74-03 - Chan Haven Manor SPR pt 1WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
RAYMOND J. JACKSON
WILLIAM J. EIREZINSKY
JACK E. GILL
FRANK V. LASKA
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Lloyd Schnelle,
Administrator
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gentlemen:
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
3B-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
August 23, 1974
Subject: Highway No. 5, South Frontage
Road, Highway No. 101 to East
City Limits.
Attached hereto is a map showing a possible route for the
south frontage road east of Highway 101. The shaded area
represents road right--of-way with.the approximate width indi-
cated in several locations. A uniform 36-foot paved roadway
would be 'recommended throughout.
The route through the proposed_ McKeon Development is in
accordance with their Preliminary Plat submittal dated August 8,
1973.. They indicated their willingness to construct the 500
linear feet of roadway from their northeast property corner to
Dakota Avenue.
The route through the Mesa Grande Development is premised
on a possible shopping center on the property. The right. -of -
way borders the north edge of Chanhassen Estates from Dakota
Avenue easterly and then veers to a point 140 feet north at the
boundary with the Beiersdorf Development. This route has been
agreed upon by the developers of the proposed shopping center
and by Mr. Beiersdorf.
The original Mesa Grande proposal t#as based on a multiple
residential development and included the frontage road in a
location approximately 200 feet north of the route shown on
the attached map. Our review of that proposal included the
recommendation to locate the frontage road at the south side
of the service station property approximately 50 feet south
of their proposed route.
SCHOELL & MAOSON.INC.
City of Chanhassen
August 23, 1974
The route through the Beiersdorf Development
reviewed with Mr. Beiersdorf and .his planner, Mr.
The location shown on the map within the property
mate pending a revised site plan from Mr. Pankoni
the dimensions shown on the west and east side of
are the critical distances and the developer has
these choices. The :east end of the frontage road
into a grade separated intersection of Highway 5
Highway 101.
Page 2
has been
Pankonin .
is approxi-
n. However,
the property
agreed to
would tie
and future
In conclusion, the exact route is in doubt pending the
final.disposition of the Mesa Grande Development. We feel it
is preferable to have a straight road at the present location
of Dakota Avenue. The shopping center developers feel they
cannot live with this. Under any circumstances, this route
should relieve the confusion as it pertains to the Beiersdorf
Development presently under consideration.
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
RJJackson:be
enclosure
lir
HL
_=4 "EATj 'PLAIN'IS el" GFR
VIEW
° '\ �—. 1 .\ j +..fie ! �+ f
-
60
'c-1Yrri41 Fri Z
R rr
5d —FRONTle
5A
0 ARX
-Tj
lk- ERNE—
rri
M
M cl) hEfr/II//!.�®fi1�i��lii%�!�!I!i//�►/®��.t%ew'/AILY�l�/®!e!/////.� \ . ti � { E � !
L ERIE
DA hc C) fA i R (--\-DAKOTA
CARVER
—-- ,'—-�--HENNEPiN
cn
m
-7-
11
CD
0
0
0
>
C)
rn M
-0 o
0
c
0
z G) 0
c:
:-..
(.0
m —
0 z M
M
CD
4
-0
rn
m
T—
-ri bri
0
z (n
m
—n
QD
0
U)
c:
z
--j
D
m
< >
>
0
Z
m 0
rn >
>
M 0
X
>
-0
U) z
o z
o
M
z
—
n
>
0 .
E.cn
z
WO
BAHASA
VI,L LAGL
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • R. O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 474-8885
DATE: August 23, 1974
FROM: Zoning Administrator
TO: Planning:Commission Chairman and Members
SUBJ: Sketch Plan Approval request for Case of Chan
Haven Manor Development
ENCL: (1) Carl Dale's, City Planner, report dated August 21, 1974
(2) Bill Schoell's, City Engineer, report dated August 23,
1974
(3) Chan Haven Manor Sketch Plan
1. Enclosures (1) through (3) are forwarded for your review in
acting upon the sketch plan approval request.
2. Zoning Administrator's Comments: It is felt that the Plan as
presented in Enclosure 3 is far superior to the former Mesa
Grande plan for that parcel of land adjacent to Chanhassen Estates.
It is also the opinion of the Zoning Administrator that this parcel
of land is more conducive to residential development than commercial.
It is also recognized by the Zoning Administrator .th,at the citizens
in Chanhassen Estates Development will not be too enthusiastic
about either of the above possibilities for that parcel of land.
., fDESIGN PLANNING ASSOCIATES, INC.
4826 Chicago Avenue So. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417 Phone: (612) 822-2106
August 21, 1974
PLANNING REPORT
For: Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
By: Carl R. DAle, AIP
Planning Consultant
C'HAO H avEQ guoe-
Subject: Planning Analysis and Recommendations - Revised Plan for e Development
Planning Considerations
1. The site consists of 9.52 acres which is Outlot No. 2 of Chanhassen Estates. The
site is currently zoned for commercial use and is so designated on the Downtown
Area Development Plan. In recent months, however, the Planning Commission has
reviewed various plan proposals for apartments and townhouses.
2. The current situation is one in which an option holder has submitted a revised plan
calling for only apartments and the land owner has submitted a commercial land use
development plan proposal. It has been agreed that the option holder has first
choice but if this plan fails to receive public approval, the land owner intends to
proceed with commercial development.
It is suggested here that a residential use is far better land usage and zoning
than commercial. The Downtown Plan indicates commercial use only because of the
existing commercial zoning and the legal and other difficulties in changing such
a zoning classification. The opportunity exists, however, to now change the plan
to residential by virtue of the private decisions being made.
3. Prior plans included 13 townhouses in addition to a 120 unit apartment building.
The current plan proposal contains only the 120 unit apartment building with a
density of approximately 12 units per acre of land; this is quite acceptable.
4. Some concerns have been expressed in the past with respect to problems associated
with very large apartment buildings. Most of these objections have been greatly
alleviated in the current plan and others can be overcome with adequate public
controls.
a) The current plan has far more open space, a better building position, and
what should be a highly compatible architectural theme (Frontier style).
b) The problems of sound transmission within the building, adequate fire land
access, and control of dwelling unit conversion to other uses can all be
adequately controlled via suitable conditions of public approval.
F
5. Plans have been developed to coordinate the service road connection to the east
(with Seiersdorf PUD, plans for Highway No. 5, and development potential to the west).
Except for some minor details, the plan seems acceptable. A right-of-way of 70 ft.
should be adequate.
6. As in the past, the City Engineer should comment upon the adeuqacy of right -of, -way
to be provided for future Highway 5 improvements as well as other aspects of the
street, utility, and other systems.
7. A very major prior object has been overcome; the new plan does not, in our opinion,
ever -utilize the land as was the case in prior plans.
8. As a matter of procedure, we would suggest that the Planning Commission establish a
public hearing date for a public hearing on re -zoning to R-4 Multiple Residence. Prior
to said hearing, the Applicant should submit complete plans as called for and required
in the Zoning Ordinance. This will not be a PUD and therefore a more simplified and
less time consuming process is possible.
9. We find the plan as presently submitted to be generally acceptable and -.-a preferred
lend use over that of commercial. It would seem that nearby residents would also
prefer the current plan over that of commercial development which is currently a legal
and permitted use. With proper site planning and landscaping, the use should in no
way be detrimental to .the existing or future environment. While generally acceptable,
we reserve final judgement until a public hearing has been held. We have reviewed
reports from other City staff, and worked out some site plan details and further
elaborated upon public control conditions that should be included.
10. The apparent alternative at this time is to later consider a site plan for commercial
development which, in our opinion, would be less desirable. Also, it would be our
opinion that single-family home development is not even a remote possibility due to
legal, economic, location, and other practicalities.
11. Summary Recommendation: Sketch plan approval subject to later approval of more
complete and detailed plans as required by ordinance.