number is yet?
241? 245? 247?
Mayor Mancino: 240 to 245.
Rick Murray: Wherever that number is in that adjustment, I'm sure we'll find some space for open
space. I still would like to keep the open space central, and it will probably stay central. I'd like to keep
it in conjunction with our community trail that's coming off of Highlands Boulevard as opposed to
spreading it out and putting a little bit down. I'd like to keep it together so it stays as large as it can.
Let's see. Did I miss any yet?
Mayor Mancino: I think that there was some consensus on the lower medium density to see the density
rise in that density. We would be open to that. In the lower 17. Little higher.
Rick Murray: To use that area for our transfers as opposed to letting it creep above? In some aspects
Mr. Senn's comment, I agree with Mr. Senn's comment. To have a straight line across there with the
way the site lays, might not be appropriate. This line comes across here somewhere like this. Some of
this should stay exactly the way it is and you saw that in the neighbor's plans as well as ours. Some of
this maybe we could.. .and consequently drop some units from that side of the site. We'll attempt to do
that.
37
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that we would be open not to see a hard, fast line. Give a little bit in
topography there.
Rick Murray: What I would like very much to see is the ability to use some fashion of the attached.
Those started out as twinhomes. Now they're detached twins because it's a lifestyle that we were trying
to approach. I'd like to see some fashion of that incorporated in this plan. Or the abIlity to do the.
Mayor Mancino: The detached single.
Rick Murray: To do the detached townhomes or the cottage homes.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, the cottage homes, yes.
Rick Murray: The problem with your ordinance as it's written now Madam Mayor is, that's not an
acceptable use.
Kate Aanenson: You have to change the land use to accommodate that. That's how we got to this point.
Rick Murray: That's how we kind of arrived here. If that was the only change, and we limited that
change to include this kmd of, because those units are only 3.9, 4.1. I'm getting my numbers gross and
net.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, I can't believe it.
Rick Murray: Whatever that number is, they're really close. And it's the lifestyle that I'd like to offer on
this site because it's going to be very, very attractive. It's going to have the walkouts on the one side.
And slab homes on the other. A great variety and diversity.
Mayor Mancino: I understand.
Rick Murray: If that could be incorporated somehow in our direction, it would help us and our
configuration of the site plan.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: You know Rick, I think you heard Mike leave the door open. You know again I'm
going to say I would strongly support a guide plan amendment to transition that property versus a like
across it that's going to say 4 units an acre and 8 here. The other three have to speak for themselves but I
think that's the way this property has to be developed. I think what you've got to do is just tweak your
densities.
Rick Murray: I agree.
Councilman Senn: Load the south more.
Rick Murray: I totally understand Mark and I heard the comments. I've been doing this for 20 years and
I always count so.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
38
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Mason: If one does amend the comp plan, I assume that we make the amendment very
specific to that certain situation, i.e. it would not be amended because of density but it would be amended
because of housing style.
Councilman Engel: Can we just amend that as part of a PUD? For example you were talking about, you
can't do that?
Roger Knutson: You need a guide plan amendment.
Rick Murray: But it could be Roger, it could be very specific to. ..
Roger Knutson: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: Very, very, very, specific. Very, yes.
Roger Knutson: Not transportable anywhere else.
Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion. Has the motion been made to table it?
Mayor Mancino: No, but Ijust wanted to make sure before we made the motion that there's clear
communication and comments that we wanted. Because I would not like to send him out ofhere. Mr.
Joyce has a comment.
Kevin Joyce: Just a thought. When we did this back.. . townhomes. I can't remember the name.
Kate Aanenson: Town and Country Homes.
Kevin Joyce: Town and Country. We met with the developer before, we had this thing tabled and we
had a real successful meeting with the developer. He saw some of the concerns from the original meeting
and we were able to kind of work out some negotiations. I don't know if the rest of...possible to do that
but we certainly hate to lose the single family aspect of this.
Mayor Mancino: I think that's a good idea.
Kevin Joyce: So I think that, I think you know we're reasonable people and I think we'd like to meet
with him before this came back again.
Mayor Mancino: That could be part of the tabling. Thank you Kevin.
Councilman Engel: I've seen that plan too. I like this plan. I think it will be good in Chanhassen. I just
don't want it when you've got this kind of opposition to it but I've seen that twin family home plan too.
I'd like to see the two of you get together with that old plan and this one and see if you can merge them
and come up with something that you're not going to have any disagreement on and we can pass it. I like
it as a concept. It's good.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion please?
Councilman Senn: I'd move number two again.
39
City Council Meeting - February 10, 1997
Councilman Mason: I'll second that. Number two is to table I believe.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor to table this request. And that's.
Councilman Senn: Table this request so the developer can go back and work with the neighborhood and
staff to tweak the plan and come back again.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the request for The Highlands at
the Northeast Corner of Galpin Boulevard and Highway 5 by Residential Development Inc. so the
developer and neighbors can get together and meet regarding the proposal. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DECISION AMENDING THE JOINT
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT CREATING THE SUBURBAN TRANSIT ASSOCIATION.
COLLEEN DOCKENDORF.
Colleen Dockendorf: Thank you and I should state my name as Colleen Dockendorf, 2061 Oakwood
Ridge in Chanhassen, representing Southwest Metro Transit this evening. Just briefly, the Suburban
Transit Association is about two years old. It was the organization that was responsible for gettmg the
legislatIOn passed last year for the local levy authority which gives the cities the option to levy transit
taxes as opposed to regionally through the Met Council. Chan's contribution to the Association is
approximately $2,600.00 this year, which is reimbursed by Southwest Metro through the transit levy.
The fee mostly goes towards the retainer of Messerli & Kramer, which is our lobbyist. If you want to go
into the legislative agenda set for this year, I'd be happy to but the matter really at hand is what
Sharmin's put in her report. I don't have any issues with the changes that were requested to the
agreement. It just makes it logistically difficult because ten other cities have already signed the
agreement and what would need to happen is I would bring these proposed changes back to the ST A
Board. They would have to pass there and then it would have to go back to all 11 Cities for ratification.
And I'd be happy to do that if you could prove to me that the changes were substantive enough to do so.
I think one of the points that Councilman Senn probably added that the development of transportation
and mass transit programs add that clause or that a few words be added to the agreement, is that it's
nowhere in the agreement. And it was a good idea. It probably should be. However, the agreement is
between three cities, or excuse me. Through all the opt out communities and it pertains only to
transportation usages. It's policed, for lack of a better word, by your Representative to the ST A, which
you're going to appoint later on this afternoon. Excuse me, this evening. I'm mixed up. And so there's
enough control to know that Messerli & Kramer is not going to be out lobbying for whatever, other than
transit issues. The other change that was made was on page 7. The top, Section 10.2. Or 10.3, excuse
me. Saying a proposed budget shall be formulated by the Board and submitted to the parties and that was
desired to be changed to the cities for review and comment. The parties are the cities. That's the
definition of parties in the agreement. So that's, I don't think that clarifies the agreement any more. So
again I'd be happy to answer any questions or concerns about you. My purpose this evening is to say,
you know I'd be happy to forward these changes and next year on the go around when we talk about the
agreement, this year it's just difficult given the timing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Questions from Council members for Ms. Dockendorf. Councilman
Mason.
Councilman Mason: Colleen, did you say that the ten others have already approved this?
40