06-19-96 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY,JUNE 19, 1996, 7:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER
OLD BUSINESS
A. Land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6+acres from office/industrial to residential medium
density, conceptual and preliminary PUD approval for a mixed townhome and office-industrial
development on 45.21 acres located at the northwest corner of Lyman and Galpin Blvd., rezoning
from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 146
townhome units, a wetland alteration permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site, and preliminary
plat approval creating 24 lots and associated right-of-way, Town & Country Homes First Addition,
Town and Country Homes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Request for Preliminary plat of Lot J,Bardwell Acres into two single family lots on property zoned
RSF, and located at 6250 Chaska Road,Black Walnut Acres,William Swearingen.
2. Request for an Interim Use Permit for a nursery and variances to the setback requirements on
property zoned A2 and located at the northwest corner of TH 101 and TH 212, Skip Cook.
3. Request for site plan approval for three buildings in a 26,600 square foot commercial development
on 3.4 acres and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal building on a lot, on
property zoned BG, General Business District and located on the northeast corner of Powers Blvd.
and West 78th Street,Lots 1 and 2,West Village Heights 2nd Addition,West Village Center,Phase
II,T.F.James Company.
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1124. Required number of on-site parking spaces, by
amending section (1) f., to change the required number of accessible parking spaces within a
parking lot to meet Minnesota State Building Code and state law requirements.
5. An amendment to the City Code Section 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements, by
amending section (a)(50),to clarify location of fences along collector and arterial streets in relation
to landscape buffers. Also, an amendment to Section 20-1018, Commercial and industrial fences,
and Section 20-1019,Location of fences.
NEW BUSINESS
6. Discuss adoption of a Program for Development District No. 5 and a Plan for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 5-1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
7. Private Drive Amendment.
8. Villages on the Ponds.
ADJOURNMENT
C I TY 0 F >,c DATE: 6/5/96
6/19/96
\\I
CHANHASSEN 9 C DATE: 7/8/96
ASE #: 96-2 PUD, 96-5 SPR,
95-lb LUP, and 95-2b WAP
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Mixed medium density residential and industrial office development on 45.21 acres, a land
use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 ± acres from office/industrial to residential medium density,
conceptual and preliminary PUD approval for a mixed townhome and office-industrial development,
}--- rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 140
z townhome units, a wetland alteration permit, and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and associated
right-of-way,Town&Country Homes First Addition.
LOCATION: The northwest corner of Lyman and Galpin Blvd.
APPLICANT: Town and Country Homes
a. 6800 France Avenue South, Suite 170
Edina,MN 55435
Q
(612) 925-3899
PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: gross: 45.21 acres net(less wetlands, 3.7 ac., and ROW, 8.96 ac.): 32.55 acres
DENSITY: 7.1 units/acre (gross), 8.17 units/acres (net)
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N-PUD,Trotters Ridge, single-family homes
S- A2,Lyman Boulevard and Holasek's nursery
E-RSF, Galpin Blvd. and Stone Creek Add, single-family
W-Industrial Park in Chaska
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The property has farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of the site;
W mining and excavating operation on the western and southwest portions of the property; and landscaping
operation is located on the central portion of the property. A house is located in the southeast corner of the
property. Three large wetland areas are located in the east central,northwest, and southwest of the property.
The site is significantly wooded in the north central area. The property has a high point of approximately
980 feet in the north central and low point of 940 feet in the southwest corner of the property. The property
is bounded by Galpin and Lyman Boulevards.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Office/Industrial
Si 1 /
;-\ JW /Q 1 H o, NW 11.11111.11111111117,
Is-t. ice,_ =. _ ,` "m.!
W//111111111
LAKEA
4‘111%) _____ UV,
-- - - TATE r •.
ilk U
. I
�� . a 1.
, PT (0.W411
CJ1
a -V - , POR 47q1041;;. r4 . ,.
T.
,.,,,-‘ -"II i
. 44.1.,11.4.71.-
... ..
/ r
bowsw.
• •.4` . ..........
�� LOCATION 55.._wimp ;,., u ; ��.,
I1 _LYMAN
`ft:W. >€> "`< : O%."1/9.S-�///Q��� M,10, v0` ° am•.k�`r
el Vp ' ,��
eau 1
,o 8
c N8700—iARr / _ -:
`(%si.
I I /
•
^ .."4 ee00—I /// A ' 1 .AI
MW
/ I 0 frifill 1
8300 1 n
n 900D Jal
'!opAll
!
LTM
CITY OF
9100
I
ANHASSEN 9200 - --
BASE MAP 9500
a I i
9400 a1`\ _ \
1 ' !
9500 �
x
9600 — o
c
i �/isr
1 I l 4
9,00 / ` .
9e00 1 _J
,2° /•.
9900 Q
r'
10000—
1010;,
10200• _ _. _ ..
SEN ENGINEERING DEPT. ` .c""'
10]00
\..
REVISED JAN, 1995 \ .s,'‘7
REVISED ` , '.
loaoo— •,
0500 ,
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 2
UPDATE (6/13/96)
The applicant has submitted revised site plans in response to the comments received at the June
5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing. These plans reduce the number of units from 146 to 140
by eliminating two of the structures located in the northeast corner of the site in the area of
closest proximity to the Trotters Ridge development. Views from Trotters Ridge will be of the
sides or front of units in this area. Where eight units structures are located backing on the
Trotters Ridge development,views will be oblique to these structures.
The applicant has agreed to work with the city to create an acceptable landscape buffer along the
northern property line of this development. In developing this plan, staff will strategic locate
landscape to screen direct views to existing dwellings within the Trotters Ridge development.
The applicant has provided the city with a copy of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
prepared by S.A. Partners of the subject property dated May 16, 1996. The conclusion of the
assessment states "This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the subject property." The report did note that suspected asbestos-
containing building materials and recommended that sampling and testing be conducted prior to
demolition of the structures. In addition, the report notes that two above ground diesel storage
tanks have been removed from the site. Staff recommends that soil samples be obtained and
tested for these areas. In addition, city staff has met in the field with the applicant's wetland
consultant to verify wetland issues on the property.
The city is working to create a significant open space wildlife habitat within the general vacinity
of the project. Just north of the Trotters Ridge development, the city is attempting to assemble a
100 plus acre area for passive park uses. Currently, the city has a portion of the northern edge of
the Trotters Ridge development as well as approximately 60 acres donated by Betty
O'Shaughnessy. Additional land will be included from the Gateway property located west of
these areas.
Staff believes that the applicant has addressed many of the concerns expressed at the June 5
Planning Commission meetings and is committed to work with the city and neighbors to create a
harmonious development. Staff is recommending approval of the project as revised.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant, Town& Country Homes, is requesting conceptual and preliminary Planned Unit
Development, PUD, approval for a mixed office/industrial and townhome development on 45.21
acres of land. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6+acres
from office/industrial to residential-medium density,rezoning from A2,Agricultural Estate to
PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for-1-46 140 townhome units,a wetland
alteration permit to fill and excavate and mitigate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat approval
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 3
creating 24 lots and associated right-of-way. The proposed development is called Town&Country
Homes First Addition.
The office/industrial component of the development consists of two lots of 6.29 and 9.4 acres.
Separate site plan approvals will be required for each of the two lots subject to the development
parameters contained herein. Staff estimates the office/industrial development will be between
100,000 and 150,000 square feet which represents a F.A.R. of 0.14-0.22. The square footage
could be increased if the development were to incorporate two or three story buildings.
The proposed townhouse units are proposed as condominium type units in eleven 6-unit and ten 8-
unit structures. The townhomes will be developed on lots ranging from 125 to 146 feet in width
with lot depths of 72 feet. Each lot will accommodate 6 or 8-unit structures. Each home will have
a minimum of a one car garage. The majority of units will be slab on grade with some lookout and
walkout units depending on topography. The estimated price for units will range from$85,000 to
$115,000 which would meet the criteria established by the Metropolitan Council for housing
affordability.
The net developable acreage for the residential portion of the development is approximately 17.8
acres. This acreage permits a total number of units of 142 to comply with the medium density land
use being requested which permits a maximum net density of 8.0 units per acre. Staff if/.
Staff is recommending that the land use plan amendment,the concept and preliminary PUD, the
site plan, and the wetland alteration be approved with the modifications to the plan and the
conditions of approval contained in this report. Development design standards are being
established for the future development of the site as well as for the review of the current
application for the residential component.
BACKGROUND
In the summer of 1995, Scherber Partnership Properties, requested a land use map amendment
from Office/Industrial to Residential -Low Density, a rezoning to Single Family Residential,
RSF, and preliminary plat approval to permit 59 single-family lots. City staff recommended
denial of the land use map amendment and consequently the rezoning and subdivision. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the development, and the City
Council tabled the item,with the consent of the applicant,to permit staff and the applicant to
work out a compromise for the development of the parcel. However, in February, 1996, the
applicant formally withdrew the development application.
As part of the discussion of the proposed single-family development, City Council directed that
the following issues be looked at:
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 4
• The possibility of buffering the existing single-family developments to the north and east of
the site through the inclusion of higher density residential or a mixed use development with
residential to the north and industrial to the south.
• Tree preservation, wetland protection, and minimization of the site grading.
• Tax and expenditure consequences of the change from office/industrial to residential as well
as the overall balance and viability of the community.
On February 13, 1987, the City Council approved CUP#87-1 for a landscape contractor's yard
and a wholesale nursery and a variance to permit a contractor's yard within one mile of an
existing contractor's yard(on the same property) subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Saturday and work on Sundays or holidays is not permitted.
2. All truck traffic leaving the site must be southbound on County Road 117 and
truck traffic entering the site must be northbound on County Road 117.
3. Outdoor lighting and speakers are not permitted.
4. Berming and landscaping shall be provided as shown on the site plan dated
January 22, 1987.
5. Any expansion of the operation shall require a conditional use permit.
On November 19, 1984, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit(CUP), #84-13, to
permit a contractor's yard for R& W Sanitation on the southeasterly 32 acres of the site. Such
approval included the storage and repair of garbage trucks. The CUP was subject to the
condition that "Any expansion of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or an
increase in the number of vehicles beyond what is represented in request#84-13 must be
approved by a conditional use permit." The property was zoned R-1 A, Agricultural Residence
District.
On November 19, 1984, the City Council also approved CUP#84-14 for a contractor's yard for
Mr. Volk to include the storage and repair of construction equipment for Volk Trucking and
Excavating. The permit was issued subject to the following conditions:
1. All equipment must be stored within the confines of the yard area as identified on
the submitted site plan and must be kept out of site (sic) from adjacent properties.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 5
2. Any enlargement of the operation such as construction of additional buildings or
an increase in the number of vehicles beyond what has been submitted in this
application must be approved by a conditional use permit.
3. Unlicensed,junk vehicles must be placed in an enclosed building or removed
from the premises.
4. Installation of evergreens along and on top of the berm on the south side of the
yard.
In April, 1982, the property owner, Volk,applied for a building permit to reconstruct a pole barn
which had collapsed due to heavy snow. The building permit was denied because the storage and
repair of excavating equipment in the pole barn was not a permitted use in the R-1A district at
that time. Mr. Volk petitioned the Council on May 17, 1982 to issue the building permit. The
City Council approved the issuance of the building permit subject to Mr. Volk applying for a
rezoning request from R-1 A to I-1. Mr. Volk made an application for the rezoning and a
comprehensive land use plan amendment. On June 25, 1982, the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the request. However,the Planning Commission recommended that the
applicant have the option of returning to the Planning Commission with a CUP request. The City
Council considered the request on October 4, 1982. The Council tabled the item until staff
completed a survey of all contractors'yards as well as other non-conforming uses in the city. The
City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow contractor's yards as CUPs in the R-1 A
zone on August 20, 1984.
On November 12, 1980, a rezoning request from R-1A to I-1 on the parcel was considered by the
Planning Commission. At that meeting, the request was revised to an ordinance amendment to
permit contractors'businesses and storage yards as conditional uses in the R-1 A district. The
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request. The City Council subsequently
denied the request on January 5, 1981.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The property has abandoned farming uses on the northern and eastern portions of the site;
abandoned mining and excavating operation on the western and southwest portions of the
property; and a landscaping operation is located on the central portion of the property. A house
is located in the southeast corner of the property. Three large wetland areas are located in the
east central, northwest, and southwest of the property. The site is significantly wooded in the
north central area. The property has a high point of approximately 980 feet in the north central
and low point of 940 feet in the southwest corner of the property. The property is bounded by
Galpin and Lyman Boulevards.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 6
REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment for the northerly 22.6 acres of the
property from Office/Industrial to Residential- Medium Density. This property was one of four
areas that was designated for Office/Industrial use as part of the 1991 comprehensive plan
update. At that time, there was a remaining supply of 95 acres of vacant industrial land in
Chanhassen. For the continued well being of the community and in the interest of promoting a
balance of land uses, Chanhassen established a plan that would accommodate a reasonable
amount of industrial office development in the future. With that goal in mind, the city assessed
where it would be reasonable to allow this development to occur. In undertaking the analysis,the
location of existing industrial office development in Chaska was reviewed, existing and proposed
roads and highways necessary to provide high levels of access were assessed, and the need to
provide the buffering of existing residential neighborhoods were examined in detail.
The result of the analysis was to add additional office/industrial land totaling 638 acres for a total
industrial land use area of 1,099 acres representing 8.2 percent of the city's total land area of
13,327 acres. The proposed amendment would eliminate 22.6 acres of office/industrial land
from the city. This represents approximately two percent of the office/industrial land in the city
or 0.2 percent of the city's total land area.
In 1992, the American Planning Association undertook a study of land use ratios in 66
municipalities. The summary of this survey was published in the American Planning
Association,PAS Memo of August 1992. Industrial land use ratios for communities under
100,000 averaged seven percent with a range of 0 to 25 percent. Included in the study was a
summary of a land use study by Eisner and Associates of land use ratios compiled between 1939
and 1985. The Eisner study showed a range of industrial land uses between 10 and 11 percent.
It is illustrative to look specifically at two communities: Columbia, Maryland, a 1960s planned
community, and Oak Creek,Wisconsin, an upper midwest community comparable in population
to Chanhassen. Columbia's residential land use components is 43 percent of its land area. Its
commercial and industrial land uses represent 20 percent of the land area. It is assumed that the
uses are evenly distributed between commercial and industrial. Oak Creek's land uses are
distributed as follows: residential - 37 percent, commercial - 8 percent, and industrial - 12
percent. Chanhassen's land use ratios are as follows: residential - 42.2 percent, commercial - 2.1
percent, and industrial - 8.2 percent. As can be seen, Chanhassen's industrial and commercial
components are smaller than either of these communities,while its residential component is
proportionate to both of the communities. These ratios will also be considered when we examine
future land use of properties currently outside of the Metropolitan Urban Services Area(MUSA).
Staff believes that in this instance the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the
community in terms of maintaining an appropriate balance of land uses,preserving an
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 7
appropriate tax base mix,providing a range of employment opportunities,and providing for
lifecycle and affordable housing opportunities. The applicant has proposed a development that is
unique to the community and fills a niche in the housing needs for either current or future
residents of the city. This subdivision attempts to maintain the natural features of the site,
locating the residential development in a compact design in the more environmentally sensitive
areas of the site and locating the office/industrial uses in the more open and currently impacted
areas. The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development locating multi-family that meets
some of the affordable housing goals of the city. The applicant has proposed a development that
includes both industrial and residential properties within the site,placing industrial lots on the
southern portion of the site in areas that are less desirable for residential development adjacent to
the expanding industrial property to the south and Lyman Boulevard and residential on the
northern portion of the site adjacent to Trotters Ridge.
This site was designated for office/industrial use partially because it was being used for non-
residential and non-agricultural purposes and was adjacent to the industrial expansion coming
from the south in Chaska. In addition, the site is adjacent to two collector roadways, providing
high levels of access. The city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance require extensive
buffering between industrial uses and single-family residential.
Financial Impact
Staff has performed the tax revenue analysis of the proposed development by Town& County
versus an entire industrial office development on the site. Since valuation of the property can
only be estimated at this time, staff has provided a range for residential and industrial uses. For
the Town & Country development, staff estimates residential property values at an average of
$100,000 and office industrial square footages at 150,000, which represents a floor area ratio of
0.22. For an entire office/industrial development, staff estimates building square footages at
140,000 square and 338,000 square feet. These industrial square footages represent floor area
ratios of 0.086 and 0.209,respectively. Based on gross acreage of the site(46.27 acres), these
ratios are 0.069 and 0.168,respectively. As a comparison, the estimated floor area ratio for
Chanhassen Business Center is 0.149 (13.85 acres of building divided by 93.02 acres of land) for
the gross site area.
Town& Country
Residential:
Value: $100,000
One Percent of first$72,000 720
Two percent of balance 560
Subtotal $1,280
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 8
Tax Capacity 149 percent $1,907.2
Multiply by 142 units $270,822.40
City's share of taxes 20 percent $54,164.48
Office/Industrial:
Building Square Footage 150,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot $5,250,000
Three percent of first $100,000 $3,000
4.6% of balance $236,900
Tax Capacity 137% $357,451
City's share of taxes 20 percent $71,490.20
City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent $178,725.50
Total Tax Revenues:
without TIF $125,654.68
with TIF $232,889.98
Office/Industrial
Building Square Footage 140,000 338,000
Valuation: $35 per square foot $4,900,000 $11,830,000
Three percent of first$100,000 3,000 3,000
4.6 percent of balance 220.800 539.580
Subtotal $223,800 $542,580
Tax Capacity 149 percent $33,462 $808,444.20
City's share of taxes 20 percent $66,692.40 $161,688.84
City's share of taxes
within TIF 50 percent $166,731 $404,222.10
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 9
(In order to facilitate industrial development,the city may establish a TIF district. That is the
reason for including the TIF tax share figure. These figures represent the impact of fiscal
disparities on industrial office development because the city currently is a net beneficiary of
fiscal disparities. It should also be pointed out that the majority of these tax dollars would be
used to retire debt incurred within the district, rather than as an increase to the general fund.
However, the use of a TIF district permits the city to perform infrastructure improvements, e.g.,
purchase of parks and the building of trails,roadways, stormwater facilities,or utility extensions,
that would normally require the use of other funding sources.)
Other potential revenues that are impacted are enterprise funds for water and sewer usage.
Industrial developments are large users of these services and pay higher rates than residential
developments. Nor does this analysis quantify the spillover benefits from industrial
development. Nonresidential development, generally,brings in additional dollars in the
community from employees and visitors. All industrial development creates an economic
multiplier for the local economy which has the effect of magnifying the fiscal benefits of each
dollar of wages that are put into the industry. Without industrial and commercial employment,
local residential development would be unable to support the existing level of retail and service
industries in the community, not to mention the additional commercial development that is being
planned and development.
At present, we are unable to determine the expenditure side of the fiscal impact equation in
Chanhassen. However,based on a study in"Land Patterns,"Winter 1996, residential
development averaged $1.04 in expenditures for every$1.00 in revenues and commercial
industrial developments averaged$0.39 for every$1.00 in revenue. This represents a net
revenue of$41,442.45 for the Town& Country development and a net revenue of$40,682.36 to
$98,630.20 for the office/industrial development only.
Staff is recommending that the requested Land Use Map amendment be approved.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 45 acres from A2, Agricultural Estate, to
PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are two components to the PUD: industrial/office and
medium density residential. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request.
The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20-501. Intent
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 10
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility,the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
FINDINGS
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Finding. The proposed development is preserving and enhancing the major wetlands on
site. Significant areas of woodland are being preserved along Galpin Boulevard,to the
west of the easterly wetland, and between the office/industrial and residential area in the
center of the project. The development utilizes topographic changes by stepping
buildings up the slopes.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. The proposed development effectively mixes residential and office/industrial
land uses, incorporating topographic and vegetative areas to transition the uses. Large
areas will remained undisturbed in their natural states.
3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. The proposed development incorporates topographic and vegetative areas to
transition the uses. In addition, the low density residential development to the north
transitions to medium density residential then office/industrial uses. The proposed
development is sensitive in the treatment of the site,preserving large areas of undisturbed
natural areas and minimizing the grading of the site by matching to a large extent the
existing topography of the site.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 11
Finding. The office/industrial portion of the site is consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The applicant is requesting a land use map amendment for the residential portion of
the development. The proposed residential development complies with many elements of
the comprehensive plan including community development, land use, housing, and
transportation goals and policies.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. While no public park space is being provided in the development, the applicant
is creating large areas of open space on site as well as trail connections and sidewalks to
the city's trail system along Galpin and Lyman Boulevards.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding. The estimated price for units will range from$85,000 to$115,000 which would
meet the criteria established by the Metropolitan Council for housing affordability.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. The proposed development conserves energy through the mixture of land uses
in a compact area. Site design preserves topography and existing woodlands to provide
natural shading and wind blocks for winter.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. The proposed development incorporates a commercial cross section for street A
and a local cross section for streets B and C. Pedestrian trails and sidewalk will be
provided in the development to separate motorized and non-motorized traffic.
Appropriate traffic control signage shall be installed in the development.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility,but allows the city to
request additional improvements. The site's unique features can be better protected through the
use of narrower street right-of-way and reduced front yard setbacks. The flexibility in standards
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 12
allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return
for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics(wetlands, trees, and topographical
features)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The applicant, Town& Country Homes, is proposing a Planned Unit Development, PUD, for a
mixed office/industrial and townhome development on 45.21 acres of land. The applicant is
requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6±acres from office/industrial to
residential -medium density,rezoning from A2,Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit
Development, site plan approval for 146 townhome units,a wetland alteration permit to fill and
excavate and mitigate wetlands on site,and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and
associated right-of-way. The proposed development is called Town& Country Homes First
Addition.
The office/industrial component of the development consists of two lots of 6.29 and 9.4 acres.
Separate site plan approvals will be required for each of the two lots subject to the development
parameters contained herein.
The proposed townhouse units are proposed as condominium type units in eleven 6-unit and ten 8-
unit structures. The majority of units being proposed are rambler type units. However, where
existing site elevations permit, lookout and walkout type units will be included. End units in
structures contain two-car garages with central units containing single-car garages. The end units of
each structure are two story units with interior units being stacked, single-level units. Front
elevations consist of face brick on the lower levels with vinyl siding. The applicant has proposed
using five different exterior color packages for the structures(attached)with an entire structure
incorporating one package. Roof lines are varied and differentiated in orientation. Structures can
be shifted horizontally along slopes with changes in finished floor elevations varied up to three feet
within an individual structure.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 13
RESIDENTIAL
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD medium density residential. 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 lot proposed for
development shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined
below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to 142 townhouse units and a private or public
park area.
c. Setbacks
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building
Galpin Blvd.: Buffer yard& Setback C, 50'
Street A: Buffer yard& Setback B,25'
Street B: Buffer yard& Setback B, 20'
Street C: Buffer yard& Setback B, 20'
Perimeter Lot Line (adjacent to industrial) C, 50'
Perimeter Lot Line (adjacent to residential): B, 50'
Buffer yard& setback
No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 30% for medium density residential uses.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 14
The maximum building height shall be three(3) stories and forty(40) feet
e. 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. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone,glass, stucco,vinyl siding,decorative block, or approved equivalent as
determined by the city.
3. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the building or
with landscaping.
5. Variation in building facade shall be provided through architectural detailing including
the use of half round and square window treatments, circular,half round, and square or
rectangular attic vents, and the vertical breaking of structures.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. The buffer yard plantings, in
particular,need to be established immediately.
2. All open spaces and non-impervious surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, covered
with plantings and/or lawn material, or left in natural condition.
3. Storage of material outdoors must be screened with wood or masonry fences and/or
landscaping to 100 percent opacity from property outside the plat.
g. Signage
1. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the development which shall not
exceed twenty-four(24) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five(5) feet in
height and shall be located on Galpin Boulevard. The sign treatment is an element of the
architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 15
h. Lighting
1. Lighting should be consistent throughout the development. The plans do not provide for
street lighting. The City requires the developer to install street lights throughout the street
system.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture(high pressure sodium vapor lamps)with an ornamental,
natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD light industrial/office park. 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 lot proposed for development
shall proceed through site plan review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as
defined below. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the definition, the City
Council shall make that interpretation.
1. Light Industrial. The manufacturing, compounding,processing,assembling,packaging, or
testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure,
with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding
environment by noise,vibration, smoke,dust or pollutants.
2. Warehousing. Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property entirely
within an enclosed structure.
3. Office. Professional and business office,non-retail activity except for showroom type
display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20
percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales.
c. Setbacks
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 16
In the PUD standards, there is the requirement for landscape buffering in addition to building and
parking setbacks.
The following setbacks shall apply:
Building Parking
Galpin Blvd.: Buffer yard& Setback C, 50' 50'
Lyman Blvd.: Buffer yard& Setback C, 50' 50'
' Street A: Buffer yard & Setback B, 30' 30'
Interior Side Lot Line(adjacent to industrial): B, 30' 20
Buffer yard & setback
Interior Side Lot Line(adjacent to residential): D, 50' 50'
Buffer yard& setback
No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector
roads.
d. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for office and industrial uses.
2. More than one(1)principal structure may be placed on one(1)platted lot.
3. The maximum building height shall be four(4) stories and fifty(50) feet
e. 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. Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall
be face brick, stone, glass, stucco,architecturally treated concrete,cast in place panels,
decorative block, or approved equivalent as determined by the city. Color shall be
introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block or brick.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted,or broken face. Exposed cement
("cinder")blocks shall be prohibited.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 17
4. Metal siding will not be approved except as support material to one of the above materials
or curtain wall on office components or,as trim or as HVAC screen.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material.
Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery,tanks, etc.,are to be
fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with
material compatible to the building.
7. The use of large unadorned,prestressed concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid
wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as change in materials,change in color,
fenestrations, or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in
keeping with the size, mass,and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed aggregate
and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural interest through
building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. Space for recycling shall be provided in the interior of all principal or accessory
structures.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
1. All buffer landscaping, including boulevard landscaping, included in Phase I shall be
installed when the grading of the phase is completed. This may well result in landscaping
being required ahead of individual site plan approvals, but we believe the buffer yard and
plantings, in particular, need to be established immediately. In addition, to adhere to the
higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD zone, all loading areas shall be
screened. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of
the site plan review process.
2. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces shall be landscaped, rockscaped, or covered
with plantings and/or lawn material.
3. Storage of material outdoors is prohibited.
4. Undulating or angular berms 3'to 5'in height, south of Street A and along Galpin and
Lyman Boulevards shall be sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility
construction. The required buffer landscaping may be installed incrementally,but it shall be
required where it is deemed necessary to screen any proposed development. All required
boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 18
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be required
where deemed appropriate.
g. Signage
1. All freestanding signs be limited to monument signs. One Industrial Office Park
identification sign shall be permitted for the development which shall not exceed eighty
(80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight(8) feet in height and shall
be located on Lyman Boulevard. Each lot is permitted one low profile ground business
sign. Such sign shall not exceed 64 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than
eight(8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus
should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color,
size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be
introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. The
applicant should submit a sign package for staff review.
2. All signs require a separate sign permit.
3. Wall business signs shall comply with the city's sign ordinance.
h. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. The plans do not provide for street lighting. As with previous industrial
parks/roadways,the City has required the developer to install street lights throughout the
street system.
2. A decorative, shoe box fixture(high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with an ornamental,
natural colored pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
3 Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be
used in the private areas.
4. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2
candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting.
SUBDIVISION REVIEW
WETLANDS
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 19
There appears to be five wetland basins on site. Staff requires a wetlands report documenting the
character, locations, types of wetlands, and alternatives to the plan to try to avoid impacts. The
applicant has hired a delineator to prepare a report and will be required to provide the City a copy
of the delineation report prior to final plat approval. Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of
the wetlands as they appear on the grading plan.
The wetlands on site can be broken into five separate basins that are described as follows:
Wetland A - is located in the northwest corner of the site. The northern part of this wetland is
located on the Trotter's Ridge development. It is an ag/urban wetland and does not appear to be
directly impacted by the proposed plan. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot
wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin.
Wetlands B and C - are located on the east side of the property and are aligned north to south along
Galpin Boulevard. These basins are classified as ag/urban. They have been heavily grazed and
cropped over the years and have previously been identified as a candidate for a wetland restoration
project. It appears that these basins B and C were connected at one time. Wetland B has been
identified to act as a utilized wetland in the City's Surface Water Runoff Plan (SWMP). Wetland C
will be filled as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation is proposed on the south west corner of
Wetland B. The applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average
buffer width of 10 feet around the existing and created basins.
Wetland D- is located in the southwest corner of the property. It is an ag/urban wetland that will
not be directly impacted as a result of the proposed plan,however, the current earthwork operation
which has occurred in the past has impacted this wetland and needs to be restored. The applicant
will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet
around the basin. This area has also been proposed to act as a nutrient trap in the City's SWMP
recommendations. However, staff is requiring a pretreatment pond which the applicant has shown
on the plans.
Wetland E - is located in the west central part of the site in an area that is heavily wooded. This
wetland has not been given a classification, and will be evaluated after the city receives the wetland
report. If it is classified as a natural wetland, a buffer strip of 10 to 30 feet wide with an average
buffer width of 20 feet around the basin is required. Approximately 3/4 of the wetland (4,498
square feet) is proposed to be filled to meet building setbacks. If this wetland is classified a natural
wetland, staff would like to see alternatives to this presumed avoidable impact.
Mitigation
On April 12, 1996, the Governor of Minnesota signed into law amendments to the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act. The new rules will be in effect for the next 60 days along with the existing
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 20
laws. The new law increases the de minimis exemption(the amount of impact not regulated)
from 400 square feet to 2,000 square feet.
The City of Chanhassen ordinances are written to comply with the 1991 version of the Wetland
Conservation Act. Because the City of Chanhassen has not adapted these changes to its
ordinances, nor have they carefully discussed the impacts such an exemption would have, City
staff has decided to take a discretionary approach to approving this exemption, on a project to
project basis. Because the City has been a leader in the state in the field of wetland and surface
water management,we feel it may defeat the purpose of previous work to approve such an
exemption before studying its impacts on the City's Surface Water Management Plan.
The applicant has proposed the following mitigation plan for the 0.11 acre of fill to Wetland C and
Wetland E: Of the 5,012 square feet of wetlands that are proposed to be filled,the applicant is
requesting 2,000 square feet be exempt under new WCA rules. Mitigation would then be
completed at a 2:1 ratio of the remaining 3,012 square feet. This would create 6,024 square feet of
new wetlands that would be added on to the existing Wetland B. Since the mitigation area will
expand Wetland B,City staff would like to see restoration of the existing wetland as a condition of
approval.
Buffers and Setbacks-The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetlands
located on the property. The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a
minimum average width of 20 feet. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to
20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these
wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance.
The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the
applicant$20 per sign.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP). The SWMP serves as a tool to
protect,preserve, and enhance the City's water resources. The plan identifies the stormwater
quantity and quality improvements from a regional perspective necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general,the
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year
design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William
Walker Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An
ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on projected future land
use, and therefore,different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to deter-
mine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 21
The City requires storm water quantity calculations for pre and post developed conditions and water
quality calculations from the applicant prior to final plat. After review of the calculations,the City
will make recommendations for approval of the stormwater plan in accordance with the SWMP.
Water Quality
The SWMP has established an connection charge for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon
a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
The water quality charge has been calculated at$ $1,530/acre for a townhome with 3 to 8 units.
Credits will be given if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's
SWMP standards. The total fee will be determined at the time of final platting.
Water Quantity
The SWMP has established an connection charge for different land uses based on an
average,city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all
proposed SWMP trunk systems,culverts,and open channels and stormwater ponding areas
for temporary runoff storage. Medium density developments will have a connection charge
of$2,975 per developable acre. The connection charges will be calculated after review of
the final construction plans and will be due at the time of final plat recording.
GRADING
The developer and staff have been working together in designing a development plan which
minimizes impacts to the site characteristics, i.e. trees, wetlands, and site grades. The grading
plan submitted incorporates design elements as a part of our meetings. Staff believes the grading
plan minimizes the site grading over the residential component as much as possible. This area
has been designed to take advantage of the site's characteristics by proposing a number of
different building unit styles, i.e. walkouts, lookouts, and rambler-type dwellings to conform with
existing grades thus minimizing grading. Staff is in support of the preliminary grading plan as
shown.
The commercial/industrial component(Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1,Block 3)will be mass graded
with the exception of vegetative areas in the easterly portion of Lot 1, Block 2. This portion of
the site is fairly void of vegetation and grading is necessary to prepare site for
commercial/industrial use. These lots may be subject to further alteration when individual site
plans actually are submitted for review and approval.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 22
A berm is proposed to be located adjacent to Lyman Boulevard on the south side of Lot 1, Block
3. On Lot 2, Block 1,the site is proposed to be leveled off by taking the average grade of the lot
which is proposed to be 11 feet lower then the residential component to the north and east. This
grade separation will provide added buffer between the residential and industrial use.
DRAINAGE
The plans propose a series of catch basins to convey stormwater runoff to three stormwater
quality treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands. Given the grade differences on
the property, the three ponds are warranted. Storm sewers are proposed to "link"the wetlands
together to maintain water levels throughout the development.
The City of Chaska has also requested that some site improvements be incorporated into the
development to alleviate current drainage problems along the west side of the site. Based on the
drainage plans it appears the applicant has attempted to address Chaska's concerns by installing
the storm sewer system along the westerly property line. This should be worked out with the
City of Chaska prior to final plat approval.
The stormwater ponds will need to be designed and constructed with side slopes of either 4:1
overall or a 10:1 bench for the first 10 feet at the normal water level and 3:1 slopes thereafter for
safety purposes. It appears the plans have incorporated the 3:1 side slopes with a 10:1 bench at
the normal water level. Detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events
along with ponding calculations based on Walker's PondNet methodology shall be submitted to
staff for review and approval. Outlet control structures for water quality and emergency
overflow may be required for the wetlands.
At the time of final plat submittal, staff will be reviewing final construction drawings which may
require minor changes to the storm drainage system. One such change could be to relocate the
storm sewer outlet between Lots 20 and 21 to the easterly side of Lot 21 for ease of maintenance
and access. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all utilities outside the street
right-of-way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Access to the ponding areas
for maintenance have been addressed.
EROSION CONTROL
The preliminary grading and drainage plan does propose erosion control measures throughout the
development. Type III erosion control will be required adjacent to the wetlands and steep slope
areas. Additional erosion control measures shall be incorporated on the final grading plan
submittal for example between the berm proposed on Lot 1, Block 3 and Street A.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 23
All disturbed areas as a result of construction will need to be reseeded and mulched within two
weeks after site grading is completed. The entire site must be graded prior to issuance of
building permits with the exception of one model home permitted adjacent to a hard surfaced
street.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water services is available to the site from Galpin Boulevard. In
addition, a 12-inch water line has been extended southerly from Trotters Ridge in the northeast
corner of the development assuming commercial development. Even though the land use has
changed, the applicant should propose to extend this watermain to loop the watermain in Street C
and modify the watermain diameter to an 8-inch water line in C Street. Upon completion of the
utilities in this development, they will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership.
Detailed construction plans and specifications of the utility and street improvements should be
submitted in conjunction with final plat approval for staff review. The construction plans and
specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. The developer will also need to enter into a development
contract with the City and provide financial security to guarantee installation of the public
improvements.
The site has existing wells and septic systems which will need to be abandoned in accordance
with local and state health guidelines.
STREETS
The site is proposed to be serviced with a looped street system for the commercial/industrial area
and two cul-de-sacs in the residential component. Staff has met with the applicant and agreed to
compromise the 60-foot right-of-way width down to 50 feet in the residential area(Streets B and
C) to minimize impacts to the environmental features of the site. Street A right-of-way will be
60-feet in accordance with City ordinance. The street widths on Streets B and C,however,will
remain the City's standard width of 31 feet. Street A is proposed to be constructed in accordance
with the City's commercial/industrial standards which is 36-feet wide, face-to-face concrete curb
and gutter and to a 9-ton street design. Staff has reviewed the street layout and fords the
alignments acceptable. Staff will further review the street, utility and drainage plans with the
final construction plan submittal in conjunction with final plat review.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 24
Decorative landscaped islands are proposed in both cul-de-sacs. The island radiuses may not
exceed 12 feet in order to maintain turning radiuses for the fire apparatuses. Also, the cul-de-
sacs will have to be posted for no parking to ensure free traffic lanes.
TREE PRESERVATION AND LANDSCAPING
Applicant has submitted plans for tree removal and landscaping for the residential and
industrial/commercial areas of the development. Since tree preservation requirements are
different between the two uses, canopy coverage calculations have been done for each of the land
use areas rather than the development as a whole. Staff has made the following calculations:
Residential Industrial/Commercial
Total Land Area 19.86 ac. 16.59 ac.
(Area+ROW-wetland)
Existing Cover 9.47 ac. 3.25 ac.
(%coverage) (48%) (20%)
Required Minimum Cover 6.17 ac. 2.3 ac.
(%coverage) (30%) (14%)
Proposed Removal 5.87 ac. 2.36 ac.
Remaining Coverage 3.6 ac. 0.89 ac.
(%coverage) (18%) (5%)
Replacement Requirement 3.1 ac. (124 trees) 1.7 ac.(68 trees)
(Required - Remaining) x 1.2
As can be seen,the applicant is removing in excess of the required minimum coverage and is
therefore required to reforest at a rate of 1.2 times the difference between the required and
remaining coverages. Applicant is required to plant 124 trees within the residential area,
however in the proposed landscaping plan, 361 overstory,understory and evergreen trees area
scheduled to be planted.
Since the residential area of this development borders many different uses, such as
industrial/commercial, county road, and low density residential, special attention should be paid
to providing appropriate landscape near the uses. It is approximately 720 feet from the corner of
the first townhome in the northeast corner to the edge of the wetland in the northwest along
which there are the townhomes to the south and the Trotter's Ridge development to the north.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 25
The width of this area is narrowest at the eastern end with 50 feet; each succeeding townhome is
further from the property line with the last one before the wetland approximately 120 feet from
the property line. Using the city's buffer yard ordinance No. 250,the required plantings for this
area is 7 canopy trees, 14 understory trees and 14 shrubs of which the developer is only
responsible for 75%of the totals. On the landscaping plan submitted,the applicant is proposing
groups of evergreen and deciduous plantings totaling 28 trees,but no shrubs. There are
potentially 5 existing trees in that area scheduled for preservation. The western and southern
sides of the residential area abut industrial use. the townhomes on the southern edge are across
the street from the industrial building and their garages front the street. Each home is being
provided with one tree near the driveway. On the industrial lot, 41 evergreens and 9 deciduous
trees are scheduled to be planted by"others." On the eastern sides where it is homes not garages
facing the industrial buildings, a berm, 67 evergreens, 3 oaks,43 understory trees, and 25 shrubs
are scheduled. According to ordinance, the developer is required to provide 75%of the
following 30 foot buffer yard: 22 canopy trees, 54 understory trees, 54 shrubs, and a structure.
The western edge of the development borders Galpin Blvd., a principal arterial. The buffer
requirements along this road are 7 canopy trees, 14 understory trees and 14 shrubs. There are
existing trees that will be preserved along the road which more than meets the requirements.
However, staff feels it is necessary to provide increased landscaping at the entrance off Galpin to
help screen traffic and headlights from the first townhome unit. For the same reasons, a couple
of trees should be added to the landscaping at the townhome on the northwest corner of street A
and street B.
Since the existing trees in the development are mature and valuable oaks, staff recommends that
the applicant inventory all trees, including those to be saved or removed. Any trees scheduled to
be saved lost due to construction will be replaced at a rate of two times the diameter by the
developer. The same would apply to the industrial development as well.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on May 21, 1996 to review this proposal. The
Commission voted to recommend that full park and trail fees be paid pursuant to city ordinance
in lieu of park land dedication. The Commission recommended that a private trail connection be
made from the end of street C to the trail on Galpin Boulevard and a five foot sidewalk shall be
incorporated along the north side of street A from Galpin to Lyman Boulevards. In addition, the
Commission requested that the applicant look at providing a tot lot area within Lot 22,Block 1.
MISCELLANEOUS
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 26
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names,public and private,must be
reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the
submitted documents.
Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary
to enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan
review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance.For the same reason,proposed
lowest level floor elevations as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO,TU,WO)must be
shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors
during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Demolition. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition
permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system
abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition
permit.
Setbacks. Exterior walls(at bays and optional bays)and projections (at overhangs and decks)are
regulated by the Uniform Building Code(UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown,
decks will not be permitted as shown,overhangs will not be permitted in some cases and exterior
walls must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction in some cases. Openings shown in some walls
will not be permitted with the building and property lines as shown. To avoid opening protection
and one-hour fire-resistive wall construction,the property lines should be at least four feet from any
wall of the building where a twelve inch overhang is planned. Decks may not be built within three
feet of the property line. These requirements are found in UBC Table 5-A, 503.2.1 and 705. Since
these issues involve property lines,they need to be resolved before preliminary plat approval.
Soils. The Carver County Soil Survey indicates the site may contain some glencoe soils. Glencoe
soils are given a building site group 10 rating,which indicates they are unsuitable for building. A
geotechnical evaluation,which includes an FHA/VA lot by lot tabulation for land development
with controlled earthwork, should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review. The report
should also include a copy of the grading and drainage plan.
The developers and designers my desire to meet with the Building Official as early as possible to
discuss commercial building permit requirements.
One project identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. Such sign shall
be located on Galpin Boulevard only and shall comply with the City's sign ordinance.
FINDINGS
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 27
Subdivision, Section 18-39 (fl
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The
applicant has worked extensively with staff to develop a proposal and site design
that addresses many of the concerns of the city.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision of the property for the residential component
is inconsistent with the existing land use designation of the property which is
office/industrial. Subject to the city amending the comprehensive plan from
office/industrial to residential -medium density, the proposal would be consistent
with the land use designation.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: While some of the site contains poor soil conditions for development
(Cordova silty clay loam and Glencoe silty clay loam) on proposed building sites
or roadway, it is possible through soil corrections to make the site suitable for
development. As a condition of development, the applicant will be required to
incorporate best management practices for erosion control and demonstrate all lots
would be buildable.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision attempts to minimize impacts to the
environment. While some tree removal and wetland alterations are oftentimes
necessary to develop sites through tree preservation measures and the use of
smaller right-of-way widths and front yard setbacks.,the applicant has reduced
potential environmental damage.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 28
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Wetland Alteration Permit(Section 20-407)
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize
impacts to wetlands through redesign of elements of the development.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its
implementation.
Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that they have attempted to avoid or minimize
impacts to wetlands through revisions made to the plan to move structures and roadways
away from wetlands.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing,rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 29
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality
ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations
during the life of the activity.
Finding: The proposed alterations will benefit the proposed development in the area by
creating an enhanced and restored natural environment. Through the enhancement and
long term protection of the remaining wetlands,the city is implementing its stormwater
plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be
provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland
areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to
8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. This wetland has been
altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposed wetland mitigation is to
enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands in the area.
Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Land Use Map Amendment
#96-lb from Office/Industrial to Residential Medium Density for the northerly 22.6 acres,
conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD#96-2,preliminary plat approval for 24 lots and
associated right-of-way, Site Plan Review#96-5 approval for 142 townhouse units,and Wetland
Alteration Permit#95-2b subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall comply with Development Standards established within this
report, incorporated herein by reference.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 30
2. The developer shall ensure a minimum of 50%of the units meet the Metropolitan
Council's definition of Affordable Housing.
3. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division and Fire
Marshal, for review and approval prior to final plat approval.
4. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads,using
standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should
be done prior to final plat approval.
5. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
6. Adjust property lines to permit openings in exterior walls or revise plans to remove
openings. Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to
remove projections. Adjust property lines to permit decks or revise plans to remove decks.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
7. Provide a geotechnical evaluation report to the Inspections Division. This should be done
before any permits are issued.
8. Eliminate center islands in both cul-de-sacs. Exception: Submit drawings for City
Engineer's and Fire Marshal's review and approval to accommodate the turning around of
the Fire Department's largest apparatus. This would have to take into account parking in
the cul-de-sac.
9. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
10. Additional fire hydrants will be required. City Engineer and Fire Marshal will review
plans and make appropriate changes. (Note: Maximum hydrant spacing is 300 feet.)
11. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,trees,
shrubs,bushes, NSP,NW Bell, cable television,transformer boxes. This is to insure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
12. A separate sign permit shall be required for all development signage.
13. One project identification sign shall be permitted for the residential development. Such sign
shall be located on Galpin Boulevard only and shall comply with the City's sign ordinance.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 31
14. Full park and trail fees shall be paid pursuant to city ordinance in lieu of park land
dedication. A private trail connection shall be made from the end of street C to the trail on
Galpin Boulevard and a five foot sidewalk shall be incorporated along the north side of
street A from Galpin to Lyman Boulevards. In addition, the applicant should look at
providing a tot lot area within Lot 22,Block 1.
15. Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to any grading.
16. Any tree(s) scheduled to be saved that is lost due to construction practices shall be
replaced by the developer at a rate of two times the diameter.
17. A tree inventory shall be submitted to the city prior to the final approval of the
development.
18. Increase landscaping at two locations: The north side of the entrance off Galpin Blvd.
and the northwest corner of Street A and Street B to screen homes from traffic and
headlights.
19. Developer shall guarantee plant material installed for two growing seasons.
20. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed adjacent to wetlands. Additional erosion
control measures may be incorporated on the final grading plan submittal.
21. The applicant shall "loop"the watermain in Street C with the existing 12-inch watermain
in the northeast corner of the site.
22. All wells and septic systems shall be abandoned in accordance with local and state health
codes.
23. The cul-de-sac island radius shall not exceed 12 feet. Parking in the cul-de-sacs shall be
prohibited and posted accordingly.
24. Street A shall be construction 36 feet wide face to face and to a 9-ton street design within
a 60-foot wide right-of-way. Streets B and C shall be constructed to the City's urban
residential standard with a right-of-way of 50 feet versus 60 feet.
25. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant$20 per sign.
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 32
26. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and
maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands.
27. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the first
ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for
safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial site grading.
28. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed,these fees will be waived. Water quantity
fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The
fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction plans.
29. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
30. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
31. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer calculations for a
10-year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine
if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition,water quality ponding design
calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
32. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
33. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC,Health Department,PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
34. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information.
On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 33
project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided to the
Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
35. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas.
36. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of two (2) feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
37. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
38. Preliminary Plat approval is contingent upon the applicant preparing a wetland
delineation report of the site.In addition to a wetland inventory the applicant is
responsible for receiving the necessary permits and approval from the governmental
agencies such as DNR,Army Corps of Engineers and Watershed District.
39. On wetlands A,B, C and D the applicant will be required to maintain a 0 to 20 foot wide
buffer with an average buffer width of 10 feet around the basin. On Wetland E the
applicant will be required to maintain a buffer of 10 to 30 feet with an average width of 20
feet.
40. The report did note that suspected asbestos-containing building materials and
recommended that sampling and testing be conducted prior to demolition of the
structures.
41. In addition, the report notes that two above ground diesel storage tanks have been
removed from the site. Staff recommends that soil samples be obtained and tested
for these areas.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Planned Unit Development(PUD) Concept Plan and Preliminary Plan narrative
3. Building Elevations and Floor Plans,reductions
4. Site Plan, reduction
5. Town& Country Homes 1st Addition Exterior Color Packages dated 5/29/96
6. Letter from Kenneth Adolf to Bob Generous dated 5/29/96
7. Letter from Al Block to Bob Generous dated 5/24/96
8. Letter from Jim Hirz to Bob Generous dated 5/16/96
9. Letter from Charles D. Folch to Bill Weckman dated 5/15/96
Town and Country Homes
June 5, 1996
Page 34
10. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/24/96
11. "Land Patterns,"Winter 1996, Vol. 1,No.1,page 6
12. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
13. Wetland locations
FROM :SCHOELL 6 MRESCN 612 546 9065 1996,05-01 12:33 #694 P.02/06
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: " �d 44017 s
ADDRESS: -� r i L,A. % „ A. / DRESS: P4- 7O Ga4P//7 Ag
L� _
CAiet lt-i
TELEPHONE(Day time) 9Z5 TELEPHONE: 470 5098.
*X Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
3-00
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit _ Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit . Wetland Alteration Perm
75 es
Planned Unit DevelopmenrdLdi ‘Lt
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review /1 Notification Sign Sal.— "r‘ic
(at).— dG etS/f—
Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNARANAP/Metes
7•'S? n f-+86.0 12: and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
X Subdivision* I `v 7� �• TOTAL FEE$ 3/ LI 5—•
ei
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11"reduced copy of
transparency 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.
FROM :SCHOELL & MRDSON 612 546 9065 1996,05-01 12:33 #694 P.03/05
PROJECT NAME Town & Country Homes First Addition
LOCATION N.W. Corner of Galpin and Lymar
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached legal description
TOTAL ACREAGE 45.2
WETLANDS PRESENT X YES NO
PRESENT ZONING A-2
REQUESTED ZONING Planned Unit Development
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Office/Industrial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mixed Use Office/Industrial and Mid—Density Residential
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To sub—divide the land to provide a townhome community and office/
industrial space for future development.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plannirg
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that t am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
ail 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. 1 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.
Town & Countr HomAs, Inc./Industrial Equities Inc.
and/or SA Land Partners -5 2 '
Signet i - oAp• i . / Date
•
:i nature of Fee•w John R. Fisher Dat-
�C
Application Received on - 1(( Fee Pald �S C*rt‘ 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.
TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION
JOHN FISHER PROPERTY
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
CONCEPT PLAN
AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL
OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
May, 1996
Submitted by:
Town & Country Homes, Inc.
6800 France Avenue South, Suite 170
Edina, Minnesota 55435
(612) 935-3899
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. DEVELOPMENT TEAM
II. INTRODUCTION
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
B. Legal Description
C. Zoning
D. Project
E. P.U.D. Criteria
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
3. Traffic Access and Circulation
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULING
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
IX. COVENANTS
X. CONCLUSION
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The developer of the Fisher property is Town & Country Homes, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation located in Edina, Minnesota. The Town & Country tradition has been
synonymous with quality neighborhoods throughout various Metropolitan Areas for 38
years.
The Development Team is coordinated by Allan J. Block, President of the Minnesota
Division and Project Manager of this development.
Consultants
Planner: The site plan design by Schoell & Madson, Inc.,
Minnetonka, MN
Engineer: The plat and public facilities engineering by Schoell &
Madson, Inc., Minnetonka, MN
Surveyor: Site surveying by Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Wetland Biological Regulated wetland permits, delineation and monitoring by
Analysis: Svoboda Ecological Resources of Shorewood, MN
Landscape Architecture: Landscape design by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc.
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Presentation
The purpose of this presentation is to provide the Chanhassen Planning Commission
and City Council details of the proposed Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) and to
obtain the necessary concept plan, preliminary plan and preliminary plat approval with
a wetland alteration permit.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 2
III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF CONCEPT
A. Location
This proposed mixed use Planned Unit Development by Town & Country is
located in Chanhassen in Section 16, Township 116, Range 23. The 45-acre
site is served by County Road 19 (Galphin Boulevard) to the east and Country
Road 18 (Lyman Boulevard) to the south.
North of the Fisher property is Trotter's Ridge residential development. East of
County Road 117 is Stone Creek residential development. The development
plans have been carefully designed to provide adequate spacing and buffer
areas adjoining these areas. The property is adjoined on the south and west
by industrial/warehouse usage. Additionally, the south and west boundaries
also represent the city limits adjoining the City of Chaska.
B. Legal Description
That part of the East Half (E 1/2) of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4), Section
16, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, which lies South of the North
1065.41 feet, westerly of the centerline of County State Aid Highway No. 19,
and North of the South 100.00 feet; ALSO
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15,
Township 116 North, Range 23 West, lying westerly of the centerline of County
State Aid Highway No. 19 and northerly of the centerline of County State Aid
Highway No. 18. Said property being subject to easement for roadway
purposes for County State Aid Highway 19 and County State Aid Highway 18.
C. Zoning
The project consists of land owned by John Fisher. The property is currently
zoned A-2, Agricultural Estate. The Developer proposes to rezone the
property to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development.
D. The Project
The project consists of 146 residential townhome units that will be developed
on lots ranging from 125' to 146' in width with lot depths of 72'. Each lot will
accommodate a 6- or 8-unit pre-designed townhome structure. Each home will
have a one car garage with a driveway. A majority of the units will be slab-on-
grade: however, the Developer will attempt to incorporate lookout or walkout
basements where topography allows. This site plan was developed in an
attempt to maximize the preservation of trees and natural terrain. In addition,
two office/industrial lots will be platted for future development by others.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 3
Proposed Building Setbacks:
25' Front Yard Setback Typical along Street "A"
20' Front yard Setback (minimum) along Streets "B" and "C"
50' Side and Rear Yard Setback (minimum) along Exterior Boundaries
25' Minimum Combined Between Buildings
40' Rear Yard Wetland Setback (minimum)
Large wetlands and groups of mature existing trees create a variety of
constraints to development, requiring unique approaches and mitigative efforts
aimed at providing quality homesites while maintaining the integrity of the site
topography. Measures such as reduced setbacks, road design, and restrictive
covenants all contribute to this and will be discussed later.
As previously noted, townhomes will be available in 6- and 8-unit buildings.
The range of topography and building mixture provides an opportunity to
accommodate different home styles. Besides offering the advantage of a
quality streetscape, the mixture of home plans and lot sizes can help the City
achieve affordable housing goals while maintaining density which is in
conformance with R-8 requirements.
With the difficult constraints on the site, the mitigative measures that we
propose, such as preservation of wetlands and large trees with additional
ponding, creates a development that is aesthetically pleasing and
environmentally responsible.
These mitigation measures speak to the purpose of the P.U.D. and
successfully create the ultimate condition that the P.U.D. was designed to
affect.
Development Summary
Total Acreage
R.O.W. Dedication (CSAH 19) 45.21 ac.
R.O.W. Dedication (CSAH 18) 4.27 ac.
R.O.W. Dedication (Interior Streets) 3.90 ac.
Lot 1, Block 2 (Industrial Lot) 6.29 ac.
Lot 1, Block 3 (Industrial Lot) 9.40 ac.
Net Developable - Residential 20.56 ac.
Number of Units 146
Net Density - Residential Area 7.10 units/acre (146 _ 20.56)
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 4
E_ P.U.D. Criteria
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (May, 1992) outlines four expected
attributes of Planned Unit Developments. Those expected attributes and the
Developer's findings are outlined below:
1. Attribute: The City should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity
beyond normal ordinance requirements.
Finding: The overall concept is oriented around the development of an
individual neighborhood defined by the road system and the integrated
open space system as well as preservation of existing site topography.
This community was designed to accommodate moderately-priced
townhomes while providing generous amounts of open space.
The plentiful open space shown affords the visual amenity provided by
ponds, wetlands, berms and depressions and combines them with the
landscape elements such as grass, flowers, shrubbery and trees.
Over and above this, open space provides the means to preserve and
enhance existing natural amenities, thus preserving wildlife habitat and
groups of existing mature trees. Open space can beneficially influence
the micro climate by improving heat radiation and by providing channels
for air drainage and favorable air flows. The system operates as more
than just open space; it provides a readily accessible place for informal
recreation.
The Developer has used this process that embraces the delicate
balancing act of locating roads and home sites where it has the least
effect on the wetland and trees to create a development that is
innovative and harmoniously sensitive to the environment.
2. Attribute: The City should be offered sensitive development in
transitional areas between different land uses. Lot sizes should be
mixed to reflect the sites' environmental limitations and opportunities
and to offer a range of housing pricing options.
Finding: The proposed plan offers a development which provides
sensible transition between land uses. Properties to the north and east
contain R-1 single family residential developments, while the properties
to the south and west contain industrial/warehouse use facilities. This
project, utilizing medium density residential concepts, provides
transitional land usage between these uniquely different parcels.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 5
3. Attribute: The City should be offered the provision of housing affordable
to all income groups.
Finding: The proposed plan provides for 146 units, ranging in estimated
price from $85,000 to $115,000. These units will fall into the City's
defined affordable housing guidelines.
4. Attribute: Quality of development in: landscaping, construction quality,
provision of public/private open and recreational space.
a. Landscaping - By design, the road system locates entrances
which identify points of arrival to individual neighborhoods. The
entrance features will include extensive landscaping. The cul-de-
sacs, while allowing development of rolling hills and creating
niches for smaller more private neighborhoods, also affords the
opportunity for landscaped islands, another feature of this
development. These areas will be maintained by a homeowner's
association as well as covenants on the land that must be
adhered to by owners.
b. Construction Quality - Town & Country invests a great deal of
time and money periodically upgrading its entire home product
line keeping current with design trends that are the most in
demand and efficient. The latest innovative construction
techniques are implemented upon their introduction to the building
industry. Town & Country has been developing residential
developments and building quality homes for 38 years.
c. Public and Private Open Space - The amount of open space
together with the neighborhood trails and the numerous ponds
created within the development are a direct result of the flexibility
allowed under a P.U.D. Additionally, because of reduced setback
requirements, the Developer is able to provide reduced natural
topographical disturbance.
d. Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks, yard ares, lot sizes and other minimum requirements
and performance standards associated with traditional zoning,
Planned Unit Developments can maximize the development
potential of the developable land while remaining sensitive to its
unique and valuable natural characteristics.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 6
F. Comprehensive Plan Acceptability
1. Land Use Guide Plan/Density
The property is currently guided for Industrial Office Park Development
by the City's Land Use Guide Plan. The Fisher property development
plan proposes 146 residential townhome units and two industrial/office
sites for future development in accordance with the Guide Plan.
2. Site Utility Availability and Service
The site is within the MUSA. Sanitary sewer and watermain were
stubbed into the property during utility extension to serve Trotter's
Ridge. 12" PVC sanitary runs south on CSAH 19 and east through
Stone Creek. Sanitary and water laterals would be extended off of
these stubs.
The storm drainage system on the site consists of storm sewers in
streets which will discharge into storm water treatment ponds. These
ponds will outlet into existing wetlands. Storm sewer outlets are also
provided from all of the existing wetlands to allow controlling the water
levels. In general, the site drainage pattern is from the north portion of
the site to the large wetland in the southwest portion. The drainage
facilities will be constructed in connection with the other site
improvements.
3. Traffic and Access Circulation
The road system, open space system and trails have been developed to
best facilitate the movement of traffic safely and conveniently in
accordance with the City's designated road system, while at the same
time providing a unique neighborhood community consistent with
Chanhassen's high standards.
Primary access to the development will be off of an east-west collector
connecting CSAH 19 and CSAH 18. The road system is designed to
identify a hierarchy of traffic with cul-de-sacs running into this collector.
IV. TENTATIVE STAGING AND SEQUENCE SCHEDULE
The Developer intends to develop the project in one phase and will build as the
market demands dictate. Obviously, economic conditions may affect the actual time
frame and special areas of development. The industrial lots will be graded in
conjunction with this project and will be provided utility service stubs. They will be
sold for future development by others.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 7
V. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
As the optionee, Town & Country intends to develop the Fisher property once they
receive every governmental approval necessary for development to occur. Town &
Country is a principal developer in many cities and has never failed to meet is
obligations throughout its history.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
The topography is generally rolling terrain with the highest elevation being 982 feet
and the lowest elevation being 940 feet. There exists four acres of five separate
protected wetlands on the site with both the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of
Chanhassen having jurisdiction.
The 45-acre site is a mix of open space, wetlands, areas with miscellaneous
vegetation and some significant wooded areas. The Developer has taken these
features into consideration in the planning of this neighborhood community.
In addition to these natural features, the development will include significant ponding
and enhancement of existing wetlands, and along with additional landscape elements
proposed by the Developer, we believe the result will be an overall development that
is attractive and enduring.
VII. WETLAND MITIGATION AND ENHANCEMENT
The project contains a total of 4 acres of wetlands of various types. Generally, the
wetland basins on the project area have been heavily affected by past drainage
activities. Virtually all of the wetlands on site have been subjected either to ditching
or subsurface tile line installation. In some cases, this drainage activity has been
effective enough to eliminate wetland hydrology, and in others it has rendered historic
wetlands so marginal that they serve few, if any, functional wetland values.
After extensive analysis and a conscious effort to minimize the development impact
on the site, approximately 0.12 acres of wetland were found unavoidable and are
proposed to be filled. In general, the impacts would be incurred by the smallest and
most degraded wetlands on the site. All of the impacts associated with the project
will affect wetlands classified by the City as Ag Urban. Because of the extensive
distribution of wetlands present, it is clear that some wetland impacts cannot be
avoided.
Sedimentation ponds will intercept and collect storm water runoff prior to discharging
it into the wetlands. The Developer's intent is that upon its completion the site should
have equal or greater wetland acreage with overall higher quality than existed prior to
development. This should provide an improved variety of plant types and a better
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 8
habitat for more species of wildlife.
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses shall occur in the form of
wetland creation projects adjacent to the easterly wetland. We have tentatively
identified 0.14 acres of potential wetland creation. This site would provide 1:1 acre
for acre replacement of wetlands to be affected by the project. The acreage
encompassed by this site is exclusive of storm water storage/treatment ponds to be
constructed for the project which are utilized to compensate for the other half of a 2.1
total mitigation package. The wetland would be contiguous to and become part of
the existing east basin. This basin would be excavated to a depth sufficient to create
wet meadow or shallow marsh conditions. In general, the wetland type to be created
will provide substantially higher wetland functional value than the degraded wetlands
affected by the project. Bottom substrates for the created wetland will consist of
organic material excavated from existing wetlands to be affected by the project.
A conservation easement will be established around each wetland. The design of
this easement shall show a natural perimeter that meanders around the edge of the
wetland. The depth of the easement shall vary. This easement, combined with a
usable backyard of 40', should provide setbacks to the wetland of 40' minimum.
The primary purpose of the conservation easement is to provide nesting habitat and
wildlife cover peripheral to the wetland. In addition, the easement, combined with the
proposed sedimentation ponds, will work together to improve and maintain the
character of the wetlands.
Many species of wildlife reside in wetlands and depend, in part, on the presence of a
fringe of upland habitat. The design of this easement shall depict a natural perimeter
that meanders around the edge of the wetland. The depth of the conservation
easement shall vary depending on the classification of the wetland.
In addition to the aforementioned wetland alteration the Developer anticipates some
alteration of the utilized wetland located in the southwest corner of the parcel.
Because of the classification and condition of this wetland, it is anticipated that no
mitigation will be required beyond normal NURP basin construction.
VIII. TREE PRESERVATION
The vast majority of the existing trees along the east and north boundaries will be
subject to minimal impact by any home or road construction. In addition, a large
grove of trees will be preserved as a buffer between Lot 1, Block 2 and the residential
areas.
The design attempted to locate other large stands of vegetation in rear yards to
preserve them and also provide a screen to adjacent lots.
Planned Unit Development Concept & Preliminary Plan 9
There will be tree loss occasioned by this development, but it is the expressed
intention of the Developer to keep tree loss to a minimum.
IX. COVENANTS
Protective covenants shall be established and recorded to protect the investment of
each homeowner and the wetland conservation easements. In addition, maintenance
and protective measures will be addressed by the homeowner's association.
X. CONCLUSION
Town & Country feels that the proposed preliminary plan for development of the John
Fisher property enhances the quality goals and objectives of the City of Chanhassen.
It is our pleasure to respectfully submit to you our proposal and request your
acceptance.
• . - . 4.4
• ,•,. . ',. ' IV 4 A- -7 4 •. C .• .A
; ".1
I ' -y•..ft-.....:.„. _ •
-
• ''?.4."';------ " '...-- '
- ',‘ - z- - -
•
' ':i.... .t...- •„A , 1 * -....,' . ' -
13.
fi.• -.. .F.1- 1,-i.t. .1.1; .,.. F:-. -. .e?-,_-.4. •...;,:kt,.._-:---%'.-•_
.,1 i• - . `ss .. 414-4. -7.' -.. ..1"4k•Q-*tu, tt.7....
i .... ,-n.n.- ...- .,,, kr• -. t• - -....,74. ...;"-•:, ., - -
1 --- • • - " - -
4.
-ell- c_.; \ ,. [
. _,..,s• --,4,.......,....:...
--'--;ik ''';''-. "- '.
I, . • .• • -• 1..s : ....- ,,-,.•..e ,i,.•
•
,
fdi I... .,.
NEN
iME
.. • ..•-, -.; •- ^V.•
I _ .
.... _ ,,
!....4. ,..,...0. ,..
N .
14 1
., 4 _ - •••,, 9- .'-, ,-,T2r... t 4.• • . .ENE 4-55,:;- ' .4;%.4,:v--4",...._-- e •
. .
...
. --.,• . , i-.1 ..13
.i. -, , --.•
• ,-,.. -*,r,* 44, -- _: .
7:-
•
-.4 .4 1 \ - l %'...---.
i -
\
.'•
, -
Mt
PI
...NUN •
is• iii
i,..1.:4 ,,. . MIN -
_ . . .
.i i •..Li......1.2., .f •
.
- ...• -- .
... - - . • In-..' -- . -.,' ':.:.,.:- „2--a4-`-'..-,-
• .
I ----- 1 • -'
- .6•1"*- -.:1-
am
If „II. -^,4----;- -,NE - ' : --v-•-1; 4r- "./'-'1'4:•':-;-
1 f.. -.-i• '041,-..,..„.- lum
.-1---. Non ,. ...„--. ... -Yt • '.?,4' ,:fre'r<
r 1. •-- , a ie.. . , ...kg.....-,
! It • '...e...:' _ ... -k .k` 4-4Ar.,
11 - - .'.-..J-9ifilg.:...1.1.'h. re;
• :. - .,. r.:J.L:, .:i f.• ...„.... .,..4 ' :' .•:;..E;' :),,,.±.47,..,.: ..,-1.•;.,
k-1!.--3.--.1W
w••■
iiri 2.2. .' *j;N;_i .;- ..t-X:2:t.Z"':;;., ' '''.
....
._
.- .
, Itc: -4. M:.
.11 4. ' ."`•t-:•;PP'`-`),,
-%
. 1 \
A
-r"„-0. 4-, ., --"..7,•(•,,;(..!'
f • 4.... _';.,-,:,..,
.4.47,,
r , . ,
-;„4-• _
. , :
i ,
• , it--. •
Now 1
„: . -
..,.,4
, 1 1 NEN -
.,. II I I woo
• .i • - • .. •toso , mai. -
- I • ,litit... .
1
i •
..1L .
FA 1 11101
=sr
r . -
• N
N MEI,
MEL { • ..,
f ' ri,„,,1
— MEL i •-
a
—
:. .
. •gq _Mil 11
[ .
. _
u Ems
••m
I
1 i .!, a
• mom
•• .
Mod 7 ....... ,
._..
... ...N.,4, _ ,,„.., ,, . , ----: ,.. -
,
-
i
7 ../•.... ..,,,fr-'
•li..-•fs- . i. ''* '" . •." -• ' •• .,- AIIP'-,- - -
• i •t• -i? . 'i --,"."-t'''-'; r-..:'-,' -- -: -5iiii,-.'_
* ••.-y....
tik•di'f4!:.-fq:.°4—.10!'-i.,....31"---
--,..-t.... :,.... • ...,.... .. _...440C.„..,on, `,-.1...-1,:z10,,,,,,f:it,„„."- W.1*,,':-. '
. .....----•!..-.. -. -„-- ....•,•:...11C,..,3_,,e,•,,,„,...74s„. . -,.......0--,...f-.s... ,-
. .„
, .
• ---,-...,,-- .
. .. .. , ,. ..,:, , „... ..n.z:.._...._,...e...:.:_...x___...
• -4 .- .--4 k.1V-11, ....%...• 4,...,........i.z.,74,•.,,,,.
'-', • ‘" 4 it`4';, .7-ve, ,::
• : ..:--' ,-
•
• .:?.... _,i, • _
i • ,._ - "T - -t
' •,,, -;
A. ..
•
I
\. ' a —
Is g i .11 C—
a i ia, r 1'7 t! ■
UnaI
L.
• �® i
ipt. Ipi, , , .7
`E4
II
II
21 1
■ 1 a.IH
a
1 /1
1
r: ---------- gill
____ 1 7. _
ir :71
•
r - �z__1 I• * a w e •r
1+ 1 1 I
I . tgagil II
II
I1�o i 11u
Irl `rl —4 ' t�
�;
I ;: i y �i : i. i
IYti--" -- '•.`
+ . —co 'fieri r s
if
111
i j i .rJJ
ilf-,...; . • :,,,,
1.
• L
l
y r ' •r
o !fl!I! vpi;, Ni0 Ott i 1 LSI 1 i 1
li ... I
oy
■
I
3-.)
`�� ii 1
2 8 r�-11
j ■ I :-r
I
•
il
A!� .r .u� .�u 11
1
I 8 111 P ° DEP ,� i1, I-I. e MA. . it
. 't.i II
11% s
I .t :1
1H'0` _ II :I
'Qlallalal
r 0 ��
■ ■ ry 4
° 1
, , , r W'.
' I 4 114
_ '_Er 1111106. i ,
Y ��� "ILIYs�]
I
Serum a er tr.O i� 80 e ! IP cis
r�
s ■ r .8 --• 1,(�i lig c aaar�:
a '
4 es le
11
i )",I 1 I 0 ffff! __ Q [
a II s
1
a
I
I
ii
CI 1 ,.J3=i 1-1 1 1 811 '1 gD. 1 =218 ; g1
r:� k _,oxI i ilg/11113 .1, ... IE
o 21
_
1...11...1 ! iift'11' \
i ,, --rti,,
___
i N- .
IM HI
La Y E-1., o FMil
111 !-.
1' n•mill u, lJa 111
II111 ;
II ii
jn .
N- _ -- —�— i
H {J ' �H M:
■ ■ i.....2.,
Y --
Ti' a
'941 \•
.-
IP111 \" 4;i:
IPA
mill n r, ° Iril IIIII \
124
j.
ilt" i -I \\
-1 n_ .::‘ ...1\76,1 i
'� '� �J 111 ;J
- _. �, Y l :::
- --��
14_ MI I
...• • tl' :� II III
II
11 111 I
w
17:Oil .1 iii, � i II
. 1 1� Ii;
'' i i' 7:1 i . 1 71
iii ! i� 1 11
'E i i
o- "•
.' 1 .. 'F°
e��I llJI
„w oxI
is
1 ti I91
� 3 ,
i
•a• 1 i i
(a .'. Z ' 1
' ' ; II
�n _J I. ' I.
•
1
14 I III Z
NM bla , 0 • -• g MS, 1--',
•
a S • S
` I r •t• ..
k
I'ii I
U
o 1
• :_ - —
I f I' { i , 1' ■
r ' a I�► ' 1a i
4 �•• I
ti ; I �4 . ea --, i
IMO
RS i I■►' 2 I illi
2 4
�`.. 1: • OW' • , Ink 'Hill0111. _
i Si II fi
ik ;•' • .1 1 r i . is II JlIItIlI
a i; _:_1 _sti
1IIII '
..-6;:t-
��11'ill
Irrr III
,,, .111
r .-, Iti
11
- 1 i ` II
II
•
j - , 1 I. `_
Il
il SW
fI I ..1
�,
:;J ,, „
yl
—7‘ :4"::
I,
Li ,
n __
I ivZ „ o'I o I i si IL_
U
tJ !!!
_,:, i-1m
Z0 � ` �yz _ s, q r
0 !Ill
1
1 :
; ■ 6 ■
} r , i
■ �W-1. t
1.,-'. I
a
o c a 01
ill 1 i R 1 Y
I�r ■ '�41' ,s5 _ �J Y
a
•
NW' I-a = I i —.
II
All: : I t SE.- . ._
8 .=MI I= A i oak lirc !
1 •. i \NE 0:7
a .E.-"" . o =am, unnuuur,
V o V .__
A D ri.,
i �, �� S R
1 011.
3O1 IIS �`
11
� � 1VR
a Qs II"IN!: 1
.�: i6 t
7-4 , l41‘,: .:
. ■ ignismilEiro 11b
If-
NMI L''' fi 1_11 \7S. . • g
1 . ., i 1 EE NM", 'AI e
o o l6III
All.Ill ,,,.. %* I. 0 I 1 ,,
■ a o 1
P.
1 a ' :4J` 1
a L o o O r - = i - !
g J O b
■ I I u . is
11
14
01igli!! 8CL�. i 141 r
a
■A MI u T M —1 .-] n
WSEl I min I1 !1 i 1111 .._
ins' 1 1111
1111
_ n I n! �.I _no :; 1111 .in:
U - Lii r v _till r, ,
µ 1 In •..
i_ I■ "
'im I. r, ° Ns r r, ° 11111 1 IN
� l ui n _�' 1111
� ;L-vll=�• i SII u -MI °
11111
I .. n B . n II __V---
o c A / ::� MI MN
1 ° ll �° .N.
n
U - -
g nirn II Li Yar,
li. .�..1l_LI N ; j!l 11111 1
=e' .l; 11111
t ,
r, ` 1 11111
1 MI II ff-21 E.t. i iI' i n IOW Lii N g !!4 1111
i i es a Ea: ...
µ - a
— iii
° °
•
g c 11111 i
1111
. I ° IM1f A In'
��
1:- 11 1Ii:-UN .-J ° 1111
�i °_ 1 ( °_ 11111 : I
Ai
ff _ L u —. ----, —_,
-n' �litir.
I1 1111 I.III =u' r,' . w 1111 --~
■a —1 LJ I N MINI „ . ii 1111 .I 1 a
El Si " I N IL� 11l!
.i ! • N MI1 •J r ...ei
U-- — i ` I(
\ -- �r sy,„ 611 "1 7 1, 1'1
HI 'I 111'3` ! `i i . 1 li1 II ili
v1 I ll i -} �:.
W
I \ •II
1.1
ni Elf`in m g2 i i...1 si1 :91 „ ig
iR -_+ IE
Ox 1 0�c11 1 I ZZ�
Uj �I rff
cn
11
/ -
0 =
0 YYYY Y
'
�C.Y:4O
al N
W 17: a
O R
:ga :: S
C `d
WceOCr Z 561- IXMO oh 0 CA
I-- S aNpO UJKW `riris�YN< K OmW ¢ O 1a .-1 1§1%
Z S
O 7 j W Z W i N 4 Z W<W i `W
OZ ZW \�N3 a2O S J
W U Z_ O Q N N x .00
>2 ON WJ<< in WN Y -v�= HOZ 2
p.�< •
WJy Z J S -- W=
ZW< 2 ZOO= ZK<a .iiio I FKiZiu %_
"- "xi' 00
¢
1.. Z �Z §§§ 4 Fa
p p _
O tCtrGGCCGC == N
X•Xyy yAi6 65itli, eX
on ig=g6 oz
03 2
vi / 4/ I A !` . i / \
I �� l ..--- r
7 ti , 1.
S
W
____ — --- - - �--:: :_, , 1111 >
-_--11--....----.J.•......".„. nvTrmTrmTrm TrmTrni Trn I F.
I CC
R �� — �i I 'nnunnnrnnnrniunrh Z
°` I + ^'�� il - -_� I 1 1 FFH�FFHi�FH�+FHj1FHii O
I V
II . I 1 ij 'Jp s r 11/-1-111:Irrun iunnrrirruuuin ,_ Rii-: . JLUILLUJLLUIJLUJJLUJ ,i •
_ 11
_ -1 i
Li r ''9 ------
~ f ~ - / .4 .10in �_ i { G
Y !
it \ ii fi I il2iIs .......%139,114 - ,..1:111M\':
:, 11.1 -MIR \ I 11
e .. 1111 E.
4-, /4* 1 --I.
ale 111112,..m... ..".... ...•v \ iii : 3-g- LI
II
jelt.--03, .,.\, .I... 0
\ di
LiiI L 8.1
I /
-) - \,. •i\ ill
p:::;ffIi:u:
i � / — ..L' ° I °' I �.t l i n ( i � I .• ,�� ,/ / Li r t\ . I t•
/- \ ‘ !, 1
l \ �\ Y- j
1, 1 7T/F
•‘
�/ \ ), I ;!\ N ' ill /
3 •
pt
I P • ' � ' l
7/11
4,•11 y y t
I
f`JI.I I I(1(I\' I I.`III II 'C'IV. I II')1•I`ft
\--- \ ', . ‘ 111
TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES
1ST ADDITION
CHANHASSEN
EXTERIOR COLOR PACKAGES
PKG BRICK ROOF, SIDING SOFFIT, ACCENT
(Wunder Klein) (Owens Corning (Rolex Vinyl) FACIA, TRIM COLOR *
Supreme) & GARAGE
DOOR
A Spaulding Tudor Driftwood Clay Cottage White Burgundy
B Winyah Bay Estate Gray Sandcastle Shell Forest Green
C Briar Cliff Barnwood Mist Heather Federal Brown
D Valleywood Weathered Wood Shell Sandcastle Wedgewood Blue
E Wellington Chapel Gray Cobblestone Frost Tuxedo Grey
* Accent color is for entry door and shutters
May 29, 1996
Schoell �. Madson , Inc.
_a_ Engineers • Surveyors • Planner's
Soil Testing • Environmental Ser vices
10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525
Office 612-548-7601 Fax 812-54Wi5 (�
May 29, 1996 MAY 3 0 RECD
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bob Generous, Sr. Planner
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
Subject: Town & Country Homes First Addition
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This letter is intended to clarify that the site plan and related information for the two
industrial lots shown on the preliminary plans is intended to be conceptual only as noted on
the plan. The owner wishes to retain the full flexibility offered by City codes for the future site
planning and development of these lots. Detailed site plans will be submitted for City review
in the future.
The grading plan shows a significant earth berm on the industrial lot south of A Street.
However, the berm includes a note that the height of the berm may be adjusted based on
availability of soils. We have since prepared an earthwork analysis and found that there is a
shortage of soil to grade the site as shown. It will be necessary to reduce the berm height to
four to six feet above the street elevation. The storm water basins shown on the industrial
lots are also conceptual. If possible, the owner intends to eliminate the pond on lot 1 block 3
and to convey the storm runoff to the pond on lot 1 block 2.
The site plan and related information for the townhouse portion of the project
illustrates the actual project proposed to be developed by Town & Country Homes after all
approvals are obtained. The intent of the preliminary plan submittal for Town & Country
Homes First Addition is to obtain these approvals.
Please contact us if you have any questions or require additional information.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Kenneth Adolf
KEA/cj
cc: Al Block, Town & Country Homes
John Allen, Industrial Equities LLP
Ron Bastyr
1956 'ede4ratC12. • , 40 awo O/ 1e lice > 996
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
TOWN & CSRY HOMES
Minnesota Division
May 24, 1996
City of Chanhassen
C\O Bob Generous- Senior Planner
690 Coulter Dr
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Neighborhood Information Meeting
Dear Mr. Generous,
Town& Country Homes cordially invites you to attend an informal neighborhood meeting for
our proposed townhome development at the northwest corner of Lyman Blvd and Galpin Blvd.
The meeting will be held at Bluff Creek Elementary School in the Recreation Center meeting
room, located at the rear of the school. The day and time of the meeting will be Thursday, May
30, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.
We wish to present our proposal to you as a neighborhood, in an informal question and answer
format. At this meeting we can also hear your concerns and comments and respond to them.
This meeting is scheduled for approximately one week before the city planning commission
hearing.
The site is a 45-acre parcel and presently has a comprehensive guide plan designation of
industrial. We are proposing 142 owner-occupied townhomes on 20.5 acres. The remaining
land will have 2 industrial lots, with approximately 9 acres of wetland and many exisiting trees
being retained.
We look forward to talking with you Thursday. If you have any questions concerning this
project, please contact Mr. Bob Smith or myself at 925-3899.
Cordially,
Al Block
President/Minnesota Division RECEIVED
MAY 2 8 1996
CITY OF CHAIVHASSEN
6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina,MN 55435
(612)925-3899 MN Builder License#9137
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners
Soil Testing • Environmental Services
10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 1 Minnetonka, MN 55305-1525
Office 612-546-7601 Fax 612-546-9065
May 16, 1996
Mr. Bob Generous
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Bob,
As you requested, I am herein providing calculations for tree canopy loss on Town & Country
Homes First Addition. These calculations are based upon existing site topography as located by
Loucks & Associates and provided by Ron Bastyr.
Residential Area Industrial Area Total Area
Total Tree Canopy 377,928 S.F./8.68 AC. 115,760 S.F./2.66 AC. 493,688 S.F./11.34 AC.
Total Canopy Loss 245,379 S.F./5.63 AC. 83,206 S.F./1.91 AC. 328,585 S.F./7.54 AC.
Percent Loss 65% 72% 67%
If you have any questions regarding this information or need further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
im Hirz
Senior Engineering Technician RECEIVED
CC: Al Block, Town& Country Homes MAY 17 1996
Ron Bastyr CITY OF CHANHASSEN
956 'e/� yin, 40 L`(AaxJ o C._ im ce 1996
Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer
f, ,
1 C I TY 0 F P pgr i
i., 4,A
. 4.
t _0,,,,,4CHANHASSEN G
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
4 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
May 15, 1996
Bill Weckman
Carver County
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: Galpin Boulevard Reconstruction Project from Lyman Boulevard to Timberwood Drive
SAP No. 10-619-04, City File No. PW026E
Dear Bill:
There were a couple of items which were brought up and discussed at a recent department head
staff meeting regarding the Galpin Boulevard Reconstruction Project from Lyman Boulevard
south to Timberwood Drive. The first item involves the elimination of the north access to the
proposed Southern Oaks development(Fisher property) located at Station 61+34. Thus, this
curbcut and the associated southbound right turnlane can be eliminated. This development is
proposed to be served via one access off of Galpin Boulevard which is to be located immediately
across from Stone Creek Drive at approximately Station 10+00.
Item No. 2 involves confirming the City's desire to see a trail also extended along the west side of
Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard (this is shown on the plan).
This trail is in addition to the trail to be constructed along the east side of Galpin Boulevard to the
Stone Creek Development as shown on the plans. Again, this point is merely made to confirm the
City's intent to have complete trails constructed on both sides of Galpin Boulevard from
Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard.
The final item involves the issue of the Pioneer Cemetery. As we have discussed, it is the City's
intent to have the driveway entrance and main drive aisle into the Pioneer Cemetery paved with a
bituminous surface. City Maintenance staff will conduct the grading and rock base placement
activities prior to the placement of bituminous by the road paving contractor. The Maintenance
staff have asked for approximately a two-week advance notice of when the paving might occur so
that they would have ample time to conduct the necessary preparatory work. As we get closer to
the paving operations, please let me know of the schedule so I may forward this information on.
Mr. Bill Weckman
May 15, 1996
Page 2
If you have any questions or further comments on any of these of any other issues related to the
project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CJALL:Ltz,d D. 3 "4,C)4"
D. Folch, P.E.
Director of Public Works
CDF:jms
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
Karen Engelhardt,Office Manager
g:'enecbarksVeners\galpm.ltr
CITY OF
•. I! . . ,, a
ts CHANHASSEN
._
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous,Planner II
FROM: Steve A.Kirchman, Building Official t Ck F,
DATE: May 24, 1996
SUBJECT: 96-2 PUD,96-5 SPR, 95-lb LUP and 95-2b WAP (Town& Country Homes, First
Addition; Town and Country Homes)
I was asked to review the proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY
0 6, 19 9 6, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project.
Analysis:
Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed
by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents.
Structure information. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to
enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the
structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevations
as well as garage floor elevations are required to be indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard
designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These
standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining
these designations is enclosed.
Demolition. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits.
Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment must
be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Setbacks. Exterior walls(at bays and optional bays)and projections(at overhangs and decks)are regulated
by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) With building sizes and property lines as shown, decks will not be
permitted as shown,overhangs will not be permitted in some cases and exterior walls must be of one-hour
Bob Generous
May 24, 1996
Page 2
fire-resistive construction in some cases. Openings shown in some walls will not be permitted with the
building and property lines as shown. To avoid opening protection and one-hour fire-resistive wall
construction, the property lines should be at least four feet from any wall of the building where a twelve
inch overhang is planned. Decks may not be built within three feet of the property line. These requirements
are found in UBC Table 5-A, 503.2.1 and 705. Since these issues involve property lines, they need to be
resolved before preliminary plat approval.
Soils. The Carver County Soil Survey indicates the site may contain some glencoe soils. Glencoe soils are
given a building site group 10 rating, which indicates they are unsuitable for building. A geotechnical
evaluation, which includes an FFIA/VA lot by lot tabulation for land development with controlled
earthwork, should be submitted to the Inspections Division for review. The report should also include a
copy of the grading and drainage plan.
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early
as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final
plat approval.
2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard
designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
4. Adjust property lines to permit openings in exterior walls or revise plans to remove openings.
Adjust property lines to permit code complying projections or revise plans to remove projections.
Adjust property lines to permit decks or revise plans to remove decks. This should be done before
preliminary plat approval.
5. Provide a geotechnical evaluation report to the Inspections Division. This should be done before
any permits are issued.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
g:\safelyAsakHnemos\plan W&aty1
CITY of
„.
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORAN D UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
• t
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FIA or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with tie basement floor level
approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
gE R
SEWO WO FFLO
� , -- - — - - — -- orR
11_17.01.,)
1111111111Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
Ars
Pi4u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
L J ? kr�5 Residential Taxes aren't Farmland's
,r� g41 Most Valuable Harvest
BY LEE RONNING
Vo ) Argumenrsurban for savingl fertile farmland frobeing destroyed Perhaps the most ironic finding of this study is the fact that
by sprawoften center on the envmironmental and sprawling residential developments can result in Less funding for
social impacts of rampant development patterns.But for better schools.In Minnesota,state aid is used to hold down property'
or worse,it's the financial bottom-line that carries real weight taxes.Because this aid is usually distributed based on population
with decision-makers.As a result,the environmental and social or school enrollment,it increases the share of education
havoc wreaked by urban sprawl is often justified on grounds that funding attributable to the residential sector.Minnesota's
new development increases the tax base,thus improving schools school aid is dependent on the total property valuation of a
and other community services. school district,as well as being a function of enrollment,thus
school districts receive less state aid per student as growth
occurs and property tax bases expand.
Normally,the expanded tax base would offset any loss of state
aid.But if residential development is the source of the expanded
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BY LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE development,then the increased cost of servicing that develop.
CITIES OF FARMINGTON,LAKE ELMO AND INDEPENDENCE ment could actually lead to the need for higher property taxes
to fund schools,the study found.It's clear Minnesota's tax
Revenues Expenditures Balance Ratio structure makes it very difficult to determine who is paying the
FARMINGTON true costs of sprawling residential development.
Residential 11,641,596 11,860,275 (218,679) 1:1.02
Commercial&Industrial 1,227,644 966,588 261,056 1:0.79 And our research finds that farmland prosection may be
Farmland 80,940 62.008 18,932 1:0.77 financially beneficial not only because of its contribution to the
Grand Total 12.950,180 12,888,871 61,309 tax base,but also because it holds down property tax valuation.
Lower property tax valuation leads to more state aid,which
reduces the share of local government costs paid for by local
LAKE ELMO residents and property owners.
Residential 7,492,273 7,996.164 (503,891) 1:1.07
Commercial&Industrial 717,942 143,861 574,081 1:0.20 he tax revenue-to cost of services ratios this analysis
Farmland 95,240 26,025 69,215 1:0.27 reported are similar to those found in eight studies of
Grand Total 8,305,455 8,166.050 139,405 farmland development in Connecticut,Massachusetts,New
York and Ohio.Those studies found that any apparent gain in
tax revenue from residential development was lost when the
INDEPENDENCE cost of delivering necessary public services—from roads,sewers
Residential 4,656,443 4,817.233 (160,790) 1:1.03 and parking lots to education and public safety—was consid-
Commercial&Industrial 218,266 41.304 176,962 1:0.19 Bred.A study released last year by Utah State University's
Farmland 197.913 93,513 104,400 1:0.47 economics department found that for every 31 in revenue
Grand Total - 5,072.622 4,952,050 120,572 collected by residential property taxes in one of that states
counties.31.27 in services was being provided.
These studies come at a time when sprawling growth is destroy-
ing the state's farmland at an alarming rate.The 20-county
However,recent financial analyses of the costs of urban sprawl growth corridor from St.Cloud to the Twin Cities to Rochester
are knocking the legs out from under the economic lustifica- is the fastest growing metropolitan area from the northern
tions for uncontrolled urban sprawl.Simply put,sprawling plains to the eastern seaboard.The seven-count Twin Cities
residential developments oaten cost communities more than metropolitan area has lost 235 square miles of agricultural land
Perhaps the most they contribute to tax coffers. to urbanization since 1970.Since 1980,most of that growth has
occurred in second-ring suburbs.The Twin Cities area is the
That was the conclusion of a study recently conducted by the third least densely populated metropolitan region in the
ironic finding of this Land Stewardship Project and the American Farmland Trust in country,but one of the fastest growing geographically.The
three metro-area communities:Farmington,Lake Elmo and amount of metro-area land devoted to urban land uses has
study is the fact that
Independence.Farmland and the Tax Bill:The Cost of Comma- increased by 42 percent since 1970,almost double the 72
nity Services in Three Minnesota Comes,traces the flow of rev- percent population growth rate during this same period.
sprawling residential enues and expenditures generated by specific land uses in the
three towns.On average,farmland adds twice as much to local These trends are accelerated by an all too common attitude
developments can
tax bases as it demands back in services,according to the study. that farmland is property that is"vacant"or"wasted."until
Using data gathered from the Minnesota Department of it sprouts subdivisions.But ag acres fuel a powerful economic
result in less Revenue.Office of State Auditor and the Minnesota Depart- engine in the region.Despite the rapid urbanisation of the
merit of Education,the analysis found that in those three region.metro-area agricultural activity produced more than
funding for schools.
communities,for every 51 in tax revenue generated by residen- $500 million worth of farm output and generated 7.000 jobs
tial development,on average$1.04 was spent to provide in 1990.Nationally,56 percent of agricultural production
services.According to a study conducted in Wright County by comes from counties on the edge at cities.
the Minnesota Department of Agriculture,the further away
from existing infrastructure development is located,the more Farmland and the Tax Bill concludes that Minnesota and metro-
costly it Is to provide services. area communities should continue to support existing farmland
protection activities,such as the Metro Ag Preserves and the
We conducted the three-community study in hopes of state's Green Acres programs.For economic and environmental
providing localized.bottom-line information that has reasons.the study recommends exploring other techniques to
already been well-documented in other states.We hope this retain this valuable resource base,such as purchase of conserva-
data will help city officials better evaluate the impact of land non easements.
use decisions on municipal and school district finances.
The statistics reported in this studs-will fustify such measures.
The three communities studied were chosen because they Perhaps even more importantly,they will help put to rest the
represent cities undergoing various stages of development fallacy that the most valuable crop farmland can produce is
within 25 miles of the Minneapolis-St.Paul downtown area. residential taxes-.r
Independence is Just heeinning to grow slowly,while Lake Elmo
is experiencing moderate growth and Farmington is being
developed rapidly.
b '.1:7ocr l Qom
.1--3-1-----2"- - i il_zwolloafi41..
v1R
, farilk ow
NOTICE OF PUBLIC -•�---'--A _ MI
HEARINGOft
PLANNING COMMISSION r°74‘4A,7'ir4�o NW—
MEETING
1hru•,,�,ligZiri :f.z�I:'� $ All
Wednesday, JUNE 5, 1996 ��� Rte'?.. 7, fo
at 7:00 p.m. pgr,JArk, toIIIIII"Iar
City Hall Council Chambers : �c�. �` .•. 41 ;•.
690 Coulter Drive xterketu .w •
Project: Town and Country Homes , ; 7�'
First Addition , 4- ;-
% L� 1 .
or
Developer: Town and Country Homes ,�e„,iiiAI / I—
N
wr
Location: NW corner of Lyman and ° 90.n- `��'0
OM
Galpin Blvd. )0
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Town and Country Homes, is proposing a mixed medium density residential
and industrial office development on 45.21 acres located at the northwest corner of Lyman and
Galpin Blvd. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the northerly 22.6+ acres
from office/industrial to residential medium density, conceptual and preliminary PUD approval for
a mixed townhome and office-industrial development, rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to
PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 146 townhome units, a wetland alteration
permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat approval creating 24 lots and
associated right-of-way, Town& Country Homes First Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or 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 at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 23, 1996.
Gerald& Lois Gustafson Roger& Gayleen Schmidt Earl Holasek
8341 Galpin Blvd. 8301 Galpin Blvd. 8610 Galpin Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rene&Lisa Schroeder John& K. Sumners Joel H. Lehrke
2337 Boulder Road 2333 Boulder Road 2329 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kelly Morlock Chad J. Gniffke Douglas& S. Hipskind
2325 Boulder Road 2321 Boulder Road 2317 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hans Hagen Homes&
Merle&Jane Volk Gregory K. Ziton Don& Ann Esping
Suite 300 2334 Boulder Road 2330 Boulder Road
941 Hillwind Rd. NE Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fridley, MN 55432
Douglas& Christine Johnson Jeffrey& Karla Althoff James&J. Larranaga
2322 Boulder Road 2326 Boulder Road 2318 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald& Cathy Borgman Scott& A. Weldon Lisa Kilpatrick
2308 Boulder Road 2292 Boulder Road 2360 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy&Vicki Dempsey Lewis Engineering Co. Rory& Amy Lea
2301 Lukewood Dr. 4201 Norex Drive 2313 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317-9414 Chaska, MN 55318-3046 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gerhard&Helene Schock Stephen& Melinda Pittorf Jeffrey Palm& Cheri Swiertz
2309 Boulder Road 2305 Boulder Road 2301 Boulder Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Rudolph&Jean Larson John& Kym Staples Merle&Jane Volk
2291 Boulder Road 2374 Stone Creek Dr. 16925 Co. Rd. 40
Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver, MN 55315-9635
John& L. Sullivan Peter& M. Cunningham Stephen& N. Dragos
2346 Stone Creek Drive 2332 Stone Creek Drive 2318 Stone Creek Drive
Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
William& M.Nason John Moran Trotters Ridge of Chanhassen
2361 Stone Creek Drive 2150 Boulder Road 2765 Casco Point Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391
Jeffrey& Lindsey Finch Steven& Blanche Neuwoehner Brian& Sally Snabb
2304 Stone Creek Drive 2375 Stone Creek Drive 2333 Stone Creek Lane W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
David& Yael Rubin William& Lorraine Rodriguez Kevin& Cathleen Dilorenzo
2345 Stone Creek Lane W. 2357 Stone Creek Lane W. 4013 Montery Ave. S.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55416
William Jr. & Pamela Franzen Kip & Diane Hanson Neil & Beverly Butchart
2370 Stone Creek Lane W. 2356 Stone Creek Lane W. 2342 Stone Creek Lane W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curt& Hope Enerson Mark& Christine Fischer Rodney & Janice Melton
2403 Bridle Creek Trail 2407 Bridle Creek Trail 2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Mary Minear Moberg Homes, Inc. Steven&Nancy Cavanaugh
2421 Bridle Creek Trail P.O. Box 57 2441 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel & Dona Lee James& Mary Stasson Craig & Nina Wallestad
2451 Bridle Creek Trail 2461 Bridle Creek Trail 6566 France Ave. S., #1001
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435
Arvey & Marlene Eeg Michael Voigt& Deborah Skubai Thomas& Marcia Kiadek
2479 Bridle Creek Trail 2483 Bridle Creek Trail 2491 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
New Creations industries, Inc. Steven& Deborah Watts Hearin Homes
708 Main Street 2563 Bridle Creek Trail 10025 James Road
Elk River, MN 55330 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bloomington, MN 55431
Dennis& Carol Medo Edwin Susi Ken & M. Hoiirah
2420 Bridle Creek Trail 2430 Bridle Creek Trail 2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Westenberg Homes, Inc. Willard& Rebecca Bury David& Monica Kilber
7150 Willow View Curve 2460 Bridle Creek Trail 2470 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ronald&Jeanne Lindberg Bruce&Julianne Diehl Boyd& Debra Aarestad
2480 Bridle Creek Trail 2490 Bridle Creek Trail 2510 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey & Cynthia Olson Dream Builders, Inc. William& Donna Hartwig
2520 Bridle Creek Trail 10420 49th Ave.N. 2536 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Plymouth, MN 55442 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd & Ann Mack James& Kathryn Liddell Conopco, Inc.
2542 Bridle Creek Trail 2550 Bridle Creek Trail c/o Van Den Bergh Foods Co.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 2200 Cabot Drive
Lisle, IL 60532
The Nordick Group, Inc. Williad Morton Chaska Watertower Mini Storage
701 12th Ave.N. 4035 Norex Drive 149 Jonathan Blvd. N.
West Fargo,ND 58078 Chaska, MN 55318-3043 Chaska, MN 55318-2342
Richard Riegert
c/o Rieker Enterprises
27110 62nd St. W.
Excelsior, MN 55331
I( -_1
z
o ..
f 1 O
11 Q G
G -
t< G
I-1.. -
wp .n
�IA W
S
z
A jW� e
1.
4 0
CU
j O it_z Z
J d z=
U
z
I 1 • 2
Jl OOP°4 SVD': V W
-- -- -- - — �l � j': -�� �i` `'. S
LC
} - �� t _ — i I I lnuulunnnlinulniuul� Z
I j 1 FFHifFHH- HifFHiI HiI I V
- I . goal.goal. 111
. 111111111lei 11.1111iii. I
I ifit. _ 31
jJJThJiLaIJL1LUi1JJ * .LJ1 41/
I
1
! 1 ( Z7 '; 0 I _ z
_ a{ i i !if u
/ 1 I • l1 J• U
177,
is �iiiiillears'1 _ .../1 MI l I j i
Y J1-414111 ail Iriffil —a---"--\---'":-.: -1-\-\ !3
INV NW ,.., II tt
0
'. c; 1\ 1 . i -- ----,1,, 1-1 ut :,.. 1 , — ,:-,=-7=`-'7------:.--,-:;''''' , -‘,.,.. , ,,, ., . 7, •-"; 1. •
f L' 1 l •
'\ /�! rn�rmirmTrmlrmirrmrm�Tm / ....- - - ;el}
\ `yj
.. L \ 1 1 1 1 1 — 4
i�t5 v i
/ / I W 1LUJ1LLlJ1l UJ-LL1L 1LUJ l LUJ1L. f8.
ihi
I!i :til •
s
lei tpl l , �
Cf `` It a U� I I . l �h � 1
S II
, • ' ill
�- •
l
NJ()11(1(I\- l IMI I I ::,1:•11;, I 1 :..I` \ .:\ .. ri
lam/
2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
June 2, 1996
Mr. Bob Generous
Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Generous:
I am writing to express our vehement opposition to the proposed development
of 142 townhouse units by Town & Country Homes, to be located off Galpin
Road between Trotters Ridge and Lyman Boulevard. This development will
have detrimental impacts on both the environmental quality and the quality of
life of our neighborhood and the entire community. We believe it is an
inappropriate use of the site.
A large percentage of the mature trees on the site will be lost if the
development is built as proposed. The plan that was presented on May 30 by
Town & Country to the neighbors affected shows that the north-south road in
the development, with townhouses lining both sides, will be routed directly
through the heart of the trees.
Beautiful, mature trees are part of what gives Chanhassen its special character
and makes it a desirable place to live. Whatever use is made of that site
should be planned to retain as many of the trees as possible. It is my
understanding that the earlier proposal for single-family homes on that site
planned to save 70% of the trees. One of the reasons given for rejecting it was
that 70% was not enough. The Town & Country proposal appears to save
fewer trees.
The Town & Country proposal also includes alterations to the wetland on the
site. These changes threaten to cause drainage problems for several
neighbors bordering the site on the north. Construction of townhouses across
drainage routes from their properties into the wetland area will inhibit natural
drainage patterns. There have already been dramatic changes created in the
wetlands bordering Trotters Ridge on the south which have been made by
activities of the property owners to the south and west.
We are also concerned about the added congestion, traffic and noise. Building
142 higher density units housing 300-350 people in a compact area can't help
but mean higher traffic burdens for Galpin Road and Lyman Boulevard.
JUN O 4 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Since the closest units will be located only 50 feet from the lot lines on the
southern edge of Trotters Ridge, our privacy will be adversely affected. Decks
and back yards in the townhouse development will look down into our back
yards and directly into our second story windows.
Finally, a proposal for entry-level townhouses seems very much out of keeping
with the character and price range of the surrounding areas of single-family
homes in Timberwood Estates, The Oaks, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. It
certainly cannot enhance the marketability and property values for homeowners
in the immediate vicinity.
A single family home development would better maintain the beauty and
environmental quality of the site. Even industrial/office property, for which this
site has been zoned, would be a better use and less objectionable. I urge you
and the Planning Commission to reject the Town & Country proposal and
maintain the industrial zoning designation for the entire site or rezone it for
single-family homes that would fit the surrounding environment.
Sincerely yours,
Peter Sidney /
L
Lu Ann Sidney
��P,��OF MINNFSOT9
`�► Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
w Metro Waters- 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul,MN 55106-6793
�� Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
1 1 �o
OF NATOlt
May 31, 1996
Mr. Robert Generous
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive,P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen,MN 55317
RE: TOWN&COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION,CITY OF CHANHASSEN,CARVER COUNTY
(CITY#96-2 PUD, 96-05 SPR,95-lb LUP,&95-2b WAP)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the plans dated May 3, 1996 (received May 8, 1996) for Town& Country Homes,a project
located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Lyman and Galpin Boulevards (E1/2 SE1/4, Section 16,
and SW1/4 SW1/4 Section 16,T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. The Town & Country Homes site does not appear to contain any Public Waters or Public Waters
Wetlands; therefore,no DNR Public Waters permit is required.
2. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins,which is good. Settling basins
remove pollutants and reduce peak discharges that would negatively impact the water quality,
recreational values,wildlife values, and aesthetic values of properties downstream of Town& Country
Homes.
3. There are wetlands on the site of Town&Country Homes that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in
wetlands. In addition,impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the city in accordance with the
Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991.
4. There should be some type of dedicated easement,covenant or deed restriction for the property adjacent
to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that the Town& Country Homeowners Association is
aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,the City of Chanhassen, and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff
Creek Watershed District have jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without
appropriate permits.
5 The site of Town& Country Homes does not appear to be within a shoreland district.
6 There are no FEMA-designated floodplains on the Town&Country Homes site. However,the wetlands
on the site will have 100-year flood elevations. The structures of Town & Country Homes must be
constructed in compliance with applicable floodplain regulations of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District.
RE EIVFE)
DNR Information:612-396-6157, 1-800-766-6000 • TTY:612-296-5484. 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunitc Employer A Printed on Rec}cled Paper Containing a JUN 0 3 1995
Who Values Dners,tn Minimum of 10r4 Post-Consumer Waste /
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mr. Robert Generous
May 31, 1996
Page 2
7. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Chanhassen should require strong erosion control measures to be used due to the existence of
steep slopes on the Town&Country Homes site. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning Handbook(Board of Water& Soil Resources and Association of
Metropolitan and Soil and Water Conservation Districts)guidelines,or their equivalent,should
be followed. Chanhassen should regularly inspect the erosion controls to be sure that they are
being maintained.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per
year, a DNR appropriations permit is needed. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
c. If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more,the contractor must apply for a
stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(Dan Sullivan @ 612/296-
7219).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and
concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a
particular project.
Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have questions.
Sincerely,
r=
• Joe Richter
Hydrologist
c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,Bob Obermeyer
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Gary Elftmann
Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, Paul Neumann
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Carver County Government Center
i Administration Building a,a ministration
ks
CARVER 600 East Fourth Street Engineering
Highway Maintenance
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2192
COUNTY Surveying&Mapping
Phone (612) 361-1010 Fax (612) 361-1025
RECEIVED
June 5, 1996 JUN 0 6 RED
CITY OF CHANhA 1\
TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County g En ineerf " )
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Town and Country Homes First Addition (96-2 PUD)
Previously Southern Oaks
Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Town and Country Homes First
Addition subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated May 7, 1996.
A memo was previously sent when this was proposed as Southern Oaks. A copy of that memo
is attached. Most of those comments still apply to this proposal. Additional comments include:
1. The comments concerning the CSAH 19 road right of way including utility permits, access
permits, and restoration would also apply to the proposed work along CSAH 18 (Lyman
Blvd.)
2. There is a proposed reconstruction of CSAH 18 scheduled for 1997 or 1998. Agreements
for this project are just beginning to advance. The proposed setbacks should provide
adequate area for potential CSAH 18 or CSAH 18/CSAH 19 intersection changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
Attachment
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
Y o n
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
600 East Fourth Street, Box 6 Administration
vo'�' Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Parks
,ARVER Phone (612) 361-1010 Engineering
Highway Maintenance
20UNTY Fax (612) 361-1025 Surveying&+Mapping
April 11, 1995
TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties
Following are comments regarding the Southern Oaks Preliminary Plat transmitted to Carver County
by your memorandum dated March 27, 1995:
1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 120' 150'
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 120' 140' 170'
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 19 (Galpin Blvd.)is functionally classified as a Minor
Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The
minimum right of way needs for this corridor include a 100 foot width. The corridor as shown
would not meet the minimum recommended needs for an urban four lane undivided roadway.
The other platted properties along this corridor have included a preserved right of way width
of 50 feet from centerline or a total 100 foot wide corridor. It is expected by Carver County
that this plat will not be approved until that dimension is reflected in the plat.
The reconstruction of CSAH 19 is scheduled for 1995. We would ask that Carver County has
an opportunity to review any proposed lot configurations on this property abutting CSAR 19
(Galpin Blvd) prior to approval of the plat. There may be a need to make minor roadway
alignment changes at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. to facilitate the reconstructed
intersection.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision
if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may
also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
N
Affirmative.4ction/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10%Post-Consumer Recycled Paper
•
2. The accesses being proposed to CSAH 19 from this subdivision will need review and a permit
from Carver County. No direct non public road accesses to CSAH 19 will be approved by
the County from this subdivision.
3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 19 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH
19 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-of-
way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be
completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what
existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the
developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final
condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will
result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city.
6. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County.
When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable
sight distance at the CSAH 19 intersection. Any trees or shrubs overhanging into the right-
of-way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead utility consideration.
7. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 19 will increase. The increased traffic will
generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement
project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or the developer.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plat for the proposed development.
TOWN & AIRY HOMES
Minnesota Division
RECEIVED
JUN 11 RECD
June 10, 1996
CITY OF CHANHASSEr,,
Mr. John Fisher
8470 Galpin Blvd
Chanhassen,MN 55317
Dear Mr. Fisher,
I am writing this letter concerning information I received Friday afternoon that you have drained the wetland
in the northwest corner of the property,which we are proposing for our townhome development.
I, and we, at Town & Country Homes are gravely concerned about your action. We do not condone your
draining of this or any wetland. This blatant conduct may be in violation of Federal, State, City, and
Watershed District laws,rules,and regulations.
I strongly suggest and urge that you personally contact these agencies to report your actions. Additionally,
I implore you to seek professional recommendations and to carry out mitigation and remediation of this
action of drainage of the wetland.
Sincerely,
ert P. Smith
ice President of Land Development
cc: Robert Generous, Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
6800 France Avenue South • Suite 170 • Edina,MN 55435
(612)925-3899 MN Builder License#9137
I
HIGHWAY II 1 &
NOTICE OF
PLANNING COMMISSION ' ,�
MEETING -- 111,
Wednesday, JUNE 19, 1996 � ■ �,
at 7:00 p.m. 00 � '�
City Hall Council Chambers --et----
i ' . 1 ' 1104#o
690 Coulter Drive tim,„, ih, - i�
Gilll�' `11111101111:-��,.>r
Project: Town and Country Homes '' .; ` am a
LOCATION
.7 4.,1 -
. : .111 _First A ition Piti .-:-f .
f:; _�-�: �u�, --„„
� '11 Alar•O /
Developer: Town and Country Homes s i - V\ --�/ -_ 1
” ”
Location: NW corner of Lyman and . w ��%�
Galpin Blvd. 8800-•-•• ,VA...
' •
I
Notice: You are invited to attend a Planning Commission meeting about a development
proposed in your area. The applicant, Town and Country Homes, is proposing a mixed medium
density residential and industrial office development on 45.21 acres located at the northwest corner
of Lyman and Galpin Blvd. The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment for the
northerly 22.6+ acres from office/industrial to residential medium density, conceptual and
preliminary PUD approval for a mixed townhome and office-industrial development,rezoning from
A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, site plan approval for 140 townhome
units, a wetland alteration permit to fill and excavate wetlands on site, and preliminary plat
approval creating 24 lots and associated right-of-way,Town&Country Homes First Addition.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
f .
C 1 TY O F PC DATE: 6/19/96
flANH�SSEN
\, CC DATE: 6/24/96
1 ,
. CASE #: 96-15 SUB
By: Al-Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final Plat to replat 3.277 acres into one single family lot
and outlot, Black Walnut Acres.
LOCATION: Part of Lot Bardwell Acres Lake Minnetonka. Located south of
z Highway 7 (Hennepin County) and the City of Shorewood, east of
VHighway 41 and north of Chaska Road - 6250 Chaska Road
J APPLICANT: William and Nancy Swearingen
6250 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
474-8258
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
ACREAGE: 3.277 Acres
DENSITY: 0.3 Units per Acre (Gross)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - Highway 7, Hennepin County, and the City of Shorewood
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
W -Highway 41
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
ij PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home, detached garage, and a
swimming pool. The majority of the site is located within the City of Chanhassen. Two
wetlands occupy the southwesterly edge of the site. The site is wooded.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
C D
a o a o
0 O 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0
CO N tO u10 0 0 0 0 O O O
N N N N N N r
C41 t O ON CO N
N N N N r-I r••t •-I
City of Shorewood
m+c-- s s acne z: 1
,,\It... IPSNIPPIIIIIIIII ' A _a 4 .- '_—, AIM=
� � .1�� efi , .
= - • p[ i _ Koe�nen1Gc nen G
1111111 :
MOM
� + `. ' Herman -"7—= I ��1����� �R,!►� 63rd '�n
in \ Yield Park Hill
1 ri. PAI Fl IV?
1 INN '''')MI= Strfarza \--- .,w.c..f.‘iw. ,,_ . .
St.i Ti 7 ' Dr':lT�.
Mill 'W'+ 1 ��,�w III Pheasant
1ke
444 ,
, / , 1 ,i,Cresatiew Eh
1 ..,114111
r k
eqfe
i I Co
Lane
-- al /1"-----__.,j//7
- 1 jI y
I / (o .:1_ a 1 '� \ /
'�\ u�y it*
j • e
i •,... . \
•,. 'I 1144.!3 Lake
rel 1
i �/ arrison ,
r
°' 1
a 4•� i
J , y i
It
I ate,,
s.
Black Walnut Acres
June 19, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide 3.277 acres into one
lot of 0.912 acres and an outlot of 2.366 acres. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family. Lot 1, Block 1, Black Walnut Acres will be occupied by an existing home. The second
parcel(Outlot A)will remain as is and is not proposed to be developed. Access to the site is
provided via Chaska Road. Proposed Lot 1, meets the minimum area,width, and depth
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The site is located north of Chaska Road,east of Highway 41, and south of Highway 7. The
northerly portion of the site, located north of Outlot A, is located in the City of Shorewood,
consequently, Chanhassen has no jurisdiction over it. The remainder of the site is in
Chanhassen. Staff contacted Shorewood's Planning Department and was informed that they are
aware of this application, however,they have not seen the preliminary plat. We informed them
that we intend to send them a copy of the plat.
The main reason for this subdivision is financing. The applicants wish to sell their home. They
intend to sell the house located on Lot 1 through a conventional mortgage. The outlot is being
sold through a contract for deed. All exterior appearances will remain the same. No new home
sites are being created. This is a very simple split. Because a new lot is being created, the city
must take action on this proposal.
Staff explained to the applicant that if they wish to develop Outlot A, a replat of the property will
be required. It appears that there are at least two buildable sites on Outlot A,however, we can
not confirm that since we do not have all information required to make such determinations.
Staff is recommending approval with conditions.
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees. There will be no impact on the trees since
there is no proposed construction on the site.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is requesting preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide 3.277 acres into one
lot of 0.912 acres and an outlot of 2.366 acres. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family. Lot 1, Block 1, Black Walnut Acres will be occupied by an existing home and is located
in the City of Chanhassen. The second parcel (Outlot A)will remain as is and is not proposed to
Black Walnut Acres
June 19, 1996
Page 3
be developed. Outlot A is also located in Chanhassen. A remnant lot located north of Outlot A is
located in the City of Shorewood, consequently, Chanhassen has no jurisdiction over it.
Access to the site is provided via Chaska Road. Proposed Lot 1, meets the minimum area,width,
and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
GRADING& DRAINAGE
There will be none.
UTILITIES
The existing home is hooked up to municipal sewer. Water is provided via a well. In the event
the well fails,the applicant will have to hook up to City water.
STREETS
Access to the lot is from Chaska Road. There are no proposed changes.
WETLANDS
There are two wetlands on the site. Both wetlands will remain intact.
PARK DEDICATION
There are no fees required at this time. However, when Outlot A is replatted into lots, full park
and trail fees will be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE -RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 39,710 157.88 229.83' 30'/10'
10'
Outlot A 103,052 or 2.98 acres
Black Walnut Acres
June 19, 1996
Page 4
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Since there is no proposed development on the site, staff did not require a tree survey.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: There is no proposed development on the site.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets,erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter,
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Black Walnut Acres
June 19, 1996
Page 5
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
"The Planning Commission approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision#96-15 for Black
Walnut Acres for 1 single family lot and 1 outlot as shown on the plans dated received June 7,
1996, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the plat from the City of Shorewood."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Nancy and Bill Swearingen to the neighbors dated June 5, 1996.
2. Application.
3. Public Hearing Notice.
4. Pictures of the site.
5. Preliminary plat dated June 7, 1996.
NANCY AND BILL SWEARENGIN
6250 CHASKA ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
(612)-474-8258
June 5, 1996
Dear Neighbor :
We ' re sorry we can't talk with you personally rather than
sending you this impersonal letter, but time is of the essence.
We ' re sure you will understand after reading this.
If you have driven by our house, you have seen the SOLD sign
attached to Carolyn McClure ' s RE/MAX sign. We are delighted with the
buyer who will be taking possession towards the end of June of this
year. He and his wife are currently Chanhassen residents and have
two boys ages 4 and 5, and a 10 year old daughter. They are an
exceptionally nice young, solid family who will be an asset to the
neighborhood.
We have purchased a home in Mesa, Arizona and plan to move
directly their immediately after closing. Nancy and I regret that we
haven' t had the opportunity to meet all of you personally, even
though we have lived here for more than 24 years. Perhaps it ' s true
that we tend to isolate ourselves more and more in the stressful
climate in which we operate.
You will , or already have, received a letter from the City of
Chanhassen informing you of a proposed development on our land. You
will also see a sign stating the same thing shortly. PLEASE DON'T BE
ALARMED! THERE WILL BE NO CHANGES IN THE USE OR APPEARANCE OF THE
LAND AT ALL! We are simply splitting the house apart from the
remaining 3 acres at the wish of the new buyer who will control the
entire piece and maintain it just as we did. Chanhassen is required
by the State of Minnesota to go through this procedure regardless of
the size of the subdivision.
Black Walnut Acres will be an Outlot defined by Chanhassen in
the following terms: "OUTLOT means a platted lot to be developed for
a use which will not involve a building or which is reserved for
future replatting before development.' (Page 1152, supp. no. 7,
Zoning Ordinance) .
Thanks for your understanding. I know in the past when Nancy
and I have received these development change letters from Chanhassen,
we shudder and wonder what really is happening. We wanted to take
this opportunity to reassure you that you will never notice a change.
Sine rely, AOF
rar7Bri.1 Swearengin
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
IA r-eo
APPLICANT:(VC ( I, Awe t/ - ,1)017)(- /// OWNER:
ADDRESS:ip�1 ds f� //2 ADDRESS: )2144- '
TELEPHONE(Day time) 1--j7 7>I_ TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign
Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* , �. TOTAL FEE$
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews,
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/z"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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 2 L < W L G
LOCATION Zv C. 144 S g4 (lam c.� i 0-6_ ,A/DR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FA b- , 71 deg £�i- ,
TOTAL ACREAGE q A-
-
�r
WETLANDS PRESENT 7 YES NO 0 v- P 4.1
PRESENT ZONING I� S P
REQUESTED ZONING ie S f"
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION e 9 n-P h1 A L, L o /
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ftVtL-Q
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST V O V f D
r 1 O oTLo7 — 1 )/ ,��
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 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 -view. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for developm;/t review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approv:: by the applicant.
//,
/ I 47wareri•\are of Applicant / D- e
Signature of Fee Owner . 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.
City of Shorewood
NOTICE OF PUBLIC _ __461414__ . :S=MIasi swum a a emu 4 woes _ems_=
HEARING = oa gr!
PLANNING COMMISSION .14; ;',����li
MEETING +
, 46.10111
Wednesday, JUNE 19, 1996DZWI
at 7:00 p.m. .ia paik ti , ' �o
�--
City Hall Council Chambers
4111 .65
690 Coulter Drive
*AIN
Project: Black Walnut Acres
`-'
Developer: William & Nancy
gym
Swearingen d
at
Location: 6250 Chaska Road ,,e0.04"
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, William Swearingen, is requesting preliminary plat of Lot J, Bardwell Acres
into one single family lot and 1 outlot on property zoned RSF,and located at 6250 Chaska Road.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about
the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or 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 Sharmin at 937-1900, ext. 120. 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 June 6, 1996.
6/( /61 '
Lennart& Deadra Johnson Frank & Greta Reese Thomas & Virginia Rode
6240 Chaska Road 6200 Chaska Road 6275 Chaska Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Philip& susan Bonthius Robert& Delores Aman Richard & Linda Nicoli
2300 Melody Hill Road 2250 Melody Hill Road 2280 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Karen Signe Peterson Joseph & Marcia Massee George & Beulah Baer
2240 Melody Hill Road 6381 Hazeltine Blvd 6300 Chaska Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas Parker Robert Sommer Robert & Margaret Cristofono
6235 Chaska Road 6239 Chaska Road 2210 Sommergate
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Marvin &Eileen Braxton Thomas & Kimberly Gallogly Steve & Carol Good
2220 Somergate 2230 Sommergate 6245 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Kenneth &Nancy Meyer Thomas& Susan Thoele Glenn, Jr. & Sherry Johnston
6251 Chaska Road 6257 Chaska Road 6263 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
John& Diane Lenertz Shirley Butcher&Rosemary Fruehling Frank & Lynda Kuzma
6269 Chaska Road 4335 Chimoe E. 2241 Sommergate
Excelsior, MN 55331 Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas Baurle Perry Harrison Claude & Kaye Benson
2231 Sommergate 2221 Sommergate 2211 Sommergate
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Peter&Lisa Staudohar Todd Rowe Wayne & Barbara Fransdal
2204 Sommergate 6270 Murray Hill Road 6200 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Jon& Laura Jo Williamschen Seven Forty One Partnership Sheldon Rubenstein et al
6230 Murray Hill Road c/o R. Soskin c/o SuperAmerica Group, Inc.
Excelsior, MN 55331 5591 Bristol Lane Tax Dept., P. O. Box 14000
Minnetonka, MN 55416 Lexington, KY 40512
Mark& Lorena Flannery Gary Brunsvold Ward Allen& Sandra Putnam
2350 Melody Hill Road 6287 Chaska Road 6285 Chaska Road
Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331
•
Hennepin Co.Names
see file#96-15 SUB
26 34-117-23 33 0004
ROBERT W REUTIMAN JR
305 E RICE ST
P 0 BOX 367
WAYZATA MN 55391
26 34-117-23 33 0026 26 34-117-23 33 0027
EVERETT J DRISKILL RYAN CONSTRUCTION CO
4350 KINGS DR 900 2ND AVE S SUITE 700
MINNETONKA MN 55345 MPLS MN 55402
26 34-117-23 34 0007 26 34-117-23 34 0014
FRANK REESE ALFRED E SNYDER
6200 CHASKA RD 23435 STATE HWY 7
SHOREW00D MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
26 34-117-23 33 0005 26 34-117-23 33 0021
WILLIAM VAN SWEARENGIN KERBER FINANCIAL SERVICES
6250 CHASKA ROAD 23780 STATE HWY NO 7
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHOREW00D MN 55331
26 34-117-23 34 0001 26 34-117-23 34 0002
RUTH THONANDER JOHN R THCNANDER
23520 STATE HWY NO 7 P 0 BOX 442
EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331
26 34-117-23 34 0015 - -
MARK P LABEREE TOTAL LABELS BATCH 505 0001C
6180 CHASKA RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
t,� �m h , �1
i
/' •
- o I i ` -
tom.
4 I
-J J f`•_.fir'.../w\ / { • � !
71_____
t
eI �91:)Pb? .
StZ
r \( 1
_ I .► .
\,
'ter o
z - \5 C r A
11
moir \t~ i t ! .� h p
I! }-- Ai,'4 }'• -.:,
Imo`- A '
�/`I Ib.OW flyMH0IH =31ViSI
l
:7-1141 jtj '1il; ! 'f`11i� i' I, I. 1
116,1111 Q! 1 1111'1/11, i 3� i
v� 110..+" II rlifii.igi ;• (I
�' Z isi. , it1 : tif i l;1 1;iiiisi11•113 I 1; ��
G! w tit lial
''. 1 ii-i.-.. " 1 E p i 119Iii„.g 1 Si
_ 41 -pjlni Va• i ; .f . 1 Wijir,1 li i; lii
of t!P1i
1 ti �� � iii
i
L
j ���i1ll�� el I� 1
t
C I TY 0 F
PC DATE: 6/19/96
\\I
CUAACET
CASE#: IUP.#96-2
�-, . By: Rask:v
•
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Interim use permit request for a retail nursery in an A-2 Agricultural Estate District
Fil LOCATION: 850 Flying Cloud Drive,Northwest Corner of Hwy. 101 and Hwy. 212
Z
Q
0
J APPLICANT: Skip Cook OPERATOR: Dick Henning Enterprises
a 15506 Village Wood Drive 737 Ashley Drive
CL Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Chaska, MN 55318
Q (612) 759-5043
PRESENT ZONING: A-2,Agricultural Estate District
ACREAGE: 10.0 Acres
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- A-2,Agricultural Estate District
S- A-2,Agricultural Estate District
E- BF,Business Fringe
Q W- A-2,Agricultural Estate District
17
Q . WATER AND SEWER: Not available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains an existing nursery consisting of a retail building
111 two agricultural buildings,display areas,and growing ranges.
1"'
(/) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Unguided
— i
ti W 96thSteee e . . -,.17i. :,..,....t;i• . r
i i •:7*/*/* -••..'-t
---- --/ 4::f
Nos ,
,..
L
\
Ci MI IPIPII'alllr .u .,-.....,
6(
F I ' .• .. .M1111 11111r.
Ow ..
:-:
.1 NAN it
•
. JOe.... 11E'i.-r • •
III' A IL—
.4 I skiX
A
• ..... ..
IIti4
ii....i....i.i..i_. Air
A •z_ Ail Ill
.. ... .r. - ,..
iftgli --
,.
f Creek Golf Course
11111111r ., I
It
r1-411)til 1
/
) Bluff / il #
Creek i g / ,
.. .
. . '
Park . I 01 I
IIII
i .i.
,
II 1 RIINI-,\ ,.
_1 /////
; , .„,, , 4
--------_--------- , •
,,, ,
I ---- . . . el '' 1
• • • I ) r
, , .... ..
...›......
/ `k. / c 1 \ \ I I o•
,.. •,
1 , ,
slc,5".
\ \
‘......4
11 •
"" I • ! r--/
/!?
) .
..1 ' 5..
III
1 , \ 111 • .. .. : • _ .
. %. v..15 .- . -.7 .- - - .---:-:••
--( • ...... _
. . .
. . . .. .•
. . ...
..,. .
. . • ... ...
• • • - -
. .
...,... 7-- .... • .
1,4, "." ) • :•• .-
[
4:P • i
i •
0
'l 1 s ----------Vj RICE 11
1 ii:'/ • ,
. ,....,
C..9
rij Lake
. \ Iii,.t,iLIfii
it
—b 1 -I
. :
•
--,
1 . -
--.1 \\,:ir...3;1—• -,:c . • -1....;, Ae„,,.......5L. 1..!
-, . --k- :•t
----15%).
\ 30
\ 7 .
i•:"""-- ti -.. -• City of Chanhassen
a-----7,-----, E.---..----...._...m,-a•-,__...__..__,....-
'n r:
1., City of Shakopee
r,......,..„,,,.
• I,
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Skip Cook, the applicant, is requesting an interim use permit to expand an existing retail and
wholesale nursery. The site contains a non-conforming nursery which has been expanded over the
years. An interim use permit is being requested to bring the site into conformance with current
ordinance provisions and to permit the expansion of the nursery.
The subject property has been used as a farmers market and retail nursery prior to the adoption of
the Chanhassen zoning ordinance in 1972. The applicant proposes to use the site as it exists today.
Expansion of the use will consist of storage bins for decorative rock, increased display areas, and
growing ranges. A variety of vegetables, trees, shrubs, and conifers would be stored and grown on
the site. An irrigation system may be constructed in the future for care and maintenance of the
nursery stock. No grade changes are proposed on the site.
Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit based on the findings presented in the staff
report and subject to the attached conditions. The proposed use is consistent with city ordinances
and surrounding land uses. The interim use permit will allow the applicant to expand the operation
while making use of the existing buildings and improvements. A variance from the 300 foot
setback requirement from a residence is being requested. Staff finds that the applicant has
demonstrated a hardship in the location of the existing buildings and nursery operation. Existing
vegetation and landscape plantings provides a partial buffer at this time. The applicant will
maintain a fifty foot setback from adjacent property lines.
BACKGROUND
Sunny Acres produce stand occupied the site prior to the property being used as a nursery. Use of
the property for retail purposes predates the City's Zoning Ordinance. Aerial photographs taken in
November of 1979 show the existing retail building and parking area. In 1989, photographs reveal
the addition of two greenhouse structures and additional display areas. Upon review of city records
and aerial photographs, staff has determined that the property has the following non-conforming
uses and structures:
1. Land area of the nursery operation consists of approximately 40,000 square feet (200 x 200
feet).
2. Three buildings occupy the site. The primary nursery building/retail building(40 x 50 feet) and
two green house structures(20 x 60 and 20 x 40 square feet).
3. Nursery stock was located to the south, east, and west of the building within the parking area
and adjacent to the building.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 3
4. Pictures taken of the site in December of 1995 show one sign with the wording "Garden
Center." No other permanent signage was present.
5. No contractor's equipment was stored on the property.
The land area to the west of the building which is currently used for storage of nursery stock was
expanded illegally. This area consisted of tilled agricultural land in 1989. Two "agricultural"
buildings (32 x 40 feet)were added in 1992 for storage of agricultural equipment.
On March 11th, 1996, the City Council, upon recommendation from the Planning Commission,
approved an ordinance amendment allowing for retail nurseries in the A-2 district as an interim use
permit. The intent statement for this ordinance amendment reads as follows, "It is the intent of this
amendment to recognize that pre-existing retail nurseries and garden centers are located within the
City and may be in conflict with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. These
establishments pre-date current ordinance standards. To allow for planned and orderly
development, the City finds it necessary to regulate the expansion or intensification of these uses
and to provide standards for any future retail nursery or garden centers. It is the intent of this
section to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by
regulating the creation and the expansion of existing retail nurseries and garden centers. The
creation or expansion of these uses will be allowed only by Interim Use permit approved by the
City Council."
To the north of the subject site is an existing home. The home has a significant amount of outdoor
storage. To the west of the subject site (across TH 101) is the Brookside Motel, a legal non-
conforming use. Bluff Creek runs through this property.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The Engineering Department is unable to address these issues based on the site plan submitted. An
existing and proposed grading plan should be submitted for review and approval.
UTILITIES
The site does not have municipal sewer and water service available. Based on the applicant's
narrative, they utilize a well and septic system. Municipal sewer and water are not planned to be
extended for 5 to 10 years or more.
ACCESS
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 4
The site currently has two access points, one off TH 101 and the other from TH 212. MnDOT is
proposing traffic safety improvements along TH 101 and TH 212 this summer. Attached is a copy
of the preliminary plans for four lanes and traffic signals. Due to the close proximity of the
driveway entrances to the intersection of TH 101 and TH 212,turning movements may be restricted
during peak hours. Staff recommends that the southerly driveway access from the site (onto TH
212) be relocated further to the west. A MnDOT access permit will be required for this. Also,
consideration for a deceleration lane should be addressed.
FINDINGS
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:
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health or
safety if the appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. Bluff Creek is in close
proximity to the subject site. Erosion control measures must be employed and maintained.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The proposed use is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinances. Staff sees this use as temporary until municipal sewer and water are brought to
the property. At that time the use may change.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed use will be operated in a manner which is consistent with other uses
and compatible in appearance with the general vicinity if the appropriate conditions are
attached to the permit. Additional buffering should be provided along TH 101 and TH 212.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The expansion of the existing use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing
or planned neighboring uses. There is an existing home to the north and a large lot
subdivision.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 5
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and
schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons
or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed use will be served by adequate public streets, private well and
septic system.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community. The use is proposed to be temporary until municipal services are brought to the
site.
7. 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.
Finding: Expansion of the existing nursery operation by adding additional storage and
growing areas will not further impact adjoining properties or the general welfare if the
appropriate conditions are attached to the permit and complied with.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The nursery operation will utilize the existing access points onto TH 212 (Flying
Cloud Drive) and Trunk Highway 101. The site is accessible from TH 101 and TH
169/212. The State of Minnesota will be installing a traffic signal at TH 101 and TH
169/212 this summer which will improve traffic flows in the area.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The nursery operation will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access,natural, scenic,or historic features of major significance.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The nursery will be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding area with
compliance of the conditions of the permit.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 6
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values if the necessary
conditions are attached to the permit.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The nursery will meet applicable standards with the exception of certain setback
requirements. However, the proposed expansion should not further encroach to the north
where there is existing residential properties.
Section 20-383. General issuance standards.
The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue
interim permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location:
1. Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code.
2. Conforms to the zoning regulations.
3. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district.
4. The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.
5. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the
property in the future: and
6. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the
use.
Findings: The nursery operation meets the above standards. Staff has recommended
conditions which should allow the use to be compatible with adjacent properties and the
provisions of the City Code.
The following conditions will apply to wholesale and retail nurseries:
1. The site must be on a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The property is located on collector/arterial streets.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 7
2. The minimum lot size is five acres.
Finding: The property is ten acres in size.
3. All storage and yard areas as well as buildings must be setback fifty (50) feet from public or
private road right-of-ways, and three hundred (300) feet from an adjacent single family
residence or a minimum of fifty(50)feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater.
Finding: Because of the location of the existing buildings and display areas, the applicant is
unable to meet these setback requirements. Staff is recommending approval of variances from
these setback requirements. Staff is also recommending that Area 4 as shown on the site plan
dated June 10, 1996 be eliminated as a storage area for equipment, vehicles and materials
(decorative rock,boulders, mulch, etc.). Nursery stock may be displayed or stored in this area.
All other storage and yard areas shall maintain a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet from lot
lines.
4. All outdoor storage areas must be buffered from adjacent properties. Buffering may be
accomplished using berms, fencing, landscaping, natural topography, or increased setbacks.
The City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred (100)
percent opaque fencing or berming.
Finding: One residential property is located to the north of the existing business. A partial
buffering is provided with the existing vegetation and landscaping. However, with the
elimination of Area 4 as shown on the site plan dated June 10, 1996, the home to the north
should not be further impacted by the proposed nursery operation. Natural vegetation and
existing landscape plantings provide a partial buffer to the adjoining property.
5. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the
use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation will not exceed 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m.
6. Light sources shall be shielded.
Finding: Any proposed lighting shall be done in a manner as not to infringe upon neighboring
properties or negatively impact traffic on the adjoining roadways.
7. No outside speaker systems shall be allowed.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 8
Finding: No speaker system shall be allowed.
8. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted
until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no
longer permits. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the
interim use permit by submitting a new application. The renewal application will be subject to
all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval.
Finding: The applicant is requesting a termination date be set for the second anniversary of
curbside availability of public sewer and water service. Staff recommends that this permit be
reevaluated in five years or when sewer and water services become available, whichever occurs
first.
9. One wall sign not to exceed ninety (90) square feet, and one monument sign not exceeding
twenty-four square (24) square feet in size or eight (8) feet in height shall be permitted on the
premises. The Council may further restrict the size and location of signs if the use is located to
adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: All signage shall comply with these standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the interim use permit for a
wholesale and retail nursery, and a variance from the 300 foot setback requirement from a residence
based on the findings presented in the staff report and site plan dated June 10, 1996 (prepared by
Dick Henning Enterprise)and subject to the following conditions:
1. Area 4 as shown on the site plan shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials, or
vehicles. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4.
2. A fifty foot setback shall be maintained from all properties lines for the storage of materials,
growing ranges, and parking, except that the existing parking area and display area adjacent to
Highway 212 and Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for
these purposes. No materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the
view of the traveling public.
3. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.
Skip Cook Interim Use Permit
June 19, 1996
Page 9
4. Exterior light sources shall be shielded.
5. No outside speaker system shall be allowed.
6. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service. .
7. Signage shall comply with city ordinances.
8. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways and Highways 101 and 212.
9. No contractors equipment shall be stored on the site with the exception of equipment necessary
for the operation of the nursery. The applicant shall provide a list of vehicles, trailers, Bobcats,
end loaders, or similar equipment that is proposed to be used and stored on the site prior to
consideration by the City Council..
10. Permanent landscaping shall be provided along Highway 101. The applicant shall submit a
landscaping plan for staff review prior to consideration by the City Council.
11. Unused pallets and equipment located along the north property line shall be removed from the
site.
12. The two white(32 x 40 foot) structures shall not be used for retail purposes. Storage of
equipment and materials is permitted in these buildings.
13. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading,drainage,and erosion control plan for review and
approval by the city engineer.
14. The applicant shall work with MnDOT to relocate the access point on TH 212 further to the
west. A deceleration lane should also be installed along westbound TH 212.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Exhibit A
3. Public hearing notice and property owners list
4. TH 101 and TH 212 traffic improvements
5. Site plan
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Skip Cook OWNER: Skip Cook
ADDRESS: 15506 Village Wood Drive ADDRESS: 15506 Village Wood Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Eden Prairie , MN 55347
Da time) 750-5887 (mobile )
TELEPHONE
(Day TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements
x lntenm Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal
Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost'
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
_
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ 4 00 . 0 0
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
`Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2"X 11" reduced copy of
transparency 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 Nursery
LOCATION Northwest Corner of MSTH 101 / U. S . 212 Intersection
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Part of EZ of NE, of Sec . 35 , T116 , R23
TOTAL ACREAGE 10 . 9
WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO
PRESENT ZONING A-2
REQUESTED ZONING A-2
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION A-2
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION A-2 ; Interim Use Permit; Nursery
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST See Exhibit A attached
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of 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 ar a..roved b the a..=cant.
ge
Signat&eo/„�*' _ .dok e: -
//�
Signat.re i%- Owns Skip Cook '-te
Application Received on 5/.)//9G Fee Paid $"7UOReceipt No. �pa �C/
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.
EXHIBIT A
Introduction: The Cook site has been used as a farmers' market and retail nursery
operation since before the adoption of the Chanhassen City Zoning Ordinance in 1972. As the
applicant for an interim use permit I am seeking a permit which allows the retail and wholesale
sale of plants grown on the site as well as plants imported onto the site. This would also include
greenhouse facilities. In conjunction with the plant sales, I will be selling accessory items
directly related to the care and maintenance of the plant materials, including but not limited to
seeds fertilizers,pesticides, herbicides,pots, mulches,potting soils, landscaping fabrics,
materials, landscaping aggregates, garden stakes,trellis materials, and other gardening materials.
Location: A location map is attached.
Ownership: A copy of my certificate of real estate value is attached as evidence of
ownership.
Site Plan: I propose to use the site as it is used today, with use of the retail building for
retail sales,use of the areas to the south and east of the retail building as a display area for plant
materials and for customer parking. The balance of the site (ie, the land west of the retail
building)would be used as a growing range for a variety of typical Minnesota vegitables,trees,
shrubs, and conifers, some of which would be planted in the ground and some of which would be
transported onto the site seasonally and maintained on the site in pots or heeled in(balled and
burlaped).. For water conservation purposes an irrigation system would ultimately be installed
for the growing range. No grade changes are proposed.
Compliance issues:
A. The use presents no known public health, safety, or welfare concerns.
B. The use would consistent with agricultural and residential nature of the area.
C. No changes are proposed for the general appearance of the site.
D. The nursery use would not be hazardous or disturbing to other neighborhood uses.
E. The property is served by a dumpster service. No additional public services are being
requested. The property is served by an existing well and septic system.
F. No additional public facilities are being requested.
G. The use presents no traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odor,rodent, or trash concerns.
H. Vehicular access would be from both 101 and 212. No changes are proposed.
I. The use will not distroy solar access, natural features, scenic features, or historical features.
J. The growing range should be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the area.
K. The use will not depreciate surrounding land values.
Ordinance 248 Standards:
1. The site is on collector streets.
2. The site exceeds 5 acres.
3. The 50 foot setback will not be maintained on the south and east sides of the retail building.
However use of these areas for parking and retail display areas predate the zoning area.
4. No buffering is proposed as to adjacent properties.
5. Hours of operation proposed are 7:00 am to 9:00 pm.
6. Exterior light sources would be shielded.
7. No outside speaker system is proposed.
8. As a termination date for the permit I propose the second anniversary of curbside availability
of public sewer and water service.
9. Signage would be as allowed by city ordinances.
FROM CITY OF CHA4r
II ,, V
• , / 4, ,, /yI�HGSSEN r� 04.24. 1996 j-4.4,14 F 4
Y
; ! ,
PRIPEM, 1 ft
..-.Z1 .9°4.6 "1 4... PPE ; Ian to ; Ito*
:€4)11,7441111pi . &2-
re
�� •2?mi
f i' Aili141111.r.
f P I�i � �
CIRCLE r<b\.1
i ,
H. t A2 7-71 IV rii rQ
•
i
e<o'�� BLUFF a
CREEK
"'N
Vii
-
, L i PARK 11.41P%
Clit. . - . - - *IA.
Ciao , .9
4.44t,441, L4211111VV4 ' 9° 042111M
iiiirr ,_4 ,‘„),
IIIIA ‘c ilriaTRAM. 1 1��
• . .,,
. .
pr
Wr etsf VA 0°1
740.00000.• -0 t::**, . it 4Alti : . ei
obt: kyr- Vii;:
pit
I
, i
4,,,, , i,,,-,p,,-,-47
C -
���a
fy' •
•
/1111, A2 •
y-
„...7 - i ,
i
. I
ii
I
Bluff I m '',
•
NOTICE OF PUBLIC i `-��) —, w F i` �/j•
HEARING
i ' '
PLANNING COMMISSION n Rd ; ;• \ t j
MEETING "
Wednesday, JUNE 19, 1996 .`� -• ' '-' � %
at 7:00 p.m.
�� i , r:
City Hall Council Chambers __:___
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Interim Use Permit _
for a Nursery '.`?
/ r Lt \
v,%
Developer: Skip Cook - Gs
Location: NE Corner of TH 101/212
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Skip Cook, is requesting an Interim Use Permit for a nursery and variances
to the setback requirements on property zoned A2 and located at the northwest corner of TH 101
and TH 212.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about
the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or 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 John at 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager June 6, 1996. (0 r/��
- 1 nii
L
I
Harold Hesse UBA Partnership Skip Cook
1425 Bluff Creek Drive. 7900 1st Ave. S. 15506 Village Woods Drive
Chaska, MN 55318 Bloomington, MN 55420 Eden Prairie, MN 55347
State of Minnesota John& Delores Malzahn Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
Dept. of Transportation 10551 Great Plains Blvd. c/o Ray Haik
Metro Square Blvd. Chaska, MN 55318 222 South 9th Street,#3300
St. Paul, MN 55101 Minneapolis, MN 55402
Patrick Blood &Nancy Lee William& Marsha Jo Harder L. Richard& Karen Dee
718 3rd Ave. W. 1025 Hesse Farm Road 1201 Hesse Farm Circle
Shakopee, MN 55379 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
Roger& Betty O'Shaughnessy John& Barbara Force Lois Riesgraf
1000 Hesse Farm Road 1001 Hesse Farm Road 720 Vogelsberg Trail
Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
James & Cheryl Sulerud Debra Wendorf Allen Rothe
730 Vogelsberg Trail 740 Vogelsberg Trail 750 Vogelsberg Trail
Chaska, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Chaska, MN 55318
SECTIO LINES ARE PRELIMINARY
r ,
f;+
1— I
Afs.
;,o
0 0
;./i.
SUBJECT SITE /}/I j� o o
o
"b
•/ �; o �-
( \\I\I c
77.......:—
) l,\� 91P 24.31 w
13.2. w / \ '- `
lipz
TH 212 13.14 . =-
PEMB * a ( -- -�- 4
MOrOge R OF rt 2i r FROL Q �libO I 1 0
i • f
I ..
LEGENDi i ts
• a a t o.
ROADWAY
I PavFf] SHnI it flFR
USER 10 Aetna 011he w.
___ PROPfISEfl SInNAL S
b\�� STRTPFfl CHANNEI IZATIOM
I"1—''""l LIFTLAND ROUNDRY
1....n.1 I - _ - I 1
a SO 1M
NOTE: FOR SIGNAL INFORMATION CONTACT
METRO SIGNAL DESIGNER
E.
C ITY OFPC DATE: 6/19/96
10
CUAACE1 CC DATE: 7/8/96
CASE#: SPR 96-7, CUP 96-2
. By: Generous:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Site plan approval for three buildings in a 26,600 square foot commercial
development and a conditional use permit to allow more than one principal building
on a lot,West Village Center, Phase H.
Z LOCATION: The northeast corner of Kerber Blvd. and West 78th Street, Lots 1 and 2, West
Q Village Heights 2nd Addition
0
APPLICANT: T.F. James Company
6640 Shady Oak Road, Suite 500
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(612) 828-9000
PRESENT ZONING: The property is zoned BG, General Business District
ACREAGE: 3.4 acres
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R12, Oak Pond Oak Hills townhouses
S- PUD,Target, Taco Bell, Boston Market, Perkins, W. 78th St.
E- BG, Century Bank
- W- R12,Eckankar property, Powers Blvd.
Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to site.
0 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is currently used for the storage of soil excavation material from
the previous development of West Village Heights 2nd addition. A significant elevation change will be
WI Wmaintained between Oak Ponds and this development.
-
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
8 s g= D x s s s 's O o F § h . C O
M N N § O_ J.I.
ig'� O I 1 N O L
� w I I• I• '�•• 1 I 11.I.ilc LAIC I I CHRISTMAS r•,I I I NENNEPINI COUNTY m�• I °sn.
�r�• jW �� —I■R�!!Pl� `■3,[�J , lIR+�' r' LAKE / '. —.a:!■ �\ I a u;.
112.-Mg:� [1 �s ='�=r �' >✓��1,cx.'',,Iff �,' `�. ,���t+ �����i p`I� �1�ii%i
t 1 �A! Num/f .v ::1 i- •s►IOW":affigt SWIM\ rte �j 1 t ` y 1 �'vi 1•w r t<AIt /M
.11 MN c• sem . . ,� ilk/relict=
■ 1��.Gr3.+-re nit►, ��•. �.ir, 'I �jA r1 f1�• �wil%�}� iv�/RSIs#•-irdiA*41.40 =■;1=11
• MaYIEE-1'6.11'r4i4 BBiCIPLt i/it0�. j'r �• �.1 \ �� , 'N.J.,
+ ,�.:4,'`..1444511N'm�.r
��.y����y���� ■�� t�IIA, vNEasav �- ■■ •4,14,;441/4
M e ow
2i ���,`,� f 'N j�ie* -ii, 1i. 0PI
gyro- Y� N1L( ��~ .4 +��.�` E,.1\ -i a�\�,,,, •' I I
/P. �.. Wa• t/` gerP'WI` ® +r1�II•Jtgli r to 4SA�=iiia \•..,"m1� 441V.gla gar' l41411 ot,
rliter ■ 1-
-'-..-1
I •AA BEAN •-t car •II% I ��/ �! _[lewri1�ni I� /,:v` v�la��► . ' `,,•N RTH:1 i? _
---- Mill - geo,A�` ter•t� • U ,' � STV , Fel
Rift d:a r. \, I�►11;e -
ft�M I� ti 4 •474111111
F..0 Al.'- I'�, YAf� a].lIF re
1 \� �E7�/ I�r rf;Y0.r �+=11 ra:.lr \ '_� � gt1�1'.
L� et Iri rA�ii.►,j���::--•li� � ,` �;'r �.. L oras _ `;-
�} : :o• • = LAKE LUCY •;Bsi ete"-re.:;yG. '�-;.--nit..i a_.�+��.`'"...Nets,:
-- 'r ' __ d' a- - Rte•'—__ '� Spy .i y" �` $l�1' ���
.� ��1 ■ �+
_ C1. C_r..-= •1 Taw *kms w. g ,. �-.'RS� 4414414
■
la uL- •"' j�=:= s.��{� ��1►1 �_ r Ips ��
• o'• J 'ARAE S v iiiiii atWA 11� 111111 ' \ 1. maim.����c•
- - 7 I 11"ilni� 240 �'111'�rA► iie` �, L ANE ` ; I']11 MEAOOW R�-�1 . *-90-
c-,0,4:•;-,-
x,0,4�;-,- �` ,. _ ` `QIP\ I--
-"..---..
�1�•: I LAKE ANN I GREEN PARK ,,=.,ii\-rte �`t� gi ��\ 1 \Id
o ems'�� r\��1111 �r. '��bap ..
'PTr‘..• \ .,/ iig -41 ve : tam liar*.l`;.
�i P, ••gym IrTd m.P,►04 `.I
�� "�-y�a� -a Esq r �a.i'an�9�� '11111 mr,a. y''�,�•.
..' i i i ►��� LI
a1[AKEr ,"•�' f •A1ka• ;" Ftr= Eir .tt1kIc1rrvriiiivitarn so �._ a;-t►!I1 1
---;-4.
:.--___,......,, /411, I. ! PARK
• ! Ir �n■rte _ r•S, c
---3_ 2h ��tee:�•.tea.�4' k z. \
Flry _,.--'.- itu�R I"h NIP! •,w•.Imr r��J •171.te,E �r .
�f _.. dib moi;in
c, r
BOUL VA I.
ELF,'in ILI 1'Wm um ism
illik - 1 1
CATION : X9r...iirt44 _ .tM03.11p :p I , IIIIM net ■11111 on.
•
lar moor
Itir;...;iilw.,...co -o, 401
0.-/ 6....„ ipp.7. i
- '4'; _...,... . -: ..„..„...,„:: ..0,,,01,41, 4.- ,
�� IPA� 'rig:,
:111,4,11:, ,rf NIGN•►'t :fi .. _A% ... .0-:;...r.e /i
'r �:: �' .' ,�:Epie�
-,.-...--q---;,, cc-
I — — tec_virciii► Iii..11 �� z�. ,' +�Ai um fiPy,,, ' b I �1 /�,i it A.'��RAC£`i �IP 1r4 -_f �, •�.�7�N,'�l�t. FLA E w
{ a a� t.i ..' b L',1�� -\ 1117 PARK)
ll° al / .i4�.«'*,911.11) •. •, 1 -1�,
�' / "ii
.Z •
' ' '��Vt+OB r LAKE SUSAN 1 _ : _ '
'.+ s^. .. / J / = i-?m �i i� Al,r _ � 400 R/CE M R
VAW,(_ _
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a three structure commercial development consisting of a Building A
- 14,006,Building B - 10,200, and Building C - 2,394 square foot buildings. This development
is the last phase of the West Village Heights development that incorporates both commercial and
residential components.
This site serves as a gateway for people entering the central business district from the west. As
such, its aesthetic and architectural features are an important component of the image the city
wants to create for the downtown. This development continues the themes established within the
West Village Center project consisting of brick exteriorwalls with "classical" uses of arches,
recessed areas, and varied building facades. The development embodies many of the design
elements specified in the Highway 5 Corridor Study including a well designed and varied
building facade, appropriate building scale and proportion, harmonious colors and building
accents, appropriate screening, and the use of high quality building materials. Pedestrian access
will be provided from West 78th Street, from the West Village Center, Century Bank and from
Powers Boulevard to the west. The location of building C in the southwest corner of the site
helps to frame the entrance into the downtown area.
The entire site is proposed to be graded for the parking lots and building pads. The grades will
be sloping gently to the south with a grade difference of approximately 5 feet. Currently there is
a grade difference on the site of over 30 feet north to south. The northerly portion of the site will
be graded with 3:1 side slopes. For comparison, the existing slopes on the parcel to the east have
similar slope conditions. This results in a elevation change from the top of the slope to the
ground floor level of 14 feet in the western part of the site and 24 feet in the eastern part of the
site.
Staff is recommending approval of Site Plan#96-7 and Conditional Use Permit#96-2 subject to
the conditions of approval.
BACKGROUND
The applicant received an interim use permit, IUP#93-2, in November 1993 to allow site grading
to begin on West Village Heights 2nd Addition prior to obtaining final site plan approvals for
West Village Center. Approximately 100,000 yards of excavation were to be involved as part of
the overall grading operation. Of this amount, approximately 40,000 cubic yards of excess
material were removed from the site. The excess was to be stored on-site. Grading was
completed during 1994.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 3
The site contained a small depression that is not a protected wetland. While it had wetland
characteristics, available information indicated that it was created for storm water purposes and
was therefore exempt. The following is a brief description of the wetland on site:
Basin A- Basin A was located in the south central area of the site at an elevation of
approximately 956 feet. The wetland is classified as a semi-permanently flooded palustrine
emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMF; Circular 39 Type 4 inland deep fresh marsh). The City of
Chanhassen's wetland biologist classified this basin as an agricultural/urban wetland, however, a
review of the history of the pond indicates that it was created when West 78th Street was
constructed for stormwater holding purposes. The records show that this was not a mitigation
site for other wetlands filling in the area,but was created for the specific purpose of stormwater
retention. The basin was approximately 0.5 acre.
The City of Chanhassen, after reviewing the proposed project to ensure compliance with the
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA)of 1991, processed and administered a WCA exemption
report. In this case under the WCA exemptions, this wetland did not require mitigation. The
WCA states that a replacement plan for wetlands is not required for impoundments or
excavations constructed in non-wetlands solely for the purpose of effluent treatment, stormwater
retention, soil and water conservation practices, and water retention, soil and water conservation
practices, and water quality improvements, and not as part of a compensatory wetland mitigation
process that may, over time, take on wetland characteristics (WCA; Exemption 10).
In November 1986, this property was approved for a mixed use subdivision(West Village
Heights 2nd) including five commercial lots, one multi-family lot, and the realigned right-of-way
for West 78th Street. In addition, this property was rezoned from R-la, Agricultural Residence,
to C-3, Service Commercial, and R-4, High Density Residential. In 1987, the southern five lots
were rezoned to BG, General Business District, as part of the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance.
Prior to the redevelopment of the downtown and the finalization of the West 78th alignment, the
western portion of the site was rough graded in anticipation of a PDQ center. This center and
other commercial uses were never built, although all of the residential acreage has either been
developed or is currently being built out. The West 78th Street alignment was modified and a
revised road section employed concurrent with the approval of Target.
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
This site serves as a gateway for people entering the central business district from the west. As
such, its aesthetic and architectural features are an important component of the image the city
wants to create for the downtown. This corner serves as one of four significant corners in the
downtown area, and it is important that an anchor for the development be of a high quality, and
have an exceptional design. In designing the project, the applicant has incorporated design
references to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and towers; specifically, the use of arches in
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 4
the facade design. The brick exterior is compatible with buildings within the immediate area,
such as City Hall,the Fire Station,the Chanhassen Bank, Century Bank, and West Village Center
(Byerly's).
This development continues the themes established within the West Village Center project
through the use of brick as an exterior building material, incorporating brick columns and arched
architectural features in the building design. The applicant is proposing the use of a grayish
brown Belden Brick(color number 8523 dark) soldier course at the roof edge. The primary brick
color for the building is reddish brown Belden Brick(Amhurst Blend). The overall design and
architectural theme for the development is established by West Village Center and consists of
brick exterior walls with "classical" uses of arches, recessed areas, and varied building facades.
The development embodies many of the design elements specified in the Highway 5 Corridor
Study including a well designed and varied building facade, appropriate building scale and
proportion, harmonious colors and building accents, appropriate screening,and the use of high
quality building materials. Pedestrian access will be provided from West 78th Street, from the
West Village Center, Century Bank and from Powers Boulevard to the west.
The city has adopted the Highway 5 Overlay District. The standards of the overlay district
include:
1. Parking and building orientation:
• The site meets this standard. The parking setback in the HC-1 district are those
established by the underlying zoning. The site parking meets this requirement.
The building is oriented to West 78th Street.
2. The architectural design standards.
• The materials and details of the buildings are consistent with the Hwy. 5
standards. The project incorporates brick exterior with a vaulted arch and a well
designed landscaping plan. Building materials are of a high quality. While the
project continues the use of materials established as part of the West Village
Center and Century Bank, there is sufficient variation in detail, form,and siting to
provide visual interest.
* The overall design and architectural theme for the development is established by
Byerly's and consists of brick exterior walls with "classical" uses of arches,
recessed areas, and varied building facades. The applicant proposes to incorporate
design references to the Chanhassen gateway monuments and towers to integrate
this project as part of the downtown area.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 5
* Building height is limited to three stories or 40 feet. The proposed structures are
one story between 19 and 26 feet at the tower peaks.
* The proposed development incorporates the use of high quality materials in both
building and landscaping elements.
* The site design is such as to avoid the accumulation of trash, leaves and dirt.
* The building components are proportional and relate well to one another.
* Building colors are harmonious and create a pleasant aesthetic experience.
* The mechanical equipment is screened by a parapet wall.
* The dumpster area is screened through the use of masonry walls as well as
landscaping. Due to its placement on the site, the enclosure should not be visible
from West 78th Street.
3. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings
* The applicant's landscaping plan is well designed and incorporates the use of
native tree species was well as extensive buffering materials. The plan reforests a
site devoid of any vegetation. Where possible, the applicant has massed planting
materials especially along the northern project boundary.
COMPLIANCE TABLE GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Ordinance BLDG A BLDG B BLDG C
Building Height 3 story/40 ft 1 sty./25.5 ft. 1 sty./20.33 ft. 1 sty./19 ft.
Building Setback N-50', E-10' N-60', E-1119' N-62', E-213' N-185', E-364
S-25', W-25' S-163', W-308' S-165', W-76' S-42', W-46'
Parking Stalls 133 133 total
Parking Setback N-50', E-0' N-60', E-10'
S-25', W-0' S-25', W-25'
Hard Surface Coverage 70 percent 67 percent
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 6
Interior Parking Lot
Landscaping 8 percent 8 percent
Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 3.4 acres
Variances Required NA None
WETLANDS
The site location is in an upland area with no wetlands on site.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN(SWMP)
This development is not responsible for storm water management fees since they are not
subdividing. In addition,the properties have been specially assessed for storm water drainage
improvements in conjunction with the West 78th Street upgrade.
GRADING
The entire site is proposed to be graded for the parking lots and building pads. The grades will
be sloping gently to the south with a grade difference of approximately 5 feet. Currently there is
a grade difference on the site of over 30 feet north to south. The northerly portion of the site will
be graded with 3:1 side slopes. For comparison,the existing slopes on the parcel to the east
have similar slope conditions. This results in an elevation change from the top of the slope to the
ground floor level of 14 feet in the western part of the site and 24 feet in the eastern part of the
site. Staff anticipates that the site grading will generate an excess amount of material which will
need to be hauled off site. Staff is concerned about the haul route and recommends that the haul
route be restricted to West 78th Street to Powers Boulevard and not through the downtown area
west of the site. The applicant should also be aware that if any of the material is to be hauled to
property within the City,the individual property owner must obtain a grading permit through the
Engineering Department prior to earthwork activities commencing.
Existing boulevard trees westerly of the driveway entrance to the site will need to be temporarily
relocated or graded around to minimize disruption. These boulevard trees were planted in
conjunction with the City's West 78th Street Downtown Improvement Project.
The City has existing utility lines adjacent to this parcel that may be impacted by site grading.
The applicant shall be responsible for all adjustments of the City utility manholes in conjunction
with the site grading.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 7
EROSION CONTROL
The plans propose Type I silt erosion control fence along the southerly grading limits. A rock
construction entrance is also proposed at the main entrance on West 78t Street. Staff
recommends additional erosion control fencing to be installed along the westerly and easterly
grading limits on the site as well. The applicant should also look at incorporating additional
erosion control measures such as temporary sediment ponds or additional silt fencing to prevent
erosion from leaving the site.
DRAINAGE
Storm drainage is proposed to be conveyed through a series of storm sewer pipes which tie into
the City's downtown storm sewer system. The City's storm sewer system discharges into the
downtown regional storm water quality and quantity pond located west of Powers Boulevard and
north of Highway 5. Therefore,no on-site ponding will be necessary with this proposal. Staff
has reviewed the drainage calculations and storm water layout plans and finds the plans
acceptable. The storm sewer system on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the
property owners. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining the proper permits through the
City's Building Department.
UTILITIES
The site is serviced with municipal sanitary sewer and water service in West 78th Street. Fire
hydrant locations should be coordinated with the City's Fire Marshal. The sewer and water lines
will also be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. The appropriate utility
permits and inspections will be required by the Public Safety Department.
STREETS
The site is proposed to be accessed from the existing curb cut on West 78th Street. The access
point is restricted to a right-in/right-out from West 78th Street. A second access point will also
utilize the existing driveway entrance in the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the bank
property. Staff has reviewed the overall parking lot layout and is fairly comfortable with the
configuration with the exception of a few drive aisle widths. All drive aisles for two-way traffic
shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face to face. Drive aisles behind the building in a couple of
locations with the exception of the one-way all need to be expanded to 26 feet wide. The one-
way drive aisle on the smaller building located in the southwest corner of the site appears
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 8
acceptable. Staff recommends that a traffic signage plan be submitted for staff review and
approval prior to building permit issuance.
The proposed sidewalk serves no useful function in the location shown. Staff believes the
sidewalk should be relocated to align with the sidewalk in front of the smaller building in the
southwest corner of the site.
LANDSCAPING
Landscaping for West Village Center Phase Two includes buffer yard and interior parking lot
requirements. The following table provides number of required materials for buffer yards:
Required Landscape plan totals
North perimeter Provided:
(75%of total buffer yard D required):
canopy 14 9
understory 28 17
shrubs 42 26
West perimeter(buffer yard B):
canopy 3 4
understory 7 7
shrubs 10 10
South perimeter(buffer yard B):
canopy 6 6
understory 11 12
shrubs 17 17
East perimeter(75% of total buffer yard A required):
canopy 3 3
understory 6 6
shrubs 6 8
Parking lot
canopy 26 4 (understory 10)
Totals: Canopy 56 26
Understory 52 52
Shrubs 78 183
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 9
The applicant will need to increase the overstory plantings in the parking lot and north perimeter
in order to meet ordinance requirements. The applicant may not use ornamentals for parking lot
requirements. The applicant should also provide additional plantings (shrubs and trees) to the
east of Bldg. A to help soften the expanse of building.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, dark
bronze anodized with square heads. The development shall comply with City Code in the
provision of site lighting. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away from public
right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be provided to illuminate
all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. To minimize off-site impacts,
light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one-half foot candle.
The development shall comply with City Code(section 20-1303) in the installation of
development signage. The proposed development has two street frontages. One ground sign
may be permitted per street frontage. One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage.
Wall signs may be located on the south elevation of Building A, the south and west elevations of
Building B, and the south and east elevations of Building C, and wall signs shall not exceed
seven percent of the total area of the south elevation for Building A, five percent and 11 percent
for the south and west elevations, respectively, of Building B, and 13 percent per elevation for
the south and east elevations of Building C. A separate sign permit application shall be required
for all signage.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency 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;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 10
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
a. 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;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. 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.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's Highway 5 Corridor
design requirements,the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan
review requirements. The site has few existing natural amenities due to previous
development in the area. The site design is compatible with the surrounding development
and enhances the open space and landscaping being established as part of the
development of Century Bank. The site design is functional and harmonious with the
approved development for this area.
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:
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 11
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or
general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed development is located in a planned commercial area serviced
with urban infrastructure and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, comfort,
convenience or welfare of the community. The development enhances the appearance
and convenience of community residents through the provision of shopping and
employment opportunities.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: The site is designated for commercial use and is located in the commercial
center of the City. This development proposes an upscale, quality shopping center for
community residents. This development will enhance the city's tax base. The steep slope
and extensive landscaping provide a transition to the multi-family development to the
north.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance
with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
Finding: The proposed development provides a varied and well designed appearance
and it is consistent with the existing and proposed development in the area. The character
of the area is commercial and is the commercial core of the community. This
development will provide a quality addition to the downtown.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding: The development is located in the central business area and is consistent with
existing and proposed development in the area. A transition to the multi-family to the
north is provided by a landscaping and sloped buffer area.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water and sewer systems
and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the
persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: This development is located in the commercial center of the city and is served
by adequate urban infrastructure and services.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 12
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The development of the site as a commercial use has been anticipated and
planned by the city in the design and construction of public improvements. The
commercial development of the site will improve the city's economic welfare as well as
provide for the convenience and comfort of residents.
7. 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.
Finding: With the appropriate controls and conditions, as recommended by staff, the
development of the site will have minimal impacts to persons,property, and the general
welfare of the community. This area has been planned and designed as the commercial
center of the city.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The development provides ample opportunity to adequately move traffic. The
development of the site as a commercial use has been anticipated and planned by the city
in the design and construction of public improvements. Appropriate traffic controls will
be employed for the development. Three points of pedestrian access are also provided
into the development.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
Finding: There are no significant natural, scenic, or historic features present on the site.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Finding: The brick exterior with its many architectural details provides a conservative
yet comfortable sense of place. The extensive use of landscaping, walkways and the
interplay of height and building lines create an inviting identity for the site. Perimeter
and internal landscaping will provide a softening of the commercial aspects of the
development.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 13
Finding: This area is planned and zoned for commercial development. Surrounding
property values should be enhanced with the completion of this development.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The developer has complied with all requirements of City Code and will
comply with any conditions of the development approved by the city.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan#96-7 for 26,600 square feet of
commercial development for three buildings and Conditional Use Permit# 96-2 to permit more
than one building on a lot for West Village Center Phase II subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant and/or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile
on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or
relocated.
2. Additional erosion control fence(Type I) shall be installed along the westerly and easterly
property lines. Erosion control measures shall be in place and maintained at all times until
the site has been fully restored and revegetated and removal is authorized by the City.
3. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies
such as the Watershed District, Carver County Highway Department and Chanhassen
Building Department.
4. All drive aisles with two-way traffic shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide face-of-curb to face-
of-curb.
5. If earthwork material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to City
staff the designated haul routes for approval prior to hauling activities commencing. Hauling
easterly along West 78th Street through the downtown will not be permitted.
6. All construction vehicles shall access the site at approve rock construction entrances only.
The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and
mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public
facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant.
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 14
7. The existing boulevard trees along West 78th Street shall be preserved/protected from the site
improvements. The applicant shall be responsible for replacement up to one year after the
site work has been completed.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for adjustments to the City's utility manholes and gate
valves impacted by the site improvements.
9. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffic control plan to the City for review and approval
prior to issuance of a building permit.
10. The sidewalk shall be relocated to align with the proposed sidewalk in front of the building
located in the southwest corner of the site.
11. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes,NSP, US West, cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can
be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City Ordinance 9-1.
12. The 6" DIP pipe which is to the north of building B should be continued with 6", and not
reduced to a 4". Contact the Fire Marshal for further details.
13. Provide for and show on plans post indicator valves for buildings A and B.
14. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact
locations of signs and curbing to be painted.
15. The proposed lighting will be consistent with the lighting used at West Village Center, dark
bronze anodized with square heads. Lighting shall use shielded fixtures and be directed away
from public right-of-way and adjacent residential property. Sufficient lighting shall be
provided to illuminate all areas of the parking lot to provide adequate levels of safety. To
minimize off-site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not exceed one-
half foot candle.
16. The development shall comply with City Code(section 20-1303) in the installation of
development signage. The proposed development has two street frontages. One ground sign
may be permitted per street frontage with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum
sign area of 64 square feet. One wall business sign is permitted per street frontage. Wall
signs may be located on the south elevation of Building A, the south and west elevations of
Building B, and the south and east elevations of Building C and shall not exceed seven
percent of the total area of the south elevation for Building A, five percent and 11 percent for
the south and west elevations, respectively, of Building B, and 13 percent per elevation for
West Village Center
June 19, 1996
Page 15
the south and east elevations of Building C. A separate sign permit application shall be
required for all signage.
17. The applicant must increase parking lot plantings to total 26 overstory trees. It will be
necessary to make use of planting spaces on peninsulas and near parking lot edges to meet
requirements. Ornamentals may not be used in parking lot.
18. The applicant must increase plantings along north perimeter to meet buffer yard"D"totals.
19. The applicant should also provide additional plantings (shrubs and trees) to the east of Bldg.
A to help soften the expanse of building."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application
2. Building Design Narrative
3. Reduced Site Plan
4. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 6/10/96
5. Memo from Mark Littfm to Bob Generous dated 6/6/96
6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
•
24) .4 00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: / F %J4i4 ammor OWNER: _ I
11.6
ADDRESS: 64440 SXR O Rb #SDDRESS:
e).e41 rod , 44i1( .53.3
TELEPHONE (Day time) C' �" 02-9 7 " 5
gam'al.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
XConditional Use Permit fkgry Vacation of ROW/Easements
Interim Use Permit Variance
Non-conforming Use Permit — Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal
Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review Notification Sign
Site Plan Review' 0, 2 sr, # 24,6 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes $47),reS and Bounds, $$400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ /04,?b
15 >
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
OTE -When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
,OJECT NAME YY a Vlttetil9.6 Csltisiegt — PHASE lr
-OCATION t4 S 112 Nest ouotrE2/0 ,uf.
*GAL DESCRIPTION 44/EST 7,E3771 , l AenAir126 LvD ( V' E. /-0/Eo/r&
TOTAL ACREAGE 3 , S
WETLANDS PRESENT Q/� YES )C NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING 54
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION /14 « .
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Mimm
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 64ND/77M/f t USE : TO Aletek) 2 &D 41-7v
6 1-eT` A-` pit2' O 5/7E- PL*4iv
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
a 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.
TJ,M4% eeU Y 5- 17- 9�
Signature o . .plican/ Date
F �.
•
AY
Signature of Fee Owner Ill ' ' Date
Application Received on - 17-'/, Fee Paid/ 0 /-4 Receipt No. 6.0 1 1
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting
l t contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
51 6 S;-. /o/ah 4.1,/ ‘,,_
ii"(° q . U. P.
11 100 k SC,roff
MCC HPC-;ITEC:-.3 612 927 8546 P.82
MCCOY ARCHITECTS
1944 CEDAR LAKE PARKWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 TELEPHONE: (612) 927-8546
WEST VILLAGE CENTER, PHASE II
BUILDING DESIGN
materials and details for the three proposed structures are
identical to those utilized in Byerly' s and Phase I of West Village
Center.
The buildings are constructed of Belden Brick, Amherst Blend, a dark
reddish brown, on each side, including loading areas .
The continuous brick surfaces include subtle recesses and projections
in the building mass. A 12" high, recessed soldier course address
band, just above window areas, extends around each building. Side
and street-facing elevations utilize a narrow bed depth brick to form
slightly recessed panels, between pilasters, below this soldier course
band.
Building cornices are constructed of a lighter, contrasting, greyish
brown Belden Brick (#8523-dark) . Each of the four cornice courses
projects above the course below. The cornices include specially
constructed brick shapes.
This contrasting greyish brown brick is also utilized in special
sill shapes at windows, and in recessed horizontal bands at arched
entry piers.
All parking lot facing windows are recessed 3 ' -4" from the face of
the structures (similar to Kinko ' s ) . All building entries are in
recessed arched window openings, similar in design to phase one.
The large arched entry piers project slightly, and step back at outside
corners to meet the face of each building.
Window and entry frames are dark bronze anodized aluminum to match
phase I of the project.
Site lighting fixtures are proposed to be square-head, dark bronze
anodized, by LSI Lighting Systems, to match match phase I of West
Village Center. Fixtures and bases will match height limits as
established by the City of Chanhassen.
CSA}{ NO 17 POWERS BOULEVARD
1 g ��
w 0
-O ��00 Jit 7 E 271
Iri
•
r T _ ri n Ni_ ,I,.J`co .
D ti
oIZ ti
m
:.� 1. L
Nft.i i
ii
o i.
o I- 0r
♦ i
t
Pm,
` r
/ i
w-__. aJ 1
y
•
•
y
y �� j
O
O •
i l
Al0 s. 1•
• nnP O
i . •
4
00
rr .o
,___.
D VaWwNnN)-. — IIDD -0 OQN (/) Omcomc -0 ^mP .QV1 CJ ^>On»myV)
O >>>> > 12A=., - c O ccc Sun AO g'oa` al = zzmsnrr=—
m < « mmNim X nnzz _ NtnA m vrs- OOo0m L �z0>ZR1 mgoDmAzxmm �
� o �Pc�G� Z �vm (� z > zzz < m covolnN Dmmn,o x i
(>' � Ds+ ci�znr� v�Svm (� i0.7...,
O� �mG�G�G� m Cl ➢DN� OZ 23ut0->inirF�y <
OOOrDO >Z 0 GO8O m 2Dnm> N O QOC) Z f
Z Z Z y 0 N <C v m D<nD i> „),,,,_ �o. ,
N N N m 1>ttr, 1> 0- <ti zy N
ao CD m w O goo G� yr lOr~� fT1
N ma mm > mmm -I o x -corn -if-
CcC -0ocz 000 g _ m m DDP D zAiC1 Jvz4Im>-,r
000ZD< Z qv dam _ N+ za m> d �mi�mn' m
z z z so,o---e ;" NOa m NO
Z Q .I cm
4 O=mniz�
c� G� GI s� (n W� erne °ompo0s O f�*7 -, O_pr
nm > 0 (TOWW V•NO : OaoO mr > ZW(O >z›O +i-I X
v aDaa 666 �(ODD6cn w mAa)• oriZOtn$> -13
i mmmm Z�� '^� ��� o g r->0 (mi+sor-i7-p D
N NNW m 0— Ma no n`n''->+omr o
cop, w0 A AA Rl-1 mry=0p2 fTl
00 i.10 fn� ID C/I(/1• O��A4�W
O .. .. m r m rn rn .I O
88 O N ?•
WEST VILLAGE CENTER W M;co ARCHITECTS 'PFan�nus INlS FLAN,REPREPORT O
SPECIFICATION NrA$PREPAID B1'N
�j IX MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA SSMC REGISTERED pR l ,t�.(pE'ITM
CHAN#-IASSEN, MINNESOTA (C,z) 927_8546
S�THEOR UNDER NTY , ,A
PHASE TWO a
CITY OF
i
f ,,,,
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official '.0•)<
DATE: June 10, 1996
SUBJECT: 96-7 SPR and 96-2 CUP(West Village Center, Phase II, T. F.James Company)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED,
MAY 2 0 19 9 5, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project.
I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time.
I would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early
as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements.
g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\wvgectr2
iliorCITY QF
i � C IIANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
T
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: June 6, 1996
SUBJ: Request for Site Plan Approval for 3 Buildings in a
26,600 sq. ft. Commercial Development on
3.4 Acres,Conditional Use Permit to allow more
than one principal building on a lot. The property
is zoned BG, General Business District, and is
located on the NE corner of Kerber Blvd. &
West 78th Street, Lots 1 & 2, West Village Heights
2nd Addition, West Village Center, Phase II,
T.F. James Co.
Planning Case: 96-7 Site Plan Review&
96.2 Conditional Use Permit
I have reviewed the site plan review for the above project. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information
submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are submitted,the appropriate code or
policy items will be addressed.
1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,trees,
shrubs, bushes,NSP, US West,cable TV,transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City
Ordinance 9-1.
2. The 6"DIP pipe which is to the north of building B should be continued with 6", and not
reduced to a 4". Contact the Fire Marshal for further details.
3. Provide for and show on plans post indicator valves for buildings A and B.
4. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact
locations of signs and curbing to be painted.
ML:cd
•
P.1safety\m1196.21
KE LUCY r: •
10 glif
tajs'or gm,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC `� Allliglainlikle:vgir la, =i =_ '... •';-.w ��ii►►�,lullau,er .
a,
HEARING ;.t -ARR ,.Whin UIIIIVI •�I IIVI•�a':1111: WI
PLANNING COMMISSION ��i141,,„„ .... :71,10,4,7,...,,,,,,4�`4,!
A/EAOow `� ♦ ' r
CE ANN GREEN PARK ",C.7it :, '=‘ .0' �`em.
MEETING �'_;> %v.& 4:1; n:iron
71.04 '� -'►u'r'r
Wednesday, JUNE 19, 1996 1II S 0. .1, r•„':! :!iuu1:61/•
.i II
j dill n:4;rssOttr
at 7:00 p.m. 1 I it ale '`2”
City Hall Council Chambers /.. " �'%��a_n.
LAKE r►. tk'J
PArK y
ANN I .�r - 1-.(�♦4bl::i
690 Coulter Drive r \4. . •. -
�.1dx� :Cr.- i-n rr
j ,, lGL .w- -..a.
-T4i'..�1 � l+t.� N -r.-..-v r.
B.
•% CATION { • t::sa:uullgaZA
1,44Project: West Village Center Phase IIVA `®am Fir mai
mu
riruiliiiiii:Iiirl all
/1°6
Develo er: T. F. James Com any ® ! � _
P P
lliiiiir
= ,7E MI6MM.'t
Location: NE Corner of Powers Blvd. ♦ ,V�� ,--100110111 ,,,,„„044.06K.��
and West 78th Street
►��� 4/).-„, „:..•
�- ''P sus. :i.
...._ .
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, T. F. James Company, requests site plan approval for three buildings in a
26,600 square foot commercial development on 3.4 acres and a conditional use permit to allow
more than one principal building on a lot, on property zoned BG, General Business District and
located on the northeast corner of Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street, Lots 1 and 2, West Village
Heights 2nd Addition, West Village Center,Phase II.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting,the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or 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 at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff
will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 6, 1996., . Iq It
14)
I ' V
Dayton Hudson Corp. T-862 Ted Bigos T. F. James Company
Property Tax Dept. 4820 Hwy. 7 Suite 500
777 Nicollet Mall St. Louis Park, MN 55416 6640 Shady Oak Road
Minneapolis,MN 55402 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Dean R. Johnson Construction Joan Foster Craig & B. Hallett
8984 Zachary Lane 981 Santa Vera Dr. 983 Santa Vera Drive
Maple Grove, MN 55369-0028 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce Franson Cynthia Yorks Luretta Larson
967 Santa Vera Drive 969 Santa Vera Drive 971 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phillip & D. Gleason Stephanie Pikarski Gerald Oberlander & B. Hayes
955 Santa Vera Drive 957 Santa Vera Drive 959 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mary Fischer Colleen Healy Susan Conzet
961 Santa Vera Drive 945 Santa Vera Drive 947 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & M. Linden Larry Zamor Andrew & C. Althauser
949 Santa Vera Drive 951 Santa Vera Drive 933 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeanne Etem Tracey Waldschmidt Constance Cook &
935 Santa Vera Drive 937 Santa Vera Drive Walter Tellegen
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 939 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Sandra & Mark Berger Timothy & J. Jones Beth Traver
923 Santa Vera Drive 925 Santa Vera Drive 927 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gary Johnson & T. Brigino John & J. Moberg Paula Langer
929 Santa Vera Drive 911 Santa Vera Drive 913 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Hauck David & A. Mehl Joanne Seten
915 Santa Vera Drive 917 Santa Vera Drive 7717 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lori Carsik James & B. Lugourki Charles & M. Walker
7719 Nicholas Way 7721 Nicholas Way 7723 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jennifer Peterson Jeffrey & D. Miller Nancy Metcalf
7709 Nicholas Way 7711 Nicholas Way 7713 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
David 8c1— Larson Gregory & M. Peterson Elisabeth M. McVicar &
7715 Nicholas Way 7701 Nicholas Way James & E. McVicar
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7703 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Alan Lee Peter Voar Chad & L. Lea
7705 Nicholas Way 7707 Nicholas Way 7693 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lydia Kiebzak Scott Grebe David & R. Hester
7695 Nicholas Way 7697 Nicholas Way 7699 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Joseph Cleveland Brent Carlson Matthew Mesenburg
7685 Nicholas Way 7687 Nicholas Way 7689 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Monica Hanley Gene Haberman/Century Bank ECKANKAR
7691 Nicholas Way 11455 Viking Drive Box 27300
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 New Hope, MN 55427
Chaihassen HRA TACO BELL BOSTON MARKET
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
RKINS
CITY OF
. - CIIANBASSEN
A
`w. .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
DATE: May 31, 1996
SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-1124. Required number of on-site
parking spaces, by amending section (1) f., to change the required number of
accessible parking spaces within a parking lot to meet Minnesota State Building
Code and state law requirements.
The current zoning ordinance for on-site parking spaces requires one accessible parking stall be
provided for each fifty stalls. The ordinance also states that this number meet Uniform Building
Code and state law requirements. The state recently changed the required number of accessible
parking spaces from one per fifty to one per twenty five. Therefore, the zoning ordinance needs to
be amended accordingly.
The Minnesota State Building Code adopts all nationally recognized uniform codes, which includes
but is not limited to Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, etc.,
and customizes them to meet specific state requirements. Since the Uniform Building Code is part
of the Minnesota Building Code and has requirements that are more restrictive than City
Ordinances, staff recommends that we only require accessible parking spaces meet the State of
Minnesota Building Code and state law requirements,without specifying a number.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-
1124. Required number of on-site parking spaces,by amending section(1) f.,to read as follows:
Accessible parking spaces shall be in compliance with the Uniform State of Minnesota
Building Code and state law.
5.
CITY of
,.: .
0 ,.
1,, , ,
CHANHASSEN
.;� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
DATE: May 30, 1996
SUBJ: City Code Amendment to Section 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation
requirements, by amending section (a) (50), to clarify location of fences along
collector and arterial streets in relation to landscape buffers. Also, a Zoning
ordinance amendment to Section 20-1018. Commercial and industrial fences, and
Section 20-1019, Location of fences.
BACKGROUND
Staff has been receiving fence permit applications requesting the installation of fences along
collector and arterial roads. The fences are being installed for privacy and safety reasons. Such
areas include Audubon Road, the north leg of Highway 101, Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road.
etc. The majority of these fences are 6 foot tall and opaque. Home owners are locating them along
the property line as permitted by ordinance. This is resulting in a continues, aesthetically
unpleasant wall along collector and arterial streets.
The Zoning Ordinance requires 6 foot high fences to be located along industrial or commercial
t development when it abuts residential property.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
NI
The current landscaping and tree preservation ordinance, section 18-61 (a) (5), does not prohibit the
installation of fences between landscape buffer areas and collector or arterial streets. Staff is
recommending the addition of the language which appears in bold, to remedy this situation for all
new developments.
1111 el
1
E44
1
Planning Commission
May 30, 1996
Page 2
SECTION 18-61. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.
(5) '`Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city
when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the comprehensive
plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall
consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree
preservation areas. No fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the
collector or arterial street. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth
and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the
homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty five (25)
percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees
acceptable to the city shall be required."
SECTION 20-1023. HEIGHT, should be amended by adding the following language which will
appear in bold:
(3) Corner or double fronted lots. In addition to the other provisions contained in this section.
fences located on corner or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions:
a. Any fence within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in
height if opaque construction, or four(4) feet in height if open construction.
b. The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front
yards within the corner site triangle. Two sides of the intersection of the two streets
and run a distance of thirty (30) feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets.
The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent
sides.
c. The front shall be determined by the location of the garage except for lots that abut
a collector or an arterial street. Such parcels shall be considered double
frontage lots with two front yards and must comply with Section 20-1023 (3) a.
The proposed amendment will allow collector and arterial streets to reflect a boulevard effect and
provide an aesthetically pleasing experience.
A second amendment deals with the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 6 foot high fences to be
located along industrial or commercial development when it abuts residential property. There are
cases when this requirement may not be appropriate, such as the future development of Villages on
the Pond, the neighborhood commercial portion within Mission Hills, etc. The buffering between
the commercial and residential developments is provided through berms and vegetation. Staff is
recommending this section be amended to make the fencing an option and up to the City's
discretion. We recommend the addition of the language which will appear in bold.
Planning Commission
May 30, 1996
Page 3
SECTION 20-1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES.
Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or
industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight (8) feet. When commercial or
industrial uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses,a fence at least six(6) feet in
height shall may be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial
property if the City determines that there is a need for a fence. The City may elect to
use landscaping consisting of berms and vegetation to provide screening. If a fence is
used, said fence must be one hundred (100) percent opaque. Commercial or industrial
fences over eight(8)feet shall require a conditional use permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of subdivision ordinance amendment to Section
18-61 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS to read as follows:
(5) "Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the city
when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the comprehensive
plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses. Required buffering shall
consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree
preservation areas. No fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the
collector or arterial street. Where appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth
and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the
homes protected from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty five (25)
percent over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and fmal plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees
acceptable to the city shall be required."
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to Section
20-1023. HEIGHT,to read as follows:
(3) Corner or double fronted lots. in addition to the other provisions contained this section,
fences located on corner or double fronted lots shall be subject to the following provisions:
a. Any fence within the required front yard setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in
height if opaque construction,or four(4) feet in height if open construction.
b. The maximum height of a fence shall conform to the requirements of fences in front
yards within the corner site triangle. Two sides of the intersection of the two streets
and run a distance of thirty (30) feet back along the lot lines abutting the streets.
Planning Commission
May 30, 1996
Page 4
The third side of the triangle is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent
sides.
c. The front shall be determined by the location of the garage except for lots that abut
a collector or an arterial street. Such parcels shall be considered double
frontage lots with two front yards and must comply with Section 20-1023(3)a.
The proposed amendment will allow collector and arterial streets to reflect a boulevard effect and
provide an aesthetically pleasing experience.
A second amendment deals with the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 6 foot high fences to be
located along industrial or commercial development when it abuts residential property. There are
cases when this requirement may not be appropriate, such as the future development of Villages on
the Pond, the neighborhood commercial portion within Mission Hills, etc. The buffering between
the commercial and residential developments is provided through berms and vegetation. Staff is
recommending this section be amended to make the fencing an option and up to the City's
discretion. We recommend the addition of the language which will appear in bold.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment to Section
20-1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES,to read as follows:
SECTION 20-1018. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES.
Fences for screening or storage purposes installed on property used for commercial or
industrial uses may have a maximum height of eight (8) feet. When commercial or
industrial uses abut property used or zoned for residential uses, a fence at least six(6)feet in
height shall-may be placed between the residential and the commercial and industrial
property if the City determines that there is a need for a fence. The City may elect to
use landscaping consisting of berms and vegetation to provide screening. If a fence is
used, said fence must be one hundred (100) percent opaque. Commercial or industrial
fences over eight(8)feet shall require a conditional use permit.
CITY of
i�. CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Todd Gerhardt,Asst. City Manage
DATE: June 12, 1996
SUBJ: Consider Approval of Creating a New Tax Increment Financing Plan No.5-1 and
Development District No. 5
The City Council at their May 6, 1996 meeting authorized staff to hold a public hearing for June 24,
1996 to consider establishing a new tax increment financing district. The purpose of this district is
to assist a residential development in reducing the price of owner-occupied homes so as to be
affordable under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act(LCA). In order to accomplish this
objective, the City of Chanhassen would have to incur some of the costs and expense to reduce the
capital and administrative costs of the proposed development in order to meet the LCA. The Met
Council's definition of affordable are those occupied units under$115,000. Under this plan the city
would be providing assistance to 35 of the 76 units within the Rottlund development. Staff is
proposing 18 units to be designated for first time home buyers with a price range of$88,000 to
$95,000 and combined net income of not more than$43,000. The remaining 17 units would have a
price range of$105,000 to $115,000 and a combined income of not more than $54,600. All of the
units would also have a recapture policy where the home owner will only receive the annual
Consumer Price Index, 10 year limitation, plus realtor costs on the resale of the property.
The Planning commission's role is to review the proposed program and the plan(see Attachment#1)
• consistent with the city's plans for development of the community as a whole. Both the City Council
and the Planning Commission have agreed to participate in the Livable Communities Act and one of
the goals is to create more affordable housing under$115,000. Under this program and plan the city
would be creating 35 new homes under the $115,000 benchmark as established in the Livable
Communities Act.
Planning Commission
June 12, 1996
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
If the Planning Commission should find the program for Development District No. 5 and the Plan for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1 consistent with the plans for development of Chanhassen,
the commission should approve the resolution(Attachment#3)and direct staff to hold a public
hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development District Program
2. TIF District Map.
3. Resolution.
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM,
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5
AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN,
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
June 24, 1996
This document drafted by:
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
RHB10S171
CH130-59 / /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pare
SECTION I. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.
5
Subsection A. Definitions 1
Subsection B. Statutory Authority 2
Subsection C. Statement of Public Purpose 2
Subsection D. Statement of Objectives 2
Subsection E. Environmental Controls 3
Subsection F. Open Space to be Created 3
Subsection G. Public Facilities to be Constructed 3
Subsection H. Proposed Reuse of Property 3
Subsection I. Development District Financing 3
Subsection J. Relocation 3
Subsection K. Administration of Development District 3
Subsection L. Map of Development District 4
SECTION II. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 5-1
Subsection A. Statutory Authority 5
Subsection B. Statement of Objectives 5
Subsection C. Statement of Public Purpose 5
Subsection D. Development District Program 6
Subsection E. Description of TIF District 6
Subsection F. Development District Contracts 6
Subsection G. Classification of TIF District 6
Subsection H. Modification of TIF Plan 6
Subsection I. Use of Tax Increment 6
Subsection J. Excess Tax Increment 6
Subsection K. Limitation on Increment 7
Subsection L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses 7
Subsection M. Limitation on Boundary Changes 7
Subsection N. Relocation 7
Subsection O. Parcels to be Acquired within TIF District 8
Subsection P. TIF Account 8
Subsection Q. Estimate of Project Costs 8
Subsection R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness 8
Subsection S. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Increment 8
Subsection T. Duration of the TIF District 8
Subsection U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity 8
Subsection V. Estimated of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction 9
Subsection W. Annual Reports 9
RHB105171
CH130-59 (0
SECTION I. DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO. 5
A. Definitions
For the purposes of the Development District Program for Development District No. 5 and
the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1, the following
terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires:
"Administrative expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for
the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services,
including architectural and engineering services,directly connected with the physical development
of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons
residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve
for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Administrative
expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and
planning or economic development consultants;
"City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of
Minnesota;
"City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council;
"City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124
through 469.134, as amended;
"Comprehensive Plan" means the City's objectives, policies, standards and programs to
guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and
water within the City;
"County" means Carver County, Minnesota;
"Development District" or "District" means Development District No. 5 in which Tax
Increment Financing District No. 5-1 will be located;
"Development District Program" or "Program" means the Program for Development
District No. 5, which will be adopted by the Authority on June 24, 1996;
"Metropolitan Livable Communities Act" or "MLC Act" means Minnesota Statutes,
sections 473.25 et m.
"State" means the State of Minnesota;
"Tax Increment Bonds"
means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds
issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 5 as
stated in the Program or in the Plan for TIF District No. 5-1 or any obligations issued to refund
any Tax Increment Bonds;
"Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174
through 469.179, as amended;
"Tax Increment Financing District" or "TIF District" means Tax Increment Financing
District No. 5-1, which is being created and established within Development District No. 5
pursuant to the TIF Act; and
RHB105171
CH130-59 1
"Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the Plan for TIF District No. 5-1, which
will be adopted by the City on June 24, 1996.
B. Statutory Authority
The City has determined that it is necessary, desirable and in the public interest to
establish Development District No. 5, pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The City has also
determined that the funding of the necessary activities and improvements in Development District
No. 5 shall be accomplished in part or in whole through tax increment financing in accordance
with the TIF Act.
C. Statement of Public Purpose
It is found that there is a need for the City to offer assistance to a residential development
proposed to be constructed within the City. If the project is built pursuant to City assistance, the
effect will be to increase employment opportunities, improve the tax base and improve the
general economy of Chanhassen and the State.
The specific public purpose of Development District No. 5 is to foster development of the
residential project for low and moderate income housing. In order to accomplish this purpose,
the City intends to incur those costs and expenses specified in the Plan for TIF District No. 5-1.
In choosing to support the project, the City is attempting to meet its obligations towards
affordable housing, as articulated in the MLC Act.
D. Statement of Objectives
The Authority seeks to achieve the following objectives through the Development District
Program:
1. promote and secure the prompt development of property in Development
District No. 5 in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with minimal
adverse impact on the environment, which property is currently less productive because
of the lack of proper utilization and lack of investment, thus promoting and securing the
development of other land in Chanhassen;
2. encourage additional employment opportunities within Development District
No. 5 and Chanhassen for residents of the community and the surrounding area, thereby
improving living standards and preventing unemployment and the loss of skilled labor and
other human resources in the area;
3. secure the increase of property subject to taxation by the City, County, the
school district and other taxing jurisdictions in order to better enable such entities to pay
for public improvements and governmental services and programs required to be provided
by them;
4. secure housing within the City which is affordable to persons of low and
moderate income, which housing is unlikely to be available without public assistance on
the private market;
5. promote the concentration of appropriate residential uses and related
development within Development District No. 5 in order to maintain the area in a manner
compatible with its highest and best use; and
6. encourage development within the District which is aesthetically pleasing
and which creates a positive visual image of the community.
RHB105171
CH130-59 2
E. Environmental Controls
It is not anticipated that any development within the Development District will present
major environmental concerns. Lands within Development District No. 5 contain wetlands and
some are within the shoreland zone of Lake Riley. The City will require that the developer
comply with all statutes,regulations and ordinances when developing any land within the District.
All public improvements and private development will be constructed and carried out in
compliance with applicable environmental standards.
F. Open Space to be Created
Any open space within the Development District will be created in accordance with the
development controls of the City and will be adequate for the needs of the residents of the
community as well as those who work in or visit the Development District.
G. Public Facilities to be Constructed
All public facilities constructed within the Development District will be financially
feasible and compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
H. Proposed Reuse of Property
The City may acquire property within Development District No. 5 in order to resell the
land to a developer at a reduced price. Property within the Development District will be reused
in accordance with the City's ordinances and Comprehensive Plan as well as with this Program
and the Plan for TIF District No. 5-1. No property will be acquired or sold by the City without
entering into an agreement with the developer regarding the specific reuse of the land.
I. Development District Financing
Within Development District No. 5, the Authority will establish TIF District No. 5-1 to
finance the cost of development activities. Project costs for TIF District No. 5-1 will be met at
least in part through pledged increment. Details of project cost are contained in the TIF Plan
which follows this Program.
J. Relocation
Although no relocation is anticipated in connection with any project within Development
District No. 5, the City accepts its responsibility for providing for relocation pursuant to section
469.133 of the Act. If relocation is necessary, provision will be made in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, sections 117.50 through 117.56, as amended.
K. Administration of Development District
Maintenance and operation of the public improvements is the responsibility of the
administrator of Development District No. 5. The administrator will be appointed by the city
council. Each year the administrator will submit to the City the maintenance and operation
budget for the following year. The administrator will administer the Development District
pursuant to the provisions of section 469.131 of the Act provided, however, that such powers
may only be exercised at the direction of the City. No action taken by the administrator shall
be effective without authorization by the City.
The City has not and does not anticipate the need to create an advisory board to advise
it on the planning, construction or implementation of the activities and improvements outlined
in the Development Program.
RHB105171
CH130-59 3
L. Map of Development District
A map of Chanhassen which shows the area to be included within Development District
No. 5 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A map of the boundaries of Development District No. 5
and of TIF District No. 5-1 is attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by
reference.
RHB105171
CH130-59 4
SECTION II. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 5-1.
A. Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City
is authorized to establish tax increment financing districts to facilitate and provide financing for
the development objectives articulated in the Development District Program. The Authority
intends to establish and operate TIF District No. 5-1 pursuant to the Act and TIF Act. The Plan
for TIF District No. 5-1 is consistent with the City's plans and objectives as outlined in the
Program for Development District No. 5.
B. Statement of Objectives. The Authority seeks to achieve the following objectives
through the establishment of TIF District No. 5-1;
1. encourage affordable residential development in an area of the community
which has not been utilized to its full potential;
2. improve the tax base of Chanhassen and the general economy of the City
and State;
3. provide employment opportunities within the community; and
4. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City's specific purpose in establishing TIF District No. 5-1 is to promote the
development of a residential project proposed to contain 76 owner-occupied townhomes near
Lake Riley. Thirty-five of the units will be priced at a level to make them affordable under the
MLC Act's guidelines. Housing which meets this definition cannot be provided by the private
market in cities like Chanhassen without public assistance. The City wishes to provide the
assistance necessary to allow the units to be sold to income-qualified buyers. The City intends
to utilize tax increment to write down the cost of land and pay for certain public improvements
in order to achieve the necessary price level. Without public assistance, the development could
not be built with affordable housing and the goals and objectives of the MLC Act could not be
accomplished.
C. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the Plan for TIF District No. 5-1, the
Authority will make the following findings:
1. Anticipated affordable residential housing would not reasonably be
expected to occur within Development District No. 5 solely through private investment
within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed
necessary;
2. The TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound
needs of the community as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise;
3. The TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of Chanhassen
as a whole as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan;
4. The increased market value of the property that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the
increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increment for 25 years; and
5. The area included within TIF District No. 5-1 qualifies as a housing TIF
district within the meaning of the TIF Act.
RHB105171
CH130-59 5
The conclusions to be reached by the City regarding the above are based upon the
recommendations of city staff and consultants after analysis of the financial feasibility of the
project, the conclusions of the planning and zoning board after review of the Comprehensive Plan
as well as the familiarity of members of the City Council with the property involved and the
likelihood that the property will develop within the reasonably foreseeable future solely through
private efforts.
With specific reference to finding no. 4 above, the City will conclude that no affordable
housing could reasonably be expected to be developed within the reasonably foreseeable future
within the District. In that event, no increase in market value could be expected to occur and
any increase in market value associated with the assisted project, even discounted by the present
value of the stream of increment used to assist the developer, is greater than zero. This analysis
is based on comparisons of similar projects, i.e., affordable housing. The analysis fails if it is
assumed that market rate housing or another use would have been built instead. In that case,
affordable housing could never be justified under these terms. The City believes this is not the
intent of the TIF Act and, instead, has conducted its analysis according to the above assumptions.
D. Development District Program. The City intends to adopt a Program for
Development District No. 5 on June 24, 1996, at the same time as the establishment of TIF
District No. 5-1. The plan for development of Chanhassen outlined in the Program will continue
to provide the basis of the City's efforts to develop portions of the community which have not
and remain unlikely to be developed solely through private efforts. The Plan for TIF District No.
5-1 is consistent with the Program for Development District No. 5.
E. Description of TIF District. The legal descriptions of the parcels within TIF
District No. 5-1 are included as Exhibit C. A map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 5-1 is
attached hereto as Exhibit B. Exhibits B and C are incorporated herein by reference.
F. Development District Contracts. The City has not yet entered into a development
contract with regard to the development of any property within TIF District No. 5-1. The City
anticipates entering into such an agreement with Rottlund Homes during the third quarter of 1996
for the affordable housing project. Contracts regarding additional property with TIF District No.
5-1 will be entered into in accordance with section 469.176, subd. 5 of the TIF Act. All
contracts will be approved by the City prior to becoming effective.
G. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 5-1 qualifies as a housing TIF
district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 11 of the TIF Act.
H. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 5-1 may be modified by
the City, provided that any enlargement of the geographic area of the TIF District, increase in
amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest
on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original Plan, or to increase or decrease
the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured tax
capacity to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or
designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice
and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original
Plan.
I. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all
revenues derived from TIF District No. 5-1 shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The
revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of
development activities within the District as identified in the Program and Plan.
J. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any
year in which increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the TIF
RHB105171
CH130-59 6
Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined
by the City:
1. prepay the outstanding bonds or other obligations;
2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds or other
obligations; or
4. return the excess amount to the Carver County auditor who shall distribute
the excess amount to the City, the County and the school district in direct proportion to
their respective tax capacity rates.
The City may also choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to provide for other public
improvements within the District.
K. Limitation on Increment.
1. No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 5-1 after three
years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the property in the TIF
district by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been
issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property
within TIF District No. 5-1, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within TIF District No. 5-1.
2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity
of TIF District No. 5-1, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other
site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to
a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water
systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 5-1 by the
City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional
increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall
be excluded from the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If one of these activities
subsequently commences, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax
capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may
be added to the TIF District.
3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District
No. 5-1 after 25 years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment.
L. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 3 of
the TIF Act, administrative expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment
expenditures budgeted or actually incurred, whichever is less. Each time the City increases the
budget of TIF District No. 5-1, the amount of increment allocated to administrative costs may
be increased as long as the total of administrative expenditures does not exceed 10 percent of the
total budget of the TIF District.
M. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 5-1
may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the
original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor.
N. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its
obligations under state law regarding relocation benefits and, if necessary, will administer
relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action.
RHB105171
CH130-59 7
O. Parcels to Be Acquired Within the TIF District. It is anticipated that a majority
of the property within the TIF District may be acquired by the City. If property is acquired by
the City, the City will resell it to Rottlund Homes at a reduced cost. No property will be
acquired by the City or resold to a developer until a development agreement has been signed by
the parties.
P. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to the TIF District No. 5-1
shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records.
Q. Estimate of Protect Costs. The following costs are authorized for expenditure
within TIF District No. 5-1:
Housing Project Costs, including
land acquisition and site
preparation reimbursement $ 400,000
Special Assessment Assumption
for roadway and public utilities 350,000
Administrative Costs 75,000
TOTAL $ 825,000
R. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City does not intend to sell its general
obligation bonds to pay for the items budgeted in this Plan. The City will finance the costs of
public improvements through special assessments which will be assumed by the City. Pay-as-
you-go financing will be utilized to reimburse the developer for site preparation and land costs.
The City may use a revenue note in financing with the developer.
S. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 1
of the TIF Act, the original tax capacity for TIF District No. 5-1 is$7,166. Each year the Carver
county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of property in the
TIF district. Any year in which the tax capacity of TIF District No. 5-1 exceeds $7,166, an
increment will be payable to the Authority. Any year in which the tax capacity is below $7,166,
no value will be captured and no increment will be payable to the Authority.
Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will
increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 5-1 as a result
of:
1. change in the tax exempt status of the property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District;
or
3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation
agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the
Minnesota commissioner of revenue.
T. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with section 469.176, subd. 1 of the
TIF Act, the Authority wishes to retain its right to receive TIF payments until 25 years from the
date of the receipt of the first increment.
U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. Pursuant to sections 469.175, subd. 1 and
469.177, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, the estimated net captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 5-1
RHB105171
CH130-59 8
will be $60,481 after January 2, 1998 for taxes payable in 1999, when the housing project has
been completed. A smaller increment may be paid in the prior year. The captured tax capacity
was estimated in the following manner:
Tax Capacity on January 2, 1998 $67,647
Original Tax Capacity - 7,166
Captured Tax Capacity $60,481
Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, it is found and declared that all of
the captured tax capacity generated by TIF District No. 5-1 is necessary to finance or otherwise
make permissible expenditures authorized by section 469.176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act.
V. Estimated of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. In is anticipated that up to
$90,300 in increment will be captured annually within TIF District No. 5-1. This increment
amount is based on the value of the development on January 2, 1998 for taxes payable in 1999.
For the purposes of estimating increment during the life of TIF District No. 5-1, no inflation has
been assumed in the value of the new development. The composite tax capacity rate for the
affected property is currently 149.1763 percent. Applying the percentage of the total tax capacity
rate attributable to each taxing jurisdiction to the annual increment of$90,300 reveals the annual
"loss" of tax dollars by each jurisdiction if the projects would have occurred without TIF.
Although the City believes the actual impact on other taxing jurisdictions is zero because
development would not have occurred within the reasonably foreseeable future without public
intervention, the assumed amount of tax dollars foregone by each jurisdiction is listed below:
Tax Increment Attributable to Various Taxing Jurisdictions
Tax 9c of Total
Capacity Tax Est. Tax
Taxing Jurisdiction Rate Capacity Loss ($)
City of Chanhassen 25.018 16.7 15,106
Carver County 47.321 31.6 28,572
Independent School District No. 112 71.201 47.6 42,991
Other 6.011 4.1 3,631
TOTAL 149.551 100.0 $ 90,300
W. Annual Reports. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City
must file a financial report by July 1 each year regarding TIF District No. 5-1. The report shall
be filed with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by
the City shall be in accordance with the form specified by the state auditor and shall include the
following information:
1. the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 5-1;
2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 5-1, including the amount of
any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
3. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 5-1, the
amount budgeted under the modified TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for, at
least, the following categories:
(a) acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase;
RHB105171
CH130-59 9
(b) site improvement or preparation costs;
(c) installation of public utilities, parking facilities, streets, roads,
sidewalks or other similar public improvements;
(d) administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City;
(e) public park facilities,facilities for social,recreational,or conference
purposes, or other similar public improvements;
4. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City
and the price paid by the developer; and
5. the amount of increment rebated or paid to developers or property owners
for privately financed improvements or other qualifying costs.
Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 6a of the TIF Act, by July 1 each year the City must report
annually to the state auditor the following amounts for the entire municipality:
1. the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds
that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and
2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for
the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii)
other tax increment financing bonds.
The City must also annually report to the state auditor the following amounts for each tax
increment financing district, including TIF District No. 5-1:
1. the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment,
housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site;
2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified;
3. the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind benefits, such as
physical improvements and the use of building space, that are financed with revenues
received from increments and are provided to another governmental unit (other than the
municipality) during the preceding calendar year;
4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year,
5. whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document
permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were
or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a
common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the
district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment
financing district; and
6. any additional information that the state auditor may require.
The City must file a report regarding the status of TIF District No. 5-1 by July 1 each
year. The report must be sent to the county board, county auditor, school board and state auditor.
The report must include the information required by section 469.175, subd. 5 of the TIF Act in
the form prescribed by the Minnesota commission of revenue. The report must also be published
in a newspaper of general circulation in the community.
RHB105171
CH130-59 10
EXHIBIT A
'1' I GREMENT FINANCING PLAN
._.t
of:!
IF
Fo Develo mDistrict -
•
p �r�t 5 1 ~�
asiirr
• ' jevelopme�nt District #5 �-
4 1 1C
It. 401 1 ,... 1111 0i.--'1"-!':',11jtya4)IP,v.- . /P44 . 1 )7.;:4;.•;:'it-,14:: • /
�j�ti..�:f re, . -
I :� 1,1"7:••;i,-� '• •&if =j i LAAf MNSAM ''11��'- , IC id des tp? �1.. ',? ' 1 �- ���A4. R1et ROI. ,
. .
. . _LA4 ,
..� .1 :....,..„,...tle .___, ,,..r;.�... ��1. rr� . • .• ,
''-' �H r, .�Y'•LJ . ha I1I"� NI . 1 41'\1 a
.„. ,,,,,, . ....7 a
.,, ,,t; 4,
.lb.1i �rt,JIIPVL47r / dAN1
;. .. I v #_ . .4.0
.7.4riumi lairiol - le 11..k ;-,..."4
,,, ,-
.L.. N _., , ... —....
fl,II ,
, ...al mtleft- ,. -.:4,..4
Ills al .I ''./ 1441 ' :.
N.140,;-.4. . -iv 1.....vorg7,1 sim ...
r , .r: II ....—.----..••Woe
JJ I. irt11ll:.o r- LAR
I; .� ,.:
i .I—
RILEY —
wo
t. ii6/4 1 •ip.iill alli iiiirmair Am lii.,
17. - - - Ilit
_. I 41.441"A*44_100 ii . .
IA.,110 Malt't4) i Illitftig Rili
I IOW... hioqi /
"like. iftizeibi,b -4-- .
s isoluterp, atl-----
'kii 4 40"trit,i,,W.4i..01jR111111LIAKtVarots Air —mg
F.,,,i. •._ -47 r4/ -.. ;7.• A i i als r**7) r ..._—.•14.
Ili . ____.....
.4,1iirf4k. 1
1N*. 1 ...,
• 161
i_____..
_____.......,
..7„*-u ..flLl wwmp o. .,w
r0 1 I . r
-...7. , • • it.
.::. , -,,,...%-_____„,'
-'-.,-' 1 _;-: ,.,
A-kk %,,t rp- imp - __,,, .
tort
0. „,,,,..,_ i __or
vir ��^— r i. [
1 i� g� /1 /01 7 ` 1�--M
1;..t 1 4 r'1y I t
•••END•••
• EXHIBIT B
I
11 1
lit
.
1
ll
•
• �•
�" w 2 1 t �• 4tovaillf '
iiA. i
r{ I�
i1N %,`''•1�r .:1 1 �f 1 .....44.'' `ilii'"'
i .. ..
p .._.4 .. b,. ..:r ......), ._ • -e,:I:, ...-''''' . j A .
V 41)
iimi„.... r
,�r�r
1 *a W 1,101/ or--. ,.
It I lij 4 'I. i •
44 JO 1 •, ,,,T • 4 I I i
R IMP 6")t• •im ;t f• I 41
0 L. ...iii.r..41016: II I
sew ' 1111 II
0 I VI I if 1040 li,"01."°.•Ph I ti,-
;t 0.• (#6..15 IA* i I ' • :
4,4 a 01.4.).14411110 \ 111111111k.
IL_ g ?
�� 1 ismo— iii g • lor.- - _ u
0 ' -;'{g", '.•y • ii. :tea.: 4tetIi,
0 •
In i
. .•:� .. .. .... . .
: _-
I ,_ ci.
a. b . • N'- .w-•'':. f‘w P-••••4";,-. s• •• 2
0,1, 0 toot I .)..141111,hl t. -i 4 ‘....,*- 1001 k1•411i"i .
-1 00
1 0 it •• ii, -•
5." ,1C3 Of `. f v..l '!�i �,,V.i • �•\ -',:-.•.,' OA.,. .s. .4,iaird— , 4 il ' •
t•1
.1 a IR'
ii. 8 a.....i.tt.2 1 .c.,-.L.... iii, ,..-...;.;;;Ir.o.p.e.:•...x. -2,. .,sw. ..!,.. if
110
.. . .,. lk... .,... .., ,...‘ L.111111.141,et. 1.0.4111*5 a
111.11/ a
� ,;�.�gi • ► 00.IN*:"..........;• !W.1
. wt.% q -
_ � �: til /. ' ' 'N.� ��•• • !`'� ``�'.''•r • �
EXHIBIT C
The Property to be included within TIF District No. 5-1 is legally described as Outlots B, C, D,
E and F, North Bay, according to the plat on file in Carver County, Minnesota.
RHB105171
CH130-59
-I1 M -;
-,-441101010:1' 1
0 < ..'
. , • .„-:. .:
- - -4 akei, _,•
.... m - • . ,--.-iiiiiiIiiii At
A '
.... :.4i
Cc,t-thief*
im+ 0 • arr-lt.irrav:
;:- VP 11K15,-,16'47, -dkr441.,ttett,
Ing . ). .41, .....zu: p...,-,i•• . 4.%.,
.... 13 • ,..-Viiile
.. J.# '41k,;,1,4,( ..0.0,11.C‘Ntilit: le.,-,-•••• •.ii,: ' '
fil. .r•._jr/,' :a; Ibi• 11" r. •
M ; -IP e"ef 4 le- _ • -17 'eq. pilumw, -
-14 41U." e4 , _ .........1_,.f• •.._ "*... r•ligioox' ;
Z Z I „14144A 4.4\14. rt-ie-ripAtulk f.•`kajiti mill. z-
1•ii.j...,"4..11,410, .ao4 ":: - 4°1.o ..,,,. 411100%,_...,ity 1 AW VOW t— IN
Ap, 'oink. --H.-----1 i'It ;714,41111 Pigagoili-1.1° )
ii 4111V lenaesesi:
01 0
.... 0 or ", ....,......), 14. ...---. --.41rifts .0.,.. .2. . •
, At..
.. su
. 0.„,„44,1 „;•_...,..;A:::1 ....__:.4. ,41,1,-.c._ iiew_,
gamitto ... ..vassamvsir,,.......„..._,....,_,..,...7.,141. .,..7.3010,,A.,,,_ . m )
_
etp,111111_11r.. -- -
.-a--e-vtai _owe,. • 0 mg ..
ri■ , r.... .......0% . v:-
'xir,#.0-'4*._1 It 4- illipirt,iie tat,. ,.. M a
..4 ..1 ; moixt;Joe *---..- -::-ir
4; i tol "'•'. 4? t-.1k 40.4 -111017-
-....., %r• - .94$1***.i- ' e ' . ' num < r
0 m L
• Z . ..1.0•07o.. .-- --0,, ,ftwitize 10006.—r
:ill•e,...srs
- ---•-• -- 41, 4
w : -1-.c---vv- 1111pS167itieN 'S 71‹.3 th.rea" 13 ... ..
• 0 .3/..440%.\, .1e,4,4%. ••••;
•
i. •tf RAgrir,'• 3 o r
. . • • :,'''. ,, „ iro.t.1 Otr .t...4 s. 44 V74111114;
• 1 i•aip
irt1-...., 'i•rk' 111,146,‘ 4.111•4,•••,4",.
A 3' utit Ma 011 .,_,-
-11.916‘ 4:17,ft4Pete,..t.'''elsI e- M 4
U ,..-:--' k- ....6104(-040 "Niklitr,„."TardiOtt. M g ..
is ,
. TI.Aga....,_ •'S'.
MI' W m
I ...
.•,, ''‘ 'Y.:,..,._ .. . licoptit:-... „ ,,,
• • , ,
-,....... _ . ._...._ ,.....,,,,,
.'.% N, .•,„,:Itet..0.40.1.ZOR&V, 0 3 -
I :. I
tfrigrf , a; • -. 1 •• 4olv
..‘•: /1 ..0171111
k ,dit,
,4!.
papkt yr.1) \ . (.. g...---'' '''' ''''''' '''' '''''''' • .
(n 0
I. In 1 11
!! I i i ‘ ,•--
Jill \•• , IV a a
1 telifogtottlt li
fIN
19
am• im•II
Cl)
I ..i, 0 .•
III Z ''•-,
f .
• •
Y- I'fliffiti!kEl.
-1...."9 Oil
'
11 ': ? .4,1!
?El ."'" /. " ..:_'-z-----1 t,400i'-i; 0 •-p. C
•-i- - -
.
• .. , i (
. ,-,--
1 -- ( ../ 0
f-F C
,. ..
I HI
...°I .___----- ------- _ ----•—°"•,----11,-,..---V--i-1,.'• ..."-• •
"—------- ----:-------------7:---------_..• - ------ e,"'.• •11:11 i
i• '
y - -.•-• i as .41. iPs(** ':1
- _..--- ,---d.S.111401NUI: c.N.t.t,-.:-Ne"..........1.4ta.as4 ..•• 4
1 .....„.„.....--..e...„---,,,...-•ii.i.,..- • -.le ..... . ....,.,,, -...11 - .611 01 01
r
-- -----flt„,-0-,.,A-rwirf44
,1 i,----- -I
_.: —' )
; ,,,,,,,, _____ .... . -,, -,,-----,lor,‘,..,i, . .,,,-,.... •
..••• - ...,„ ,.. .
I & s-------z-z
1 •
1-, A.
--I 1 a , s
OF I.•
• .
/I C'I " - 4., .a•-•
I .
S
1 ,
„, ___
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION
Date Resolution No.
Motion By Seconded By
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE PROGRAM FOR
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND THE PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 5-1
CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF CHANHASSEN AS A WHOLE
WHEREAS, the city council of the city of Chanhassen (the "City") has authorized
preparation of a program (the "Program") for Development District No. 5 (the "Project") and a
plan (the "Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 5-1 ("TIF District No. 5-1"); and
WHEREAS,the Program and the Plan are contained in a document entitled "Development
District Program, Development District No. 5 and Tax Increment Financing Plan, Tax Increment
Financing District No. 5-1, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota", dated June 24, 1996, which is on
file at the city hall; and
WHEREAS, the planning commission has reviewed the Program and the Plan and has
compared them to the plans for development of Chanhassen as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Planning Commission of the City of
Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows:
1. The Program and the Plan are hereby found to be consistent with the City's
plans for development of the community as a whole.
2. The City is urged to hold the public hearing on the Program and Plan required
by law and to adopt same as soon as possible.
Passed this day of , 1996, by the Planning Commission of the City
of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Chairperson
ATTEST:
Secretary
RHB105792
CH130-59
4!i
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 5, 1996
Vice Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Don Mehl, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd
Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave
Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Phillip Elkin, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT TO FILL A 0.037
ACRE TYPE 1/2 AG/URBAN WETLANDS AND MITIGATE BY CREATING 0.07 ACRE
OF TYPE 1/2 WETLAND. THIS WORK WOULD BE DONE AS PART OF THE
PROPOSED KNOB HILL DEVELOPMENT ALONG YOSEMITE, ACROSS FROM
CREEK RUN TRAIL, METRO AREA PROPERTIES, INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joe Knoblauch 13017 Maywood Lane
John Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie
Clayton Emmer 6321 Yosemite Avenue
Phillip Elkin presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions for the staff?
Mehl: I have one. By adding to, let's say the eastern end of that. It's not, in high water
times it's not going to encroach in on back yards or properties?
Elkin: No. The homes are meeting the minimum buildable site. 2 feet above the high water
mark and what will happen at a 100 year event, it would overflow into the wetlands and go
underneath it. Go across the street there and into the natural waterways along this way up
north so the homes would be protected under 100 year flood.
Mehl: Okay.
•
1
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: For my own edification, give me some sense of how you expand the edges. Just
bring the, do they bring in a backhoe and bring it down to a level.
Elkin: I think what they would do in this case is probably bring a dozer in and just level it
into the same elevation as the existing wetland. This wetland is somewhat of a degraded
wetland. From the area it has been farmed and there's like some corn stalks in it so it's an
ag/urban wetland. A condition of approval, we could also have him clean out and improve
the conditions of the wetland. That would be something we could recommend also.
Improving the quality of the wetland.
Peterson: Is it reasonable from a cost perspective?
Elkin: Well it's just a matter of grading out. Taking the vegetation and stripping the
vegetation off the top and grading out certain square footages and removing the undesirable
vegetation so there would be some cost to the developer. I'm not sure if we can, you know
he is mitigating so I don't know if we can ask him to do that also but.
Peterson: This would be the reasonable time to ask.
Elkin: Sure. Other questions of staff? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission?
John Knoblauch: No I don't.
Peterson: We want a motion to open the meeting for a public hearing.
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to open the public healing. The public heating was opened.
Peterson: We're now open for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the Planning
Commission may come forward and do so. If you would state your name and your address
first please. Anyone wishing to address? Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Joyce moved, Mehl seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Any other discussion? Don, comments.
Mehl: It looks to me like a reasonable solution to the problem. I personally don't see a
problem with it. I would support staffs recommendation.
Peterson: Thank you. Bob.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Skubic: I would support the staffs proposal and recommendation.
Joyce: Pretty straight forward. I'd support it too.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing new to add.
Peterson: And I concur. With that, do I hear a motion?
Mehl: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that
they approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #96-3 for the proposed Knob Hill development
subject to the three conditions in the staff report.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Skubic: I'll second it.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Mehl moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve Wetland
Alteration Permit #96-3 for the proposed Knob Hill development subject to the following
conditions:
1. Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan
requirements.
2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be
completed by the applicant.
3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be
required around the existing wetland.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
FOR A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 7.03 ACRES
LOCATED SOUTH OF COULTER BOULEVARD, AND EAST OF STONE CREEK
DRIVE EXTENSION, REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
TO PUD-4, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 26 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-
OF-WAY, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 25 TOWNHOME UNITS AND A CONDITION
USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND FILLING WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN,
TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present
Name Address
Richard Frasch 8000 Acorn Lane
John Dobbs 645 5th Avenue
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff. I have one Bob. If you could just talk through a little bit on
issue number 1 with the addition of environmental features to be achieved through mixing of
unit types. Walk me through a little bit better idea of what you mean by that. Is it wider
units and not as long but?
Generous: Well, all these units are basically, I can't remember the dimensions. They are
narrow and long, which has made them a little squaterly. They might fit in a little bit better
and give you bigger setbacks. Another idea is to single... Put the roadway on one side and all
the units on the other. So there are alternate designs that we might be able to work with and
that way we create a, potentially a better view corridor here and the fronts of these units
looking out over to this larger expanse of wetland area. That is something that we don't have.
We have tried something similar to that as a part of the Creekside Addition. It just didn't
work out but it creates more of a public space and Bluff Creek and the storm water pond that
they're creating. Could also build two level units where you have a lower and an upper.
There's a potential that since he is at the low end of the density, he could get an additional
density to make it work financially for this project to go forward.
Peterson: So you're not necessarily saying changing every unit but more of a mix. Having
some longer, some multi-level.
Generous: Yes. Fit it into the site a little better.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Other questions for staff? Is the applicant or their designee wish to address the
commission? If you would state your name and address please.
John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs with Heritage Development Company, 645 5th
Avenue... I was here with the Creekside project and there were a number of ideas kicked
around about how to, an alternative type of neighborhood that Bob mentioned be worked out.
What we've tried to do with this one is, there were a number of issues that came up for a 7
acre parcel as we moved through, and I was at Park and Rec the other night and I actually
asked to get tabled so some of those issues could be worked out. In particular which side of
the creek the west/east branch... The price point of the Creekside subdivision is essentially
$280,000.00 and up for single family homes so what we did intentionally was we tried to set
up trying to build our end product that would make a higher density but price point was
applicable to what was going on to the south, which is the Creekside Subdivision... So what
we did...and as you read this, you read the staff report and I think everybody...It's a very nice
building and it has the potential to be two streets, 40 units. The problem with a private drive
versus going public, Ken Adolf from Schoell and Madsen is our engineer and he talked about
that a little bit but I guess what we did is we intentionally set off to have a little bigger unit
that was a little bit more...trying to fit something that would fit something that would fit in to
what was going on inside and also was going on in terms of the prices_._the 50 foot setback
from the creek exists as code now. We are 100 feet back from the center line of the creek.
Todd Hoffman and I, the Park and Rec, and there's a letter that he wrote to me and I would
imagine when we come back you will see there is...50 feet from the center line of the creek
over to the... The problem with, that I have with the comments made by Mr. Generous is that
there's also an issue about the financial aspects associated with the project. The road that
runs north/south, Stone Creek Drive is going to be put in and funded entirely by this 25 unit
project. We're also going to end up being assessed for Coulter Boulevard, which is going
through. Those two numbers together are going to be fairly large for a 25 unit project. So
doing a one sided road or those are the kind of ideas, all design wise and aesthetically would
be very nice. Plus an economic reality about whether this project can actually financially
sustain so there are some real...economic issues and on one side, we already have the one side
of the street here. Just to get up to Coulter Boulevard and then there would be the
assessment for how Coulter Boulevard comes through. This way...so there are some real
issues associated with that so it's... I'd be happy to answer any questions and maybe Ken can
speak to those right-of-way issues for a public road versus a private.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and
Madson. We're the consulting engineers and planners to the applicant. This is going to be
the site plan that was submitted with the application on which in red we've shown the
setbacks. We've got the 100 foot setback from the creek. The main branch of the creek is
actually down here and there's a storm water basin that's been constructed on the north side of
5
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that. So that's, that would be expanded to also service this development. So this indicates,
what's shown on there is what would be the flood elevation of that storm water basin. In
addition to what's shown here in red, there's a relatively significant change in elevation from
the water elevation in the storm water basin up to where the units would be and then there's
elevation change continues on up to the proposed elevation for Coulter Boulevard so the
street needs to, and the units need to kind of fit in. I've got some elevation inbetween Coulter
Boulevard and the existing pond creek. You can see that the site is fairly constrained here in
the north/south direction and that was really the reason that we went with the private
driveway because it allows the units to be pulled closer together as compared to a public
street with a 60 foot wide right-of-way, which was recommended in the staff report and
there's front setback requirements from there which has a tendency to really push the units
apart to a point that it almost ends up being a single loaded street. This also shows his street
connection 300 feet south of Coulter which again pushes it south more so there really isn't
enough space on the south side of the street to put anything in there. So that's just kind of a
sketch to indicate what the additional constraints that result from a public street with the
resulting front yard setbacks.
John Dobbs: And if I could, I'd just like to follow-up. We came tonight knowing that there
were a lot of issues and that this item would probably be tabled and we're okay with that. It
would be nice obviously, if there's a lot of issues, that we have some general direction as to
what's...would be very helpful. The problem, as I'm a developer and...the problem with doing
a series of custom buildings on this project, these 25 units becomes problematic for the
builder to re-design. Figure out...in terms of entry and product type for each individual...so
they, builders tend to try to keep that to a minimum and at the same time...nice exterior and
very nice...So it'd just be helpful to get some direction and know where we're going and... I'd
be happy to answer any other questions.
Peterson: Thank you staff. I know we've got 37 points for you to address, which is sizeable
in and of itself. If you could maybe summarize what some of your major issues are so that
when you're asking for direction, and we can empathize with that.
John Dobbs: Sure. I guess my big, the big direction would be that, whether it would be
private or public as a drive and the reason for private would simply be to try to work with a
very constrained piece of property. We are trying to put a product in that I think is a price
point for the area based on what we're doing at Creekside. It's probably fairly acceptable...
and density isn't very large. Just under the 3.5-3.6 units an acre I think. Almost... If this
product isn't acceptable with the constraints of a public road comes in, we'll probably have to
go with a denser, more vertical, small type of unit. We tried to work with the economics of
the site...Also get some direction on the product and the density and private versus public
road. We'd also try to leave it as green as we can. Again there's a lot of green space on the
6
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
end and as...remember with the Creekside site, there was a little discussion about parkland
and that kind of thing. I think actually this time Todd Hoffman and I have come a long
ways...and worked all that stuff out. I think it will be a nice addition to the corridor...
Peterson: Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, may I have a motion to open
this for a public hearing.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. The public healing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter? State your
name and address please.
Richard Frasch: My name is Richard Frasch. I live at 8000 Acorn Lane. My land would be
contiguous. My lot would be contiguous to this development. To me conceptually I don't
know first hand the economics necessarily. We have these large lot properties right to the
west of it. We've Stone Creek to the southwest. You've got Creekside, which are real nice
homes there. I really do not want to see townhomes there. I'd prefer to see single family
dwellings and I think that makes for a better transition and quite frankly I just think that
townhomes, particularly as you drive through some of the other cities like Eden Prairie or
Edina, they don't put a very good face on the city driving through it and I would prefer to see
the Planning Commission not recommend this and rather have this move towards a single
family dwelling so it would be comparable to the homes at either Creekside or Stone Creek.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing.
Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to close the public healing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Bob. Any comments regarding this?
Skubic: Well could you move on and come back to me. I'd like to collect my thoughts here
a little bit.
Peterson: Kevin, you're on the hot seat.
Joyce: Well I definitely think it should be tabled. I don't have any problems with putting
townhomes in there. It's not a huge development. You know I think conceptually they look
rather nice. It'd be a nice transition from what's there right now to the townhome
development. But as far as the plan itself, I think it has some work to be done. I don't
understand this building site 14 and 13 being off like that. That I have a problem with. No
7
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
access to that or using some sort of...driveway there. I think that, I kind of agree with Bob
Generous. I think you could widen these things and have them fit into this space. So I'd like
to look at it further but I'd like to table it. I'm not opposed to it but I think there's definitely
some work to be done and I think you could probably fit the building and that's really where
I'm going from.
Peterson: Thanks. Ladd.
Conrad: I'm okay with the townhome concept here. I think it's fine. I like the product. It's
really an economic issue. Does it fit? And it's really terribly difficult to give direction
tonight. I mean that's what we should do but it's terribly difficult. It's easier to come to a
bottom line on direction by saying we've got to reduce the 37 points out there and something
that we can deal with. I can't deal with 37 points. I'm not saying cutting it down to 2 or 3
but we've got to reduce that. I think I heard Bob say some things that given we move some
things around, we probably could justify a private drive, and I think you've got to work
towards that. Bottom line to me is, it does get tabled. It doesn't work right now. It has
potential to work. Still may not be financially feasible but I think I've got to dump it off on
staff and say, you've really got to work with staff on this one. Bottom line, I think
townhomes are fine there. I like the product look. I empathize with the developer. It's hard
to change designs through the project. It seems simple but it's hard...different things together
or whatever it might be but again I think you just have to work with staff on this one and
that's much direction but I think staffs comments are valid and I'd support them tonight.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I agree architecturally it's shown us a good product. It looks good on all four sides of
the building. But I also agree here we've got a lot of points that staffs concerned with and
we are, I think we need to table it to allow them to work those out.
Peterson: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Well the applicant pointed out that there were constraints on here. I can understand
the difficulty...I understand the general concept... The private driveway, if that's what's
required, I'm okay with that. I'll go with what staff recommends on that.
Peterson: Dave, I've got a question for you. Can you give me some sense as to how onerous
a public road would be with that small of a development?
Hempel: Well 25 units, it's not all that small. I guess staff isn't totally opposed to a private
street as long as we can see some benefit from a private street. We've got three conditions
8
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
that have to be met to warrant it and if we don't meet those, we could be setting a precedent
for future developments as well. With this layout here it works to the developer's benefit
with a private street to lay out the units. I guess I can't justify it based on meeting the three
points listed in the ordinance.
Aanenson: If I could just add to that. I guess what we see as the environmental feature here
is the creek and we're not sure that this, this is the product he's chosen for this property.
We're saying that we're not sure that this layout does the best justice for the creek. That is
the feature that we are trying to preserve right now. So would we support a private drive if
we're working on the best to save the creek? Probably, but we're not sure we're there yet and
that's what we're trying to work through.
Peterson: And my comments parallel the rest of the commissioners in that I think the
townhouse idea, at that level as far as cost. I mean you have the opportunity to make some
fine, build some fine properties that can only add to the neighborhood and certainly enhance
it. Maybe not decrease not certainly enhance the neighborhood so I concur that they work
with staff to find a solution. So with that, may I have a motion.
Conrad: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission table this PUD #96-3 and SP #96-6
and CUP #96-1 per the condition, going along with the conditions in the staff report.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to table the conceptual and preliminary planned unit
development, PUD #96-3, Site plan #96-6 and Conditional Use Permit #96-1 to address the
concerns and issues of staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NORTHERLY 22.6+ ACRES FROM
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, CONCEPTUAL AND
PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED TOWNHOME AND OFFICE-
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 45.21 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF LYMAN AND GALPIN BLVD., REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 146
TOWNHOME UNITS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND EXCAVATE
WETLANDS ON SITE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 24 LOTS
AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, TOWN & COUNTRY HOMES FIRST ADDITION,
TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Al Block 6800 France Avenue So. #170, Edina
Bob Smith 6800 France Avenue So. #170, Edina
Ken Adolf Schoell & Madson, Inc., Minnetonka
Jeanne Lindberg 2480 Bridle Creek Trail
Nancy & Steven Cavanaugh 2441 Bridle Creek Trail
Dona Lee 2451 Bridle Creek Trail
Craig & Nina Wallestad 2475 Bridle Creek Trail
Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Rodney Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Doug Johnson 2322 Boulder Road
Mike Minear 2421 Bridle Creek Trail
Dan Schleck 2250 Lukewood Drive
Roger & Gay Schmidt 8501 Galpin Boulevard
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff.
Conrad: Sure. A couple. What's our buffering between the project to the north and this
particular property? Is it just space?
Generous: Basically. There is some evergreen plantings but not a whole lot.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: And the guidelines that we had for buffering. Our new buffer ordinance probably
doesn't govern in this particular instance.
Generous: Well it would because you have medium density adjacent to single family but Jill
did the analysis so they would have to provide additional plantings to meet that but not a
whole lot. We have to take into consideration with that additional space, the wetland
preservation. You can give them a proportionate reduction in that.
Conrad: Okay. I'm going down through what the City Council directed back in February or
maybe earlier in terms of what they were looking for when they turned down the office
industrial project. Tree preservation, wetland protection. How did you respond to that in this
report Bob?
Generous: Well as far as tree preservation, we did the analysis and they are actually
preserving. It appears that they're preserving additional treed area or canopy area. The
configurations have changed. Unfortunately these two scales aren't quite the same but we
pick up additional savings on this area and elongated the central area. And there is a little
additional savings within the center. I didn't loop the road going through because of the
layout of the previous cul-de-sac. They were going in there and they were going to have to
grade that area. And then on the south side they had houses backing up there to there.
Conrad: Okay. Now the big question that I think maybe you can summarize for me. I read
the staff report but I think you've got to interpret it a little bit for me. The reason we tabled
or we turned down the last project was because it was zoned industrial or guided and that for
commercial so we weren't comfortable taking that off the tax rolls or the benefits would
achieve the city. Here's a case where we're sort of getting a little bit of the benefit and
putting in a transition based on planning so it's a transition. Can you summarize again for
me, and maybe the people here, what the tax loss will be because of this. I think you did two
different analysis so we have one estimate is pretty close to a wash and another one is further
away from that.
Generous: Right. I summarize it. If you look at this development versus a smaller...I
believe it's 140,000 square feet. While this proposal has a net benefit, tax benefit, revenue
benefit to the community of estimated $41,442.00 so they pay that much more in taxes than
they use in expenditures based on some assumptions of average expenditures per revenue that
came out of the study that we were able to find. If we go to the office industrial component,
we're to develop at the highest intensity that we believe feasible on the site. The net tax
revenues would be $98,630.00. Obviously it was a smaller development so you have 130,000
square foot development, it would be a $40,682.00 net revenue. So it actually is less. At
about 150,000 square feet they would, the net revenues balance out. And that's not to say if
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
this were to develop as a corporate center and they go up higher, then we can get higher
square footages on those sites.
Conrad: So we might be losing $50,000.00.
Generous: $50,000.00.
Joyce: How do you appropriate the costs of new residents that will be in this development
versus the schooling and stuff like that as opposed to office industrial?
Generous: Well that was the average cost of $1.04 per.
Joyce: $1.04? Okay, that's.
Generous: The range was, I believe it was $1.02 to $1.07 in the study.
Joyce: I have one other question regarding the tree loss, removal situation. In that site, the
trees I see that are being removed are really mature trees. There's a couple of groves in there
that kind of make me a little leery here and they're going to be replacing those how?
Generous: Well their landscaping plan has 360 some trees in it.
Joyce: But they're all like ball and burlap type trees?
Generous: Yeah, I believe it's 2 1/2 inch.
Joyce: So we are taking down very mature trees and putting up saplings.
Generous: The next generation. However we are trying to preserve large lots of that and the
developer has told staff that they are interested in looking at providing additional retaining
walls within the development. That could save additional trees so that we have to get to a
more definite detail for them to be able to work with that.
Skubic: Recommendation 16 regarding trees lost due to construction practices. Dealing with
schedules in the city. I would assume that a rate of 2 times the diameter would buy the sub-
total of some of the smaller trees to replace the larger trees.
Generous: Well unfortunately when we do inventory ifs based on caliper inch. You
generally will come out ahead because if you dig a 48 inch tree and double that, you're up to
96 inch caliper inches. Area wise you can do it also. That's where you take, if you do it by
12
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
canopy area that's removed, then you can two times that area and there's a formula that tells
us how many trees. We believe if they're going to, the saplings have a better chance of
survival than the big trees and that's what this is considered.
Skubic: So if they lose a tree that's 24 inches of caliper, you have to replace it with one
that's 48 inches?
Generous: No, not one that's 48. 48 caliper inches so they go let's say, four inch trees and
put 12 of those in. But we would then be able to hold them specifically responsible for that
replacement.
Peterson: Other questions of staff? I'll continue on the same round with trees. In the event
that an office/industrial complex went in there, would it be fair to assume that the majority of
those trees would, more of those trees would be gone with an LP than it would be with this
unit, or one similar to it?
Generous: Yes.
Peterson: Just because of the impervious surfaces and.
Generous: And because they have to have the flatter.
Peterson: Flat grade.
Generous: We could save, depending on the design probably of that middle area but the rest
of it would be...
Peterson: Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission?
Al Block: Yes, thank you. I'm Al Block, Town and Country Homes. Chairman, members of
the commission. We appreciate the opportunity to present some information to you about our
development. Bob Smith who is also with our company will also be participating in this. I'll
try to be as brief as possible. Just a little bit about Town and Country Homes. We are
somewhat new to the area. We have been building here for about 4 years. We started out in
Maple Grove...and now we are building the townhome product that we are proposing tonight
in Burnsville and Eagan. However our company is 38 years old and we are a family owned
company and Minnesota is a division for the family that is located in Hinsville and West
Chester, Illinois. A few general comments about how we've approached townhome
development and it is a significant part of our business today overall. Probably 50% to 60%.
And that is, first of all we believe in these developments being tightly controlled with a full
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
set of covenants and conditions that take care of exterior maintenance of the buildings
themselves, as well as the landscaping and so on. The covenants are very extensive, very
detailed. A couple of examples. If you have a two car garage, we require that if you have
two cars, they both be in the garage overnight. Not on the street. We enforce this. We hire
professional property management people from day one, when we start building. From the
local area that begin to put a program together as buildings are being built so that they are
ready to maintain the landscaping, etc from the very early conception. That's something that's
very important to us. Some experiences that we have had with developments such as this.
First of all, all of the units are for ownership. They are not intended for rental. We have
found that for a community of the size we are proposing, typically you will have one or two
units on average that actually will be rented out. On rare occasions we will have investors
that will buy, purchase a home and rent it out. Or you will have people that own a home, get
transferred out of town but are going to be back in a couple of years but they prefer to keep
ownership of the home while they are away and while they're away they rent it out. So you'll
have that kind of situation. Secondly, another comment that we get a lot is that this is going
to be a community that will have tons and tons of children and therefore lots of problems, etc.
This has not ever been our experience and our buyer profile in Burnsville and Eagan where
we now have quite a few buyers for whom we are building homes, proves out that in a
community of this size, we typically will have about 30 children to 35. Many of our buyers,
in Burnsville and Eagan as well as all the other townhome communities, are young
professionals or they're empty nesters. In the case of empty nesters, a lot of times they're
moving down to smaller homes and also looking to the idea that somebody else will maintain
them. One of the things that we always do is we have a small area set aside within the
community that if we end up with a number of young children, we will install our own
privately maintained by the property owners association, a totlot facility where there is
playground equipment that encourages those young people to stay within the community and
not transition out of it as far as trying to get to a playground that's across the street or up the
road and that kind of thing because it puts them in danger. Another thing that I'm sure will
be discussed this evening is what are these homes going to be priced at. The base price,
without options, without basement, is in the range of $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 to as high as
$120,000.00 for the largest unit. However, many of these homes will have basements. We
are experiencing in Burnsville and Eagan that most buyers are purchasing quite a few dollars
worth of options. We have a number of townhomes units there that are in the $150,000.00
price range and going on down from there. I'd like to take a few brief minutes to just show
you some pictures of the models of the two communities in Burnsville and Eagan and I want
to forewarn you that these were opened in March. These pictures were taken in March so
there's no landscaping installed yet. It's just been installed now. I'd like to just point out a
few features. Of course this photograph is slightly misleading in that the garage will open
instead...these kinds of doors because this is a temporary model situation in this area. But the
end units are two car garage. They are the largest unit as far as square footage. They are
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
approximately 1,480 square feet. All of the townhomes are two bedroom. They're all two
story except we do have the capability in some of the interior units to create a situation where
we put two different units side by side together, creating what we call a flat or all of the
space being on one floor, and therefore much more handicapped accessible. In that case there
is... It is standard and typical to put brick on the entire front of the units around the garage
door units. The garage door openings, I'm sorry, as well as around the openings to the
buildings themselves. Just an example of entry door and...some brick around it and so on.
The siding with all the vinyl we found to be the most durable and least susceptible to denting
and that kind of thing. The interiors are designed with a lot of openness to them with
skylights, these kinds of features. All of the bedrooms of course are on the second level,
except in the case where as I described... At this point I'd like to turn it over to Bob Smith to
talk a little bit about the land plan itself and some of the features that are incorporated in that.
One thing I want to emphasize is Bob will be reporting to you on a neighborhood meeting
that we conducted last week. The number of comments that came out of that from the
neighboring property owners that I thought were, and Bob thought were very beneficial and
you will see some things tonight presented, there is amendments to the plan that we have
presented to your staff prior to tonight. Any of those amendments that should you deem it
appropriate...these amendments that we present, we are committed to implement the
establishment of. So I want you to know that... With that, I'm going to turn it over to Bob
Smith... I should also mention that the owners and developers of the investment office part of
this are here tonight and they wish to make comments...
Bob Smith: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is Bob Smith and I'd like to present to you this evening a little bit more detail about the site.
First of all, I have a photograph here of the aerial of the overall neighborhood. As you can
see here, Galpin comes down along here. Lyman comes into here. The school, this was
taken about a year and a half ago. The school under construction is right in this area here.
We have a large lot estate development here. We have some woods, swamp in through
here... This development here, as you can see is under construction. It's built up now. Our
development lies in here. Directly to the north is Trotters Ridge. On the west side, as you
can see are the industrial buildings. Pretty hard surfaced area through here. It's hard covered
through here. Along the south of Lyman is the greenhouse, or an agricultural type industrial
use. So as you can see here, these development transitions from the industrial to agricultural
to the more office industrial use to a medium density residential to a low density residential
into this very large wetlands here. Very traditional transition concept that planning people
use to get to the lower densities of the Trotters Ridge type development. If I may, I'll go to
the overhead and just very briefly go over some of the plans and some of the details. A little
closer detail here you can see where Galpin comes along this side with Lyman in here. We
have some of the older buildings that are in this area in here and in here. As part of the
recommendations in the staff report, we will get a demolition permit. Those will be removed.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Any wells in the area will be removed. The wetlands that are on the site are in this area here.
There's a wetland in this area. There's a wetland in this area. Each one of these wetlands
stands independently of the other. There's a small little wetland in this area. The vegetation,
treed vegetation primarily is through this area. There's some scattered trees along here as
well as some trees and vegetation along Galpin. Just recently Galpin has been widened and
that slope along here is quite steep. There's a proposed walk, 8 foot bituminous bike trail
along the top of that. A subsequent planting you'll see where we've proposed to tie into this
walkway on this end. Very quickly you can see how..., and you have seen this already. We're
proposing this evening is a request to a guide plan amendment, 22 acres. 22.6 acres on this
north side from industrial to medium density residential. We're also proposing this evening or
requesting that a rezoning amendment be made on the entire development from agricultural
estate lot to PUD mixed development. The guiding is along this side is already industrial.
As you can see there's two conceptual industrial buildings on this. This is not a request this
evening for an approval of these two industrial sites. However part of the request is for the
site plan approval as well as a preliminary plat on 24 units. Excuse me, 24 lots with 142
townhome units. Very briefly, and it's pretty hard to see sometimes on these because they are
very detailed. I'd like to illustrate on this is just very briefly the grading. As I said
previously, the grading of another development came up the side of this hill where this
curvature is here. This curvature has not been built now because of the steep slopes in here.
We've proposed to come up to the edge of the slope and actually keep the trees that are in
this area here. One of the things at the neighborhood meeting that was discussed was this
corner in here. The proximity to the lot line. In another plan you'll see how I have resolved
a little bit of this area in here. Earlier Mr. Generous had discussed the request to drop from
146 units to 122 units. That plan will also show that we have taken this building here and
dropped two units and changed this a little bit around in here. Additionally this unit, this
building in here has dropped two townhomes that we've reconfigured as somewhat to loosen
this up which would also help with the sidewalk access into the cul-de-sac. One of the things
that I would like to show on this is the grading...just conceptual on industrial. That it is a
very large, a very flat area in through here that in fact this whole development were to be
industrial, which would end up creating a large, flat areas like this. Typical of office
industrial type development. What we've done here is, by putting a street in this
configuration, we've been able to take say all of the trees in this area, as well as saving all of
the trees in this area. In addition there's trees out in this area as you can see, as well as these
trees and a lot of the back here remains undisturbed also. Very quickly, utilities. There's
utilities available in Galpin at this location. We propose that sanitary sewer be brought
through the streets into the tie in that's in Galpin as well as water brought through here. This
plan does not show it. We worked with the City Engineer and we're proposing to loop water
back through the back side of the road side of the industrial site so that we can have adequate
water pressure. Storm sewer is located on the ends of the cul-de-sac to pick up the storm
water that comes off of the driveways. Off the roof tops as well as off the streets. Pick up
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
the low spots with the catch basins that brought it through pipes into a wetlands. This
location as well as this location and brought into here. These wetlands is created design
wetlands and sediment...before they would go into the wetlands. These have been designed
and meet the watershed district criteria. There's also a wetland that will be created in this
area to pick up the water through here. The industrial site and the wetland basins that will
catch water here. Level across into a basin here before it comes into this wetland. Planting
plan. If you look at Town and Country, we want to create a very lush, green street tree
planting as well as a unit planting. These trees along the street are planted as ball and burlap
trees. They have a two year guarantee on them. We've found that anything that lasts two
years do last. Often times there is a mortality after one year. We've put a two year guarantee
on these trees so that they, anything after one year to replace, they're once again guaranteed
and then after two years the guarantee goes off and we've found that there's a very good
mortality and they don't die. We're putting in pine trees along this area and this plan shows
red maples. The subsequent plan...we will put pine trees along this to increase the buffer
along with that lot line. Unit plantings are proposed all along the sidewalks, in the fronts,
between driveways, trees, in the fronts as well as approaches along the sidewalks or the side
entrances, as well as plantings all along any of the stoops and patios which may be in the
back trees. Small plantings all along all sides, all the way around. We've proposed to put
about $2,000.00 worth of plantings into each unit, which is identified by a very rigorous... and
identified by both scientifically and common names provided by nurseries and planted by
registered nursery people. Last week we had a neighborhood meeting. Very good discussion.
We had about 32 people at the neighborhood meeting and there was a lot of discussion,
specifically on this last cul-de-sac. Galpin will be along this side. Trotters Ridge along this
side. Some of the discussion was how close these units are to the property line. And how
close these units are to the homes in this area here. ...drop two of these townhomes in this
area here, what we've done is reconfigure this area. Right now it shows that this townhome
is approximately 50 feet from the property line. As we get down to this end we're looking at
approximately 65 feet and it continues to be farther down. I'm going to lay this over the top
here and then I will put them separately so you can see the change. Before we do that, one
of the things I'd like to identify that brought this issue up and with this issue was you'll notice
right here, and we can look at it on a larger plan if you wish. There's a storm catch basin
that was put in here by the developer of Trotters Ridge. This catch basin has been put in
such a way that it's caused a drainage problem. It's been put in too high and the people in
Trotter's Ridge here are becoming inundated with their own storm water. What we've found
by doing this is that we could, with participation from the city's engineering department, that
they could do the design. We will construct and fix the drainage in this area here. Not our
responsibility but as good neighbors, we want to take and fix the drainage in here so that
everyone works well as well as the drainage works in our development. But as part of that,
as part of reducing two townhomes. Let me line this up here so we have this north property
line all lined up here. What we've done, this is where the location of the old townhome
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
layout was, as well as in here. As well as the cul-de-sac around this way. What we proposed
is taking this cul-de-sac, tipping it slightly. Not disturbing this unit. Taking this group of
townhomes. Sliding it around. Taking this group of townhomes and centering them out. By
doing that, we've created about 65 feet of distance. We've increased this distance by 15 feet.
We've also put a berm in this area here and in this area. We've left an open spot in here,
which will create positive drainage coming through here. The berm is proposed to be about 6
feet tall. Between 5 and 6. Each one of the grading lines represents 2 feet, as well as a 4 to
5 foot berm on this area to screen anything here. What this does, it creates a positive earth
berm then it will have a continual screening that these people here will have separation from
the townhomes. In planned section we've cut directly through this area right here. Let me
take this off so we can get it a little clearer. We've cut through this berm to this unit, to the
street. To this unit in here. Center line of the street is here. Trotter's Ridge property line is
here. What we've done is created a berm that comes up this way. The unit, the street, the
unit then drops down into this which will be a walkout unit here. As you can see, this is a
solid berm. Pine trees will be planted on the berm. Let me go back here. Now the
landscape plan which shows pine trees in this area. We'll increase the number of pine trees in
here and rather than putting in a deciduous tree, which will get very tall, with nothing
screening in the bottom, we'll put all pine trees along here. Also which will be planted on the
berm. Finally, this is pretty easy to see how the development will lay out. This does not
have that most recent change in this area here. This is how it was before. We will take and
tip this cul-de-sac out so, what the black lines represent here is the trail system that we
propose to put in. This will connect to the sidewalk along this street here. It will tie in
through the woods onto this cul-de-sac. It will come through the woods here on the end of
this cul-de-sac. This dashed line in here represents a cul-de-sac, excuse me. Off the end of
the cul-de-sac, represents a sidewalk which will loop around and rather than coming straight
up, we will bring it around at an angle to transition up this hill here so it's a nice easy slope
coming up...get the bituminous bikeway down into the development. The other thing that this
illustrates, that this coded drawing illustrates is that the trees in here and in here, along in
here are all natural trees. As well as this area remains undisturbed back in here. This area
has been left...the industrial site simply to show that this is the concept and it's not the final
site approval. Lastly, once again looking at the aerial photograph here. In a little more
detail. Once again we're asking for the approval of the guide plan from office industrial to
the northern, on the northern 22.6 acres to medium density residential. We're asking for
rezoning of the entire development from estate lot agricultural to a mixed planned unit
development, PUD. We're asking for 142 townhomes as well as a preliminary plat of 24 lots.
To summarize this is really, as I've spoken was a classical study of transition. Going from
industrial to agricultural type industrial to office warehouse industrial type through here.
Medium density at about 7 units per acre to the low density of Trotter's Ridge. Finally to the
wetland which is to the north. If you have questions of myself, Mr. Block, we'd certainly like
to answer them. Thank you.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant?
Conrad: Two. They're all 6 and 8 unit complexes. You don't have a 4 unit design?
Al Block: We did not include a 4 unit design in this case. Part of the reason is, every time
you have a break between buildings, you start to take out more trees. Existing trees, those
kinds of things. By massing more town units in a building, you can have a little more
attrition situation as far as tree removal.
Conrad: On your eight-plexes, I need a better elevation of your units. I just don't have a
good feel for what you're proposing. And what.
Al Block: This happens to be a 5 unit building.
Conrad: That's a 5 unit building. Do you have your 8 unit building here?
Al Block: We do not.
Conrad: How wide is that 8 unit building?
Al Block: The 8 unit building would be approximately 150-160 feet. I believe the
architectural plan you submitted there was a floorplan.
Conrad: Real tough for me to read it. I'm real worried here in terms of...back on the project.
It's hard for me to look at what's presented and get a sense for some fairly massive structures,
because of the 8-plexes and see how that looks on the project. So that's why.
Al Block: There are a number of different things we do and are incorporated to break up that
linear feel. For example as it was pointed out by Mr. Generous in the staff presentation,
many of these buildings have vertical breaks in the roof line. There are some changes in
elevation. There's a transition from one to the other and Bob, could you kind of point out the
building roof line.
Bob Smith: Some of the roof lines break along in here. There's a unit that could step down
to a grade. We'll have a break along in here. You want gables and hips through here. That
will all break up. As you can see down in here, these as Al had pointed out earlier do have
doors in them because they're models but this is what the garage doors actually look like. So
that this is the actual view that you will see in the field. Out in the neighborhood. The
garages will have hip roofs in them to break up the front of the roofs and pop outs for the
windows so that we do have a good break all along the front.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: You said this is a 5-plex?
Al Block: This is 5.
Conrad: And we don't have any in this project. We have sixes and eights.
Al Block: We just didn't happen to have one colored to scale. We certainly could...and
submit it as a 6 and an 8. Obviously a 6 unit building is not going to be a whole lot longer
and I believe, I should correct the information I gave you on...
Generous: It says 149 in the plan.
Bob Smith: The overall dimension of the 8-plex is 149 feet 0 inches.
Al Block: By a combination of, the way the garages are placed, and the way the roofs are
constructed, it breaks up.
Conrad: Well you can sell me on that but you don't have anything here tonight that does.
This is not what you're building and.
Bob Smith: Actually we have submitted this, if I may approach, to I believe what this
gentleman is talking about...
Conrad: I think the City Council's going to want to see that.
Joyce: Especially with a PUD, right?
Conrad: Yeah. It is a PUD obviously and also the real elevation is real important. I think
we'll all have concerns about the neighbors and visuals and anyway that's.
Joyce: You're going to have eight garage doors on an eight unit that will have a two garage
on each side and six garage doors.
Al Block: Yes.
Joyce: I was curious about the property manager. Are you going to have a property manager
living on site? Is that the plan? I didn't understand that part.
Al Block: No. It will be a professional property management company that is in charge of
that as opposed to not having anybody really that checks on things or that is just on call.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Joyce: So they maintain the.
Al Block: Everything on the exterior, yes. All exterior maintenance to the buildings and
landscaping and grounds.
Joyce: Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions. Going back to the property management aspect of it. Once it
becomes an association townhouses, how much control is there really at that point in time?
Don't the individual owners really have the control to pick the property managers and you
talked about, you don't allow the cars to be parked out. Is that realistic long term? I mean
that the owners eventually could change that upon transferring the property management.
Al Block: They could by a vote of a certain majority make those changes. That's never
happened to us and typically they will retain the property management company we select at
least for several years.
Peterson: A couple other questions. A little bit about the berming height. You said towards
the residential to the north you've got 5 to 6 feet. Is that the maximum that would be
reasonable? Or possible. Can we go higher or not?
Al Block: I suspect if we took a look at it, it'd be possible to increase that one...
Peterson: I mean I think it'd be beneficial to go as high as we can, depending upon obviously
the space and the angle. The slope.
Hempel: If I could just interject one comment here with the berming back here. Mr. Smith
did indicate about the watermain loop with the cul-de-sac. This is one location that we had
recommended a watermain loop as well. There's currently an existing waterline that runs
down the next lot line east of where that storm sewer line exists. There's a 12 inch
watermain. We'd want to loop in the cul-de-sac to see which would be underneath the
isolated berm there. We could work on relocating that berm to an area...and that location is
the existing water line that we'd like to see extended for water quality and water pressure
reasons. So that may impact their shifting those units a little bit more in that cul-de-sac.
Peterson: What about the berming to the office industrial to the south? That wasn't
discussed. I think it was maybe in the...height of that.
Bob Smith: Right now that is conceptual...
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: So the berm would not be in this property but it would be on the IOP property?
Al Block: That's correct.
Bob Smith: Which is located in this. This is what is conceptual.
Peterson: Lastly, we spoke earlier to Ladd's question about the front of the building and how
we would be breaking up the front. Talk a little bit about the back of the building. I think
I'm comfortable with the design of the front and how it does break it up versus being a solid
wall but certainly with the back you don't have the opportunity to do that as much. Without
the rendering of the back, give us a sense of what the back would look like if you would.
Al Block: Bob, can you throw up a landscape drawing of the back side. On the back side
there's an opportunity to break it up with quite a bit of landscaping inbetween the decks and
patios. That landscaping certainly could be brought around behind those decks and patios to
make that rear area nice.
Bob Smith: One of the things that...it's difficult to see here, that this would be a gabled roof.
Very similar to what these roofs would be so you have face breaks, roof breaks coming down
as well as window breaks. Patios coming out of the back and plantings inbetween. So we'll
get some breaks up and down and along the roof line.
Peterson: So each walkout unit then would have a patio and a balcony? Is that right? Or
not.
Bob Smith: Yes. Along the Trotter's Ridge, I don't believe there are any walkouts. I think
those are all at grade type things.
Peterson: So those would be the lower. The lowest structures would be towards Trotter's
Ridge.
Bob Smith: That's correct. The only walkouts or lookouts would all be internal would be
these, these, these, and that's it. All the rest would be no walkout or lookout.
Peterson: If you had to prognosticate, how much of the building, in looking from Trotter's
Ridge, how much of those buildings would you see with the berm and with the evergreens on
top of the berm.
Bob Smith: With the berm being about let's say 6 feet tall, the evergreens that we would
plant would be anywhere from 6 to 8 to 10 feet tall standing at that point. If you use a 6 foot
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
tree, a 6 foot berm, you have an automatic 12 foot. 14 foot. 16 foot depending upon which
size tree. So we're looking at anywhere from 12 to 16 foot automatic berm which would
bring it up pretty close to the second, above the second story.
Peterson: It's just Trotter's Ridge is at a lower elevation.
Bob Smith: Actually where these would be at, Trotter's Ridge is actually at a higher
elevation than what these are. The back yards here are about 62 to 64. We're proposing
these, right now...at about 62. With that new design that's going to drop the street about a
foot so these will be about...so they will be slightly lower than the back yards of Trotter's.
And by the time you get to the homes, you have a slight rise. Actually even a dip because
the water's flowing out...
Peterson: Thank you.
Bob Smith: Realistically the combination of the two does pretty much cover a first floor and
begins to impact the upper floors.
Peterson: Other questions for the applicant? Thank you. May I get a motion to open the
public hearing.
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened.
Peterson: I have some sense that we have some conversations to be going on tonight. I
would ask that we certainly want to hear everything that is said from all people that do wish
to come up tonight. I in turn though would ask that if what has been said by the previous
individuals, that I think we will soon get a sense that there is a theme so that if we can
maintain a number of people that wish to come up, please do so and listen to the predecessors
so with that, is there anyone that would like to address the commission. If so, please come
forward and give your name and address please.
Dan Schleck: Good evening. My name is Dan Schleck and I live at 2250 Lukewood Drive,
which is northeast of the proposed subdivision. And let me say this. One of the reasons that
I wanted to come and speak tonight is because I recently relocated here from the western
suburbs of Chicago, which also happens to be the home of Town and Country Homes. And
one of the things that I guess I wanted to talk about tonight is what I'd call SST, and that is
Suburban Stacking of Townhomes which is so prevalent in the western suburbs of Chicago
and which is something that I wanted to get away from when I came here and I don't think
it's in the best interest of the city. Let me start out by saying that I think the staff has done
an excellent job in reviewing this project, however there are a few things that I think need
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
maybe a little bit more study. First of all I'd say that the impacts on infrastructure to the city
need to be investigated further. I think that it's been shown in the plans and in the study by
the staff that there is going to be some impact of runoff in the area of surface water. That the
topography of the area is very complicated and given the level of study that's taken place so
far, maybe the total impact of this runoff hasn't been adequately investigated, and I think that
possibly some more study needs to be done. Secondly, in my subdivision I know that we are
constantly have problems with electricity and I think that if this proposed subdivision was to
go in, it would put a significantly higher draw on the electrical system in the area. I wonder
if any investigation has been done at all with the electrical cooperative to determine what
impact, if any the subdivision will have on power supply to the area. And what changes
might need to be made. Next I'd like to say that in reviewing the report of the staff, on page
8 it's indicated that the cost part of the equation has not been adequately defined. What does
this mean? Does this mean that the cost potentially could be much higher than $1.04 for
every dollar of revenue generated?
Generous: Or it could be less.
Dan Schleck: Either way it hasn't been... And that's something I think needs some more
study. I think on page 6 of the report, it also discusses the loss of tax revenues to the city
and that needs to be looked at carefully as well to determine is it in the best interest of the
city to rezone property that results in a loss of tax revenue. The second major area that I
want to talk about is environmental impacts that may be presented as a result of this
subdivision. Page 19 of the report discusses some of the wetland issues associated with the
proposed development. However it notes that based on the new law that was passed in the
last legislative session, the city has not adopted the new wetlands legislation and
developments are being treated on a case by case basis. I think more study needs to be done
on the wetlands issues and the impacts of this project. Given the wetness of this whole area
of town, and I also think it may be inappropriate to trade-off wetlands at a 2 to 1 ratio given
the nature of the area of town. It may be appropriate to go with some higher ratio in trade-
off. Next, one of the issues I think that has not been adequately addressed is what impacts, if
any this development might have on ground water quality in the area. The report of the staff
indicates that there's significant number of wells and septic systems in the area that are going
to need to be closed and abandoned but he said they will be abandoned according to State
Health Department guidelines. Is that appropriate? Is that enough to protect the ground
water in the area? That hasn't been addressed. Next I think that based on my review of the
staff report, there's been no investigation of the presence of any endangered species or critical
habitat in the area. I think that this is important for the community and the State as well.
The environment has been a very important part of the state of Minnesota and I think these
things should be investigated in the wake of development. Lastly, with respect to the tree
preservation program that's been addressed by the city. I know that in my subdivision,
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
although many of the trees were "saved", they've been significantly impacted by the
construction. Several of them are not expected to last more than 2 or 3 years and I just
wonder if this has been looked at in terms of conservation of the trees. Yes it may be
appropriate not to take down the trees to build a road but if you build a road right next door,
it's still going to die. Next I think some of the issues with respect to public safety have not
been adequate addressed. Page 10 of the report addresses some of the traffic issues with
respect to this new subdivision but it seems to focus on the new street, or rather the street
layout...some of the traffic issues associated with that. There doesn't appear to be much
report on what would happen to Galpin Boulevard. And what would happen with respect to
the increased traffic from the subdivision during both construction and occupancy. What
impact might be to the number of school buses that run of Galpin every day and also the
school children that travel to the school on the corner of TH 5 and Galpin. The next issue I
think that has not been adequately addressed is the changes in aesthetics that will result from
this proposed subdivision. There really is not a good discussion in the report that discusses
the impact on the character of the neighborhood. This neighborhood has traditionally been a
single family neighborhood and the introduction of multi-family dwellings will impact the
neighborhood and it's aesthetics. Additionally the noise and the dust generated during
construction, and the crowding of what I called the SST before, I don't think is good... Next I
think, and most importantly, there is some discussion in the staff report about consistency of
the proposed development with the comprehensive plan of the city. But let's face it, the
proposed development is not interested in the comprehensive plan because it requires an
amendment to the comprehensive plan. I think that everybody here realizes that there is a
need for affordable housing in Chanhassen, and that's an important part of the community, but
I also think that a community can't rush to build affordable housing. That some type of study
to look at the community as a whole is necessary to find out the best and optimum location
for such affordable housing. And again I'll restate with respect to the comprehensive plan, the
result of this amendment will again reduce the tax revenue that could be generated by this
property under it's current zoning and I think that has to be looked at a lot before you
consider that's best for the community. I, to some extent think that I speak for the local
residents of the community when I say this. I believe that the Planning Commission needs to
re-evaluate this planned unit development. I think that the developer has to some extent
attempted to address the concerns of the community but has not adequately done so. I think
that members of the local community would agree that the buffer area between Trotter's Ridge
and this proposed development needs to be increased. This increase in the buffer zone would
better facilitate a transition and would have less impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
I think that it would be appropriate to require more industrial development and reduce the size
of the acreage for the planned amendment for the comprehensive plan. I think that this is the
fiscally responsible route and that it is more acceptable to the local members of the
community. I think that the developer needs to better address the environmental issues
associated with this development. I think that it's appropriate to require a 3:1 wetlands trade-
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
off for any wetlands destroyed and I think that some type of environmental study of the area
is necessary. I'll finish by saying this. This commission was created and empowered to
protect the community. This mandate necessitates that any developer work with the neighbors
and the community so that the developer and the community can result in a situation that is a
win/win for both. I think that if the developer is not forced to work better with the
community and address some of the concerns of the community, that this commission is
doing a disservice, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that the people in the local
community of this development are committed to having this proposed development changed.
I think if nothing is changed, the commission's actions will force the community to pursue all
judicial and administrative remedies available to them. Potentially including petitioning the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board or Pollution Control Agency to require an
Environmental Impact Statement for the project. I leave you with a question. Is it in the best
interest of Chanhassen as a community to allow an out of state developer to come in and
become rich at the expense of the local community's quality of life? Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
LuAnn Sidney: I'm LuAnn Sidney and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and I wish to present
a few items. I was really concerned after I heard about the meeting last week with Town and
Country Homes...and so concerned that I went out to Town and Country Home developments
that are currently in the Twin Cities, in Eagan and Burnsville and took a look at the type of
product that this developer wishes to build in Chanhassen. And I took some photos and I was
really concerned because you know we talked about the back elevation...and to me what they
look like are apartment building type units from the back. And for me, as residents of
Trotter's Ridge, our property would overlook this type of development. I don't know if that
was... I think the other point about what I saw in Eagan and Burnsville is that the surrounding
areas where these townhomes are being built are nothing like Trotter's Ridge or Stone Creek
or even the industrial portion of Chaska which we are opposed to. What I saw there in Eagan
was a SuperAmerica. I saw Meredith Cable. I saw Highway 13. Highway 77...forming a
triangle where these townhomes are located. There was very low vegetation and none of the
additions that were given in the statement here tonight. In Burnsville...similar in nature in
that it was up against Highway 13. There is a school in back of the development. Very large
apartment complex which actually abuts one of the rear portions of one of the units that they
were starting to work on, and also a strip mall and I guess in my opinion what they have
chosen in Burnsville is...strip mall development in the R-4, you know incorporations in
Chanhassen as it is proposed in this development. I'd like to present the photos for you to
look at them. It does have some examples of the landscaping that you'll see. In Eagan I
have...of the back of one unit... Hopefully you'll get a sense of what the land is like. In
Burnsville it's a similar situation. I have some photos of landscaping put in the front. A little
similar to what you saw in the drawings and the... I was surprised, and I guess not surprised
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
at they did not show you a detailed photo of the orientation of the backs of the units. I guess
I'm surprised that...from Chicago... I think what I'll put on top here is an example of the
landscaping. I guess another point that I'd like to make, and a personal type of observation.
We just recently moved here to Chanhassen and I actually work in Eden Prairie in a small
chemical company...and we're looking to build and we'd like to build somewhere in the area
because that's where...and we've been looking at properties and one of the selections was the
property in the commercial development which is along Audubon Road and I kind of told my
colleagues at work that just think, I could walk to work at some point if it were possible. So
I guess I have a feeling that this commercial would be something that I would support. Also,
I guess just to wrap up here hopefully. I had looked at the Mission Hills townhouse
development off of Market Boulevard and there are a couple of homes which the rear portions
of the lots that are...fronts of homes which to me are much more appealing. Also I looked at
Lake Susan Hills Drive and the Prairie Creek development and those are a very similar look
to the type of structure there. It's not as massive as what you're talking about in the proposed
so those are the three points. The photos. You can take a look at those. Also the fact that
personally I'm not objecting to office industrial. Also the fact that these townhomes as
proposed do not seem to fit the pattern which has developed here in Chanhassen.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission?
Nina Wallestad: Hello. I'm Nina Wallestad, 2475 Bridle Creek Trail. A lot has been talked
about the northeast corner of this development, especially where it butts up against Trotter's
Ridge but as somebody who lives on the northwest corner I'm very concerned. Looking at
the plans of the area, and knowing the wetland that I see when I'm standing in our house,
they don't jive. The wetlands is huge compared, in fact two years ago when my husband and
I were looking at the lot and considering buying it, in the middle...there was absolutely no
water anywhere to be seen. Now there are very large wetland areas and I look at the drawing
of the map and to me they just don't jive so I would just really keep, encourage you to make
sure that we're working with the right data here when it comes to the topography of the area.
Another thing that I just discovered just recently walking around back there is that there's
actually a little creek connecting that big wetland area to, it seems to be the far area and it's
just running right along the east/west border. I guess it would be considered that border line
between Trotter's Ridge and this development and I don't see that addressed at all on this plan
and considering that there are wild turkeys, ducks, even a pair of deer that we saw this
morning. Tons of frogs. There's a lot of wildlife here that's going to be impacted and given
all of that, I would just urge the denial of this plan until a further study of the wetland area
can be made. And if not denial than I would urge a further setback on this development to
make sure that it does not encroach upon, not only our lot lines but especially the wetland
areas that makes this area such a beautiful place to live. Thank you very much for taking our
comments.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Thank you.
Mike Minear: Good evening. My name is Mike Minear and I live at 2421 Bridle Creek
Trail and out of respect for your time I have one issue that I share with you and it's also
water and drainage but a different angle. When we met with the gentlemen from the builders
about a week ago we brought up a lot of the drainage concerns and I think my concern was
that they really didn't know about them. And in more of a deep discussion with them about
the draining and so forth, they said that they needed to do further study and what concerns
me is that they submitted to you a plan where by their own admission they had not really
studied a lot of drainage issues and I'm wondering if we're really ready to approve that. I
thank and commend them for trying to address that issue with us but I have the following
concern. My builder clearly did not do the drainage correctly. As they point out, Trotter's
Ridge did not do it correctly. We tried to work with the city and the city has been kind
enough to send letters to our builder. Our builder was not a local builder. Basically ignores
them and after about a year of this, just this week the city engineering people basically have
say look. We tried to write the letters to help you but we really have no authority and we
can't do anything to force developers to do it. I live right on the other side of where they're
proposing the berm. In a deep rain, or even a moderate rain, we get...standing water in our
yard and it stays there for a number of days and we are at the bottom of a hill that I'm not
sure where it comes through on the drawings. Basically what their drawing is doing, and I
can appreciate any effort to berm our view but we're going to be at the inside of a V where
the water's going to come down. It already pools at 10 to 12 inches of water and my concern
is, will it pool worse? Will it come up to my basement? Are these folks, are they going to
be any more responsive than the builder that we paid our money to and is the city going to be
unable to help us with that problem too? And again, I appreciate the need for tax revenue. I
just feel that before we approve this, we need to study the water issue further and really nail
it down once and for all. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Steven Cavanaugh: Hello. My name is Steven Cavanaugh. I live at 2441 Bridle Creek
Trail. I want to go back to the issue of the aesthetics and the... Those drawings you see don't
reflect the topography at all. The berm would only protect something on a parallel, flat
land... The topography rises dramatically from that flatland and I know from my house, which
is only two houses away from the gentleman who just spoke, the land rises precipitously so,
and so the townhouses will be placed 50 feet away from my property line, which is the
wetlands come down to here so...and I do have photographs and that wetland does go out
quite a bit beyond my property line. My wife and I take photographs... So nevertheless, 50
feet beyond those lines, we're talking a hill that goes up. So when you see the back now, the
aesthetic beauty of the back...so those go up the hill. So it's going to take a berm the size of
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
a small mountain, that high in order to protect us from that view. So I don't know what the
berm issue is even about. I really don't understand that and I think you've also seen pictures
there of the type of pine trees that they see as berm type of pine trees, arborvitae type of pine
trees...that are dead. So those...The aesthetics are very serious. If they'd like to come back
with another proposal where there may be more land dividing it, but right now it's a transition
that really doesn't transition at all. It's just that it butts up to... That's all I want to say.
Thank you.
Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 2461 Bridle Creek Trail and our property
also will be looking out over this sea of townhomes. I, a person can tell by my sweatshirt
and my earrings and everything, I'm very much into preserving the environment. I'm very,
very concerned about the number of trees that would be taken out. As I look at the property
on the east side of the property, a majority of those trees...that they're proposing the road right
through. And we talked about these are 100 year old oak trees and... I'm very concerned
about that. I'm also wondering why Town and Country couldn't...and this would allow a
buffer that everyone is so concerned about between the developments...industrial over in that
area. We just recently purchased our property in November. At that time we were concerned
about what was going to happen over there and we had spoke to Sharmin and she said that
there wasn't going to be anything unless it was back, up over on the other side of that berm.
The already existing natural berm. So now to have somebody tell me different... Also I guess
I'm curious how this...with the number of people that would be coming in and we are of
course all of us here are concerned about depreciation of our properties... It's true at one time
we've had everything from pheasants to like they said, wild turkeys to wild minks and
pelliated woodpeckers and everything coming into this area so it really is a beautiful area.
We'd like to see it preserved. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you.
Peter Sidney: My name is Peter Sidney. I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail and my lot also
borders the proposed development to the north. We would be about 65 feet from the back of
the townhouse. I also have a number of concerns about this proposed development. It seems
to me it is an appropriate use of the property. I'm concerned that it's based upon a
redesignation of the zoning that was laid out in the guide plans on the industrial to medium
density residential development. Sufficient justification for...economic impacts...that it was
industrial behind there. We could live with that. We already have industrial to the west of
us which is Chaska right now. I'd also like to address the tree issue. I have two concerns
about the loss of trees. It's a beautiful area. One of the things that makes Chanhassen special
is the mature trees on the property. In reading the staff report I see that the tree loss would
be 65% in the residential portion of that. Going from, I believe 48% coverage down to 18%
when the requirements is at least 30%. As has already been pointed out, that these trees...
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
townhouses as close as 50 feet away. Another point is that I think it really does not fit the
character of the rest of the surrounding area. Single family homes in Trotter's Ridge, Stone
Creek, Timberwood Estates, etc. so I really believe that this is an inappropriate use of the
property and I think certainly further study is warranted. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission?
Roger Schmidt: My name is Roger Schmidt. I live at 8301 Galpin Boulevard. That's not in
Trotter's Ridge. It's across the street...but first of all as a long time resident of Chanhassen,
again I look at this is a very appropriate type of development to put in... I think maybe it
might be a good idea, and some of the residents in Trotter's Ridge are interested and that they
should probably take a look at some of the multi-family housing that we brought up earlier
and look at, I know some of those places are not new at all but I think that some of the ones
that are mentioned here in Chanhassen were probably quite a bit...as far as what type of
multi-family townhome housing is and also... Also I think if you want an idea of what the
backs of these look like, I'm sure you all have these. It'd depicted right here and this is
probably the back, this is the area...going to see and I agree, you've got to look at the
topography of the berm and the trees. I don't think it's going to be very much of a screen
effect. Maybe 20 years from now...but for the next 10-15 years. That's all I've got to say.
Dona Lee: My name is Dona Lee. My address is 2451 Bridle Creek Trail... First thing that
we also have a wetland in our back yard and it's not on these drawings that is just... And then
also just to represent the mom's, we're a very close community... There's probably 10 to 12
mothers that are home during the day. We're housewives and we see everything that goes on
and this would definitely bring up a lot of different issues. I mean we'd like to support the
idea of office...office buildings that are at...and they look very nice. You can hardly see them
from TH 41 over to Lyman Boulevard and...thank you.
Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson, 2461 Bridle Creek. We've been here before. We
moved from Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. I think you're familiar with Frank
Beddor so we've been to a lot of these things. I'd just like to point out when we decided to
move, I talked with staff. They said trust us. We won't do anything that you won't like so I
hope I can. Thank you.
Peterson: Anyone else have any comments? Seeing none, do I have a motion to close the
public hearing?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed.
Peterson: Ladd, do you want to tackle this one?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: Sure. Why not? I'm going to have to sooner or later. I appreciate the comments
from the residents. They're real good. Very nicely said. I'm always amazed when we get
into here. Sometimes neighborhoods like things. Sometimes they don't. Just so you know,
from a standpoint of good conceptual planning, what was presented tonight isn't bad. If we
were to design something and say this is how to do it, what they're presenting isn't. We'd
probably say this looks pretty good. City staff also represented the City Council fairly well in
terms of direction so I think what you're seeing is some direction given by the Council and
the city staff listened to that and working and making something happen. Real issues, you
know we talk about revenue and then all of a sudden we see it and now we have to make
decisions based on, I think we're pretty committed to keeping this an industrial area. And
now I see a $50,000.00 amount that we may lose and you sort of say well, what do we gain,
what are we losing? And it's real tough to deal with. A couple things that I see that I don't
like tonight and again I'm not sure, I personally want to get this up to City Council. They set
a lot of the direction on this and I think they have a lot to offer in terms of guiding this but I
see a couple things that bother me and I guess some of these are words for staff. I think the
community brought up some things about accuracy of the data. I think the staff has to check
the accuracy of the data. Whether that be size of wetlands or setbacks or whatever, I think
they brought it up enough that we should really challenge some of that. I'm concerned about
the massiveness of the townhomes on the north side. I don't really like 8-plexes going into
Trotter's Ridge. That just doesn't, that bothers me. It's too massive and even though I think
we've grown accustomed and used to townhomes here, I still think in terms of a gradual
transition, the 8-plexes are, and it looks like there's a 6 and it's hard for me to tell what's there
but again, a better transition would not be a massive wall there. I'd also make sure there's a
little bit better landscaping transition to the north into this particular development. I'd like to
see what, you know you can, I think the developer could sell me something in terms of
appearance if they had a four color elevation or rendering that I could look at but I didn't
really see that. I really think the rear elevations are a problem. I wouldn't want to live next
to that. I don't really have a problem putting townhomes next to single family. That's okay.
But it does have to be appropriate. It does have to be something that is visually a feeling,
and I didn't see that tonight so that's a real issue. So I see all these things that I just
wouldn't, I couldn't accept the plan as submitted. But then I get back to the $50,000.00, the
money aspect and I guess the other side of this, before I even get to the money aspect is the
fact of affordable housing and this developer may do that. Now that's going to help in terms
of what our guidelines are in Chanhassen so that's one of those benefits that the developer
brings but in terms of the money that we're saving, or we could make in terms with the IOP
there, hard to turn that down. I guess so bottom line for me is I'm going to listen to what the
other Planning Commissioners have but I really see a loss of revenue to the community and
although I think this is a terrific transition plan, I still have a problem losing $50,000.00 or
$40,000.00 or whatever dollars it may be.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Peterson: Thank you.
Al Block: Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to insert something just to respond?
Peterson: No. That hearing is closed so.
Al Block: All I was going to offer...table it and we will work with the neighborhood and
come up with...
Peterson: We can discuss that at the end.
Joyce: A lot of what I have to say kind of echoes Ladd so I'll be very brief but I do want to
say that staff is under some pressure to develop, make these kind of developments. I think
they did a good job. I think it's a good concept incorporating this multiple use. I'd kind of
like to see it work. They have a mandate from the Metropolitan Council that somewhere,
some way they have to abide by it. I certainly commiserate with the neighbors but as you
guys know, this will be developed somehow. I mean we're going to lose some trees
somewhere. That isn't going to be a nature park. At least I don't see that as being planned.
So I did exactly what Ladd did. I put a T here and I put pros and cons and see if I could
weigh this thing out. And I definitely see that there's a need for affordable housing here and
this might satisfy this need so that's a plus for this development. What I'm uncomfortable
about is a couple of things on this left land side, is changing the comprehensive plan. Ladd
addressed that so I won't go into that any further. I'm uncomfortable about changing, totally
changing the character of the area. That bothers me a little bit. A lot actually. I think it's a
lot of tree loss and I think the reason for that is that the development is overly large and I'm
sure that's an economic concern for the developer. I mean he has to make some sort of
amends here to make his money but it's a lot of units. That's taking up a lot of trees and
changing this area of our community so I'm concerned about that. Another concern I have is
being a PUD, I know we'd like to see something kind of unique and I don't see it right now.
I'd be willing to look at it again but it looks like all the other sea of townhouses out there and
it just doesn't seem to fit into this particular area. So I would have a hard problem voting in
favor of this. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: I think staff did a fine job of reaching a compromise here to meet the needs of the
city. I agree with them entirely in principle that it makes a good transition zone and offers a
mix of commercial and low cost home thing and so forth. But in practice I too agree with
the site and read the plan. I'm a little disappointed that there's still so much tree removal
and...to Trotter's Ridge and view the area from the residents desires. I imagined what it
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
would look like. There's certainly a need for buffering there and I think the applicant is
attempting to address that with the berm and landscaping on the northeast side but I'm
concerned on the northwest side where you have a lot of open area and that hasn't been
adequately addressed. Looking at the rear elevation, it does look like an apartment complex.
Especially the walkouts. A lot of windows that everything is very symmetrical and I think
something should be done with that to go forward and taking Ladd's lead, I think a good
diagram with some kind of pictures from the neighbors yards with elevations where you can
see what the back of the units would look like with the landscaping would be very beneficial.
I know we've done that in the past when we had sensitive areas like this...very convincing to
what the final project is going to look like from the neighbors standpoint. I...think that the
photographs that were brought in by the resident actually looked a lot better than the diagrams
we have here. You might want to leave those at home next time. Regarding the medium
density housing. The city really has a need for this. It has to be somewhere and it isn't a
perfect fit here obviously... The industrial business areas of the city have a hard time finding
employees and affordable housing is certainly a very credible use of the land here. I think
there are things that have to be done in the buffer area to enhance the rear elevations of the
buildings there.
Peterson: Thanks. Don.
Mehl: I don't have a clue as to what else to say about this that hasn't already been said. I
agree with what's been discussed here and I just basically guess I can't really support it
without seeing it come back with some additions and changes and further evaluation by staff
from some of the points that have been brought up.
Peterson: Thank you. I guess I'm a little confused. It never ceases to amaze me how the
residents can, how residents look at things. I guess my perspective, if the project is right, and
I think it can be, my perception, it would be better to have some type of residential between
single family and IOP, and I think if this project were tweaked a little bit, I think that can be
a better transition than having an office industrial park potentially 60 feet away from a back
yard because as Kevin shared, it is going to be developed. I think that it seems to me to be,
if we are going to change it from IOP to a medium density residential, it would be better for,
a much more smoother transition to accomplish that than simply having it from single family
to a small office complex or a small manufacturing company or something like that. But I
also agree with Ladd that work needs to be done to make it a little different. Make it a little
more acceptable between single family and the beginning of that multi-family. I think the
back of the building is an issue. I think there's further ways to separate that and break it up
and make it look a little more smooth, if that's the size. It's probably the appropriate thing to
do. And you'd also be able to see that from the road, Coulter Boulevard. It's going to be a
prominent piece as you drive by. The back of those buildings also. I assume that staff, you
33
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
looked at the materials to be used and the colors. They're there? Okay. So I don't know
whether we have an agreement on the commission or not. My sense is that there's a feeling
on behalf of all of us that we would table it for the developer to work with staff and work
with the neighbors to come to a more reasonable agreement as far as what types of building
and the relationship between the two. But I'd like to see, personally like to see it work. But
I'm frustrated I can't give the staff better direction than I'm doing. So with that, do I hear a
motion?
Conrad: Well I'm going to make a motion and again, this is tough. This is a tough one to
make. I was ready to turn it down but I tell you what I'd like to do and it may take the
community, the neighborhood to work with the developer a little bit. I'd like to give the City
Council. I just thought about it. The City Council has to make the decision based on
economics. That's going to be their job. Not necessarily our's here so their job will be
whether they want the revenue or not and our job is to make sure we have enough land
available to generate the revenue and taxes from IOP and maybe we can't do that tonight but I
guess what I'd like to do is send the City Council the, if it was to be developed this way, the
best possible that it could be. Which means the developer would have to come back and
show us what it really could be, and I think you've heard some of the issues that the
neighborhoods are saying. That doesn't mean we go along with the neighborhood, and also it
doesn't mean we're going to approve the project either. I guess there are no commitments
either way but I think what I'd like to, I'll make the motion Mr. Chairman to table this
particular planning case #96-2 PUD, the #96-5 SPR and the #95-1B, the LUP and the #95-2B,
Wetland Alteration Permit. And table it to do the following things. For staff to validate the
accuracy of the information presented tonight. For the applicant to bring back a front and
rear elevations of specifically, the ones I want to see are the ones that are facing the
community to the north. Three, I'd like to see a real landscaping plan. An aggressive
landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the property to the
north. And I'd like to see Dave and the engineering department maybe reassure the
neighborhood that the water issues can be solved. The buffering I'm concerned with, not only
to the northeast but also to the northwest. I think we should take a look at that. So that's a
lot of work and again, there's a lot of work that we're laying on folks but I think at least when
this gets to City Council, Council will have a decent alternative to vote on and make a
choice. That's my motion.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Second.
Peterson: Any further discussion to that? Any other points that Ladd, I think he hit most of
mine.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission table Land Use Map
Amendment #96-1B from Office/Industrial to Residential Medium Density for the northerly
22.6 acres, conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #96-2, preliminary plat approval for
24 lots and associated right-of-way, Site Plan Review #96-5 for 142 townhome units, and
Wetland Alteration Permit #95-2B and to further review the following points:
1. The staff to validate the accuracy of the information presented by the applicant.
2. The applicant to bring back front and rear elevations of the specific units that will be
located facing the community to the north.
3. An aggressive landscaping plan that the developer would put between this project and the
property to the north be presented.
4. The engineering department review the water issues to reassure the neighborhood that the
water issues can be solved.
5. Review the buffering to the northeast and also to the northwest.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I received a letter from Don that he's going to retire at the end of the month.
From the Planning Commission.
Conrad: Don?
Aanenson: Don Mehl.
Mehl: This Don.
Aanenson: This Don. So we were sad to hear that but I did let the City Council know. We
had their packet this week going out so.
Conrad: How come?
Mehl: The biggest problem is that I have this hearing problem and I have trouble hearing
what's going on. It all started about 47 years ago. It turns out my left ear is, everything in it
35
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
is all solidified and blocked up, all the moving parts and whatever. Something I struggle with
a lot and I hoped that it wouldn't be a problem here but it has been. A lot of times I have
real difficulty hearing and understanding people as they speak. Whether it be commissioners
or others.
Peterson: We have a hard time understanding them too.
Conrad: That's too bad.
Aanenson: That's all I had for new business.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated May 15, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: The Council extended the Dolejsi plat, which is down by Lake Riley and Lyman
Boulevard. They're waiting for the road needs to be completed before they can do that plat,
which will probably be next year. They told PBK, where the boat sales were, to have the
boats out so those were gone as of Memorial weekend so the boats are gone up there. The
Arundel subdivision.
Peterson: How did that go, by the way? Was it heated or not?
Aanenson: Well the developers for the lease agency for the marina showed up. Not the
marina people so I think that kind of concerned the Council because they didn't show up so it
was more like the lease agent wanted them there worse than the other people. And then the
neighboring tenant showed up too with his concerns about blockage. Then the Arundel
subdivision, if you remember that's the one on the larger lots. He was still splitting...one acre
lots but there was concerns so the Council did table that one. It is back on Monday night.
And they did give final plat to Knob Hill contingent upon this wetland alteration permit...
good compromise what you recommended now so that was it. I had a few things for ongoing
items, if I could just move into that.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: I did put something in your packet but I just wanted to bring you up to date. I
know we had a work session where we kind of talked about some of the long range projects
that we're working on. Just to tie into the southern 1995 study area. We are working on that.
We've broken it up by staff people. We're also...into the Bluff Creek study. The revisions to
36
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
the PUD ordinance, we kind of put that in the master glitch ordinance but we are going to go
back and look at that as part of the housing implementation strategy for Livable Communities
Act. I think Ladd brought up a good point. If we try to limit the rules we should throw out
all the rules. What we want to talk about in there is maybe giving some zero lot lines or
some other kind of creative, give a little bit different housing in there. What circumstance do
they want so we don't have the mix of this kind of issue here, that we had tonight. How do
you make that appropriate transition so we're probably looking at bringing that back here
shortly. The Bluff Creek study, there is a draft. We will be bringing that back to you. I
talked to Nancy about that, in a work session. It's turning out to be a pretty exciting project.
There was a concern that we had with the item that we had recommended tabling tonight
because we're concerned about the recommendations and how this works into the
recommendations of that Bluff Creek study and is it environmentally sensitive to the flood
plain and what we're trying to do there. But the task force did review the first draft. We're
making a few changes but again we will bring that back to you. One of the other things we
did have on there was the transition zone, buffer yard. That was approved by the Council in
April. The neighborhood commercial standards. This is something that Commissioner
Mancino has looked at. She was concerned about some of the areas that we have zoned
commercial, whether or not the standards are such that we'd get compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood and that'd be more architectural compatibility. I think what we've
found in looking at those is that either they're in the Highway 5 zone, and we've already
covered that with the PUD so they're going to bring that back to you to raise your comfort
level on that. The Environmental Commission, they just had their first meeting. They'll be
meeting again tomorrow night...to maintain our Tree City USA status we have to have a tree
commission, environmental. What we want to do is kind of make it not myopic in scope but
kind of tie the wetland and tree issues and all the environmental so they're kind of getting
going and what they are is just kind of a working group and making recommendations to you.
They're not holding any hearings or anything like that but they'll be making recommendations
to the Council and Planning Commission. One of the things that they'll be looking at too is
looking at the new wetland law and Phil and I did go to a training session on that and even
though the law does allow some flexibility, we're concerned about, because we've been so up
front on how we handle wetlands, we want to make sure we're not taking a giant step
backwards. There may be some appropriate things to look at amending but we certainly can
be more restrictive than the law so that's why they've been really careful on some of these
projects that say... We can do this now. Well now our ordinance still says this so we're really
careful on how we approach making amendments but...something we'll be working on in the
next few months. Private driveways just came up based on the last Arundel subdivision so
Sharmin has an issue paper ready to go in the next packet and I think that will lead to some
interesting discussion. Again the new wetland laws, we'll be working on that. Hopefully
we'll have something to you in July. And then the Livable Communities Act on the June
24th City Council, I'll be presenting to them the action plan and also there will be steps that
37
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
may result in the Planning Commission having to follow through in looking at the PUD
ordinance and the like so those are some of the long range things that we're looking at.
That's it. If you wanted to, maybe break into the open discussion.
Peterson: Can we just spend 2 or 3 minutes talking about what we just tabled. How realistic
is it for the developer to downsize, when you get to that level of pricing levels, the flexibility
is obviously less.
Aanenson: Well I think, depending on, I'm not sure what, we had more affordable and we
said at a minimum 50 because by the time people start putting options in so maybe what it
does is it takes, it pushes it closer to the margin that we wanted. At least for the minimum.
Maybe before we might have had 75%. Now we definitely push it closer to the 50. So I
guess, maybe there's some other things they can do to the backs of buildings that make it
doable to the neighbors so I guess.
Conrad: Why, seriously can't, four-plexes are selling real well. I know the product well
enough to know that he can still stuff.
Aanenson: Well it goes back to Southern Oaks. They did that product and that was the only
product they wanted to do and so yeah. So we'll see.
Conrad: But he can solve the neighbor issues I think pretty easily. If he puts in on the
northern part, some four-plexes and he won't lose many units, I can't believe he was that tight
to break even at 142 now. ...and I'm not trying to squeeze him. But I think he can make a
better transition and appease the neighbors.
Aanenson: Right. Or, and do the four's there and maybe pick them up somewhere else and
make bigger units somewhere, whatever but at least along those edges where it needs to be
protected, right.
Peterson: The other option is Poulte has got a similar development over by Eden Prairie
Shopping Center, by my office that...and basically what we ended up doing there is putting
the rambler styles up against the neighbors in back so their sight lines were improved. These
are the same price points.
Aanenson: Right. That's one of the things we're thinking about with this PUD ordinance and
how can we get those. What sort of things do we put in place for this transition of style or
lot. When you start moving down so it makes it easier to do this because right now the
difference is so great that it's hard...because nobody wants it. I think that it sounds like
they're going to do some stuff. Hopefully we get some positive results.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 1996
Conrad: Yeah, I think we moved them.
Aanenson: Okay, should we break into the open discussion here?
The public portion of the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. and an open discussion between
the Planning Commission and the applicant for Villages on the Ponds was held.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
•
39
f,
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
• (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Sharmin Al-Jaff,Planner II
DATE: June 12, 1996
SUBJ: Private Streets/Flag lots-Issue Paper
BACKGROUND
Recently, a subdivision application was submitted to the City in which a parcel to be developed,
was located within an established neighborhood of eight homes. The request was to subdivide
this property into two parcels and serve it through a cross access easement. The subdivision met
the ordinance requirements and staff recommended approval of it. The existing lot was the
largest lot within the subdivision. The Planning Commission directed staff to reexamine the
Private Street/Flag lot ordinance to prevent the subdivision of land from changing the character
of a neighborhood, specifically in situations where a new building site would be located in the
middle of a back yard.
ISSUES
Staff contacted other cities to see how they handle such situations. The City of Minnetonka
allows lots with reduced frontage on public right-of-way as well as flag lots or lots with no
frontage on public right-of-way which access by permanently recorded easements to be
considered as a variance, but may not necessarily grant it. There is a set of conditions dealing
with the terrain, environmental features and the feasibility of extending a public right-of-way
which the applicant would have to meet in order for the variance to be granted. The conditions
are similar to those used by Chanhassen. If the City adopted the variance method, then all
existing private streets will become legal non conforming. We could exclude all existing private
streets by exempting them from new ordinance amendments. However staff does not believe this
will resolve the issue of subdividing lots within existing neighborhoods and changing their
character.
Planning Commission
June 12, 1996
Page 2
The private street/flag lot ordinance has been in effect since March 26, 1990, and it has served a
purpose. It was created for several reasons; to decrease environmental impact by providing
flexible design, to serve as an alternative in a given area where the development pattern may
preclude the option of constructing a public street since it may serve only one or two lots, or to
lessen the impact on lots located outside the plat(for example if a road is run along rear property
lines). It may also be economically unviable to build a street. At the same time, lots having little
or no frontage on a public right-of-way can provide high quality home sites that are accessed in a
manner that is sensitive to these limitations. The use of private streets could also allow property
owners to maximize the utilization of their land.
In view of the various reasons and purposes of the ordinance, the Planning Commission has a
couple of options. First, the Planning Commission may wish to adopt an ordinance that would
allow parcels proposed to be subdivided and located within existing subdivisions to have a
resulting area that is equal to or larger than the average lot size within a subdivision.
Unplatted lots will not be affected by this ordinance since they are not part of a subdivision. We
recommend that lots in the RSF district, with an area of two acres or more, in any subdivision, be
exempt from these requirements, since the resulting lots will far exceed the minimum area
requirement of the RSF District.
The Planning Commission could also consider increased setback requirements to ensure there is
an adequate distance between structures. This increased setback will protect neighboring
property's privacy. The downside of requiring larger lots and increased setback is making it
difficult for affordable houses to be built on such lots.
PROPOSAL
It is staff's opinion that what has been causing the discomfort over flag lots is the fact that the
resulting layout of the front and rear yards deviates from the norm. Typically, a front yard faces
neighboring front yards separated by a street, and a rear yard faces a neighboring rear yard with a
possible separation of trees or fences. The layout of a house on a flag lot could make it
impossible to require front yards to face each other. An alternative that could be considered
would be buffering through berms, landscaping, natural topography, wooded areas, or fencing.
We need to realize that any added features mean added expense. If the Metropolitan Council
through the Livable Communities Act begins to promote the in-fill option, we will see more flag
lots appear before us for subdivision. Added buffering will address the city's concern of
protecting privacy and we will be able to achieve higher densities, however, we will not help the
affordability issue.
Based on the Planning Commission's input, staff will prepare any necessary code amendments.
Planning Commission
June 12, 1996
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
1. Illustration of neighborhoods.
2. Minnetonka Private Street/Flag lot ordinance.
ss'..:-'• •
' 1 ° SII L j:own il) UI - _:
;> Y — r�
I
F
src�=T._ CIL - I I „ I la►
( k_,E. I ...- -- ! ... 1 :
t- fi , _ _ __, : -1„._____.___/__ 1) ( ,__i_C____ 1 I
ii rte;
i_
---- --- --- ----=-, Ti-- (lam-- .-i-----� I---
.11 ((11Hiri
-- II I I .H
I1
-___'1 'F-1.i----
•
�• _ , , ' / I
r1'
1 1
J -L_ =. 1 = I == 1-::__-•� � I - CI-_ , 1
177.: II I
(I ! `- ii : 1
=I- I) --7, ( friL- L. ..I ____1._ ._
I 1--I 1 II-`' 71- I; -7-1 r I -1-
TYPICAL SUBDIVISIONS
FRONT YARD FACES STREET AND NEIGHBOR'S FRONT YARD, REAR YARD FACES
REAR YARD
b 1-GiG K
-41 LOT
FCONTAGG
rr3_i I ( 'l ofL •
I i ! I
I
I
r
. .
/, - -
i -IT: I: I , �� TNRot3GHa. ii r !%!� I -
I I I.oT .
DEPTH r /
I .`4.Ih''. ` I 1 I
IIr Irl 01c.. : I ort{
u, I i
.11/
si ua-r �L - ,"
..., r....• .....•
..........
L OT L.Wilt
i i •-••-......m. bLOGSG bOUNGARY
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A MIX OF POSSIBLE LOTS
MAY-15-19% 15:43 CITY OF M I NNETONk::A 612 939 8244 P.01/01
ZONING ORDINANCE
-it-brand fax transmittal memo 7671 1101=M11 SECTION 300.10
PAGE 35
L—VIONNOWENI ►. �) ue 14)
I6 std ///( 14)
(ii/X-11°-:%</
1 trig .11
k_4
V55. 63-
i
/ 1 awe
a. 80 feet except for lots located on the turning circle of a cul-de-sac
where 65 feet is required.
b. variances to permit lots with reduced frontage on public right-of-way,
neck lots or lots with no frontage on public right-of-way which access
by permanently recorded easements will be considered, but not
necessarily granted, only upon evidence that the following standards are
--- met: -
I) an extension of roadway is not physically feasible as determined
by the city. If the city determines that there is the need for a
roadway extension, this section shall not apply, and the
right-of-way shall be provided by easement or dedication
whichever is appropriate;
2) severe grades make it infeasible according to the city to
construct a public street to minimum city standards;
3) the city determines that a right-of-way extension would
adversely impact natural amenities including wetlands or stands
of mature trees containing deciduous trees greater than 12"
diameter or coniferous trees greater than 15' in height;
4) there is no feasible present or future means of extending
right-of-way from other directions;
5) the number of lots to share a common private access drive does
not exceed three; and
6) covenants which assign driveway installation and future
maintenance responsibility are submitted and recorded with the
titles of the parcels which are benefitted;
(Amended by Ordinance 89-559, 7/13/89)
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson,AICP, Planning Director
DATE: June 12, 1996
SUBJ: Villages on the Pond
The purpose of this discussion on the Villages on the Ponds is to provide the Planning
Commission with detailed information on the project in two work sessions. This project has
evolved since the Planing Commission first gave conceptual approval in December of 1996.
This project will be a mixed use development that requires a comprehensive plan amendment,
rezoning, wetland alteration permit and an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The purpose
of the work session is to ensure the Planning Commission understands the scope of the project
before the a public hearing is held.
The work session of June 5, 1996, focused on the subdivision components: utilities and streets,
grading wetlands,trees, and storm water management. This second work session on June 19,
1996, focuses on the architecture, master plan and proposed uses.
g:\plan\ka\villages.pc