2. Highlands of Bluff CreekCITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: March 2, 2004
CC DATE: March 22, 2004
REVIEW DEADLINE: April 3, 2004
CASE #: 04-01
BY: RG, LH, TH, ML, JS, MS, ST
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for a Land Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential -
Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Overlay District;
Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan Review for
an 18-Unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from
the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback, Highlands of Bluff Creek.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
2930 West 78th Street
Northeast corner of West 78th Street and Trunk Highway 41
Plowshares Development, LLC
1851 Lake Drive West #550
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 361-0832
Susan McAllister i"ii~
2930 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District and BCO, Bluff Creek Overlay District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density
ACREAGE: 6.52 acres
DENSITY: 2.76 units/acre gross; 3.18 units/acre net
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant in proposing an 18-unit townhouse project consisting of three two-
unit structures and four three-unit structures.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of
discretion in approving rezonings, PUD' s, and amendments to PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative
or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets
the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a
variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the
proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all
the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial
decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat
meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards,
the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project
complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the site
plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
LOOATION MAP
Minnewashta Regional Park
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
'n Boulevard
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Park
~" ~ McAIl~ster Parcel
I I ~ -~-- ' ~. '" ~-" .....
'~ asser~
State Hwy 5 Arboretum BOu/eva~
Chanhassen Nature Preserve
Chanh, assen Nature Preserve
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 2 of 19
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a site plan for an 18-unit townhouse development, Highlands of Bluff
Creek, consisting of three two-unit structures and four three-unit structures. Access to the lots
would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26-foot wide pavement standard.
There would be one access point onto West 78th Street, located at the existing curb cut for the
property. The request includes a land use map amendment to permit the density transfer within the
Bluff Creek Overlay District, since the PUD ordinance currently does not permit density transfer in
properties guided residential - low density; and a Planned Unit Development which permits the
clustering of housing units; a subdivision with a variance request for the setback from the Bluff
Creek primary zone; a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District; and site plan review for an 18-unit townhouse development.
The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on January 6, 2004 to present a plan,
similar to the current plan. At that time, the Planning Commission tabled the item to permit the
applicant to revise the plans to address the numerous conditions of the staff report, to investigate
the possibility of relocating the storm water pond to the north side of the development, to size the
pond appropriately, to review the retaining wall, to look at reducing or eliminating the retaining
wall, to realign the sewer line and to include a trail connection.
The applicant has greatly improved the plan; however, they are still proposing the encroachment in
to the Bluff Creek primary zone. Even though they are proposing the expansion of the primary
zone (approximately 4,700 square feet) in exchange for the area being removed (approximately
4,000 square feet), staff is opposed to any encroachment into the primary zone. The applicant has
prepared a preliminary alternative site plan which relocated the pond to the north side of the site.
However, both staff and the applicant agree that that alternative is a less desirable design which
would impact the Bluff Creek primary zone more.
The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission in August 2003 to present a concept plan
for the property. The concept plan included 24 units in three and four-unit structures. The
Planning Commission was generally supportive of some type of townhouse project for the site, but
with fewer units. As part of the submittal process, staff requested that the applicant prepare a
sketch plan (sketch 1) to establish the capacity of the site based on a twin home development,
ignoring the primary zone boundary, as outlined in the Bluff Creek Overlay District standards. The
sketch plan established 18 units as the maximum potential development density of the site.
However, such a plan does not assure that 18 units will be approved, since any proposed
development would still need to comply with city code requirements.
The applicant initially submitted a plan containing 19 units in three and four-unit structures
(alternate plan 1). However, this plan ignored the primary zone boundary and proposed two access
points onto West 78th Street. Staff rejected the plans. The next plan (alternate plan 2) shifted the
development south on the site in recognition of the primary zone. However, alternate plan 2 did
not incorporate two and three-unit structures similar to the development to the east. The applicant
revised the plans to include two and three-unit buildings, Highlands of Bluff Creek, which is the
proposal being reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 3 of 19
On the south and east sides of the development is Arboretum Village which consists of
townhouses. To the north of West 78th Street, the townhouses are constructed as two, three and
four-unit structures at a Net Density of 3.5 units per acre (137 units + 39 acres = 3.5). South of
West 78th Street the townhouses consist of four, six and eight-unit structures at a Net Density of 8.7
units per acre (242 units + 27.8 acres = 8.7). The overall net density of the Arboretum Village
development is 5.7 units per acre.
The project abuts the headwaters of Bluff Creek. Approximately 30 percent of the site is located
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone that includes the wooded area on the north
side of the development which slopes down to the wetland complex north of the property. The
proposed development encroaches into the primary zone by approximately 35 feet adjacent to
Block 3 in exchange for expanding the primary zone by 40 feet in the area of the existing barn and
corral. Additionally, the applicant has inco~-porated a planting plan within this area to help re-
vegetate this area. However, the primary zone is intended to be preserved in its existing state and
expanded and protected if possible. While staff supports the granting of a setback variance to
permit a 20-foot setback rather than a 40-foot setback due to the site constraints even after reducing
the pavements width, but expanding the pond, we do not support the encroachment into the primary
zone itself.
The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have
significant articulation. The only issue not addressed is how the individual buildings will be
differentiated from one another. The applicant's nan'ative states that, "the use of various building
materials including columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a
visual variety to the exterior of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that
will outline exactly how this "visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending
that the applicant work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building
elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building
accent materials and colors. Additionally, the applicant should incorporate the use of different
window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc., and types, e.g. multi-paned, half round,
dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings.
Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment be approved contingent on final PUD
development plan approval and Metropolitan Council approval, the concept and preliminary
Planned Unit Development be approved, the preliminary plat be approved with a variance to the
Bluff Creek setback subject to modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions of approval,
the conditional use permit be approved, and the site plan be approved.
BACKGROUND
On July 24, 2000, the City Council approved the applicant's request for a zoning ordinance
amendment (ZOA #00-1) to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate
district.
On July 24, 2000, the City Council also approved the applicant's request for an interim use permit
(IUP #00-2) to operate a petting farm.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 4 of 19
In May 2001, the City approved Arboretum Village, a planned unit development located directly
south and east of the applicant's property. As part of this development, an outlot was created to
preserve the natural features. This outlot is south of a wetland and includes the wetland buffer area.
This outlot abuts the applicant's property on the north and east sides.
In 2001, the city undertook utility expansion in the BC-7 and BC-8 sewer subdistricts. This utility
improvement brought sanitary sewer and water service fi'om Galpin Boulevard to the west side of
Highway 4l. As part of the Arboretum Village 2nd Addition, the developer extended sanitary
sewer service to the eastern property line of the site.
As part of a state project on TH 41 that corresponded with the Arboretum Village development, the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) required the southerly driveway access on the
applicant's property to Highway 41 be closed and relocated for safety reasons to West 78th Street.
On June 24, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #2000-3 to permit
development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District for Miss Rosie's Farm and an amendment to
Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of
gravel driveways or grass pave system.
On January 6, 2004, the project, Highlands of Bluff Creek, was tabled by the Planning Commission
for additional refinement to the plan.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 6.5 acres from A2 to PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development-R. The project consists of 18 townhouse units incorporated in three 2-unit structures
and four 3-unit structures. The review criteria are taken fi'om 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 in this instance is to permit density
clustering for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The use of the PUD zoning
also allows for an internal transfer of density. 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.
The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development
and preserves the Bluff Creek comdor subject to the recommended modifications to the plan.
The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following land use goals of
the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan:
Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 5 of 19
The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing
opportunities.
The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types.
Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services.
The proposed amendment and rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of
the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan:
A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels.
A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle.
Housing development that respects the natm'al environment of the community while striving to
accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property.
DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose or' this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a townhouse
development consisting of two and three-unit structures. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for
more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive proposal. All
utilities are required to be placed underground. Each building proposed for development shall
comply with the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
Two and three-unit townhouse structures.
Accessory Use (on Outlot B only)
Gazebo
Maintenance Shed
Picnic Shelter
Project Identification Sign
c. Setbacks
The following building setbacks shall apply
Retaining Wall
School Bus Shelter
Sidewalks
Street, Private
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 6 of 19
West 78th Street 50 ft.
TH 41 50 ft.
Perimeter of townhouse lot (front, rear and end) 10 ft.
East Development Property Line 30 ft.
Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A) 20 ft., with the first 10 ft. as buffer
do
Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for the overall development.
2. The maximum building height shall be two stories/35 feet.
Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Materials used shall be from the approved
material pallet.
3. All exterior equipment shall be screened by walls or landscaping.
Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, shall be installed when the adjacent
grading and construction is completed.
2. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
Signage
1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development at the entrance on
West 78th Street. Project identification signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display
area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development.
2. Signage shall be comprised of individual dimensional letters and logos.
Lighting
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 7 of 19
1. A shoe box fixture with decorative natural colored pole shall be used throughout the
development for area lighting.
2. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the project perimeter property line.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
The applicant is proposing an 18-lot subdivision with two outlots and a private street.
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
The northern portion of the site is enveloped by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Primary Zone
extends to the edge of the canopy/tree line. The plans should be revised to show the Primary Zone
boundary as determined by City staff. City code requires that all structures maintain a 40-foot setback
fi'om the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may occur within the first 20 feet of the setback. Lot 2,
Block 2; Lots 1-3, Block 3; and Lots 1-3, Block 4 do not meet the required 40-foot setback and, in fact,
several of the units encroach into the Primary Zone. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone
must be preserved.
Due to site constraints, staff recommends a variance that would allow a 20-foot setback from the
Primary Zone boundary with no grading occurring within the first 10 feet of the setback.
GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose to grade about 70% of the site for the new 18-unit townhouse pads, a proposed
private driveway ending with a partial hammer-head turnaround and a stormwater pond. The proposed
grading will prepare the site for lookout and walkout lots. Drainage swales have been proposed along
the sides of the houses to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through the property. The plan
proposes a 4-foot retaining wall along the south side of thc proposed storm pond.
The existing site drainage runs off site from the southwesterly quarter of the parcel to the east and north
toward Bluff Creek. Under developed conditions, the applicant is proposing to capture all of the
drainage from the street, the fl'ont yards, the rear yards of Lots 7-18 and route the storm water to a
proposed NURP pond in the southeasterly corner of the site. The applicant is proposing an outlet
control structure to control the discharge of water fi'om the proposed pond. The overflow water will be
conveyed via storm sewer to an existing storm sewer, along the south side of West 78th Street, ending at
a regional storm pond at the northwest quadrant of Century Boulevard and Highway 5. The amount of
area that will still drain off site to the north toward Bluff Creek has been reduced.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for staff review. Staff has reviewed the calculations
and found that only minor modifications are needed. The applicant is required to meet the existing site
runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The storm sewer must be designed for
a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 8 of 19
the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales and wetlands up to the 100-year
flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and type III
along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. In addition, tree preservation fencing must
be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has been shown at the
entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep
slopes along the east and west sides of the site.
Storm Water Management
CBMH-6 should have a two-foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to
discharge to the storm water pond.
The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water
calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
The General Grading and Drainage Notes state that "Positive drainage fi'om the site must be provided at
all time." The note regarding positive drainage should be amended to indicate that the site must meet
sediment and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations.
Easements
A drainage and utility easement should be provided over the proposed storm water pond.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Riprap and geotextile fabric should be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm water
basin. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures. Inlet control methods will be
varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist of heavy-
duty mono-mono silt fence with 4-foot spacing of metal T-posts and 1" rock around silt fence material.
After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used as temporary inlet control.
Silt fence should be provided as needed to prevent sediment fi'om leaving the site. A light-duty silt
fence should also be installed between the townhomes and the storm water pond following the outlet
installation and during home construction.
Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil
areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 9 of 19
Type of Slope Time
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
(Maximum time an area can
remain open when the area
is not actively being worked.)
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas
with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer
inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a
surface water facility.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets should include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
Surface Water Management Fees
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on residential townhome development rates of $1,967/acre. Based on
the proposed developed area of approximately 6 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project
are $11,802.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide
rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP
culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding m'eas for runoff storage. Medium density townhome
developments have a connection charge of $3,824 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity
fee of approximately $22,944 for the proposed development.
SWMP Credits
This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water
quality if NURP basins are provided to treat runoff fi'om off-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 or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not
be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is
$34,746.
Other Agencies
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 10 of 19
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site from Century Trail; also water service is
available from West 78th Street. The applicant is proposing to extend the sewer line along the private
street to service the proposed lots from an existing stub on the southeast corner of the parcel. The
watermain is proposed to be looped through the site from West 78th Street and connect with the existing
water stub at the southeast corner of the property. A minimum 30-foot wide public easement will be
required over the public sewer and watermain.
The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of the
BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This balance may
be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per-area basis.
The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 pro. ject were based on the existing zoning for the site with one
residential unit. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (18) than what the property had been
assessed for, the additional 17 units (18-1=17) will be charged the sanitary sewer and water assessment
unit that was in place for the BC-7/BC-8 project. The sanitary sewer assessment unit for the BC-7/BC-8
project was $300 and the water assessment unit was $1,694 for a total per unit cost of $2,994. Based on
these rates, the total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @
2,994). In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up
charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per
unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council. Hook-up charges are for core utility system infrastructure, i.e.
wells, lift stations, water towers, etc.
All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the utilities
will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The applicant is also required to enter
into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final
plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a
preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health,
Watershed District and MnDOT.
STREETS
The plan shows a full access off of West 78th Street along the south side of the parcel. The applicant is
proposing a 26-foot wide private street with concrete curb and gutter and a partial hammer-head
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 11 of 19
turnaround. The partial hammer-head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire
Marshall. The private street must be enclosed in a 40-foot wide private easement. The developer must
submit an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7-ton design per City code.
Lot Tabulation:
Lot/Block Area (sq. ft.) Width (fl.) Depth (ft.)
LIB 1 3,960 46 86
L2 B 1 3,103 36 86
L3 B1 3,960 46 86
L1 B2 3,914 39 86
L2 B2 3,903 38 86
L1 B3 3,944 44 86
L2 B3 3,103 36 86
L3 B3 3,960 46 86
L1 B4 3,960 46 86
L2 B4 3,103 36 86
L3 B4 3,960 46 86
LI B5 3,960 46 86
L2 B5 3,960 46 86
L1 B6 3,960 46 86
L2 B6 3,960 46 86
L1 B7 3,960 46 86
L2 B7 3,103 36 86
L3 B7 3,960 46 86
Outlot A 74,561 # NA NA
Outlot B 104,312 # NA NA
TH 41 37,374
Total 284,007
# The outlot boundary shall be adjusted to CO~Tespond with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary
Zone boundary.
The Planned Unit Development does not have minimum lot sizes. The overall density is 3.18 units per
acre.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Staff has reviewed the Plowshares Development proposal for an 18-unit townhouse project (McAllister
Parcel) as it relates to the park and trail section of the city's comprehensive plan. This property lies
within the park service area of the Bluff Creek Park Preserve. The preserve features expansive open
space, natural areas, a five-acre open space/park area at the north end of Century Boulevard and a trail
system; however, a public playground or ball field is not located within walking distance. A private
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 12 of 19
playground facility owned by the Arboretum Village Association is located just south of the McAllister
property.
A sidewalk connection to the city's comprehensive trail system is included for this project. The nearest
section of the trail system is located just to the south of the property along West 78th Street. The
applicant is providing a trail connection along Highway 41 from West 78th Street to the northern
property line which shall connect to a trail completing the Bluff Creek headwaters trail loop being
constructed by the city this year. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and
constructing the Highway 41 trail adjacent to the site. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the
construction costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying,
legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail fund the
applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or
more days prior to the start of construction for review and authorization. Assuming authorization to
proceed is received and upon completion of construction, the applicant shall be eligible for
reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry
standards.
It is recommended that the applicant pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the
eighteen lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing single family home on the
property. The park fee will vary from $2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings
in each building.
LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the McAllister parcel are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage required
Proposed tree preservation
6.52 ac.
42% or 2.75 ac.
30% or 1.96 ac.
28% or 1.81 ac.
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed; therefore the difference between the
baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement
plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
.15 ac.
1.2
.18 ac. or 7,841 SF
8 trees
The developer will be required to plant 8 trees as a part of reforestation in addition to one tree per home
according to city ordinance. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of Lot 1, Block 5.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 13 of 19
Buffer yard planting is required along West 78th Street, Highway 41 and the east property line.
Although existing vegetation along the highway is proposed to be preserved, the developer is including
additional landscaping in that area.
Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table:
Landscaping Item Required Proposed
Buffer yard B* - South property line, 440', 9 overstory trees 13 overstory trees
buffer width 20' 13 understory trees 23 understory trees
22 shrubs 12 shrubs
Buffer yard B* -West property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 10 overstory trees
buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 18 understory trees
13 shrubs 18 shrubs
Buffer yard B* - East property line, 250', 5 overstory trees 2 overstory trees
buffer width 20' 8 understory trees 13 understory trees
13 shrubs 16 shrubs
Boulevard Trees -W. 78th St., I per 30' 15 overstory trees 13 overstory trees
Applicant does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings, boulevard
plantings or south buffer yard shurbs The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number
of plantings required.
The existing woods on the north side of the property consist of a large stand of maple-basswood forest, a
type of native forest that is generally referred to as 'Big Woods.' It is of good quality; there is sufficient
regeneration of trees, only minimal amounts of buckthorn around the edges of the woods and minimally
impacted by the existing use of the property. Staff recommends that these woods be preserved fully
intact. The primary boundary line should run parallel to the edge of the woods. Preservation of this area
would also help greatly in meeting canopy coverage requirements for the site and eliminate the need for
reforestation plantings.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The development proposes a total of 18 townhouse units consisting of three two-unit structures and four
three-unit structures. The proposal includes single-level townhomes with walkouts or basements.
Access to the lots would be via a private street which would be constructed to a 26-foot wide pavement.
The site plan proposed preserving the majority of the trees within the northern portion of the property.
Additionally, trees shall be preserved along Highway 41.
The applicant's site plan lays out the development in a logical manner and the houses have significant
articulation. The only issue not addressed is how thc individual buildings will be differentiated from
one another. The applicant's nmTativc states that, "the usc of various building materials including
columns, shakes, lap siding, stone, brick, and color selection shall provide a visual variety to the exterior
of each building." However, there is no specific plan submitted that will outline exactly how this
"visual variety" will be achieved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 14 of 19
create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building elevations. The plan shall provide that no
two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building accent materials and colors. Additionally, the
applicant should incorporate the use of different window treatments, e.g. shutters, window boxes, etc.,
and types, e.g. multi-parted, half round, dormers, etc., to assist in the individualization of the buildings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following five motions and adoption of the
attached findings of fact and recommendation:
A. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Land Use Amendment
from Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density contingent upon final development
approval of the Planned Unit Development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Land
Use Amendment.
B. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual and preliminary approval of
PUD #2003-3 rezoning the property fi'om Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development
- Residential, PUD-R?'
C. "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council Preliminary Plat approval of the
proposed development for Highlands of Bluff Creek with a variance (Variance #2003-19) to permit a
20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone, plans prepared by Westwood Development
Services, inc., dated 10/31/03, revised 12/05/03, 12/17/03 and 02/03/04, subject to the following
conditions.
1. Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3 of the preliminary plat shall be eliminated to comply with the 20-foot Bluff
Creek primary zone setback requirement.
2. The property line between Outlots A and B shall follow the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary
zone boundary.
3. Final Plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78m
Street.
4. The applicant shall submit association covenants to the city for review prior to recording. The
association shall be responsible for thc maintenance of any common elements of the development.
The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication on seventeen of the eighteen lots based
on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. One lot is exempt from these charges due to
the existing single-family home on the property. The park fee, using 2004 park fees, will vary from
$2,200 to $2,800 per unit, depending on the number of dwellings in each building, which shall be
paid prior to recording the final plat.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 15 of 19
The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the Highway 41 trail.
The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction costs of said trail, including materials
and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying, legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible
for reimbursement fi'om the city's trail fund, the applicant shall submit construction plans and
specifications and construction costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for
review and authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of
construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be covered
by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards.
The developer does not meet minimum requirements for the east buffer yard overstory plantings,
boulevard plantings or south buffer yard shrubs. One tree shall be added in the northeast corner of
Lot 1, Block 5. The landscape plan shall be revised to show the minimum number of plantings
required.
8. The Development Design Standards shall be incorporated in thc development contract.
All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback fi'om the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may
occur within the first 10 feet of the setback. All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall
be preserved.
10. Roof drainage and sump pump systems fol' houses a~iacent to the Bluff Creek Primary Zone shall be
directed to the draintile behind the street curb.
11. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone ~Outlot A). Outlot
A may be dedicated to the city to be preserved as open space.
12. The plans shall be revised to show the actual Primary Zone boundary as determined by City staff.
13. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must
sign all plans.
14. The applicant is required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour
storm events. The storm sewer must be designed roi- a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements must bc dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The applicant must submit
storm sewer sizing calculations for staff review.
15. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used along all sides adjacent to the grading area and
Type III along the north side adjacent to the Bluff Creek overlay line. in addition, tree preservation
fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75-foot rock construction entrance has
been shown at the entrance to the site from West 78th Street. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for the steep slopes along the east and west sides of the site. The silt fence shall be
removed once the site has been revegctatcd.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 16 of 19
16. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat.
17. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's
Building Department.
18. The total amount due payable to the City for the additional 17 units will be $50,898 (17 @ $2,994).
In addition, each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges
at the time of building permit issuance. The 2004 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 pet' unit
for sanitary sewer and $2,814 pet' unit for water. The hook-up charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council.
19. The underlying property has been previously assessed for sewer and water improvements as a part of
the BC-7/BC-8 project. The remaining assessment due payable to the City is $3,495.59. This
balance may be re-spread against the newly platted lots on a per-area basis.
20. The applicant must be aware that the public sewer and watermain require a preconstruction meeting
before the building permit issuance.
21. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications
will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat
approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
22. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 2001,
2101, 2109, 2109, 2201, 3101, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5216, 5300
and 5301.
23. Add a stop sign at the exit side of the access.
24. Add a street light at the access.
25. On
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
the utility plan:
Show all the existing and proposed utility easements.
Remove/delete the last note.
Call out water-main fittings.
Show sanitary sewer pipe class 8,: slope and watermain pipe class.
Watermain shall be 8" PVC C-900 pipe.
26. On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 17 of 19
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Last storm manhole discharging to the pond must be a 3-foot sump.
27. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be
brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval.
28. The partial hammer-head turnaround must be reviewed and approved by the City's Fire Mm'shall.
29. The private street must be enclosed in a 40-foot wide private easement. The developer must submit
an inspection report certifying that the street is built to a 7-ton design.
30. CBMH-6 shall have a two-foot sump since it is the last structure that is road accessible prior to
discharge to the storm water pond.
31. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Complete storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed
development.
32. The note regarding positive drainage shall be amended to indicate that the site must meet sediment
and erosion control regulations while providing positive drainage and to address National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) dewatering regulations.
33. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over the proposed storm water pond.
34. Riprap and geotextile fabric shall be installed at the flared end sections of the inlet of the storm
water basin. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures.
35. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment fi'om leaving the site. A light duty silt
fence shall be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond following the outlet
installation and during home construction.
36. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
37. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed
soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Stabilized within
Steeper than 3:1 7 days
10:1 to 3:1 14 days
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
38. These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 18of19
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that
discharge to a surface water.
39. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping
as needed.
40. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is
$34,746.
41. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
D. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2003-10 to permit
development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
l. The development must comply with the approved Planned Unit Development and Subdivision
requirements for the property.
All structures shall maintain a 20-foot setback from the Primary Zone boundary and no grading may
occur within the first 10 feet of the setback..All slopes and vegetation within the Primary Zone shall
be preserved.
3. A conservation easement shall be dedicated over the Bluff Creek Primary Zone (Outlot A).
E. "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2003-11, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated December 17, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security
to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
The applicant shall work with staff to create a specific plan to assure the differentiation in building
elevations. The plan shall provide that no two adjacent buildings have the same exterior building
accent materials and colors.
3. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of plantings required for
each of the buffer yards.
4. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the minimum number of boulevard trees
required along West 78th Street.
Highlands of Bluff Creek
March 2, 2004
Page 19 of 19
5. The applicant shall submit a foundation planting plan roi' city review and approval prior to final plat
approval.
6. The applicant shall plant six trees on the site to meet reforestation requirements.
The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500
square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement, property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold.
8. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction.
9. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits
can be issued.
10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Findings of Fact and Recommendation
Development Review Application
Memorandum from Ed Hasek to Bob Generous dated 2/3/04
Reduced Copy Existing Conditions
Reduced Copy
Reduced Copy
Reduced Copy
Reduced Copy
Preliminary Plat
Preliminary Utility Plan
Preliminary Grading & Erosion Control Plan
Preliminary Landscape Plan
9. Reduced Copy Preliminary Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan
10. Reduced Copy Preliminary Alternate Site Plan
11. Picture Townhouse Structure Right Front
12. Picture Townhouse Structure Left Front
13. Picture Townhouse Rear
14. Concept Plan
15. Sketch 1
16. Alternate Plan 1
17. Alternate Plan 2
18. Reduced Copy Preliminary Plat Jan. 6, 2004
19. Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Wetland Conservation Act Decision
20. Letter from Aaron Mlynek to Robert Generous dated 12/22/03
21. Letter from Susan McAllister to Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission dated 2/23/04
22. Letter from Brigid Gombold to Sharmeen Al-Jaff dated 01/13/04
23. Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 2004
24. Affidavit of Mailing Notice
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
Application of Plowshares Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use
Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Preliminary Plat,
Setback Variance and Site Plan Review.
On January 6, 2004 and March 2, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission
met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Plowshares
Development, LLC and Susan McAllister for a Land Use Plan Amendment From
Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit
for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; Concept and Preliminary
Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for an 18-Unit Townhouse
Project; Site Plan Review for an 18-Unit Townhouse Prqiect; Subdivision Approval for
18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District
Setback. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned
Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
2.
3.
4.
The property is CU~Tently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2.
The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density uses.
The legal description of the property is: see exhibit A.
Land Use Amendment. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission
to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six
(6) affects and our findings regarding them arc:
a)
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific
policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
b)
The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land
uses of the area.
c)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in
the Zoning Ordinance.
d)
The proposed usc will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which
it is proposed,
e)
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and
will not overburden the city's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Planned Unit Development. It will be the applicant's responsibility to
demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the
following criteria:
a)
The proposed development preserves desirable site characteristics and
open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
mature trees, creeks and wetlands.
b)
The proposed development is a more efficient and effective use of land,
open space and public facilities through the clustering of thc development
on the site and the use of a private street.
c)
The proposed development is a high quality of design and design
compatible with sun'ounding land uses, including both existing and
planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
d)
The proposed development provides sensitive development in transitional
areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors
within the city.
e) The proposed development is Development which is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
f) The proposed development preserves the Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone.
g) The proposed development provides alternate housing type but not affordable
housing.
h) The proposed development provides energy conservation through the use of the
clustering of buildings.
i) The proposed development will provide signage to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts.
6. Subdivision
a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance subject to approval
of the variance and revisions as recommended in the staff report.
b) The subdivision meets all the requirements of the PUD, Planned Unit Development
District.
c) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan.
d)
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,
and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development.
e)
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter.
f) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage.
g) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record and will
dedicate all appropriate new easements.
h)
The proposed subdivision is not premature since adequate public facilities are
available or will be constructed with the development. A subdivision is premature if
any of the following exists:
(1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
(2) Lack of adequate roads.
(3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
(4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
7.
Conditional Use Permit. When approving a conditional use permit, the City must
determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed
uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include
the following 12 items:
a)
The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or
the city.
b) The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the city's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
c)
The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained so to be compatible in appcm'ance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of
that area.
d) The proposed development will not be hazardous or distm%ing to existing or
planned neighboring uses.
e)
The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be
served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or
agencies responsible for the establishment of thc proposed use.
The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to thc economic welfare of the
community.
g)
The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
h)
The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which
do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or SmTounding public
thoroughfares.
i) The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of m~0or significance.
j) The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
k) The proposed development will not depreciate sun'ounding property values.
l)
The proposed development meets standards prescribed for ceitain uses as
provided in Bluff Creek Overlay District with the approval of the setback
variance.
8. Variance. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following
facts:
a)
The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship.
Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use
because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable
use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet
of it. A reasonable use of the property is for residential use. The intent of this
provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that
there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. The proposed variance
is the minimum necessary to develop the site and preserve the primary
corridor. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without
departing downward fi'om them meet these criteria.
b)
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not
applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
The site constraints of the primary zone and West 78th Street lead to the need
for a variance.
c)
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to develop a project consistent with
surrounding development.
d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not aL self-created hardship, but is duc to
site constraints.
e)
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
parcel is located.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
a~jacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets
or increase thc danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
9. Site Plan. in evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the
development's compliance with the following:
a)
The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of
the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road
mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
10.
et al,
b) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review
requirements;
c)
The proposed development preserves the site in its natural state to the extent
practicable subject to the revisions of the staff repo~t by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developments or developing areas;
d)
The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and
open space subject to the revisions recommended in the staff report with
natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual
relationship to the development;
e) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for
structures and site features, with special attention to the following:
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
(2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
(3)
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with a4jacent and
neighboring structures and uses: and
(4)
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provision for surf acc water drainage, sound and sight buffers,
preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately
covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring
land uses.
The planning report #04-01 dated March 2, 2004, prepared by Robert Generous,
is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that thc City Council approve the Land
Use Plan Amendment From Residential - Low Density to Residential - Medium Density;
a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District;
Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development - Residential rezoning (PUD-R) for
an 15-Unit Townhouse Prqject; Site Plan Review for an 15-Unit Townhouse Project;
Subdivision Approval for 15 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a Variance from the Bluff
Creek Overlay District Setback subject to the recommendations contained in the staff
report.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2'~¢~ day of March,
2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Uli Sacchct, Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: '-~"~'~ ~'¢5 '"'~ ¢', [.~ ~.,',--'~.~ f~t.,(_
ADDRESS: [~i L..,-~(-~ ~', L.~'~c ~ ~o
TELEPHONE (Day time) c~'/... 3 ~- t. ~ '~'~ '2_
ADDRESS:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
__ Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development* ~. -"4~ ~-,
% ~v
Rezoning
__ Sign Permits
__ Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review* -z~ ~, ~ ,..~.-~' b~,cJs$.
Subdivision*
__ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
__ Zoning Appeal
__ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign ~\"¥ ~' ~),,=~,vJ c[~'~' %;'?'
X
__ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUPISPRNAC/VARAN APIMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within.50O feet of the bound[aries of, !he,prol~erty must be included with the
application./~'~._~ ~ ~ ~.~4~1¥'~ '-~t~J lt~L- ~ '[4~¢0 ~'I~-C('~
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8V=" X 11" reduced copy
for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
. YES.
REASON FORTHISREQUEST '~-0 i~~0~-~ '-~/~--~ '~/~~
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied ~ all information
and plans required by applicable Ci~ Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Depadment to dete~ine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the appliCation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120.days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Date
Date
Application Received on
Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
PLANNING · ENGINEERING * SURVEYING
W
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Bob Generous, Planner, City of Chanhassen
Ed Hasek
February 3, 2004
Plowshares - Highlands of
Re: Bluff Creek Project No.: 20032566
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 952-937-5150
Fax: 952-937-5822
Toll free: 1-885-937-5150
E-maih wps~vvestwoodps.com
TVVlN CITIES/METRO
ST. CLOUD
BRAINERD
On behalf of Plowshares Development LLC we are pleased to resubmit our application for the
development of the Highlands of Bluff Creek as a residential townhome neighborhood. With this
application we are requesting approval for a comprehensive plan amendment, PUD, site plan review,
CUP, subdivision, and variance for the construction of a private street and 18 townhomes on 5.66 net
acres of land that includes two small parcels currently owned by the City (.34 ac.), and Pulte Homes (.10
ac.). The parcel is located in the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
A hobby farm that includes a home, barn, and several out buildings currently occupies the property. With
the construction of West 78th Street access was change from Highway 41 to a curb cut on 78th Street.
The property lies within the HC-2 Overlay District, and partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
The approximate BCOD boundaries (primary and secondary) have been located both on the plans and in
the field. These boundaries have been adjusted as directed by staff, and approximately 30% of the site is
currently within the BCOD primary zone.
Roughly 42% of the site is covered by the canopy of trees that include oak, maple, basswood, elm, pine
and spruce species, the majority of which are located on the north half of the property that slopes to the
north and to Bluff Creek. A tree survey has been completed, and 106 significant trees were located and
tagged. Field notes indicate that 14% of the significant trees are diseased or damaged, which is not
unusual for a mature oak-maple-basswood woodland.
Soils found on the property are generally loamy and of the Kilkenny-Lester soils series, well drained, 0 to
10% slopes, and suited to typical residential construction practices. Slopes ranging to 40 % exist along
the west and south edges of the site as back-slopes down to the roadways created when Highway 41 and
West 78th Street were constructed. The property drains in all directions from a high point of elevation
1011 feet located just west of the existing home. The south two-thirds of the site is generally flat and sits
2 to 8 feet above 78th Street.
Public utilities are available to the property from West 78th Street and Century Trail. A regional storm
pond is located to the southeast and along Highway 5 at Century Boulevard.
The Arboretum Village subdivision (zoned PUDR) abuts the parcel on the south (6-unit structures) and
east (2, 3, and 4 unit townhomes) sides. Highway 41 separates the site from a single-family home to the
west, and Bluff Creek is located to the north.
Designing the Future Today...since 1972
Page 2 of 3 February 3, 2004
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Since last meeting with the commission in early January we have met with City staff on several occasions
at all levels to review the list of conditions attached to the staff comments on the previous application.
The plan now reflects revisions to resolve issues as identified in those meetings. It was also agreed that
a number of comments will still remain and will be addressed with our application for Final Plat.
Plowshares Development LLC is proposing the development of 18 townhomes on 5.66 net acres of
property to a density of 3.18 units per acre. Buildings wild vary from 2 to 3 homes in size, and will have
lookout, or walkout basements. Each home is of single story construction with a full basement and
approximately 2,700 s.f. of living area possible. Attached 2 car garages are 480 s.f. in area.
The site will be accessed by a single 26-foot back-to-back private street built to City standards with a 5-
foot wide sidewalk located on one side of the street (adjacent to the curb). Each home will have a two-car
garage, and guest parking (2.5 spaces per home) will be provided in the driveways and on one side of the
private street. A 6-foot sidewalk will also be constructed along West 78th Street to link Century Trail to a
new trail now included along Highway 41, and the Bluff Creek trail system.
Storm water that is collected from impervious surfaces (approximately 1.5 acres) will be routed to a pond
designed to City standards located in the southeast corner of the site. Project utilities will connect to
existing stubs in 78th Street and Century Trail. Each home will be individually connected to all utilities.
Approximately 34% (.94 ac.) of the existing tree canopy will be removed for the construction of roads,
driveways, homes, trail system, and associated grading. Outlot A (proposed as the Primary BCOD Zone
in the north part of the property) will be preserved by a Conservation Easement or dedication to the City.
Care will be taken to preserve additional trees and associated tree canopy at the time of construction. A
small area of existing trees and canopy (and associated topography) along Highway 41 will also be
preserved to provide separation and screening from this arterial roadway. Best Management Practices,
and the standards and specifications established in the City Ordinances will be adhered to to reduce any
additional tree losses.
As indicated previously, the north portion of the site will be preserved in the BCOD. A variance to allow
construction to 20 feet from the primary zone is requested in order to place as much of the site in the
BCOD as possible. The proposed BCOD will preserve the most native and significant area of woodlands
and slope on the site. Approximately 7,000 s.f. of the primary zone will be removed, and 2,600 s.f. of
area will be added back. 8,700 s.f. of tree canopy will be reestablished within the primary zone with
health native overstory tree species.
Landscaping will be concentrated as screening along Highway 41 and West 78th Street, and as a buffer
along the east property line. A street tree planting scheme has been added to the private street frontage,
and foundation plantings will provide additional landscape interest and detailing at the entry and front
fa~;ade of each home.
We have provided staff with the necessary sketch development plan (meeting all of the ordinance
requirements) to support the construction of 18 homes on this site. The sketch plan yielded an average
of 11,400 s.f. per unit and included a pubic cul-de-sac. While the development is proposed to be platted
as townhomes with small lots around each home, the average area per unit for the proposed plan is
12,500 s.f. per home with a private street built to city standards.
Designing the future today...
MINNEAPOLIS ST. CLOUD
/
/
I-
0
z
0
BLUFF
679.94
/' OUTL O T A
3~8. 79
5
8
SB-
.\
5' SIDEWALK
O & U EASEMEN
OVER ALL OF
OUTLOT O
,o50'
?
?
?
?
/ /
/
\
\
\
\
/
/
/ / /
/ .;
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
[Insert List Name and Address of Local Government Unit Hem]City of chanhassen, 7700
Market Boulevard, P.O. BOx 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 ·
Name of Applicant: Genevieve Bolling, WestwOod Professional Services, inc.
Application Numbe~~h~e~cAll~amt ~Propeay
T~e of Application (check one): ~ Exemption Decision
~ No Loss Decision
~ Replacement Plan Decision
~ Ban~ng Plan Decision
~ Wetland T~e/Bound~ Decision
Date of Decision: August 12, 2003
Check One: ~ i~ .~6~e~d~-
[~] Approved with conditions
Denied
List of Addressees:
[Landowner]
Genevieve Bolling, Westwood Professional Selwices, Inc.
[Members of Technical Evaluation Panel}
Chip Hentges, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District
Lynda Peterson, Board of Soil and Water Resources
[Watershed District or Watershed Management Organization (If Applicable)]
Bob Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bhfff Creek Watershed District
[Department of Natural Resources Regional Office]
Julie Ekman, Minnesota Department of Natnral Resonrces
DNR Wetlands Coordinator @
Ecological Services Section
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155
Corp of Engineers Project Manager @
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
ATTN: CO-R, 190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, MN 55101-1638
[Individual members of the public who requested a copy, summary only}
(none)
- Page I of 2
McAllister No I~oss (April 2003)
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard · P.O. Box 147 · Chanhasscn, MN 55317
Name of Applicant:
Project Location:
Ms. Genevive Bolling
Plowshares/McAllister Property, Chanhassen, MN 55317
(TI 16N R23W S9)
Type of Application (check one):
[]
[]
[]
[]
Exemption Decision
No Loss Decision
Replacement Plan Decision
Banking Plan Decision
Date of Decision: August 12, 2003
Findings and Conclusions
The applicant submitted a no wetlands determination request for the above site, along
with a description of the on-site conditions and supplementary site mapping information.
The City agrees with the applicant's findings that there are no jurisdictional wetlands on
the subject property.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Title: Water Resources Coordinator
Date: ~/~, 2c:0~_~
~ec.22~ 1003 10:10At~t No,1943 P~ 2~3
219 East Frontage Road
Waconia, MN 55387
046 ~ Phor~e: 952-442-5 I01
O~ Fax: 952-442-5497
http://www.c0.carver.nm.u.qSWCDrSWCD ma ~ }1~
Mission Statement: To p~vvide leadership In conservation and teach stewa~htp of the $ot1, water, and related resources through a balanced,
cooperative program that protects, regtorgy, and lny)rov¢~ those
December 22, 2003
Robert Generous, Senior Pla~mer
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
Chal~assen, MN 55317
Re: Proposed McAllister Parcel Development
Mr. Generous:
Tharflc you for sending a copy of the McAllister Parcel development to the SWCD office. Please
review the following storm water, erosion, and sediment control co~mnents and
recommendations.
Stom~ Water
Begimfing March 10, 2003 all developments disturbing 1-acre or more or part of a contiguous
developmertt which will disturb more than 1-acre require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elim~rtation System (NPDES) pemfit from the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). The owner /
operator of the proposed developmer~t must apply for and receive the NPDES permit pr/or to
beginning constructiort activities.
Any development disturbing more than 1-acre m~d creating more than 1-acre of impervious
surface must also have permanent storm water treatment. It appears this is being done as the
McAllister Parcel preliminary plan shows the storm water runoff being managed by a proposed
storm water basin.
For water quality purposes, it is reconnnended to construct the storm water basin as a two-cell
basin, rather than a single cell, narrow, shallow basin. The two ceil basin could consist of a berm
constructed in the middle oft. he pond at an elevation of one foot below NWL (i.e. 997). The
bema would encourage the first cell of the pond to retain more solids before the water flows into
the second cell. Eventually, vegetation would groxv on the bm~ and provide minimal additional
tream~ent as ,,veil. The overlar~d f/ow from lots 15 through 18 may need a slight berm to divert
the water into the first cell of the two-cell basin.
In the General Grading and Drainage Notes it states "All constmctio~ shall conform tq.local
rules" and "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time". Ihe consti~ction must
meet all state rules as well as local (i.e. NPDES pemfit). Additionally, the site must meet
sediment and erosion control regulations from the site while maintaining positive dra/nage. The
AN EQI)'AL OPPORT[JNIT¥ EMPLOYER
De,c.22, 2003
note "Positive drainage from the site must be provided at all time" should be amended to include
verbiage pertaining to the sites' obligation to ineet dewatering regulations accordiug to NPDES.
For fitrther information check Part IV, Section D. 1 and 2 (page 15 of 26) of the NPDES Permit
(MN R100001).
Erosion Control
I. Riprap mid geotextile fabric needs to be installed at the tim'ed end sections of the inlet of the
storm water basin.
2. No temporary mulch or seeding was me~tioned in the erosion control notes. Temporary
mulch and seed is needed within 7, 14, 21 days (depending upon slope) of final grade or if the
area is going to remain exposed and fallow for those time hames.
Sediment Control
1. A light duty silt fence should be installed between the town homes and the storm water pond
following the outlet installation and during home construction.'
2. Inlet control is needed following installation of inlet structures, Inlet control methods will be
varied before and after pavement of the street. Before pavement, inlet protection could consist
of heavy-duty mono-mono silt fence with 4 foot spacing of metal T-posts and I" rock arom~d
silt fence material. After pavement, compost socks, sand bags or rock and wire could be used
as temporary inlet control.
3. Street elem~ing of soil tracked onto pnblic streets must include daily street scraping and as-
needed street sweeping (i.e. weekly sweeping).
If there are any questions regarding this review please contact the SWCD office.
Sincerely, _..-
Aaron Mlynek, CPESC-IT
Urban Conservation Technician
Susan McAIlister
February 23, 2004
Honorable Mayor Thomas Furlong,
Members of the City Council,
Planning Commission Members,
City of Chanhassen,
7700 Market Blvd.,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ttand Delivered
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
.... ::I 20 [14~
OHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
In 1995 when I became a member of the Steering Committee for the BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources
Management Plan Draft I was told by Kate Aanenson, Planning Director, that she didn't think there was any
Primary Zone on my property then in the same breath she corrected herself by stating she thought just the upper
comer of my property was in the Primary Zone. Magically, as years have passed now I find the city saying half of
my property lies in the Primary Zone. Itow is it that I have become burdened for protection of such a large area of
the Primary Zone?
I felt my property was going to become a good target for allowing the Primary Zone to fall on half of my property
because from its conception in 1994 the city was already well aware that my intent was never to develop my site. 1
actually came up with a very nice way to keep it green and at the same time ~nake the concept into a bnsiness, Miss
Rosie's Farm®. So when the BluffCreek Ordinance was at the public hearing stage even ill had wanted to oppose
the amount of Primary Zone that ultimately ended up on my property, it would have been a futile effort on my part
because of my well known intent to use the land for a farm and my passion for wanting to protect every tree on the
site.
Actually there had been more than one reference made regarding ~ny land as being "ear marked" for a park when
Pulte was in their development stage. I was actually given a heads up warning to be aware of this from someone
inside city hall. In the city's mind they probably felt some comfort in assuming there was a good possibility that 1
would someday even donate my property to the city after I had quit using it as a petting farm. I now feel that when
it would have come time to reapply for my interim use permit, the city would have made acquiring my land part of
the trade off for my extension request.
Unfortunately, last year as many of you are aware, I was a victim ora serious car accident that changed every aspect
of my life within seconds. I was going to make a living by running a farm in the city but as a result of the accident I
need to develop the property in order to realize its economic value. I have had to change the management of my
land from being the passionate preservationist to becoming a developer overnight. I can honestly say this has been
the hardest thing I've ever had to do. I see my land as holding the potential of much needed value for me. I have
worked hard for it and have personally sacrificed for it. I expect the city to allow me to get a fair market price for it.
in 1999 when Pulte intended to develop the land around my farmstead I supported their development plan for the
good of my community. I could have been a thorn in your sides but t felt I needed to act responsibly. In fhct, 1
remember standing before you on December 5, 2000 at Pulte's Arboretum Village public hearing asking you to
"allow development to happen in a big way", ~1o allow the developer and the city to have what we so much needed
- housing".
I ask that you allow the same precedence that was given Pulte to be applied to this plan. The rules were relaxed fbr
Pulte and I am asking for the same lhimess to be given to me by relaxing the Primary Zone to the North side of my
property to be consistent with the intent of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan Draft of
July 1996, and Final Copy, December 1996~ Article I I, Watershed Vision and Goals, I lb. Collective Statement
found on Page 8, 5th paragraph: All vegetation within 300 feet of thc creek are preserved. This aligns with Kate's
original statement to me that only the upper corner of my property has the Primary Zone on it. Secondly, to do what
needs to be done by city staff and the developer to accommodate the allowable number of units the city calculated in
the official "List of Residential Transition Properties within the Bluff Creek Corridor" conducted I believe in 1997.
Which, according to my calculations with taking into consideration the "Final Plat is contingent on the developer
acquiring the two parcels adjacent to W. 78'h ST.", I come up with a figure of 22 or 23 units for my site.
2930 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317-4501
952-474-5099
Being a member of the Steering Committee for the Bluff Creek Corridor since 1995, I believe the committee worked
on the "vision" and how to achieve the vision for about one year. We were told the city had to acquire the Primary
and Secondary Zone through dedication by means ora development plan each time pieces of the corridor were to be
developed or through direct purchase by the city. It was never meant to be "a taking" because obviously you need to
pay someone for taking their land. Referencing BluffCreek Watershed Plan Draft, July 1996, and Final Copy,
December 1996, Article 11. Watershed Vision and Goals, 1 lb. Collective Statement Page 7, Paragraph 3; It states:
"Private property ownership rights are recognized."
So it came to pass that an ordinance needed to be created to acquire the land now to be known as the Primary Zone
which prohibits development of any kind in that area, which consequently took away halt'of my land. What was
given as very clear direction from The Steering Committee to the city, back and forth we went, many times over
about this was that 300 feet from where the vegetation starts was to be The Primary Zone and 40 feet around the
Primary Zone is the Secondary Zone. The co~nmittee was very specific about this more than anything else we talked
about for a year. We were asked as landowners and citizens of the community to define the area of protection for
the BluffCreek which we did, which was tile due process steps for creating the ordinance to be known as The Bluff
Creek Ordinance, Article 31, Chapter 20, Section 20-1551 to 20-1564. This placed only the North East corner tip of
my property into the Primary Zone. Though you have kept much of the I lb. Collective Statement, you specifically
left out the directive of the 300 feet. This directive is found on Page 8 of the BluffCreek Water Shed Natural
Resources Management Plan Draft and Final Copy, December, 1996. "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek
are preserved." How the ordinance was written became a "bait and switch" tactic by the city. I was baited in the
beginning, along with a lot of others and then the city switched things and the Secondary Zone magically became
the entire Primary Zone, which ultimately took away half of my property. You are taking away the reasonable use
of my property and you need to return it or compensate me for it.
According to the Bluff Creek Ordinance, Section 3. Section 20-I, of the Chanhassen City Code - Cluster
Development means a pattern of development that arranges the layout of buildings on a compact area of the site so
as to reserve a portion of the site for common open space or green space that is protected in perpetuity. A portion
is not defined as "almost half the site". It also speaks to the creation of suitable balance between the amount of
open space and the development in general. It does not say total balance or half of it as being a balance: it only
says suitable which says it is negotiable. Il also says tile Planning Director shall make a determination as to the
"where" the areas are so it means it is arbitrary in the initial delineation by the Planning Director.
Also, the ordinance states "The city intends that all development within the district meet certain criteria of
judgment" which states in Section 20 1461 Intent. Paragraph (a) 'q'he Comprehensive Plan which includes the
BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, as amended from time to time",... So this speaks to
negotiation of the rules again.
Further, the ordinance states under Section 20 - 1464 Boundary Delineation, paragraph (b): The applicant may
appeal the planning director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council.
Therefore, after all that has been said and done 1, Susan McAIlister, the land owner, am respectfully asking the city
council to bring my property's North section back to the original intent of the steering committee's vision that is
specifically "All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved." I believe this should be the Primary Zone
which places the Primary Zone once again only on my upper North East corner of my property and allows a portion
of the rest of the area in question to become the Secondary Zone which states in the BluffCreek Ordinance Section
20 1461 Intent, paragraph (b)... and to the greatest extent possible, preserving significant resources and
minimizing impacts in the Secondary Zone through cluster development... The ordinance does allow for
development in the Secondary Zone through use of thc density transfer mechanism.
According to the city's narrative we are developing 6.52 acres with about 30% of the area in the BluffCreek Zone at
2 units per acre, which equals 13.04 units, but thc Single Family Residence Ordinance automatically allows for twin
homes so 13.04 becomes 26.08 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. This is the city's own formula which then
becomes 22.168 units rounded down to 22 units. This is the Ghost Plat Formula without the Primary Zone figured
into the site.
BluffCreek Protection Area formula as l%llows:
Using the city's "List of Residential Transition Properties within the BluffCreek Corridor" my net density
is 6 units per acre.
6.5 acres less 30% for Primary Zone equals 4.55 developable acres, multiplied by 6 net units per acre
equals 27.3 units, rounded down to 27 units, less 15% for R.O.W., setbacks, etc. equals 22.95 units or
22/23 units.
In order tbr the Bluff Creek Ordinance to be used properly and not become misused as just another mechanism Ibr
Eminent Domain without compensation, which it never was intended to be, it specifically allows for the same
density that could be achieved through development of the entire site to now be transferred to a designated area. 1
therefore, expect the city to work proactively according to their own rules they put in place and allow me to have the
22 or 23 units that could be there without the ordinance yet lhrough the use ot'density transfer.
Please accept this letter as a matter ot'public record for the public hearing phase of the development of my property.
I expect to address this with city council.
Respectfully,
Susan McAIlister,
Landowner
Management PIa
tuber 1996
CITY OF
a~ Bonestroo
Rosene
,~ Anderlik &
Associates
Engineers & Architects
There iL~ a cont~;uous o~reenway a/ono~ the o-eek//om the/'q#;nesota R/ver
to lake Mznnewashta The creek corridor is more wild than
domesticated. The design of an open space network has protected
diverse wildlife habitats and cultural landscapes, such as farmland.
In addition, there is adequate access to trails, parking, facilities and
interpretive elements. There are numerous active areas for picnics to
minimize pressure on native wild areas.
The upper o-eek ~ access~b/e foJ' a varz~ty of uses znc/ud/h~ a tra~/ system
on the upper and rn~Jd/e reaches, w~h posszP/e out-of-cot?'l~Jor
connections to otpsezvatzon arenas A multiple use trail runs north from
Pioneer Trail for biking, running and skiing. Side trails connect with
neighborhoods. A community park in the upper reaches is contiguous to
the trail system. There is a cross-country ski trail in the area and a bike trail
north of Lyman Boulevard/Pioneer Trail. No motorized vehicles are
allowed in the greenway.
~nNcant enw~onmenta/ area.s- thzouffh the coz~-~Jor w#1 be zdent~f/ed and
prior~zZed w~h a rat~ff s, vstem The spectacular lower creek has been
preserved in its natural state with a rustic, limited-use nature trail running its
length. Upstream development is limited to preserve the lower creek.
Areas once degraded have been restored and maximum protection against
pollution caused by urbanization has been achieved. The restoration goals
for the watershed are realistic. In the lower creek, preservation of woods,
stream quality, wetlands, wildlife and a nature sanctuary lets the sounds of
nature, not cars, be heard,
Hab~tat~ fo~ the wate~ s/~ed's n,~t/ve anff~a/s and p/ants w#/ be de#ned
ac-¥oz'd/~?~ tO th~)-f~ee~- [he former fields and drained wetlands of the
upper creek have been restored to the original big woods region
vegetation. All vegetation within 300 feet of the creek are preserved.
Invasive non-native species such as purple loosestrife and buckthorn are
eliminated. The creek supports fish and serves as a wildlife corridor
supporting deer, fox, turkeys, beaver and coyote. The wildlife is thriving
and circulating freely throughout the greenway.
Water' clua/~Zy ~s t~h thzo~&,hout ff~e watezs-hed [he water quality is
maintained and protected through recharge, infiltration, grassed waterways
and restored wetlands that absorb stormwater runoff. If needed, open
water- storage areas either in-st~ earn or upland are developed and natural
flood control is achieved through these restored wetlands as reservoirs in
the upper valley.
Bluff Cree~ Watersaed Ndtt~rc~l IResouirces Mamagememt Plato
Minnesota Deparb~,,.~t of '[rar',spo,,!at~on
Metropolitan Division
January 13, 2004
Sharmeen A1-Jaff
Planning Department, City of Cbanhassen
7700 Market Boulcvard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SUBJECT:
McAllister Parcel, Mn/DOT Review #P03-127
NE Quad of 78th Street and TH 41
Chanhassen, Carver Co.
Control Section 1008
Dear Ms. A1-Jaff:
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) bas reviewed the above
referenced plat m compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Belbrc
any further development, please address thc following issues:
Additional information must be submitted to determinc if a Mn/DOT Drainage permit
will be required. Please submit before/after drainage area maps and before/after
hydraulic computations for both 10 and 100 year rainfall events vcrif~ving that all
existing drainagc patterns and systems affecting Mn/DOT right of way will bc
perpetuated. The proposed development will need to maintain existing drainage rates
(i.e., the rate at which storm water is discharged fi'om the site must not increase).
Please direct questions concerning these issues to Richard Cady (651 ) 634-2075 of
Mn/DOT's Water Resources section.
Mn/DOT will be turning back jurisdiction o£ 78th Street to the city. However, the
timing of this is not until later this year. Mn/DOT bas been issuing access permits
for this city street since it has been under our jurisdiction. Until ti~c roadxvay is
released to the city we will maintain this procedure. The developer will hood to apply
for an access permit fi'om our Permit Office. Please contact Keitb VanWanger in the
Permit Office at (651 ) 582-1443 regarding access permits.
The plan shows a 7% grade to the intersection at 78th Street in which there appears to
be inadequate landing area. Mn/DOT docs not have standards for approaches to city
streets, but for the truck highway our standard is a 0.5% grade over 25 feet. We
recommend that the city work with thc developer to providc a safer intersection with
78th Street.
· Mn/DOT's policy is to assist local governmcnts in promoting compatibility between
land use and highways. Rcsidcntial uses located adjacent to bigbxvays often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible
for taking all reasonable measures to prcvent land use activities listed in the MPCA's
Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would
result in violations of established noise standards.
Mn/DOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The
project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed
necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. It' you have any questions
regarding Mn/DOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at
(651) 582-1293.
As a reminder, please address all initial future correspondence lbr development activity
such as plats and site plans to:
Development Reviews Coordinator
Mn/DOT - Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require thrcc (3) complete copies of plats and
two (2) copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three
(3) copies of a plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a
submittal incomplete and delay Mn/DOT's review and response to dcvelopment
proposals. We appreciate your anticipated cooperation in providing the necessary
number of copies, as this will prevent us fi-om having to delay and/or return incomplete
submittals.
If you have any questions concerning this review please feel fi'ee to contact me at (651)
582-1378.
Sincerely,
Brigid Gombold
Senior Transportation Planner
Copy:
John Freemycr / Carver County Surveyor
Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer
Ed J. Hasek / Westwood Professional Servieces, Inc.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY~ A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR
18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLETS; AND A VARIANCE FROM THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT~ A2;
LOCATED AT 2930 WEST 78TM STREET (NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST
78TM STREETAND HIGHWAY 41); HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK;
PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT~ LLC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Russell
Mike Ryan
Todd Simning
Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services
Brent Hiscox
Susan McAllister
Scott Bemas, Edina Realty
Holly Huber
7632 Arboretum Village Circle
2595 Southern Court
Plowshares Development
Eden Prairie
Plowshares Development
2930 West 78th Street
6800 France Avenue So
2828 Coach Lane
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff.
Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the a4justed, maybe you ah'eady did and I
missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff.
What does that really mean'/ And i'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat.
Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there? Okay.
Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by
moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the
lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that
boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an
alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that thc
primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work fi'om there.
Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added
to the overlay district, is that where the barn is sited'?
Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there.
Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the barn, remove the barn and then
attempt to reforest that.
Generous: Vegetate, right exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of
my pet peeves here. I mean if you look itt this report, it's a good report. But we've got
way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last
application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer
there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's
the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main
question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that
and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really
changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this slnne picture here? I mean I don't
see that happening, so what arc we looking itt'? I mean arc wc really going to be looking
at the final product here? I don't think wc would be.
Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd
be simple and we'd sec what the results are itt best. Another way is to revise the plat.
Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative, l don't know. We'll leave that
up to them to resolve.
Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already?
Generous: We told them that this hits been an issue. They wanted lo come forward and
see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries
and would be reasonable.
Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically.
Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have iL lot of
questions.
Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of ,just one of the
motions.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Generous: On the plat.
Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive.
Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a
complete application.
Sacchet: But then in all fairness, il' that's the action we would go, we should have some
discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think
there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you
may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of
questions until we actually get to that level of granularity.
Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you
look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I
mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line,
would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And
specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that con'ectly?
If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And
that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something.
Generous: It looks like they're showing them after...
Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the
reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate?
Generous: That's what it looks like, yes.
Lillehaug: Ah'ight. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have tin
appropriate easement fei' that sanitary line'? East of thc applicant's easterly property line.
Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line'? No.
Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm
sewer goes.
Generous: In Arboretum ViLlage.
Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's
appearing.
Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much
29
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the
open space I think was granted as an easement to the city.
Generous: And the city also owns that land...
Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember
too.
Lillehaug: AMght. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page
6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40
feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct?
Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance.
Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure ! understand this correctly. Is that, it needs
to be 40 feet from thc primary line that is shown there?
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that.
Generous: No.
Sacchet: We're into the primary right now.
Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone.
Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet.
Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback.
Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance
that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is
making this a different circumstance from the other ac[jacent properties to that whole
district? Why is this different from anything else here?
Generous: Well too is the location of West 78~h Street as it came into this project sort of
dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water
pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West '75th Street. And
then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that.
Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback'?
Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor
and it'd be pre-treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to
preserve the tree line again and that has been...
Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct?
Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had fei- them. Their alternative,
so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond
there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run
a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over
that pipe, since they're ah'eady going to the woods. But they came up with this
alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project.
Lillehaug: So there's a trail, il' I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the
trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not
exhausting your questions.
Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a
reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a
connection down to the trail?
Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone.
At least to that extent.
Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings.
Generous: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just its a non-doable
but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it
come off Century Trail because 1 think you mentioned that either the city owns that land
to the east or there's some.
Generous: The city owns it, yes.
Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78th Street, if you
went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 187 I'm just throwing this
out.
Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest.
First off, the applicant doesn't own thc land to the east. While the city has easements on
it, it's not for roadway purposes. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you
have an access off West 78th Street but go buy land. I mcan that's why I quickly put that
idea to rest. There is an existing access that xvas planned fei'. We just built West 78th
31
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one
other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78th Street. We pushed them
away fi'om that idea also and said just use the one access so.
Sacchet: Thanks Matt.
Slagle: So, and I'll ask it again. Wc might have an application in fl-ont of us that could
result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a
viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if
you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or
would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No mattel' where it jets out to.
Saam: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though
Commissioner SIaglc, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding
was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 78th Street. A
rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of
that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable
area. You know with the primary zone and everything.
Slagle: And how was that received?
Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask
the applicant. That's another option. I kind of hear where you're going. You're looking
at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the
primary zone setback and those issues.
Lillehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here.
Slagle: You certainly may.
Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to
try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond'?
Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However Ihere's other jurisdictions that
have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. Maybe MnDot
shot them down, I don't know. So 1'11 just throw that out too because it is used by the
Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pultc so, and
MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so.
Tjornhom: I have a few things. When they came before tls in August. They didn't come
before tls. When they met with tls about what.
Sacchet: Work session.
Tjornhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district'?
32
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Generous: They had multiple plans.
Tjornhom: I can't believe...
Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in fl'ont of us as a concept was 18
units, not cutting into the tree line...because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what
we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the
recommendation we gave them.
Lillehaug: This looks familiar.
Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for
discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can sec, it backs
into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's
too many units on that and I don't know if you went any farther into looking at the
primary zone boundaries.
Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut
into the northern tree line. 1 recall that very clearly.
Tjomhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will
be sold'/
Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale.
Tjornhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's
comprehensive plan for our city'?
Generons: It provides an alternate housing type.
Tjornhom: AMght.
Generous: So /'rom that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us
under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at
3.18, it would be better.
Tjomhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development
and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that
correct'? Is that what [ was hearing? Do they over spill'/ I mean I keep thinking you
know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow?
Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer fi'om the
yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no?
Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the
ponds are sized for hundred yem' floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an
outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though.
Saam: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but.
Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff
Creek setback'?
Tjornhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that thc units could be
shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. ls that what I
heard?
Sacchct: Yeah, okay.
Generous: That was one of the alternatives.
Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and
passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see.
Generous: Correct. That goes to council.
Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different fi-om what we've got, if we have to
eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal,
replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the
city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700
square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to rcvcgetate
that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand'?
Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal,
but very similar to out- overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation
in the comdor, especially on farm properties.
Papke: Thank you Bob.
Sacchet: Any questions Craio'?=.
Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this
point?
Generous: I did discuss it earlier ~oday. Their base price would be approximately
$300,000 per unit.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else hits been touched on with the exception
of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their
letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell
basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all'?
Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she
didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond,
and so you get the same benefit.
Claybaugh: Okay. And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was
moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at cun-ently, and those
units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that turn? It' that
road had to be reconfigured.
Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing it proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm
assuming they would submit something that abides by code.
Sacchet: Is that it'?
Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions.
Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries.
On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a
sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they ;ill of a sudden are further
down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those
boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of
those boundaries.
Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, thc city map. The GIS map which
started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge
on the property to the east also, so then that line would bc contiguous.
Sacchet: And then in addition, il' we look, there is actually a couple of the units are
drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately ac[jacent. They seem to certainly
come all the way to, and also under tine secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that
just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring tot
Generous: Oh yes, and I tlnink ifs because they picked tip the line off the map as
opposed to the actual physical conditions.
Sacchet: Just to be really cleat', those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units
are sitting to the road side'? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those?
Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building
pad.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely
not into the primary?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather
significant retaining wall proposed to the cast of this development. It actually says 9 foot
height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there
seems relatively flat. I mean not totally flat but being fi'om Switzerland this is definitely
flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 lbot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of
wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in
between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little
crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that
please?
Generous: I'd defer to our engineer.
Sacchet: Or our engineering, ah-ight. Matt.
Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that
east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street.
Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from?
Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're
pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to
be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining
wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet.
Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away
fi'om that retaining wall. Is that acceptable?
Saam: We'll require ban'icades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no.
Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm
getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says
the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent
to West 78th Street. What are we talking about in that case?
Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlet J that
they preserved there, or that was hcrc as part of their property. And then Outlet G was
the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer
couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlet J to the developer and the city really
doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With
that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this
wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record.
Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are
your eyes glossed over yet'? I think mine are.
Sacchet: Not totally.
Todd Simning: Not totally'? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in
reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not.
The biggest reason it was decided not to put fl. trail system through there was strictly on
the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at
some point and there's most likely going to bca trail connection along side 41 going
down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly
in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one
point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the corner of the
radius of West 78th Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a
possibility to actually put that road through there, so we actually did look at that at ()ne
time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but
in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and
they shot us down completely. They were ah'eady taking Pulte's water on and they really
wanted to preserve that for themselves and were not interested in working with tis to
allow our water to go there so that was one of thc other reasons why we ended up with a
pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that
we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were tinder the assumption that
the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last
15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition
but we had to stay further away fi'om thc primary because you guys had l0 feet and we
thought we had to be 15 feet fi'om the primary zone. So that was just more of a
clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that.
Okay, so let me start fi'om the beginning of coming out here in August or September with
you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan
and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28
lots and i had 24 lots. And you guys laughed fit me and said don't bring the 32. Don't
bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and ()ne of the ideas that you guys had was mainly
that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too
many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to
staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan
with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish
and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that
you guys see right now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do
with the pending on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord
as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain
why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in
front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable
37
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly
putting it towards the east side, and what ended tip happening was that we ended up
putting it on the west side its an option when we looked at it for a couple different
reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the
overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it
was on the east side here, thc overflow would actually go down over the, through the
woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't
think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100
year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it
on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on
41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over
the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here ils a pond
or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we
definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional,
roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it
made sense to try to put the pond tip here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to
save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to
be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers tls a
lot of natural amenities that we, its well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using
that and wanting to keep the tree linc and knowing that those would be our most valuable
units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond.
Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd
see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing
that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave
it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree
line just slightly. We will go ahead and revcgctate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of
thing. But it will also allow tls the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78th
Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close
to West 78th Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay,
if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees
and we'd be as far away from West 78th Street its possible, but in order to make
everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly
into the trees, it made more sense to tls. And so that's why we came here today. I know
you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came
today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and
ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible.
If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do
that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the
Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had
today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 el' 20, which is number 8
and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it
specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units.
All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two [Init
buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff' maybe to
note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8.500 gross square feet so they
would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you
38
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
call it? Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our
units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in
the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right
here for fire trucks to get in and what not. we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we
did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I
hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is
actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been
within the roles and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very
excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to
building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over
off of 101 and West 86th Street, which again wits a very sensitive area, just strictly
because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an
easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are
done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you
guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might
give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save
trees and save the natural environment around tls. And I'm open to any questions you
guys might have.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich.
Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be
your target audience'? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through.
Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the
Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots.
32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock
you. It shocked tls on what our audience was. Wc had anything from 27-28 year old first
time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year
old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised tls. Wc
had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say
probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a
smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I
think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told tls.
Slagle: Were there families with kids'?
Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our first phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the
Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children.
Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with thc children's issue is, this development
is, con'ect me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city.
In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children,
and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area
showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put
some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay,
39
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe
you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to
the north, to the Longacres area. 1 don't know what the plan is to go south to West '75th
from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78m?
Generous: To 82nd Street eventually.
Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open
then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 ils you come out of your
development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78th.
Todd Simning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and i don't think Bob's got this
highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a
sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not
highlighted right now.
Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this
prqject proceed il' 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated?
Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I
guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less
than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We
know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a
viable project for tls to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's
not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for tls to do
anything.
Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the
number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and
again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I
hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a
motion to table this until some of those things get resolved.
Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that
a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures
on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different
reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and
typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical
SO.
Slagle: Fair enough.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions fi'om the applicant.
Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-3 V2. What's the square footage of the units
Finished square footage.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main
floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep.
Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it
relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over.
And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond'?
Could you move the pond east off the lot'? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the
east. Would that generally fit within that'?
Saam: l guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant
doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so
whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with
them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done.
Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that'?
Todd Simning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his
head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city
and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more
on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult jusl strictly because you end up
having units right next door to it and il' it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond
sitting there.
Feik: Alright, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you.
Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe ,just try to finish off the last
alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, il' I understood you correctly, you
were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to
the north central part of the property where the barn currently is. Is that correct?
Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically
where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond,
what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it
down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was
the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west
side.
Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the
practability of putting it where thc barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms.
They're box elders. They're not thc more significant trees on the property. If you know
we looked at taking some of those out and locating thc pond in thc central area there,
would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are
there any other barriers to locating the pond there...
41
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Todd Simning: If I may, I ,just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Wcstwood
Engineering here.
Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked thc property last weekend a little bit. I
didn't actually go on the property but observed it fi'om a distance and if you look at that
barn area, it's not, there's big brush piles and so on. I mcan it's not, it's the kind of area
that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative.
Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of
this that was submitted to thc city. Are we on thc screen? Right, excellent...vegetation
in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box eider. Significant tree is simply
is a tree that...
Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard.
Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek.
I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a
planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less
quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues
all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from
the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the
pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into
the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that wc can
certainly look at. Personally I think that il' wc were going to put the pond on the north
side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a
design standpoint and fi'om simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an
engineering standpoint, it seemed to tls that it should be ad, jacent to the road so we can
usc existing infrastructure, ditches.
Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the
concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this
something we should be womed about or is this something that we can safely say you
know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And it: it does overflow,
okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a
pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow
right down to the marsh.
Saam: Exactly. I guess fi'om that perspective it' it's sized for the 100 year, 1 mean we
don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that.
Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you.
Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not il' it was on the northwest corner of the
property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going
to run down into the swamp anyway.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Claybaugh: Just takes a different path.
Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant'?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under
Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has
the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning
districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that
context'?
Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit'?
Claybaugh: Sure.
Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market
place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you
go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines
primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal
builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll
see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount
of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next
door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because
they're at a certain price range, and l'm not knocking that but it' you contrast that with
what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality
there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, .just with our units themselves, if you do
go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys.
Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll
see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with
them in the same developments, which we halve in several different occasions, we've
outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they
had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, il' you talk to our clients that we,
that are living in our developments right now, ils well ils who we're building with right
now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the
street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us.
Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of
those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more
specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this
conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to thc
city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen?
Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a
nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I
would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill
somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind o1' move up
43
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again
fi-om single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality
neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes.
You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to
come out and you ,just see more and more people that are starting to come out here.
Claybaugh: That's all I have.
Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating
yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 foot road?
Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our
first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it wits pretty narrow. I think it was
like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better,
okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street,
which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines
we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways.
Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park.
Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even
though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your
company to park. In this development, I think we're .just getting that much better again
where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some
places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it ,just provides a nicer
element fo,' the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us.
We .just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in
developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish.
Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing
and proposed. It needs to be maybe a l0 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with
that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on
top of it. Do you have any concerns with that?
Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly
quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues
or problems there. We actually have one at thc Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie
that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have om- boulder
walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. i mean there's some
undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates thc overall landscaping with
the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it
goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any
issues.
Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th
Street. If you're traveling east on West 75th, you know you have your, you do have your
access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an
access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlet there. Is one of the other
44
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
concerns that you can't get thc elewttions to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we
totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail?
Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out fi'om the city
earlier, that when we had to be so far from the corner here and we really didn't have
anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far tip and then all
of a sudden you're right next to somebody clse's units over here again. It's kind of like
the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry fi'om neighbors
so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really wc wanted to deal
with our own property and that was a better way of going about it.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: One more quick question, To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion
that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also
touched on it in our preliminary meeting when wc were here, what 3-4 months ago. How
doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated
without having to cut into that northern tree line'?
Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks fi'om West 78~h Street with our pond,
on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it.
Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that?
Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is,
is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and
again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's tip to you guys whether you want
to say that I have good reason or not to do that.
Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size'? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring
that side down to...
Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be
there to accommodate what we have.
Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that
Todd Simning: For thc layout that we have here, I think that we have exhatisted what we
could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really
want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table mc, and give me
that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't
feel as though that was a great alternative.
Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying
to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do
you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And
my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and
structures with that line.
Todd Simning: You,just went right over my head. Ed, do you?
Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again?
Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that
the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's,
I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal
water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now'?
Ed Hasek: I believe it cun'ently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we
understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like
to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road
and some of the things that were going on and l'd like to go through that really quickly
with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to
store water in that pond, the outlet elew~tion that we have on that is setting thc elevation
of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the
units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to
make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in
the pond that's on the north side of the p,-operty right now. Just so you understand why
things are as high as they a,'e. One other reason why there was some comment about the
elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start
with, I had the end of thc road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood
said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall
has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the
back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder walL. Sc) that kind of sets the
elevation. The pond sets the clewttion of the units. ~Fhe units set thc elewttion of the
road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so.
Sacchet: While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high
wouldn't you?
Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis.
we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short.
like this.
I believe that our first oo around
That's not a lot of dirt for a site
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you
have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch
down points if the retention pond was put on the north side'?
Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may
go down 2 or 3 feet. The road elevation.
Claybaugh: That's substantial.
Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it
might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage.
Claybaugh: Right.
Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road tip in order to do that. The
garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't.
Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road
elevation'?
Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not
even that I don't think.
Claybaugh: hilt s the extent of my comments.
Sacchet: Okay. Ah-ight, thank you very much.
Todd Simning: Thank you.
Sacchet: This is a public hearing so il' anybody wants to comment on this item, this is
your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your
name and address for thc record plcase.
Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very lnuch. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern
Court and seeing this proposal, it docs seem like these guys are going to great efforts in
many ways so it looks like il fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I
was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot oF concerns about that and using
some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with
respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte pro~ject and that,
everything north of 78th Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed
for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium
density. And the cotincil at that time did rccogni×e that everything north should be in that
low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined its the
Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters il' you will of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance
requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to
47
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there.
I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of
effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody
who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very
few forests and I hate to see, find I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down
here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary con'idor but it's, I know it's a
very healthy tree structure and I don't know il' there's anything that the council here can
take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those
comments and I don't know il' there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but
how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even
beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if
anybody could speak to that.
Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob'? Since it is part of the development.
Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This
development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in
place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's
actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78th Street. That came in at 3.5
units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that .... setback, that's a question. Old
growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can
remember. They're removing approximately, what is it'? 27 percent. 33 percent of the
existing canopy coverage on this site tls part of the overall pro. ject. The percent that's in
the primary zone, we'd like to get it to ×ere. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet
of area. Thc total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot.
One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they
were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want
to preserve more'? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of
those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future it' they can work it out as part of
the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value
to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site.
Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees?
Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent covet'
and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent.
Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42?
Sacchet: It's gone fi-om 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made,
I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying.
They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we
inventoried go fi'om 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation,
or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a
little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are
48
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And
I'll have some comments about that later on.
Mike Ryan: And I'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte
project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this.
It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is
that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but il always amazes me how these
developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's
problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land.
You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but
you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying
to throw a wrench in it. It's just...it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the
old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that.
Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about
this'?
Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this.
It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed
because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been
hit by lightning and so i just wanted to make that clear. I do have some photographs of
some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a
long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of
that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but
I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought
it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say.
Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want lo comment on this while we have a
public hearing? This is your chance. Nope'? Ah-ight. I'll close the public hearing and
we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some
things that bordered on comments ah-eady. How about we start on this side. We started
mostly on this side so far.
Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved
to the north side in the existing barn location. I think in thc final analysis, whether
there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in
Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to
see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to
ad, just that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that
they've identified fi'om the garage to the main structure, i think there's a number of
positive benefits by doing that so to summarize l'd like to table tonight and that would be
the direction that I would provide them with.
Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is,
meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those
were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some
impact obviously but the lesser of two evils.
Sacchet: Thanks.
Papke: Yeah,,just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at
the trade off's here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here
and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident
comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or
remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples,
which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the
barn is might involve removino= some box elders and some elm trees, which as the
property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So tbr myself, I would be
very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and
box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way
of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that
could be a win/win scenario. Granted thc applicant also voiced some concern that having
the NURP pond along West 78*~' Street allows you to set those homes back away from
78th Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently
building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back.
Move the homes a little bit closeT' to the street anti having that be the trade off. So that's
all I have, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt.
Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an
additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we
were to move this forward, I don't think i~ would look much like what we're looking at
today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with
moving forward with this based upon the scope of lhe conditions.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany.
Tjornhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do
want to say that I think it's anice development so I hope it works out.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich.
Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will
throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and
sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some
merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be
a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see
later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different
communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
remember right is connecting to trails. And if this wits a neighborhood of single family
homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more
open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased
to see that.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to
reiterate things here. I'm ,just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street
so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78th Street that is
proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are
we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the
south side of the road'? i'm not opposed to either' way. I just want to make sure that we
get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow
commissioners. Looking alt their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed
the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have
20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, con*oct?
Generous: That's what the ordinance sltys.
Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking alt a variance here and i want to make sure
everyone's aware of that. I guess.
Slagle: If I can, would that wtriance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it
does.
Lillehaug: It does. And then my qucstion, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it
but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and I don't, does someone
have that answer for me? Because I don't.
Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving
the northern, what is it'? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool
to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, wc have to put it into the medium density
context because in the low density we can't do this clustcring thing. So by doing the
clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I
mean that's the benefit we're getting.
Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, al single family and go into that primary
zone and put a house? I'm just sltying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the
trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what
the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary
zone'? Is there one?
Generous: It hasn't been tested yet.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to
work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation'? How far
do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. Thc other thing is if you
use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, thcy potentially could have
gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet thc setbacks. But then we wouldn't
have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to
try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or
reason that we're looking at making this work.
Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it ()ut there. I mean it's a great
development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50
percent.
Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for thc 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen
this reconfigured.
Generous: Right.
Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much ils possible and not necessarily
just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I lhink the number of units that are
going to encroach on that a,-e going to be mitigated ils well.
Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of
things.
Claybaugh: 1 mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate
fei' ourselves if they've done duc diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that
they can. Whether that ends up being 20 ['cct, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the
plan's reconfigured.
Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner
Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that
they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20
but I think if they come back and shows tls.
Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, its a consensus decide to table, certainly I would
hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions.
Sacchet: Right.
Ed Hasek: Point of clarification?
Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at al path through the
woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because
there's a big difference between just a trail.
Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly i think staff, whether
it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense.
Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification.
Slagle: I hope you do.
Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve'?
Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting
a trail through the woods there, i think I would go with the applicant and say going out to
41 is adequate in my mind.
Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that
one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes'? Then it's my
turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. I mean this thing is not solid enough
fi'om that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very
fundamental impact. I mean il' we slty they cannot cut into thc primary zone, all the
discussion we had here, well where would thc pond go'? Do they lose units? Would the
street be more narrow? And I think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the
appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the fi-amework of this, it's an excellent project.
I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that
within that framework it's just going to get belier. When you came in with the concept, it
was in September was when it wits, ! think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my
memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then
we thought that 18 units wits probably=ooino= to be the balance so I don't have a problem
with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we
wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we
actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also
with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that
you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you
have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look itt the possibility that was suggesting in
thc pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. It' you
have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as
where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a
compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fimtastic. And it shows that you're
cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking
at in terms of the caliper inches, it' you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost
half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and I do understand
some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have
been hit by lightning and what have you. However, .just to balance that scale a little bit,
and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you
53
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more,
there are 26 of them. And you're cutting l l so there you're about a third. Closer to half.
Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are
actually ll trees there that arc 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I
share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're
actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the
more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our
discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's ti difference in terms of value of
box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing.
You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of
them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half,
so when we look at the real significant trees, I would conclude you're cutting a
significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them
actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we
can do about that so i'm not trying to make ti case. Usually ! try to find some trees and
say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. Thc only thing I can say, there's a
couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and
significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it roves, in my opinion
additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a
lot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we
move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this
retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the pending
and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going
to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually
preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the
clustering. Obviously it hits to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development.
That's my comments with that.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make.
Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig.
Claybaugh: I was .just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The
applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it
eliminating that hammerhead turn around. I'd like to itt least point that out to possibly
justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead wits taken out would
help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also
possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and
justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just
between relocating the NURP pond and possibly.justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to thc
east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I
think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's
all the comments I have.
Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have ti motion please.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004
Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for
Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78th Street.
Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second'?
Claybaugh: Second.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request
for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 78th Street in
it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7
to 0.
Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvcne by
10:15.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20~ ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions of staff.
Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is
all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term
building here'? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in
the way this is worded?
Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal
building. Principal structure.
Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to
run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know.
I mean does that constitute a developed property il' l've got a tree house on my, you
know.
Generous: That would seem as it says building. Now a principal building or principal
structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure
before you can have accessory structures, etc.
Papke: There you go.
Generous: So that's a way to do it.
Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would.
55
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
February 19, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for PUD 2003-3, located at 2930 West 78th Street, Applicant Plowshares
Development LLC and Susan McAIlister - Planning Case No. 04-01, to the persons named
on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such
owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with
postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing
as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota. and by other
appropriate records.
Karen J. Engelhardt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to me
before :~
this lc,;~'~ day of (5~ [),'t.~.r~fj ,2()(~.
' / k,.~. Notary Publ~,~..~
g:\eng\lbrms\affidavit.doc
KlM T MEUVVlSSEN ~
Notary Public - Minneso~
CARVE~R COUNTY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL: Highlands of Bluff Creek
Planned Unit Development
APPLICANT: Plowshares Development, LLC
Susan McAIlister
PLANNING CASE #04-01 (aka 2003-3)
LOCATION: 2930 West 78th Street
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Plowshares
Development, LLP/Susan McAIlister, is requesting a Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density
to Residential Medium Density; a Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District; Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) Review for an 18-unit Townhouse Project; Site Plan
Review for an 18-unit Townhouse Project; Subdivision Approval for 18 Townhouse Lots and Outlots; and a
Variance from the Bluff Creek Overlay District Setback Requirements on 6 acres of property zoned Agricultural
Estate District, A2. The property is located at 2930 West 78th Street (northeast corner of West 78th Street and
Highway 41 ).
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or e-mail b.qenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will
provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on December 25, 2003.
/
/
City Review Procedure
Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland
Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before
the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified
of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a
recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give
a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about
the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the
item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly
or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a
simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to
commercial/industrial.
Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to
have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the
notification.
Concept Planned Unit Development #2003-3
Public Hearing Notice Area (500 feet)
2930 West 78th Street
H
Arboretum Boulet
ALFONSO & CHRISTINE M CORREA
2828 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
ALLAN D FISCHER
7641 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
ALLEN K JR & JENNIFER R LARSON
7647 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
ALLEN M ODEGARD
2841 COACH CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433
AMY E FISHER
2836 COACH CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433
AMY I BOEHM
7702 COACH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432
ARBORETUM VILLAGE COMMUNITY
815 NORTHWEST PKY
SUITE 140
EAGAN MN 55121-
BARBARA ANN MILLER
7661 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
BRANDON B WAGNER
7659 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
BRENDA C BROWN
7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
BRIAN K MOE
7700 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
BRIAN W SHEPARD & NICHOLE M
WHETSTINE
7636 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
BRYAN M FRITZ
2838 COACH CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433
BYRON A & MARY M OLSON
7331 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8038
CATHERINE A HOLTE
7630 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
DALE C & KlM R HOWELL
7644 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
DALE R & JEAN A RUSCH
2856 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
DARRYL E COSTELLO
PO BOX 34
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-0034
DAVID L BUSS & ERIN KAY STEINKE
7638 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
DEBBRA C HILL
7640 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
ERIK M JOHNSON
PO BOX 545
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0545
GARY & JENNIFER SANDQUIST
7711 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
GUILLERMO E & JAMIE A ARIAS
7633 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
HELEN R HUBER
2828 COACH LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434
HREIDAR & ELINOR A AGUSTSSON
2836 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
JACOB O CROOKS & MICHAEL A &
RENATE E CROOKS
7450 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037
JANET K OPHEIM
7704 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
JASON & JENNIFER VEUM
7629 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
JEFFRY KARL RUSSELL
7632 ARBORETUM VILLAG CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
JENNIFER A VONESCHEN
7643 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
JOAN B DYGERT
2824 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
JOHN C SCHIELE & HOLLY J BENTZ
2848 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
JOHN F ALTENBERND
7639 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
JOHN M WIGEN
7625 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
KATHRYN ELLEN GRIEGER
2923 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423
KEITH D TURNQUIST
7701 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
KELLY A PEDERSON & JOHN H &
JUDY A PEDERSON
7627 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4421
KELLY KAY SCHUFT
7702 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
KIMBERLY B KOZAR
7629 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
LARRY A & VIVIAN S NELSON
2832 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
LEAH L RUDNICKI & JACOB C &
BETH A RUDNICKI
2837 COACH CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433
LEE A AMIOT & JENNIFER M
SCHMOLL
7617 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
LINDA LEE SIMON
7706 COACH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432
LISA A ALT
7703 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
MARY L JOHNSON
7633 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317~4419
MATTHEW J NARDO
7650 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
MATTHEW L MAETZOLD & JILL K
WASHBURN
7613 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
MERALD A & ELAINE A KROGSTAD
7460 HAZELTINE BLVD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331-8037
MICHAEL B HERMAN
2921 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CRV
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4423
MICHAEL D & AMY L ARMBRUST
7630 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
MICHAEL D & JANICE M CHOCKLAN
7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
MICHAEL W SCHACHTERLE &
CRYSTAL E SCHACHTERLE
2852 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
MOLLY J LYSFJORD
7652 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
NANCY A GALLAGHER
7705 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4426
NANCY JEAN LARSON
7704 COACH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4432
PAUL J & KELLY K RAIMONDO
7632 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
PHILLIP A GROTHE
7628 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
PULTE HOMES OF MINNESOTA
CORP
815 NORTHWEST PKY
SUITE 140
EAGAN MN 55121-1580
REGENTS OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA
CIO REAL ESTATE OFFICE
319 15TH AVE SE
424 DON HOWE BLDG
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455-0118
ROBERT M & JILL R SOMERS
2839 COACH CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4433
ROBERTA J RONBECK & JOAN L
RONBECK
2840 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
RYAN C BROWN & SARA M RYAN
7642 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
SCOTT R PASS & ELIZABETH D
RAIN EY-PASS
2844 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
SHANNON M HOGAN
7651 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
SHAWN R KERRIGAN
7648 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
SHEILA K DEWOLF
2830 COACH LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434
SHIRLEY A FORS
2820 CENTURY TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4420
STEVEN W RABY & MARY E
FRASCZAK
7621 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4419
SUMIKA CHAI
7649 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
SUSAN MCALLISTER
2930 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4501
THERESA A LINN
7635 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
THOMAS J SYLVESTER
7632 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
TRACY J DOHENY
7634 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 5531%4421
VICTOR D & KATHERINE T OATES
2832 COACH LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4434
VINH Q DO NGUYEN
7657 ARBORETUM VILLAGE LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4425
WESLEY A DAHLSTROM
7637 CENTURY CT
CHANHASSEN MN 5531%4419
WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH
7801 PARK DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9200
WILLIAM A & IRENE V HINES
7631 ARBORETUM VILLAGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4422
WILLIAM E HART
7653 ARBORETUM VILLAGE PL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317-4424
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSENMN 55317