4. Powers Place�a
U
�a
a
la
1
1
1
1
IF
to
1 W
Cn
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSO
PC DATE: Sept. 7, 1994
CC DATE: Sept. 26, 1994
CASE #: 87 -3 PUD, 94 -7 SPR
QA-r% UMr
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 48 Units (24 structures) Owner
Occupied Twin Homes Multifamily Development
2) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 9.7 acres into 49 lots
3) Wetland Alteration
LOCATION: West of Powers Boulevard, north and south of Lake Susan Hills
Drive, Powers Place
APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corporation
219 East Frontage Road
Waconia, MN 55387
PRESENT ZONING PUD, Planned Unit Development
ACREAGE: 9.7 acres
DENSITY: 5.0 u/a (gross)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N -
S-
E-
W-
WATER AND SEWER: Av,
PUD; Single Family Homes
PUD; Single Family Homes
PUD;Prairie Knoll Park, Prairie Creek Townhomes,
vacant outlot for medium density town homes and
Powers Boulevard
PUD; Single Family Homes
iilable to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the west side of the property.
It contains a heavily vegetated area in the center.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential .
F
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 2
This item appeared before the Planning Commission on September 7, 1994. The Planning '
Commission tabled action on the application and directed the applicant to work with staff
to provide additional information regarding retaining walls, landscaping, wetlands, grading, ,
and safety issues. On November 2, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and a
approved this application unanimously. This staff report has been modified to address
these issues and changes. A scaled model will be available at the City Council meeting, as ,
well as samples of building materials.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY I
The applicant, Jasper Development, is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to
construct a 48 unit townhome housing project on Outlot B. Outlot B was designated as a t
medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are
proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 48 zero lot line parcels. The housing style
and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 9.7 acre site '
is located west of Powers Boulevard and north and south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The gross
density is 5.0 units per acre. Access will be provided by a private street located on community
property ( Outlot A) owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently
zoned PUD -R8, Medium Density Residential and utilities are available for the area.
The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and ,
existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive.
There will be two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab
on grade design and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is '
a walkout design accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl
siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous ,
white banding, and use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns
define the entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base
and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. A homeowners '
association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and
restrictions.
There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and R -8
zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed
with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed '
medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject site is, must meet the regulations of the R -8
zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD contract there
appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot exceed ,
9.3 units /acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot B cannot exceed
30 %. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units /acre with an impervious surface coverage
of not more than 30 %. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council I
r
F1
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 3
minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density allowed and
the applicant was not guaranteed this density.
The proposed 48 units result in density of 5.0 units /acre. The impervious surface coverage is
35 %. Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds
' the PUD contract but is below the R -8 zoning district standards (35 %). The applicant is aware
of the situation mainly because the same situation took place with the prior development, Prairie
Creek twinhomes. In that case, the PUD allowed a 31% hard surface coverage, and the applicant
' was permitted 24 units which required a 40% hard surface coverage. Staff will be recommending
the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R -8
district.
' There are some changes that will need to take lace on the lat. The proposed landscaping needs
g P P P P P g
to be improved. Staff requests that the applicant provide extensive landscaping and berms to
screen the development from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the single family
residents west of the site. There should also be increased internal landscaping.
A petition from the some of the neighbors in Lake Susan Hills West subdivision has been
presented to city staff. The petition raises several issues. The main concern is what does the city
benefit from this type of development. Staff believes the issues raised can be resolved as the
development evolves. In addition, the development is under the density allowed with the original
PUD agreement.
' The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the applicant pay park and trail fees
in lieu of park land dedication.
' Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report.
' BACKGROUND
In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted
' up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high
density units (Attachment #1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions
continuously since PUD approval. One of the outlots ( Outlot C) designated for medium density
units was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The remaining medium and high density outlots
have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and
their proposed uses. Outlots B (9.7 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.9 acres) were designated for
medium density development. The PUD contract states that the development shall provide a
minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling
units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than
' 9.3 units /acre. To date, only 24 units have been approved, leaving a total number of dwelling
units of mixed medium density residential property of 197. Except as modified by the PUD
[I
u
t
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 4
contract, the development shall be in accordance with the used standards and requirements of the
R -8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium density modified by the PUD
contract was the impervious surface coverage could not exceed certain amounts, Outlot B - 30 %,
Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27 %, and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units /acre.
The R -8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units /acre density.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
General Site Plan /Architecture I
The site is 9.7 acres with a gross density of 5.0 units per acre. The 5.0 units per acre is under
the allowed PUD density of 9.3 units per acre and the R -8 ordinance of 8 units /acre. ,
The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 48 owner occupied units. The current site
plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands
of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive. There will be
two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design
and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design '
accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl siding and a light
dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous white banding, and
use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns define the
entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and
capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. A homeowners association '
will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions.
Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers
Boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, '
or color. Staff is also recommending the introduction of some elements to the roof design to
break up the large spans.
PRELIMINARY PLAT /SITE PLAN APPROVAL '
Lots/Density
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9.7 acres of property zoned PUD -R into 48 zero lot line
parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium
Density (4 -8 Units /Acre). The subject site is Outlot B from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was
created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan Hills PUD stated that
the mixed medium density sites (there are 2 such outlots left) could not exceed an overall density
of 9.3 units /acre, and specifically, Outlot B (subject site) could not exceed 30% impervious
surface coverage. The proposed 48 lots are located in clusters north and south of the site.
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 5
The lot sizes are 2,464 square feet per lot. The townhome lots are located within a larger
community owned parcel, shown as Outlot A on the preliminary plat. Outlot A contains the
' private streets and open space
The density of the site is 5.0 units /acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private
' streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the typical
net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 35 %. The PUD contract stated
that the density could not exceed 9.3 units /acre and that the impervious could not exceed 30 %.
' As stated previously, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage
exceeds the PUD contract but is below the R -8 zoning district standards (35 %). Staff will be
recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted
in the R -8 ordinance. If the percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be
increased, the PUD contract shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage
of Outlot B to be 35%
The twinhome units are maintainin g a 25' setback form Powers Boulevard Lake Susan Hills
Drive and the existing single family lots to the west (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills
PUD). The 25' setback is from the R -8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to
follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced
internally by a private street.
Eight units are located within the southerly portion of the site and will be served via a private
' street. The northerly portion of the site will contain the remaining 40 units and will be served
via the same private street.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Ordinance PUD Project Proposal
' Hard Surface Coverage 35% 31% 35%
Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 25
Internal Private Streets NA NA NA
Density 8 units 9.3 units 5.0
I Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority
of the existing stand of trees located within the southerly quarter of the site. All of the vegetated
�I
r
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 6
areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. The Landscaping and
Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat
is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape
materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must
,
identify plant material locations along Powers Boulevard. Appropriate financial security will be
required. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading.
The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work
'
with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal.
This stand of trees has a total canopy coverage of 1.35 acres, or 16 %. The landscaping ordinance
requires a minimum of 20% canopy coverage. Based on the grading plan, it appears that some
of the trees will be lost due to grading.
'
The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement:
There is a 14% baseline canopy coverage (1.35 acre). Tree canopy within a designated wetland
is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 20% or a total
of 1.94 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer
would need to develop a forestation plan for 0.59 acres (1.94 -1.35) which would require the
planting of 24 trees (0.59 x 40). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage
that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy
area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not
provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is
approximately 0.48 acre. The replacement planting is then calculated at 0.57 acres (0.48 x 1.2).
,
The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 23 trees (0.57 x 40). The
total tree planting requirement as part of the development for forestation and tree replacement
is 47 trees.
The PUD agreement states that the developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City,
between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses,
'
including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. The proposed landscaping plan
do not provide adequate landscaping along the west edge of the property.
The agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple
family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required
landscaping.
'
Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is
recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be
prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along
the private streets. ,
i
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 7
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.
WETLANDS
Four wetlands were staked and surveyed on the site by a qualified wetland delineator. All of the
wetlands are classified as ag/urban since the area has been disturbed due to previous construction
activities. The following information describes the isolated wetlands on site:
' a. Wetland 1 is 16,627 square feet (0.4 acre) in size and is located along the northern edge
of the property. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the proposed project.
b. Wetland 2 is 1,083 square feet (0.02 acre) in size and is an isolated P ocket located on
Lots 1 and 2 of Block 7. This wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed
development.
C. Wetland 3 is 240 square feet (0.01 acre) in size and is located at the inlet of a 24 -inch
culvert on the northern portion of the site that carries runoff under Powers Boulevard to
a pond in the Lake Susan Hills Development. This wetland will be filled as a result of
' the proposed development.
d. Wetland 4 is 1,140 square feet (0.03 acre) in size and is located at the inlet of a 24 -inch
' culvert on the southern portion of the site that carries runoff under Powers Boulevard to
a pond in the Lake Susan Hills Development. This wetland will be filled as a result of
the proposed development.
Buffer Strip
A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. The buffer strip width required for an
r ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal
structure setback 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.
u
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 8
Alteration/Mitigation
Mitigation of the impacted wetlands is necessary at a ratio of 2:1 under both the City Wetland
Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act. Half of the mitigation will be a created wetland
constructed adjacent to the existing Wetland 1 on -site. The other half of the wetland will be
purchased from the City from the banking credits that will be created from the restoration project
for the County Road 17 reconstruction project southeast of the site. Staff thinks that contribution
to the restoration project will provide more natural resource benefit to the City than to create a
small wetland on -site.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of
formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality
improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to
downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year
design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping.
The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting
phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been
developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different
sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum
phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the
applicant to supply final drainage plans providing the pre - developed and post - developed drainage
areas along with runoff calculations for pre - development and post- development conditions for 10-
year and 100 -year 24 -hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall be in accordance
to the City's SWMP. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations
in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre - developed and post - developed conditions.
In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins
will also be required.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment
of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been calculated at $1530
per acre for a multi - family (townhome) residential development. This proposed development of
J
1
t
I+
i
1
I
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 9
9.3 acres would then be $14,229. This includes a land cost estimate of $24,000 per acre and
excavation fees.
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Medium density developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre.
The proposed medium density development of 9.3 acres would then be responsible for a water
quantity connection charge of $27,668. A credit would be given to the applicant for the
installation of the 21 -inch storm sewer along Powers Boulevard. The credit would be for the cost
difference for the oversizing of the storm sewer. Staff will review and calculate the credit after
reviewing the storm drainage calculations.
DRAINAGE
The sediment trap adjacent to the wetland on the northern end of the parcel is sufficient to trap
the heavy sediments before it enters the wetland. The existing 24" storm sewer underneath
Powers Boulevard has been extended and upgraded in conjunction with Joe Miller's Lake Susan
Hills West 9th Addition. In addition, Joe Miller's development constructed water quality basins
to pretreat the runoff from this development and others prior to discharging into the wetlands
downstream. If the existing storm sewers underneath Powers Boulevard cannot handle the 100 -
year storm, however, appropriate ponding will be necessary to maintain the desired level of flood
protection for the area until the storm sewer system is upgraded with the construction of Powers
Boulevard improvements. Staff will require stormwater calculations prior to final plat concerning
this issue.
The applicant is proposing drainage swales to convey runoff from a portion of the streets into
the county ditch. This will require a permit from the Carver County Highway Department.
Carver County has retained BRW in preparing detailed construction plans for the upgrade and
widening of Powers Boulevard to an urban street section. This work will also include installation
of storm sewers which will convey runoff from this development. Prior to final platting, the
applicant and his engineer should meet with the city, county and BRW to discuss and coordinate
the specifics on pond design and access to the site.
GRADING
The site is almost entirely associated with steep slopes and is difficult to develop without
extensive site grading and retaining walls. In addition, with the lot configuration along with the
trees it is difficult to expand the grading limits to soften the slopes. The applicant is proposing
the use of retaining walls to minimize grading and combine construction limits to within the
u
r
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 10
property limits. The applicant has suggested potentially staggering the walls to reduce the '
height. As proposed, the retaining walls range from 2' to 6' in height, significantly lower than
proposed. Building codes require engineered drawings of retaining walls in excess of 5' in ,
height. In an effort to break up the row house effect along Powers Boulevard, the applicant has
redesigned the street layout. Staff believes this layout is a better proposal. This would provide
for some screening along Powers Boulevard and break up the row effect of houses adjacent to '
Powers Boulevard. The applicant has also eliminated the southerly access onto Powers
Boulevard by extending the private street south to service the 4 lots. This reduces one of the
safety and neighborhood concerns regarding U- turns. '
With the anticipated lot grading into the side of the hill, it is most likely subsurface drainage will
be exposed and need to be dealt with by means of drain tile and/or storm sewers. The applicant '
should be prepared to install minimum drain tiles along the perimeters of the retaining walls as
well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individual units to discharge their sump '
pump into. Installation of retaining walls along the wooded area will require tie backs into the
bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the retaining wall is 6' high, the limits of
construction will extend 6' back from the base of the wall. This will involve additional tree loss
which may not have been anticipated by the applicant. '
EROSION CONTROL
An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted
to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best '
Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. The current grading plan shows
Type I erosion control around the culverts at Powers Boulevard and around the edge of the large
wetland. Type III erosion control is recommended for these areas. Staff also recommends '
additional Type I erosion control adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The plans should be revised
accordingly. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or
sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of ,
asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence.
UTILITIES I
The site is easily serviced by sanitary sewer and water service from along Powers Boulevard.
The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service along the private driveway
to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation,
maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in
conformance with the city's latest edition of standards, specifications and detailed plates. The '
city's Building Department will be monitoring the inspection and permit issuance for the utility
installation portion of the project. Fire hydrant layout shall be in accordance with the city's Fire
Marshal's recommendations.
i
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 11
' STREETS
' Access to the site has been redesigned. The southerly access point has been eliminated and the
private street extended to serve the southerly lots. Staff recommends that the curves in the south
street be "softened" to accommodate public safety vehicles' turning movements. Since Powers
' Boulevard is a county road, Carver County Highway Department has jurisdiction on access
points. Staff has met with the County Engineer and determined the proposed access is
acceptable. Auxiliary turn lanes will be provided with the upgrade of Powers Boulevard
' including a full median access. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study,
Powers Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial (Class M. The required right -of -way for this
type of street system is 100 feet. The right -of -way as shown on the plans indicates a 150 foot
corridor which is more than adequate for an urban 4 lane roadway system. Carver County Public
Works Department has contracted with BRW for design services for the upgrading and widening
of Powers Boulevard. In any case, the applicant shall be required to construct the driveway
' approaches to be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of County Road 17 (Powers
Boulevard).
' The Planning Commission requested staff to review traffic concerts such as speed, traffic control,
turning movements and pedestrian crossings. Staff recently met with BRW and the Carver
' County Engineer regarding these concerns. The new speed limit along Powers Boulevard will
be either posted at 40 or 45 MPH. This is due to the street design, traffic volume and street
function.
' There are not signalized intersections proposed other than at Trunk Highway 5. None of the
intersections will meet the necessary criteria to warrant a traffic signal or four -way stop.
' Elimination of the southerly access reduces the safety concern regarding U -turns. A full access
including turn lanes is being provided with the upgrade of Powers Boulevard to access the site.
A trailway will be provided on both sides of Powers Boulevard with an underground pedestrian
' crossing at the existing culvert located north of Lake Susan Hills Drive and south of Lake Drive
East. Staff has raised the neighborhood concerns regarding pedestrian crossing at the park and
Lake Susan Hills Drive intersections to the County Engineer for consideration.
MISCELLANEOUS
The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows numerous plantings and berms within the
city's drainage and utility easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. This area needs to be
maintained free and clear around the city manholes, fire hydrants and gate valves from a
maintenance standpoint. The applicant may work with staff in redesigning a landscape and
berming plan that would be compatible with the city's maintenance responsibilities. Landscaping
within the drainage and utility easement would be subject to an encroachment agreement whereby
the city would not be responsible for replacing any landscape materials that may be lost due to
the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures.
f
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 12
The house sites adjacent to Powers Boulevard are approximately 10 feet from the City's utility '
lines. The applicant should be made aware that no decks or portions of the dwelling will be
allowed to encroach upon the City's easement. ,
EASEMENTS
The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and ,
maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of
these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction '
plan and specification review process.
PARK AND RECREATION 1
As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to
the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires '
no trail fees and '/2 park fees. No park land will be required with this proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
This item appeared before the Planning Commission on September 7, 1994. Many issues were '
raised regarding retaining walls, landscaping, wetlands, grading, and some safety issues. The
Planning Commission tabled action on the application and directed the applicant to work with
staff to address these issues. The following is a summary of these issues: ,
ISSUE: The impact on the wetlands was undermined and the parcel had not been surveyed '
for wetlands.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted the wetland alteration and mitigation plans. These '
plans have been reviewed and discussed in detail earlier in the report.
ISSUE: The Planning Commission requested better visual presentation of the over all
project.
FINDING: The applicant submitted a scaled model that shows the entire project, including the I
slopes, vegetation, and all proposed streets and structures.
ISSUE: The original proposal reflected some retaining walls along the western edge of the
site that were as high as 12 feet. These retaining walls separated single family
homes from the proposed development. The homeowners were greatly concerned
over the safety of children that might play in that area.
i
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 13
FINDING: The applicant has terraced the retaining walls. The highest wall is 5 feet. Four
foot high cyclone type fences are proposed at the top edge of the retaining walls
' where the total height exceeds 5 feet. Staff is recommending vegetation be added
along the western edge of the retaining walls to provide additional buffering.
ISSUE: Two access points off of Powers Boulevard were originally proposed to serve the
development. There was concern with one of the access points as it only
permitted a right in/right out only.
FINDING: The applicant has revised the plans and consolidated the two access points into
one.
ISSUE: Two units (20 and 21 ) will result in the removal of some mature trees. The
' Planning Commission requested the applicant revise the plans to demonstrate that
these trees can be saved.
FINDING: The applicant has revised the plans to preserve the trees.
ISSUE: The planning commission directed staff to investigate the potential for centralized
' garbage collection.
FINDING: Staff believes that these units are very similar to single family detached homes in
nature. A centralized garbage collection is an impractical situation. Some
homeowners will have to carry the garbage several hundred feet to dispose of it
in a dumpster that will have to be placed in a central location so all homeowners
could access it easily. It is very likely the entire development will be served by
a single hauler and all the garbage will be removed on the same day. Staff
strongly recommends that each unit within this development be permitted to have
a curb side garbage collection service. The entire development shall be served by
one hauler.
On November 2, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed and a approved this application
unanimously.
RECOMMENDATION
PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL, WETLAND ALTERATION, AND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
C
f
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 14
"The City Council approves PUD #87 -3, Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -5, and Site Plan Review
■
#94 -7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
"No "No
■
1.
A Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate
Parking" restrictions /signs shall be placed on the private street.
2.
Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot
exceed 35 %.
'
3.
The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the
applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing
powers boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways,
■
adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span.
4.
The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval.
■
5.
A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street.
'
6.
Park and trail dedication fees shall be aid in lieu of park land dedication.
P
7.
Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
■
8.
Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction.
Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in
accordance with a plan approved by staff.
9.
A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets.
■
10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along ■
Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site.
11. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for ■
review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved
names after their review.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The
remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall
placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact locations.
P,
i
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 15
b. Submit new street names for review and approval.
'
Ll
C. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north/south
street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street
with 75 foot spacing.
13.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
'
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval.
14.
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.
15.
All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the
City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications
shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The street shall be
constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway ordinance for multifamily zoning
(Ordinance #209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be
performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding
areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the
homeowners association.
16.
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.
'
17.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
'
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized.
18.
The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
Ll
J
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 16
19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section
404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance.
Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in '
all phases of the project.
20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, ,
i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department '
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
21. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump '
discharge from the units.
22. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for '
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for '
maintenance of the ponding areas.
23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way or utility and drainage
easements without approval by the city. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment
agreement.
24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall '
be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 -year high water level.
25. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the '
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. '
26. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement
for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in '
accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
27. 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.
'
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City Engineer.
i
37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak
' trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement
of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the
unit shall be omitted from the development."
1
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION
"The City Council recommends approval of the preliminary plat PUD #87 -3 as shown on the
plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of PUD and site plan."
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page
17
29.
Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss /resolve the
specifics on pond design and access to the site.
30.
No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the City's drainage and
utility easements.
'
31.
The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to
accommodate public safety vehicle turning movements.
32.
The lat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot
P g P
building setback line
33.
The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations
during the grading process.
34.
Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water
runoff.
0
35.
All 48 units shall be served by one garbage hauler. Garbage shall be collected on the
same day.
36.
The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provision to help prevent
children from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall
be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held at the Planning
Commission meeting. Vegetation shall be added along the western edge of the retaining
walls to provide additional buffering.
37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak
' trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement
of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the
unit shall be omitted from the development."
1
PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION
"The City Council recommends approval of the preliminary plat PUD #87 -3 as shown on the
plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with conditions of PUD and site plan."
Powers Place
September 7, 1994
Page 18
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reduced concept PUD.
2. PUD contract.
3. Narrative from applicant.
4. Letter dated August 31, 1994 from neighbors.
5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 22, 1994.
6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated August 10, 1994.
7. Retaining wall cross section.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated September 7, 1994.
9. Letter from the applicant dated November 8, 1994.
10. Revised plans showing the relocation of units 20 and 21.
11. Plans dated September 23, 1994.
_ „„Neon P ^Qt
i
CITY Peq
/ 1+i41 DE U�iTr ,
QLI DC VT�,� ... �•-
Q1Z (�71 Gu) •
' LI.S Ia•C -. � t. � � �
r
� 1 r t/ It .♦
OLdT / O tar 4 1r
3f o
`
1 '
Our • ?
w •t 1t ^� ca tX,Jpfh ,. , r,
IL
t „ III ~ G
•' •r t 1 t, 1, o- /4 • • f , , ,
Ld
I n
// I l I• 5 !. r .t ./ .I
` '� !rr 1, ” / / <�: •. „ •( It
of If
a i •; . � IJ
4(/, Q
LULj
L l
^ d
Q /
4/
1 Ldl •Itt n, _ Q J
R > <1LI F a t n,
' 1••r VI. . • rr „ N.�;« ! `0 ` `� , •.Lit MN 1r•Ct •f. K.
•i V4 w •r•r• r•r 111rr 1.1 MI•w. .. Irl I � \ //;
r• ,I, ••• r• •� � • 1 � , `� 11 /. ..t.1. YT N' .l •,• Il..t t,
I , 1\ )�� � w• w n• •un n r111T 11.1.C.1r
... • `•Ir1, ...lwnrr.•• H I ` ` . , 'w• •rlw u.r Lr. La11xs
J � � �., 1w,. L•
• »•u
-- James R. Hill, inc,
PLANNERS
ENGINEERS /SURVEYORS
- f11/ 1/wN11 t.l 11.1 • 1•.1 K
S 11N Cf /11T 1.t .• N , •• 1.1.1,1 .
W 1 M'
N' 111. Cw
A7TACHI"CIOUr >I /
LARS WYM "I"s •,14TNLASlf1► `• A.0
LARI SH=AM MILLS
47-T-A `A
:p
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
L1
AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF I
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and LAKE ,
SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and
BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer ").
I. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The
Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be '
known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development ") on the land
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A ". '
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby ,
grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit
"B ". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage '
approval, a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW
review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to
the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be
amended from time to time. '
3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate
and subject to change: I
A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single
family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified
herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the
uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District.
B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential). The
development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density
multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellin' ts- f
r11/16/87
NOV 1
CITY OF CHANHASSE� +1
�r� �4
,477Ac 4--n 6
%i
high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375,
or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. Except as modified
herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential
shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the
R -12 Zoning District.
C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential). Y ) The
development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium
density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed
medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density
greater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the
development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in
accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R -8 Zoning
District.
4. Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F
(18.1 acres), Outlot G (9.8 acres), Outlot H (3.9 acres), and Outlot E.
' A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E.
Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land
shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located
is signed
by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the
City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the
land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be
furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of
the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the
above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication
fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City
ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved.
F
; i
S. Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall I
dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the city as
indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the
City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at
the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the
trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer
shall construct the following trails and sidewalks:
M. Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west
side of Lake Susan.
(2). Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off - street trail along
the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot
wide bituminous off - street trail along the east side
of Powers Boulevard.
(3). Five (5) foot wide concrete off - street trail - sidewalk
along one side of all internal streets except cul- '
de- sacs..when the streets are constructed.
(4) Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off - street trail
easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This
trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by
the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will
convey the easement to the City without cost, but the '
City will pay for the construction. Construction
timing will be at the discretion of the City Council.
6. Additional Conditions of Approval.
A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to
the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure
adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping,
and setbacks from lot lines.
B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees I
except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved
by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from
destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means
during grading and construction. -
C'
-3-
i-�/ as r
�l
r�
e
anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted
by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating
requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the
development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth
moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval
Of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City.
9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer
represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all
applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances,
Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees
to comply with such laws and regulations.
-4-
.
C. Wetlands Nos. 14 -10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit
"C"
shall be preserved in their natural state.
D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of
allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32 %, Outlot B 30 %, Outlot C
310,
and Outlot D 27 %.
E. The
Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping p ng
per
multiple family unit and $150.00 per single family unit.
7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five
(5)
years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the
'
use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the
development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in
writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding
�l
r�
e
anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted
by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating
requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the
development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth
moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval
Of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City.
9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer
represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all
applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and
regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances,
Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees
to comply with such laws and regulations.
-4-
10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the I
approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director.
Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend-
ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen '
Zoning Ordinance.
11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents,I
employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work
to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder
if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith.
12. Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall
dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, '
drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including
access, as required to serve the plat.
13. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers,
agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third r
parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property
owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages
sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the
Agreement, the development, final plats, lans and specifications, pecifications, and
from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall
indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs,
damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's
fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims.
B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs
incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable
engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all
-5-
+i
bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty
(60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may
halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not
paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8 %) percent
per annum interest charge.
1 14. Miscellaneous.
A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the
Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, g p its, plats, and
certificates of occupancy.
B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for
any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the
Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare
the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development
Plan shall thereby be revoked.
C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti-
tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be
binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the
parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any
Party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement
after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not
be a waiver or release.
D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be
recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office.
E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to
protect
the public's interest.
1
1
F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits
and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this
Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth
herein.
G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their
heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be.
H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is
"
not of metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact
statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental
entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or
any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall '
prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse
the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable
attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation.
15. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in
writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their
employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or
registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina,
Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be
either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City
Y Y
certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following
address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317.
L�
I�
LJ�
-7- �� L:725—
1
.I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands
the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor
BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
' LAKE SUSAN HILLS
BY:
A partner
JAMES A. CURRY
�6
BARBARA CURRY
0
' STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don
Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority
granted by its City Council.
LI
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
/ ( ss. NOTARY PUB C
COUNTY OF�iZ ;',(�'
r
/ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of ,G /• , 1987, by
eneral rshi
par /
tner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minn
behalf. ,� g partne�-enits
t ►�+±' Z
BI FI SHER NOTARY PUBLIC
NOTARY FU3I1^ _ MINNICSOTA
HENN L - ?Ir.; r,`CUi\!TY
Comm s.1on LxaJr03 J-Ply 10 IM
L1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF 7 *,..yc j
C
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I
day of -DtcEr,h u , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY,
husband and wife.
/]QOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell
& Knutson, P.A.
403 Norwest Bank Building
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
(612) 455 -1661
I
I�
J
Ci
-9-
�20 ��s
OWNER /DEVELOPER
SURVEYOR /ENGINEER
Jasper Development
235 West lot Street
Waconia, MN 55387
RENDER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Narrative for
POWERS PLACE
POWERS PLACE will be a 50 lot single family twin home development.
Standard Family sizes of 2 to 3 people are expected. Each unit will have a
2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The total
parcel is 9.7 acres with individual townhome lots varying from 2,130 square
feet to 2,190 square feet.
The units are served by two street connections to Powers Blvd. One cul-de-
sac and street connection serves 8 units on the south end. A tee shaped
street with two cul -de -sacs serves the remaining 42 units. This layout was
developed after discussions with city Staff. Mature trees are saved by
having two connections to Powers Blvd. and not developing the area between
the two southerly cul -de -sacs.
11
u
J
Powers Blvd. sanitary sewer will serve the site from an existing 8 line.
A new manhole is required at the north end on the existing line for
connections. An existing manhole will be used in connection of the
southerly cul -de -sac. Each unit will be sewered separately with a 6"
P.V.C. service.
Water service is provided by three connections to the water lines within
Powers Blvd. ditch. 6 watermain will be looped through the northern
portion of site tying into Powers Blvd on both ends. 1 copper water
services will serve each unit. Hydrants are spaced approximately 300
apart.
Storm sewers will be used on the site to collect the runoff from the street
and the front half of the units on the east side. All storm sewer will be
RCP. The drainage will be directed to the north end of the site to a
sedimentation pond. The pond is sized using NURP standards. Treated
runoff is then directed through storm sewer to a 24" culvert which crosses
Powers Blvd. to the east.
Grading will be done over the entire site at this time to balance the
excavating and dispose or make use of existing materials. The site varies
from 916 on the east to 952 on the west. All silt fence and ponding must
be in place prior to starting grading operations. Topsoil varies from 1.6
feet to 2.6 feet in depth with poorer soils being encountered in the lower
part of the site. Fill has been placed on part of the site. Soil
correction is required 4.5 feet below existing grade at the worst boring
location. Soils cut from the upper part of the site and lower levels of
the units will be used as engineered fill in other areas of the
development. Actual quantities will vary depending on soil moisture,
working conditions and how much poor soil will be encountered.
k
Grading is expected to start as soon as City 6 Government approvals can be
obtained. Building construction would begin after grading, utility, and
Class 5 placement is completed. Buildings will be built one at a time as
sales are made. Buildings are expected to be built in a one to two year
span.
Temporary seeding and mulching will be placed Within two weeks after the
mass grading is complete. Sodding around building will take place as each
building is completed. Silt fence will stay in place until final sodding
is complete.
MPCA Health Dept. County and Watershed applications are expected to be
submitted within two weeks of preliminary plat approval. Permits are
expected within three to five weeks after submittal.
Two twinhome types have been designed specifically for this site to take advantage of the
existing topography and landscape, and to complement and enhance the neighborhood as a
whole.
The Voyageur (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter '
portions of the site. It features an upper level master bedroom and an open first floor plan
with vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design
accommodating the steeper portions of the site. It includes a first floor master bedroom as
well as vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The lower level will provide space for
optional bedroom and family room areas.
Both unit types feature premium quality maintenance free vinyl siding and a light
dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding at gables, continuous white
banding, and use of complementary siding colors add texture and interest and serve to scale
down the massing. Deep overhangs with columns define the entrances and add rhythm and
depth to the facade. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at
base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment add the final touches in
providing a traditional flavor to these twinhomes. I
1
1
August 31, 1994
j Chanhassen Planning Commission
Chanhassen, Minnesota
' The Lake Susan Hills West community met informally Monday August 29 in the Tom
Rasmussen home. This gathering of concerned citizens was prompted by a Twin home
development proposed by the Jasper Development company. The general concerns
voiced at this meeting included: child safety, health, traffic congestion, quality of life, the
local ecology and the possible structural damage to existing homes. Out of this meeting
came the universal question "what does the city or even our community gain from this
development ?"
Our community is fortunate to have many children of the formative age. One of our
concerns is the retaining wall planned at between 8' - 14' high to separate existing homes
from the new development. With the wall just 25' away from existing homes there is a
very high potential for accidents to occur. For example, kids will naturally gravitate to
the retaining walls and view it as a object to play around. What safeguards is the
developer offering to protect our children? Also there is concern with the retaining wall
falling as happened in Bloomington during the super storm of 1987. Many expressed
concerns about who will fix it and be accountable for its upkeep. Association
maintenance fees have not proven effective in this area.
There are concerns about health regarding the "Sedimentation Pond" a.k.a. Retention
Pool. Stagnant water is a natural breeding ground for mosquitoes. The Lacrosse
Meningitis outbreak was traced back to mosquitoes bred in retention pools in Lacrosse
Wisconsin. In addition, concerns were raised about the possibility of raising the water
table in the Egret Court cul -de -sac where all homes have experienced problems with
either water in their basements or severely cracked floors and foundations.
The proposed development will result in four (4) driveways within a 1/2 mile and
contribute to what is becoming a traffic safety issue. Once the High School is built on
Pioneer Trail and the Byerly's construction is complete in town, County Rd. 17 will
become a high traffic thoroughfare with the additional driveways adding to the
congestion.
Many residents chose lots specifically for the picturesque view it afforded of nature and
the local wildlife. There is concern that what is currently a view of trees, wildflowers and
wildlife will become a view of either a retaining wall or the rear of someone's dwelling.
' These dwellings should become a part of the natural setting and not detract from it.
There is consensus the excavation method proposed could compromise the structural
' integrity of the homes located above the proposed development. The removal of such a
large quantity of earth so close to the existing homes will cause shifting of foundations,
resulting in cracks in floors and foundation walls. Who should the residents hold
accountable? What steps are Jasper Development taking to ensure this doesn't happen?
1
The residents feel if there is to be development of this land the planning commission
should ensure development is done correctly to the benefit of the community and not
just the expediency of the developer. Along with the concerns the residents offer the '
following recommendations:
Decrease the number of units to prevent densification and traffic congestion.
Increase the value of the units to promote stability within the development. ,
Expand and utilize the retention pond northeast of Lake Susan Hill Drive and
County Road 17 to service this development. ,
Require more "Green Space " - preserve wooded area and as much nature as
possible.
Require berms with trees and shrubs instead of retaining walls with fencing.
Require maintenance free exterior.
Institute the same maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake
Susan Hills West.
Provide additional recreational space for Powers Place and Lake Susan Hills West
so residents are not forced to cross County Road 17 to use available recreational
facilities.
In conclusion, we look forward to the September 7 Planning Commission meeting at
which we intend to pursue this matter further.
Lake Susan Hills West Community
PN:SL
ATT: Lake Susan Hills Community Petition
f Lake Susan Hills West Community
1
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
S / F yet Lt
� -
�'
C
� DISCUSSION 1
QD MONTGOMERY WATSON
Subject: lei SCi��i✓ f� / /�� G�ST�I�jyi�i��r7 �f"T i"7
D DUh
Discussion- �f' ✓� -- ��» �w''�'�
� � �o v� ct V 0. C ��SO � `dss l t�lero�..►�r C� - Uy $ - 2100`1
f ins
/5 44
GaoF�-'
1 Lx Sys �(�ll� [7r.
36g —y - S - Z - 1
Lx. Su yl �-�; s r
y� �a s
'cc
3�'3
I EYr�
l LO'L 5t -CS0/1 &GCS Lr
Lfg�5
UA AJ4 So -47
16' 4a, - f S u san higje'
3�d�— X13
4-la de
b
3(.
JE R , &TT HS I - uAKR SUSP N KIUS bR &PS - 31 W I
Tn: r-J Rrr ( V\
Montgomery Watson Party
Project Name:
Project No.:
�8 - �9sd
G
3 (c9"33
4 761 1
Other Party '
Company Name:
Billable? Yes, No Address:
Employee Name:
Date: Time:
Call Placed by: Montgomery Watson
GO -60
(� �.a San ��IIS V�
Phone No. ( )
Person Name:
Other Party
f Lake Susan Hills West Community
l
r
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
ZL; 61
-3 ; - 9 b rj
c
r
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building official 1(,
DATE: August 22, 1994
SUBJECT: 87 -3 PUD & 94 -7 SPR (Powers Place, Jasper Development)
I was asked to review the preliminary plat for the proposed Powers Place
plat stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; AUG 02, 1994; CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPT."
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.
Building setbacks. The building code requires that walls of single
family d within three feet of the property line be of one -hour
fire - resistive construction with no openings. The building code further
requires that projections (overhangs) within three feet of the property
line be of one -hour fire - resistive construction. walls and overhangs
shown on the submitted plans will be within three feet of the property
line and will not meet code requirements. Property lines should be
adjusted so that each pair of lots is 74 feet wide, thereby enabling
either model to be constructed as shown (windows in end walls and six
inch overhangs) on any lot. Otherwise the proposed buildings could be
downsized to achieve the same effect.
Recommendations:
1. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department,
Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval.
2. Adjust property lines and /or buildings to enable compliance with
1988 UBC 504(b), table 5 -A and 1710. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
t
I
k
L
MEMORANDUM
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: August 10, 1994
SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Drive - Powers Place
Jasper Development
Planning Case 87 -3 PUD and 94 -7 Site Plan Review
I have reviewed the site plan for complying with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division, and have the following code or policy requirements:
1. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The
remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Contact the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
2. Submit new street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
3. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north /south
street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street
with 75 foot spacing. Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy 06 -1991.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia OWNER:
ADDRESS:
235 W 1St Street ADDRESS:
Waconia, MN 55387
TELEPHONE (Day time) 442 -5611 TELEPHONE:
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11. Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
3.
4.
5.
Conditional Use Permit
Grading /Excavation Permit
Interim Use Permit
Planned Unit Development
12. Variance
13. Wetland Alteration Permit
14. Zoning Appeal
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8,
Sign Plan Review
X Notification Signs $100 + $50 = $150.00
9. X_
Site Plan Review $250.00 + $5 x 50
_ $500.00
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNAC/VAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X
Subdivision $400.00 + $15 X 50
= $1150.00
TOTAL FEE $ 1800.00
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'fz" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
• NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
I
PROJECT NAME Powers Place
LOCATION West Side of Powers Blvd @ Lake Susan Hills nrivP
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Attached
I
PRESENT ZONING R -8
REQUESTED ZONING No Change
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential
f
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
Same
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Intended platting of townhouse propert
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must De accomparnep Uy till 1111W1111CLOV1
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.
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.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
� it 0"" /e S 8 -1 -94
Signatur of Applicant Y Date
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.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Powers Place
Developer: Jasper Development
Location: South of Lake Susan
Hills Drive, West of
Powers Boulevard
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing the preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin
homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west
of Powers Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development
Corporation.
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, 5:00 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 on August 25, 1994.
E�
E
I
r Development opment Corp.
Patrick &Wendy Nelson
Joseph M. &Jane E. Miller
235 1st St. W.
Waconia, MN 55387
8411 Egret Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
8421 Egret Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bernardino, Jr. & L. Lanzi
Mark A. & Julie A. Goeman
Joseph M. & Jan e E. Miller
8431 Egret Ct.
8441 Egret Ct.
8421 Egret Ct.
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kenneth & Michelle Deforest
Joseph Miller Construction Inc.
John B. & Ann M Sichak
8430 Egret Ct.
3459 Washington Dr.
1251 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Eagan, MN 55122
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Moune & Sompong Khakham
Donald L. Hunter
Arthur M. & Arlene C.
1261 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
1271 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
1281 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephen P. Neurerer
Richard R. & Brenda Nelson
1301 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Michael P. & J. Smithson
1291 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1311 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Scott C. & Julie A. Bergquist
Joseph T. Treleven &
Kurt G. & Kelly H. Vondebur
1321 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Lisa G. Williams
1341 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1331 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
r Jon
A. Nyland
John L. & Amy M. Goedert
John C. & Maureen Jensen
1351 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
1361 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
8480 Pelican Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy C. & Barbara Larson
Kevin & J. Roquette
Thomas & Nancy Martinson
8470 Pelican Ct.
8460 Pelican Ct.
8450 Pelican Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gary C. & Sharon D. Condit
Terry W. & Barbara A. Bolen
Jeffrey J. & Merrilee Zahn
8440 Pelican Ct.
8451 Pelican Ct.
8461 Pelican Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Darryl rry &Alicia Laube
Scott E. & Manca Boutilier
Wade &Yvonne Schneider
8471 Pelican Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
8481 Pelican Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hamid R. Hoodeh
1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard I. & Jeanne L Derby
1270 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Gina Hamari
1420 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark F. & Renee C. Dawson
1450 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patrick & Beth Victorian
8530 Merganser Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jerome & Mary Gen Reutzel
1481 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David L. & Donna J. Clough
1521 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas M. Bums &
Julie M. Kreger
2551 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd M. & Karen Bimberg
1460 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Joseph R. Hoope &
Deanne M. Schuler
8530 Tem Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kirk Sampson Patricia M. Lewis
1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1260 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert J. Crawford John M. & Kay M. Polster
1280 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1290 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Roger A. Lesser Peter A. & Melissa Sattervall
1430 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1440 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Char A. Jeurissen Kwok Wong & Lu Lee Ng
1421 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8550 Merganser Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Cheryl Rasmussen
8531 Merganser Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Craig M. & Janet L. Cariveau
1501 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Pamela Williams
1531 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ronald E. & Bonnie Ziebell
1561 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & Joyce I. Mancino
1470 Lake Susan Hills Dr. W.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Neil R. & Mary Spieker
8550 Tem Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Douglas & Ramona Jacobson
8551 Merganser Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Nathan & Elizabeth Jenkins
1511 Lake Susan Hills Dr
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce & Shirley Bowman
1541 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chad W. & Carla Sedlacek
1560 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Erik M. & Alicia C. Johnson
1480 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gene Richard Meier
8570 Tem Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
t
t
1
t
1
Eric 0. & Michelle K. Ross Brian & Darlene Fredrickson
8571 Tem Ct. 8551 Tem Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
David Leslie Wasson David & Nancy Obermeyer
8789 Flamingo Dr. 8787 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy M. & Lois M. Vold David & Tammy Dehne
8620 Kingfisher Ct. 8551 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Douglas & Lavonne Becker Erik Boden Pedersen &
8571 Flamingo Dr. Rosemarie O'Donnell
Chanhassen, MN 55317 8581 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Timothy J. & Linda A. Kosir Lonny L. & Norine Remund
8780 Flamingo Dr. 8772 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Christopher J. Sones & James H. & Teresa 0. Giusti
Judith A. Martinez 8750 Flamingo Dr.
8756 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Philip A. & Gayleen J. Jessen Dan D. & Lisa L. Boyum
8779 Flamingo Dr. 8771 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel W. & Barbara R. Hoff
1120 Dove Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bobby Rogers &
Loleta Tolliver- Rogers
1571 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Pheavanh & H. Souvannalath
1601 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert B. & Cheryl J. Ruby
1520 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Christi Nordby
8640 Kingfisher Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark William & Kerry Engel
8561 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd E. & Sally M. Bergum
8591 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Argus Development Inc.
Suite 204
3459 Washington Dr.
Eagan, MN 55122
David M. & Julia A. Wise
8746 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James M. & Debra K. Wilhm
8763 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Karl A. & Susan L. Meier
1130 Dove Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayne M. & Roberta J. Foner
1581 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Duane H. & Karen Anderson
1570 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Argus Development Inc.
18133 Cedar Ave. S.
Farmington, MN 55024
Donald Diamond Jr. &
Amabelle Y M Diamond
1131 Dove Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel E. & Ronda S. Pierre
1591 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Daniel W. & Barbara R. Hoff
1120 Dove Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bobby Rogers &
Loleta Tolliver- Rogers
1571 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Pheavanh & H. Souvannalath
1601 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert B. & Cheryl J. Ruby
1520 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & Christi Nordby
8640 Kingfisher Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark William & Kerry Engel
8561 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd E. & Sally M. Bergum
8591 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Argus Development Inc.
Suite 204
3459 Washington Dr.
Eagan, MN 55122
David M. & Julia A. Wise
8746 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
James M. & Debra K. Wilhm
8763 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Karl A. & Susan L. Meier
1130 Dove Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Wayne M. & Roberta J. Foner
1581 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Duane H. & Karen Anderson
1570 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert D. & Robin Hajicek James R. & Catherine S. Scott Philip D. Jensen
1574 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1578 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1580 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd R. Loader Sreang & Sophom Song Bang Joseph Gibney Jr. &
1584 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1590 Lake Susan Hills Karen Stein
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1594 Lake Susan Hills Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kounthone & O. Souvannakane Lake Susan Hills Corey J. & Ruth Weikle
1600 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Suite 200 8744 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 7600 Parklawn Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edina, MN 55435
Gregory D. & Shireen Kahler
8742 Flamingo Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
j Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRES INTO 50 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TWIN
HOMES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 25 STRUCTURES LOCATED ON
PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD. JUST
' SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWERS PLACE, JASPER
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some
comments at this time?
41
r
David L. Wasson
8789 Flamingo Drive
'
David & Donna Clough
1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Betsey Jenkins
1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive
A. M. Stene
1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive
'
Ronald Ziebell
1561 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Philip Jensen
1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Tom Rasmussen
Mona & Doug Jacobson
8531 Merganser Court
8551 Merganser Court
Mary Beth & Jerome R. Reutzel
1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Bruce & Shirley Bowman
1541 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Craig & Janet Cariveau
1501 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Jeff Zahn
8461 Pelican Court
Terry Bolen
8451 Pelican Court
Gary & Sharon Condit
8440 Pelican Court
Lolita Tolliver Rogers
1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Wendy Nelson
8411 Egret
'
Ronda Pierre
1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Todd & Marianne Loader
1584 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Leslie Jensen
1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive
John Williams
1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Pat Victorian
8530 Merganser Court
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff
report on this item.
' Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some
comments at this time?
41
r
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 1+
Phil Youngbuth: My name is Phil Youngbuth. I'm with Greatland Homes and I'd like to '
introduce myself in this way because we are in a joint venture with Jasper Development on
this particular property. They are the developers of records. We will be building the units, ,
both in terms of the design and construction. We are formerly from Joe Miller Homes.
Working with Joe for several years. I've been here before. I would like to make a couple of
points that hopefully will help to clarify some of the issues. As to the actual size of units, the '
units are 67 feet wide and 65 feet wide fitting on 71 foot lots and 73 foot lots. And the
reason I bring this up is so you don't get confused. It shows on the plat the lot size, okay.
And the reason the units are narrower is because you have to have a minimum of 3 feet from '
the lot lines to the windows. So that's why we're narrower than the actual lot size. We have
tried to do our homework in designing this particular housing unit. I did meet with Sham
a couple months ago and from our initial meeting I did take the original plan that you see
here and we've designed a few more architectural elements into the plan to make them more
interesting. Work a little bit better with the neighborhood. They are a rambler sized and
what we call 1 1/2 stories. This keeps a lower profile if you will so that from the street '
you're not seeing 3 decker townhomes or something similar. And for the folks on the hill,
they're not going to be staring at 2 and 3 story homes. These are nice low sillohuettes. '
We've added things like gables, dormers, decks, patios. There's optional 4 season porches to
the plan.
Scott: Yeah, you might want to tip it one way or the other because I think it's glaring on the i
camera. Yeah. That will work for the folks at home.
Phil Youngbuth: I can hold them up too.
Scott: That's fine. I
Phil Youngbuth: As you can see by the porch, which is an option, the deck is standard. And
it's not just your typical cedar 2 x 2's...2 x 6's, etc. It will be a smooth cedar with some '
turret posts... things like that so that they're a little more interesting. A little more fitting with
the kind of traditional flavor to them. Not just your slap them up kind of porch. That alone
makes for a more interesting back view if you will. Several of the units back up to Powers
Boulevard. They are walkout style so from the back, this is a rambler with a walkout. This
is the front elevation and you can see some of the things that we've done to make them more
inviting. Friendly. On the back you can see that we've changed the roofscape. We've added
gables to extend the gables as to bring out a porch over the deck. There are many windows
so that in other words we're talking about something that's more interesting and pleasing to
look at versus ... or something like that. More interesting side elevations, etc. Additionally the '
product itself is probably, you know the final prices aren't in yet but we're looking at
$110,000.00 to $120,000.00 base price. I know that, in the early stages of conversations
42
r
L
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
these were talked about being $80,000.00 townhomes. Now I know that affordable housing is
a necessity. It gets to be more and more difficult to do that and please everybody. So
they're intended for single, single professionals. Perhaps not retired but a little older people.
Easy to live type of homes. Again, the density that we're talking about is an important factor
to be bringing up like we did. When we're talking about, what was it, 9.3 units per acre.
The reality is, there is a way to get to that with 30% or 35% coverage. And it happens just
down the street and that's when you start building up. So I think that this is a reasonable and
well presented answer to a unique site and I'm hoping that together we can move forward and
get this job completed. That's my report. I think it looks good and we'll help with you. Do
you have any questions?
Mancino: Yes, I do. Thank you. I see that you have two type style houses. The Itasca and
the Voyageur. Can you tell me, as I look on your preliminary plat, I mean the houses that
are on the eastern side of this development, they'll line themselves to Powers Boulevard?
That's all one style house?
Phil Youngbuth: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. So we're going to see a row of, the rear elevation from Powers as we're
traveling.
Phil Youngbuth: Correct. I'm glad you bring that up. What's nice about these particular
townhomes is that although they're identical, they'll be in several different colors. Okay, but
they're not like all pink or you know.
Mancino: And what are those colors?
Phil Youngbuth: Well, there's only about a half dozen colors that are even earth tone.
Reasonable light earth tone colors.
Mancino: Do we have samples? Do you have samples of those here?
Phil Youngbuth: I don't have those here. They're vinyl. It's vinyl siding, called Greenbriar.
It's a very smooth, high quality premium siding. And we're looking at white windows. Or I
should say white windows with white grids on all of the units. As far as what one may look
like from the other, the reality is that they're no closer together than any of the single family
homes you see here. Between the units is 15 feet. Single family homes, from one to the
other is typically 15 feet. And if they were all split entries or multi - family, or I'm sorry.
Multi-level and split entries, they're very similar in design. Especially from the back. So
what I'm saying is that this is not much of a variance from that. In fact it might be more
43
�I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 1 4
pleasing because it will be constantly maintained. This is a maintenance free exterior with a
homeowners association.
Mancino: Staff, did you ask for samples to be brought so that we could see the siding and
that we would know exactly which ones of these lots have what colors because I know that
we've brought up several times, especially when they're in rows, we want to see a variation ,
of tone and color and not just. Do you know what I'm.
Al -Jaff: I recall asking for the rendering. I really can't remember if I asked for samples. 1
Mancino: Do you also talk a little bit about landscaping or is that someone else on your?
Phil Youngbuth: Well, we can talk about it. ,
Mancino: Can you tell me a little bit about the, those are walkouts on the back?
Phil Youngbuth: On the Powers side.
Mancino: On the Powers side. And you have balconies there that will put some of these up
high. How are you going to screen the back of those walkouts from such a big street and the
noise and the traffic and the lights?
Phil Youngbuth: Well my understanding is that there will be berming all along Powers Blvd,
at least from some kind of a meandering berm that's to be worked out with the staff and
whatever trees that they are recommending that go in. At a minimum that's what's
happening. Additionally we'll be doing extensive landscaping around all the units. '
Mancino: And that's something I think that you have in your conditions? Sharmin, to work
with the developer on that. Okay. Those are my questions right now. '
Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Do you have someone
else on your development team that would like to make a presentation? It's not a '
requirement but if you would like to do that, that's quite alright.
Al Rader: Thank you. I'm Al Rader with Rader and Associates and we're working on the
civil engineering and the land surveying portion of the plat. And I guess I can answer any
questions you might have directed related to that, you know those questions but basically as
far as the roadway system goes, being that this site is up higher on this end than actually '
Powers Boulevard, would bring the grades up on the main entrance here. Bring the grades
up ... this cul -de -sac. Running them back down at a slight grade to turning down on that
44
1 1
.I
, Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' northern cul -de -sac. And that water will actually, the drainage pattern will run the same wa
Y g P Y
so the water will come down, be picked up by an intermediate ... down to a pond at this corner
here which will have an overflow... storm sewer system. The units along Powers have their
garages directly entering onto the internal private drive here. These units here, here, these
two clusters have their own private little driveway ... and the southerly most cluster of the 8
units of 4 buildings, they'll just be one short cul -de -sac. Basically that pretty much defines
with the water pattern will be. There will be retaining walls needed along the back side of
' some of the units here and those will be engineered walls. They'll be handled by an
engineer... and probably be a terrace type thing.
' Scott: What's the, one of our big concerns with any sort of development is the impact on the
neighbors and I'm familiar with that area. Basically what is the difference in grade
inbetween let's say the top of one of those units and perhaps, I know there's a number of
homes along the side. Just roughly. Are we talking 20 feet?
Al Rader: I guess I can't, I really can't relate to the top of it.
' Scott: How about just grade to grade.
Al Rader: Grade to grade difference being about a 9 and should reach ... as far as we've
shown with the 954 and we have 939 for a garage so about 15 feet. Over on this side it
looks like it could be 20 feet.
Scott: Any questions or comments? Okay, anything else?
Al Rader: The other thing I had was, any of the wetlands, the ponding, we'll address it with
the city staff...and those are all pretty much issues that they'll do and tell us...
Conrad: Talk to me a little bit about the retaining wall. It's hard for me to visualize what
you're doing there. I guess I wish I saw a profile of this project versus, it's really hard to
understand what you're doing with the retaining wall.
' Al Rader: Basically e've of to take u the difference in grade along, this is the property
Y g P gr g P Pem'
line of the project here. It's kind of a random pattern here. We've got to take up the grade
difference between the property up here and the maximum you can get these up to so there's
a percentage grade we can share. We've got it down to the property line to a point where
we've got to stay away from the building a certain distance so the difference between those
two will be taken up by the retaining wall. Some of the walls will be shorter but in other
areas there will be higher walls. But it won't be in one wall. It will be a stepped, terraced
type pattern.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Conrad: Is this a wood? Is this concrete? What is this made out of?
Al Rader: I guess that would be up to the design engineer. What they recommend and what
the developer wants. I'm assuming it would be a pre -fab concrete... field stone retaining wall.
Something, but it's going to be done well so that it's going to be fairly, it will be
maintenance free. They're not going to have to repair it.
Conrad: And it's set into, at the top of that retaining wall, is that where the grade takes off
again?
Al Rader: It will take off at the top and go on up to the common property line with the
adjacent neighbors.
Conrad: So given you're backed up to a neighborhood, how do you prevent, you know again.
It's hard for me to visualize this. Are we, we've got an 8 foot berm or a 10 foot drop?
Al Rader: 10 foot.
Scott: Per step? I'm envisioning. If I lived there, I would be falling in there.
Mancino: Are these planted? Are they going to be planted terraces so that kids can't, I mean
kids come to the edge of the property.
Al Rader: I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. If they should
be planted or be left wild, native grasses. Native plantings.
Conrad: But how do you prevent, and again. Maybe this is not a big deal but how do you,
as you abut a neighborhood, how do you keep people from actually being injured? Is it just
that obvious. You can see it. You know that there's a wall there. A retaining wall and
you're going to be careful or is it a hazard? I guess that's something that I'm not convinced
of yet. Nothing's been presented to show me we solved a drop of 10 feet or whatever.
Al Rader: Walls are used on a lot of subdivisions. If you look on a lot of subdivisions
they'll have the same type situation. They're stepped but they'll have the building pad
elevation will drop down 5 feet to another building pad and drop another 5 and that's
basically the same thing we're doing here except for you're not going to, you probably won't
have that 90 foot spread building pad. You'll have a landing terrace. I'm sure the city staff
will have some recommendations on it because they're going to be reviewing this. They're
going to have to look at what we design. And work with the construction...
46
t
J
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Do we have any indication as to the position of adjacent homes relative to this? I
mean that's something that we're sorely lacking in basically every package we've received in
the year and a half I've been here. We do not have a clue as to whether this is encroaching
on neighborhood's property lines. We don't have a clue where the houses are. We have no
idea, and I mean I look at that as a potential hazard depending on how it's handled. And you
know once again, if we can't, if we don't see it, we can't do anything with it.
Aanenson: Well you can't encroach on the neighboring property line. That is the plat line.
Scott: Yeah, but we don't have a clue as to where the homes are located in the whatever
addition of Lake Susan Hills that is. It'd be nice if it were just sitting there with nothing
around it but there's no clue. I don't have a clue anyway.
Aanenson: You have to have at least a 30 foot setback.
Al Rader: I assume that those lots would be 140 feet deep. You take 30 foot from the
setback and take about a 40 foot house so you've got 70 off of there. 40 feet and probably
have a 50 to 70 foot range back yard on those adjacent properties.
Mancino: What if somebody built their house back a ways?
Scott: So are there, the entrance, I don't know what the street is but the entrance. Is it, you
have your two entrances and then there's another entrance into I think it's the 4th Addition or
Lake Susan Hills West. I'm just trying to get a picture of where the houses.
Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Scott: Lake Susan Hills Drive and I know there's a home kind of set up on a hill. Is that the
closest? I'm just trying to get a clue as to. Okay, you've got to do it so north is west.
' Mancino: The house is back.
' Scott: Okay, so there are houses back in that entire, okay.
Al -Jaff: This is the concept PUD.
' Scott: Okay, because I don't think there are homes built on the north side. I'm just trying to
get, okay.
Al -Jaff: No there aren't.
1 47
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Okay. Where do the homes actually start? Is it about maybe a third of the way from
Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Al -Jaff: I can try putting these side by side.
Scott: Well those are platted lots but I don't know if they're built on.
Al -Jaff: There's Lake Susan Hills Drive and again this is Lake Susan Hills Drive. The lots,
the first lot is right here.
Scott: Those all have homes on it.
Al -Jaff: And then it goes all the way down and around. Which is fairly similar to this.
Al Rader: Basically I guess just you know, on a preliminary plat I was showing where the
lawns are actually located. I'm not showing houses but you can see how many houses are
lined up along the edge of this subdivision. Any other questions?
Scott: None?
Al Rader: Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else from the development team like to make any
comments? Good. This is a public hearing and I would like to have a motion to open.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Bruce Bowman: My name is Bruce Bowman. I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. I'm the 7th
one of that. Coming up from the south side. South side of ... 7th lot.
Al -Jaff: Lot 10?
Bruce Bowman: Yeah, right there. I have several questions regarding this but I notice the
time and I notice that at 11:00 you just stop.
Scott: That's unusual when we stop at 11:00 but we'd appreciate concise comments.
Bruce Bowman: Well I just didn't want to get us all involved here and going and so forth
and then find out that we had to stop in the midst of it. So that was my main reason for
1
L�
.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' getting up right away it you wanted to. Thank you.
Tom Rasmussen: My name's Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and we've
done a lot of the homework already on this. I had a meeting in my house approximately a
week and a half ago in which I had most of the residents along that side there and also some
adjacent properties come over to my house and we discussed amongst ourselves the issues
relating to this development and what we've got here is kind of a summary presentation, if
that's alright. Instead of everybody speaking, we'd like to tell you what our issues are and at
' this point I can't believe staff is making a recommendation for approval of this at this stage
and we would like to go over and make a presentation. Helping me here do this will be Phil
Jensen and also Ron Ziebell. What I'm first going to do is talk a little bit about our
' association. We passed around a petition addressing our concerns and we've got 50
residences. Not individuals but 50 homeowners. Everyone along the strip, and some others
beyond it, that are concerned about this development. Have signed up and agreed upon what
' we're discussing here tonight. So it's not just me. It's 50 residences. Why are we here?
Well first of all when we heard $80,000.00 townhomes we all had a heart attack for that. We
were the ones that were concerned our property values might decrease. We are the ones who
' have children living there right now that could potentially be injured by this development off
the retaining walls. We are the ones that are putting up with safety and noise issues along
County Road 17. Right now. Today. We are the ones that have to live with the decisions of
your commission and of the City Council. And why are we here? Actually because we care
about improving the quality of life, not only for ourselves along the sides there but we do
have a concern. We know what the neighborhood's like for the people that will be moving in
' here and we do look out for their interest too. Not just for ourselves. For them. What we're
going to talk about are safety issues first. Environmental issues second. Development issues
third and we have come up with a list of recommendations. We didn't want to leave anybody
' hanging for that and I'll conclude with that at the end here.
Phil Jensen: Thanks Tom. I'm Phil Jensen. I live at 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd
' like to make one comment. I feel a lot better ... so it's nice to see Phil. I've known him for
years. The first thing, our concern on safety happens to be that we're a young community of
course and of course a picture's worth a thousand words and Phil is familiar with Joe Miller
Homes and he built a community for us and he had all the block parties that he celebrated
with us for. This is the...I'd like to pass around. Just in one short block, the first very short
' block there, there are 28 adults and 26 children. Just in the first block. Not to mention the
rest of that street that backs up to the property and our first concern primarily is to how we
will be able to handle our children and our perspective was no different than your's quite
frankly. That we didn't know if these retaining walls were going to be 20 foot drops or what
they would be. We were very concerned about that. We'd like to see that addressed in some
fashion. Whether it's a profile of it or something so we feel a little bit more comfortable
49
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 1.
',l
,
there. Then in addition to the block wall, as I scan from my outline here. In addition to the
concerns we have about the retaining wall, is that we have all experienced structural damage.
Most of us have experienced structural damage in our community, whether it's by sod or
,
wash away from our own soil or water drainage into our home and so on because of our
community. We've got those bruises that have happened. We don't want that new
community to have those same bruises. We want your building, that you're building, to go
'
through the same experiences that we went through so our concern is in this engineering
design of these retaining walls. That if they're not done correctly, of course it takes the
pressure away from the hill that we're all living up and around, if it takes away the pressure
'
that's holding the land in place, we may see some pressure coming away at our foundations
and the hill above it starting to show some stress problems. Some seal problems and so on.
In addition to that, our watershed and I would just utilize a couple more pictures in this that I
,
would hand to you and these are just a couple illustrations of local yards of what we
experienced from watershed from above when we were laying sod. We'd have a stake
cutting party quite frankly where as soon as somebody laid their sod, dog gone it, we just got
out there the next morning and we'd take our bucket and we'd cut out a bunch of stakes and
put in the bucket and we'd go to our neighbor and help restake his new yard and that's
because that watershed will just pull all these thousand rolls of sod right off his yard and go
'
right down the hill. I personally used my kids toboggan to pull back over 1,000 rolls of sod
back up the street. I don't want my new neighbors to have that same problem so I'm very
concerned as to how this retaining wall will affect that. In addition to the retaining walls and
'
drawing children to that, we have the traffic concerns as far as our safety. And if I could get
that one graphic back up first on the. Actually that one will work just fine. Let me walk
over here and I'll point out exactly what we're referring to. And that is that CR 17 is
,
becoming an expressway and one thing that our community is aware of is we know it's going
to go to 4 lanes. And that's to be to get everybody to Target and Byerly's. Well that's great.
It's going to go to 4 lanes and help with the traffic flow and all this other jazz but what we're
'
concerned about is the driveways here in these different spots that have access to it. If it
doesn't turn to a 4 lane highway, these driveways will be a one way turn only. They're not
'
going to be able to cross 2 lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn across on a 4 way as we
envision it and street lights we don't feel are an answer to place that's 50 mph speed limit
now that people are traveling. There's already people that wait at Lake Susan Hills Drive,
right here at this corner as much as 10 minutes in the mornings trying to get on CR 17. Just
trying to get onto it. And that's because there is no stop sign. We're not advocates of street
lights. We don't want them. We'd just like to see the speed limits come down and stop
signs. I'm already consulting Larry MacKenzie at the Department of Transportation for
Minnesota. He informs me that we merely need to request to the County an audit be done.
They in turn will ask the State to audit it and they will tell us as to the date what the traffic
'
flow what should be designed for that, for 4 lanes and whether stop lights exist or not. So in
this area of outlet to this Lake Susan, they're going to have to only make right hand turns and
50
',l
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' then they're going to get down to a sign where they're all going to make U turns. So we're a
little concerned how that traffic flow goes and we'd like to see how that is going to be
developed by our city or the County or whoever is involved in that The next thing is that...
We really hope that there's nothing but families that join our community because we're
really, really supportive of that. We want a whole pile of kids to be here. Well if all these
kids are here, they're going to want their own park. Well if this is a 4 lane highway and the
park is supposed to be here, how are they going to get there? Well, I'm not going to bore
you with the photos but I've got all kinds of photos and one of the first things we heard back
was they can use the tunnel. Have you seen the tunnel? Do you know where it is? We had
' to find it ourselves. It's, I'm guessing but it may have been a tunnel that was used for cows
back when there were farms here. It is not passable and I have the photos to prove it that
just, they were taken last week. So the tunnel's not an idea to get people across to this park
' and I certainly am not going to send my kids across CR 17 to get to that park and I sure
wouldn't want my new neighbors to do that. That's not a good idea. So we're here to
recommend, as Tom gets into the second part or the third part of this, what our
recommendations are to gain access to the park. The other side is we're going to be crawling
the retaining walls we don't know about yet and trying to get through our yards to get to the
other parks. So we want it to be a safe environment, not only by the traffic flow but also by
some type of a profile of those walls. The last thing I would have to say is, in my
commentary is, school bus loading area is also right down in the bottom of that hill where I
' point out first is the very bottom portion of that graph. That's where the school bus stops
and this is also where that traffic blocks up today because there is no stop sign on CR 17 and
that speed limit is 50 mph. I don't want to get too emotional but dog gone it, it's my town
and this is our town. It's our community and people are just passing through it. We live
there and we would strongly ask you to make recommendations to the county for them to
have that section of highway audited for it's traffic flow with our new neighbors joining us
and the new neighbors across the street coming, we want to make sure the speed limits come
down and we have the proper stop signs there so they have access in and out of their
community and that makes it safer for our kids as well as there's. I guess from the safety
standpoint, I think I've addressed mine and I would pass it back to Tom
Tom Rasmussen: The next thing on our outline here that we'd like to talk about would be
the environmental issues and our first thing, as you've heard a million times already tonight
are the issues of trees. We don't have much but we do have a beautiful little cluster right in
the middle of this development and although they have made some efforts to retain those, if
you look at their grading plans and their landscaping plans, they have homes that are
encroaching into the trees on both sides and if you also look closely at it, they're planning on
removing most of the under shrubs and only keep a few of the larger portion trees there of
that. Our recommendation is they just leave the whole thing as it is with brush and
everything along in there and we have pictures showing the trees and how they sit right there.
' 51
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 11
�i
'
Our recommendation is that they don't encroach into the trees and they don't go in there and
start thinning them out either. The next issue that we have is on the grading plan they're
showing a wet pond, retention pond. Whatever you want to call it. I've got a problem just
,
reading the grading plan. I see, what is the elevation the pond's supposed to be at. There's
no invert elevation shown on the 12 inch outlet pipe. We don't know what the normal, the
100 year flood elevations are. We don't know what the emergency overflow elevation of that
is. They have got some serious problems already along Egret Court along there with drainage
problems already and this pond is making those residents extremely nervous, as it is right
there like that. Right now the other issue that we have is that there is poor soils in the
'
vicinity of Egret Court. As Phil had mentioned, they've led already to drainage and structural
problems. All you need to do is drive in there, in that Court and see for yourself. But they
want assurances that they're not going to get any worst. We don't feel comfortable right now
'
at all like that. Those residents recommended... were their concerns. Other concerns with this
pond were raised about stagnant water. Odor problems. Mosquito breeding grounds. All of
those things. The residents along there feel that the city and developer need to address these
'
issues and get answers back. The next thing here is something I haven't heard mentioned yet,
although I can't see why it wasn't. There is wetlands present down there where this pond is
supposed to go in. That is a wetland in my mind although I have not seen a wetland
'
delineation and assessment report yet to document that. I realize we need to have the
vegetation. We need to have the soils. You need to have the hydrology to classify it as a
wetland. I have not seen a report that does that. However, we did go out there. We
'
surveyed the vegetation there. There's foxtail, reed canary grass, aster, cattails, marsh golden
rod. All of those types of vegetation that indicate it is a wetland. There is standing water
there all along the line. I have not seen any delineation report yet. I think it needs to be done
'
for that. I think the hydrogology must be there or else this wouldn't be existing. The
question then comes along the lines of soil. The next thing is that there is approximately
about a 115 acre of wetland located in the middle of the project. Fairly small but however
,
under the wetland conservation act, anything less than 400 square feet area can be filled in. I
believe this exceeds that. And again that should be part of the wetland assessment report
which has not been done. Thirdly we get into the area of, we mentioned this already on the
'
safety. However under the areas of erosion control ... This tells you the type of soils we're
dealing with and these are moderate slopes. Not even close to the slopes they're proposing
'
for the development. These are the type of issues that we have come across already. Like
that. Slope failures are inherent to the neighborhood and I don't want that happening below
my house like that. Next, if this is determined to be a wetland where they're proposing this
'
pond, we need to see some on site sedimentation basins to protect that wetland as is required
under the wetland preservation act. With that, the other thing that we want to see is some
type of implementation schedule that after they go and do the grading, how long do we have
'
to stand around and wait until they start ... seeding, putting the hay on the ground and
protecting along those measures there. I know Joe Miller's development across the street had
52
�i
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' that stuff but I watched it every single day and I thought that was fairly poor erosion control
measures across the street there. From my eyes. Lastly we do, we talked about percent
impervious and all the density and stuff like that. In our minds, when we look at the plat, we
think it's being crammed in there. That's from our eyes. That's what everybody along here
has ... so although the developer threatened in my mind, about how they could build more and
build the units like going up next to Byerly's here, we still think that there's an opportunity
' to provide more green space and less dense units in here. Next we'll get into the
development issues. I'll turn it over to Ron.
' Ron Ziebell: Ron Ziebell, 1561 Lake Susan. Lot 13 on the southern end. I really like to
shorten this. One of them's already been addressed. We're concerned, first of all with the
maintenance free type of environment, both from the building and the landscaping. My
reading of the proposed plan of the back of my lot, which now has a slope. Incidentally, the
slope runs from my lot down to CR 17—extensive excavation to put the development in there.
' And I don't have a real problem with that except from my lot down to the steepen and down
there will be some retaining walls and ... 14 feet down to 8 feet. And this will be ... others will
be close to it and I'm concerned with the safety issue with the children of the neighborhood.
Some sort of a safety measure, whether it be fencing or whatever. Natural vegetation ... to help
terracing is a big relief to me. I think that would help and anything along those lines. With
respect to maintenance free, with the retaining walls and the steep slopes, I'm concerned with
' the maintenance of the property itself. The retaining and—development area. We're
concerned also with the property becoming rental units. We would like to maintain them as
an owner occupied with some assurances along those lines. We would suggest items like
' building sprinkler systems to enhance the maintenance free aspect of the property but also to
give some assurances that the rapid development for ground cover and retention of the soil
for the development... excavation and slope that you're going to have to build into it. And
we're concerned with the planning. It may not be the maximum density permitted. We feel
that they are a little bit crammed in and the cookie cutter approach to the units. We'd like to
see a little bit of variance on that. Across Highway 17 and Powers Blvd, there are some
townhomes in there... In fact there would be no reason why similar units couldn't be
integrated into this particular rental unit here. I guess ... the proposal part of it and...
Tom Rasmussen: One of the things we thought of is we don't want to leave you hanging
here thinking what is on our mind. What do we want to see for that. So therefore we have
come up with some recommendations to kind of put up along there. This is something that
we decided and talked about. We would like to see, personally we want to see the
elimination of all retaining walls and steep slopes and we want to retain the existing slope
coming down from our units as much as possible. Like that. We want to decrease the
number of units to prevent intensification and traffic congestion issues that are along CR 17.
We want to require more green space. We want to preserve the wetland. We want to
53
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
preserve the woods and we want to preserve any type of green space, especially along the
slope as much as possible. Like that. What do you do with water from the site? We're
recommending that you put a pipe in across from the development over to CR 17 to the
existing ponding system with the Joe Miller Homes development. There is ample storage in
there and we believe that that would help solve all those issues. That helps ... before it goes
into Lake Susan. We would like to request that a closer look be taken at County Road 17's
traffic and safety issues. We would like to see the speed decreased. We want to limit the
number of access points coming out from this development. We want to install 4 way stop
signs at both Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17 intersection. And what we would like to see
is we would like to see a pedestrian foot bridge coming from this development across to the
park over there. We see this as the only alternative to get over there safely. Right now there
is no green space. The children can't play in here. We don't want them coming through our
yards... There's a nice park proposed across there and we think that that's the only natural safe
spot ... Again our recommendation is that they continue on with the maintenance free exterior
and trim and I was part of a townhome before I came out here to Chanhassen and believe me,
the underground sprinklers are an excellent idea ahead of time. The time to do it is before
you do any grading out there and think about that. When we first started off we hired some
children, or some kids that were off during the summertime and you get such an erratic
pattern of the way the development looks. It's just a nice, lot cleaner, better looking
development to just go ahead and work those in from the beginning. Right now we're under
some maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills on the west side
there. We'd like to see at a minimum those type of guidelines be applied to this
development. We would also like to see along the edge here, where we've got in here, is we
do want to see some type of a buffer. We want a year round screen. That is not proposed
right now on the landscaping plan in any manner whatsoever. We feel that that's a must.
We addressed the issue already about no recreational space within the development for the
children and we also want to recommend that you impose stringent townhome association
guidelines so we can be assured that they will have the capital necessary to take as much
pride in maintaining their buildings and their yards as we currently do in our's for that. Right
now in conclusion we're asking you to table this. Right now none of the plans we have seen,
they don't have any of this tiered retaining wall system. They haven't done anything like
that. No berm is shown along CR 17, although I heard a lot of stuff being mentioned from
the developer. I don't see it on the plans. Sorry. But right now you can't give approval to
anything that's not on the plan and has a chance for us to review it. We've had a lot of
patient people here tonight. Waiting. We've had two meetings in ourselves to try and
eliminate the time that we're here talking to you. Along those lines, we've come up with a
design we think is feasible with one access point. One common driveway that has a berm
between there. Then you just go ahead and rotate the units in. This way you preserve the
slopes as much as possible and the units could face each other where these arrows are would
be a common driveway. Thank you for your time.
54
I F-1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Mancino: Excuse me. How many units are you proposing?
' Tom Rasmussen: Well, right now it's just a schematic but I just thought that, if you look at
the pictures, there's the slope coming down and there's a flat area. All their recommendation
is is that they sit there and try to work within the flat area as much as possible. That way
' you don't need to do the retaining walls and if you sit there and you rotate the units in a little
bit, you can maybe like the larger blocks might be units, maybe 3 or 4. Instead of twin
' homes they could be maybe units of 3 or 4 townhomes and the smaller ones might be the
twin homes and have them served by a common driveway there. That way we get a little bit
more... What it is, I'm dust throwing it out as a schematic but to me this type of a design
would address a lot of our concerns. And that's why we wanted to throw something back
that they could possible work with. Thank you.
' Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes
ma am.
Wendy Nelson: My name is Wendy Nelson and I live at 8411 Egret Court, which is the first
lot. Up at the top in the northern part. And my husband and I really have concern about the
retention pond. I'm not too familiar with retention ponds except that I know that there's
' water which generates mosquitoes and da, da, da, da. But I'd like to know, and I don't know
if the engineer can tell me this, how close this is to my property line. Because from where I
sit, there's not that much room from my property line and CR 17. So if someone could kind
of tell me.
Scott: We have the scalemeister is calculating it as we speak. The only problem is with
something like that, it could either be 100 miles, 100 feet, 100 yards so but being the
competent individual that he is.
' Hempel: Scaling it off the plan, it appears to be the normal water level of the pond would be
approximately 20 feet from the property line at this point. On the proposed plan but I have
to back up a step and maybe address a couple of the issues that have been thrown out in
terms of storm drainage and wetlands and so forth. The staff report does take into account
wetland delineation and storm water ponding issues on the site. We've made some
recommendations very similar to what the association had concerns with and some of their
' recommendations ... at our's. That is classified as a wetland area. It's a very significant
graded wetland area. There's been a sanitary sewer line run through it approximately 3 to 4
' years ago. It's been regraded and filled in to maintain the drainage from upstream in Egret
Court down to the county road. It has taken back on it's wetland characteristics as a
pond ... through that area. That area is designated as a surface water management pond as part
55
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
of our city wide comprehensive storm water management plan. The applicant would be
required to—banking the city or another developer. We're looking at some banking area
would be Powers Boulevard... involved in that project. There's also another storm water pond
potentially in the center of the site which we are considering buying the ... to limit the number
of ponds on the site to one. That area may be a wetland. It's something that we've
required... have a professional biologist and wetland ... and research the site and come back to
us with a survey of that. Storm water pond will be tied back into the Joe Miller's 9th
Addition which is on the east side of the street. We made provisions for that development to
take the storm water runoff from this side of the street. It pretreated the water quality
treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands there before into Lake Susan. So we
have a step up on that.
Wendy Nelson: Well David, the retention pond, you said that's 20 feet from my property.
Hempel: Property.
Wendy Nelson: Property line.
Hempel: That's correct.
Tom Rasmussen: Is that normal?
Hempel: That's the normal water elevation.
Tom Rasmussen: How high would it be with a 100 year storm then? What's the emergency
overflow? Obviously you got better plans than what was given to us.
Hempel: It appears to be about 5 feet away. 5 to 10 feet away from the property line. The
100 year flood elevation of the pond before it would overflow and go out to Powers
Boulevard.
Scott: And then as part of our surface water management plan, all of the retention ponds
have got minimum slopes. Or maximum slopes. 1 to 4.
Mancino: 4 to 1.
Scott: Yeah, 4 to 1. It starts to taper and my guess is, as far as mosquito control, because
that's obviously important to everybody. From what I understand, and I'm not a mosquito
expert but I believe that these ponds are designed so that it doesn't allow for the shallow
calm water the mosquitoes to breed in. But I think usually because of the size of the ponds,
56
1
li
L
II
J
I
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
it's really not a good environment because it's usually exposed to wind and wave action
which is not the best place for mosquito breeding but you know, there's our expert over there.
I think that has something to do with it.
Hempel: There's a couple different design parameters that we can employ. We do employ a
safety aspect of it ... where we have a 10 to 1 slope for the first 1 foot of water to provide a
bench around the pond. That area does occasionally grow vegetation, cattails and so forth in
the shallow water. The other type of ponding design, they've come out with a 4:1 slope. A
more gradual slope that doesn't provide that shallow water shelf. It's a gradual slope. So if
someone was to fall in, it would keep ... 3:1 slope. Those are some of the things that we...
Wendy Nelson: Is it normal for retention ponds to be that close to the property line? If that
is normal, could you give me an example somewhere in Chanhassen so I can have some idea.
Aanenson: Lake Susan has plenty of them.
Scott: Yeah, it's real common.
Hempel: All the storm water ponds in your neighborhood. Directly across the street. The
water treatment ponds that are in the back yards... Not the property but it's in the back door.
Wendy Nelson: One other thing. I know Tom mentioned the problems in our cul -de -sac. I
don't know if many people are aware but there are lots, I don't know how many houses are
in that cul -de- sac... Yeah, and out of those seven, how many have had problems? Five. So
that's another concern about the building in that area. Because we are shifting of land. If
anything were to happen, I mean who would be responsible for the houses that are still
standing there and aren't having any problems? Where will we go if there's a problem?
Scott: Good question. I don't have an answer for you but I think that.
Wendy Nelson: Major problems in that cul -de -sac.
Hempel: We're familiar with the problems. You've been having soil corrections way back
apparently to they oversized the house pad on the lot type situation, is my understanding...
Mancino: So that we're sure when this is built, that that will be investigated to make sure
that it certainly won't repeat itself.
Hempel: Well certainly if the soil corrections that went in, it's difficult to determine the
57
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
ramifications from this development alone to this existing neighborhood.
Scott: Is this something where soil borings be one avenue of determining that or?
Hempel: Right. We do require some soil borings from the applicant. Any kind of soil
correction measures... prior to issuance of building permit.
Scott: What about, is there a permitting process for retaining walls?
Hempel: That's correct. I believe the ordinance is for any kind of retaining wall that
exceeds... obtain a building permit prior to construction. Depending on that height, if it does
exceed 5 feet, I believe it needs to be engineered by a professional engineer, structural
engineer. For safety measures.
Scott: Okay. Well thank you. Would anybody else like to comment?
Loleta Tolliver Rogers: Hi. My name is Loleta Tolliver Rogers. I live on the south side,
fourth house off the corner. I know we said we wanted to keep our comments short and
sweet ... or whatever but this is a burning issue and we as a neighborhood have not been
presented with all the facts. As we came in today we were told that townhomes were going
to be $80,000.00. The developer says $100 - 110,000.00. As we were told we were going to
have retaining walls, we don't know what they look like. We don't have a perspective of
them. I personally have two children. One 5, one 3. Very curious. I can see them playing
in the back yard saying, I race you to the top of the wall. And what's going to happen when
they fall over? Once again, where is the liability? Who's going to assure me that my
children are going to be okay? I think when it back to their representative today, a flyer from
what we need as an association have been given are not the same. We have not seen the...
paths and before this can be taken any further, I feel that we as a development need to see
what's really going to happen. He describes this, the back of these homes are going to be
against Powers Blvd. Multiple colors. I was born in a large city. That sounds like row
houses to me. I did not move out here to live in row houses. I did not move out here to live
in a section divided. To live with a different class of people. There are too many
unanswered questions I think that need to be resolved before this can go any further. Thanks.
Scott: Good. Thanks for your comments and that's the reason why we have public hearings.
So your comments are appreciated and we do pay very close attention to what people say.
Yes sir.
Jeff Zahn: My name is Jeff Zahn. I live at 8461 Pelican Court which borders the property.
W.
r"
L
Fill
.1
�
1
iJ
I L
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
I just had a couple quick things. — approve this project when retaining walls haven't even
conceptually been thought of by the developer. Not materials. Not whether it's tiered or
what so I'm a little amazed at that. A lot of talk about water drainage but I haven't heard
much about the upper lots. How that water can flow down into this development. My back
yard, when it rains, it pours in just like a river back there flowing down that hill. The
retaining walls there, I don't know where that water's going. I pose that question. Just one
last thing. This developer, and I'm not even sure who they really are. They talk about a
joint venture. My concern is they're going to be doing major excavation right next to my lot.
I want to know who they are. Who their contractors are doing this excavation and whether
the city requires liability insurance—to protect us in the construction process. Thank you. I
guess that's all I have.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else? Yes sir.
Gary Condit: My name is Gary Condit and I'll just point up here where I am. I'm Lot 24
here. It goes from this corner to this corner. Just very briefly, I think the issue of the
retaining walls has become a major issue. You can see how the land juts out. If you've got a
map there with elevations on it. I have maintained the mode that the whole top of that hill
around, I planted trees on it and I see from our lot line, the back of these homes, 25 feet.
Now if you take a peak at the elevations, it's 20 feet down and 25 feet this way, what's that?
...it looks like a 45 degree slope. Now if you go out 25 feet and down 20, that gives you an
idea of what the kind of steepness in this retaining wall is going to be. And I think at this
point it's a major design error and I would strongly recommend, like our recommendation
before is to move them out more into the flat land area and go with more of an idea like that.
Scott: Thank you. Yes sir.
Bruce Bowman: I guess we're on a first name basis by now. Bruce Bowman. I have a
house that backs up to what is going to be continued woods, or woodland area. That's one
question. The retaining walls are something I cannot get through my head. It's going to be a
lasting thing, first of all. And secondly, how in the world it's going to be safe when they
don't even know if they're going to have any fencing, trees or anything else. I think that at
best it's a very premature thing. My personal opinion, looking at that rendering, they didn't
take into consideration the topography of the land. They're taking dirt out of there and as
someone already said, if you're going down 20 feet or 14 feet or something like that, and
then just a short distance to the back of the house, I don't know how that would work. I
have another concern. I like.to work in my yard. Everyone else along that street likes to
work in their yard. At least keep it up. Have pride in ownership. What's going to happen to
these woods? That they're going to leave there. Are they just going to forget about it? Is
there a homeowners association that's going to take care of this? What's going to happen?
59
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Chanhassen is a nice community. I moved here in 1978. I lived in another area. When I
moved away in 1989, the area I live in now wasn't even there. But I think that there needs
to be some more planning. Personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more planning
on this situation before they just blindly go in there, start digging dirt out. Making walls and
making no apparent safeguards and no apparent way of making it into a part of Chanhassen
as we know, a valuable area and a nice community. I thank you. I
Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Ron Ziebell: I'd like to expand a little bit about what I said before for the record here... The
wooded area, if you draw a circle around that, is an area that slopes from Bruce's back yard
in pretty much a uniformed grade down to Powers Boulevard. The retention of the wooded
area is going to cause some problems that should be addressed in the plans. First of all that
the woodland is going to be retained, that means they're not going to be graded. The land
right next to it is going to be graded rather severely and—retaining walls and the ... and the
woods. The consideration should be for overall landscaping. How do the woods blend into
the retaining landscaping, particularly along the top of the or along the border between the
existing housing and the proposed development. There should be some sort of a planned
landscaping scheme that considers the retention of the trees and blending of that particular
area in with the surrounding neighborhood.
Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: Where do you begin? I can't personally pass this along. I need to see it back. I
need to see stuff on the retaining walls. I'm still new at this game Kate but I see, there's a
lot of stuff in this report I don't think most of the residents have seen in your
recommendations are there to address the issues regarding wetland and landscaping and '
everything else. But I guess there's enough issues and enough concerns I'd rather see it back
with some of those issues visualized for us so that we can better respond to the concerns of
the residents. Rather than to move it on and not have a chance to see it back. '
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I guess I have quite a few questions. Thank you for all your remarks and ,
questions. Dave, can you talk a little bit to all of us about Powers Blvd and the 50 mph
60
Ll
s
F ,
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
speed limit. It seems to me that in Chanhassen we have a lot of big wide roads that just
encourage us all to go faster and we have them through our neighborhoods. I have a huge
concern about that. We're building bigger, wider roads. People are going faster and they're
right in the middle of our neighborhoods. And this is one that I think a lot of citizens here
tonight have brought up and what can be done about it.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, there have been steps taking already in fact to address the
speed limit issues on most of our major highways within this city. This past spring or
summer the City Council, in a joint effort with the Carver County public highway department
petitioned the State to perform speed studies on all of our county roadway systems in the city.
Galpin Blvd, Powers Blvd. To review these. They haven't been reviewed in a while. Plus
all this development we've had over the last few years. Have a lot more traffic. Lot more
residential neighborhoods abutting these streets so it is being addressed. Will be looked at by
MnDot here and we hope to have something back shortly. Powers Blvd is in the process of
being widened and upgraded. The construction plans are being drawn as we speak. Carver
County is the lead agency... participation. The consultant engineer that the County has hired, I
did speak with them on this issue with regards to access. They are undecided at this point
where they'll be limiting the access points to a right -in to a right -out or one of the access,
maybe the ... will have the full turning movement. That's something that we're looking at
taking the sight distances and distances between access points. Carver County did supply us
with a memo based on the access issues. The storm drainage issues so these will be
addressed here in the upcoming month here. Their construction plans and the developer. I
think one of the conditions that we put in the staff report was the applicant meet with the
County and the City to review the access issues and storm drainage issues and so forth.
Powers Blvd definitely will include pedestrian trails /sidewalks on each side of the roadway.
There's been some talk tonight about accessing the parcel on the east side of Powers Blvd.
It's my understanding that they're looking at a pedestrian crossing with a tunnel. There's an
existing cattle passage if you will, on the north end that's been used. It needs some work.
There's some erosion that's occurred ... bad shape. There's a similar proposal I believe to
occur on the southerly portion of Powers to access and provide a pedestrian access across
Powers Blvd without having to cross. The pedestrian bridge, great idea. The cost of
something like that unfortunately I think, we're well aware of what's taking place in the
downtown with the price tag of that one so I don't know if that's reality. There is another
park system that's essentially larger and it's probably going to draw these neighborhood
children as well and that's in the Lake Susan Hills development... hill. That's already been
developed and the Lake Susan Hills residents are enjoying already. I'm sure they can all use
little parks...
Mancino: And that's being addressed. Will the stop sign issue on Lake Susan Hills Drive as
it goes into Powers Blvd be addressed?
61
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Hempel: I did ask the consultant and they're looking into that. There was no immediate talk.
They didn't feel that the warrants were there to justify a signal intersection. They will be
looking at that though. They will be providing the mechanisms in the construction of the
upgrade of Powers for future signalization so I don't... warrants are met. But at this point we '
don't consider any traffic controls at this intersection.
Mancino: Okay. Do you have any time line when you think MnDot will get to act on the
speed limits on Powers and Galpin and our major roads.
Hempel: I'd have to check further into that. See where they're at.
Mancino: Retaining walls. Sharmin, did the developer and staff, I mean how does staff feel
about and do we have it in other places in Chanhassen where we have 14 foot retaining walls
abutting?
Al -Jaff: We ... with the applicant and we expressed our concern over the height of the t
retaining walls.
Mancino: What was the applicant? o
Aanenson: That's why we want to terrace them...
Mancino: Okay, to go with the terrace.
Al -Jaff: We also ... put fencing in.
Mancino: So fencing at the top of the highest point of the terrace and besides fencing, '
because we also know what fencing looks like. Some sort of arborvitae or some sort of
conifers.
Al -Jaff: ...approval. Landscaping plan.
Mancino: Okay. Did the applicant look at all about doing a sloping down a little bit and
then terracing? Come down a little bit more gradually, and I know that that would probably
lose some land for developing but was there any creative look at that? Developing it that
way. '
Al -Jaff: When we met with the applicant, which was Tuesday of last week, we recommended
that they revise the plan. That they show us a terraced retaining wall and we left the design '
issue with them. That they would have to come back to us with a design that was
62 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
satisfactory.
Mancino: And we don't see it, right?
' Hempel: Maybe if I could expand on that a little bit. Nancy, I'm sorry to interrupt...we did
throw out some suggestions to try to break up the row of houses. Meander a street through
' there. Possibly providing all the units onto the west side of the street. Move the street closer
to Powers Blvd and act more like a frontage road if you will and provide sufficient buffering
then between Powers Blvd and that frontage road if you will. That resulted in losing quite a
few units there. They felt it was going to, they thought the grading was going to be
approximately the same. They still have the units on the west side but, bring that road closer
to Powers Boulevard. If you bring the units down the hill somewhat and I think reduces
' some of the impact. But it does knock off quite a few of the units being proposed.
Aanenson: Can I just comment on what Dave is saying too. I think there's an appearance
' that this was dropped in our lap and we just reviewed it. We've been working with this
applicant almost a year. This thing has gone through many evolutions. It's a very difficult
piece to try to develop. There's an inherent density in there and he feels there's an inherent
value in that property. Okay, so we're trying to come up with ... resolve but it is, there's some
tough issues there. We're trying to...
i Hempel: I'll touch on that a little bit more. The applicant was given the opportunity to
revise his drawings... he'd like to bring it out onto the table and see what issues are actually
out there so if they do go back, they can take into consideration all of the issues and go from
there.
' Mancino: That's helpful information.
Aanenson: This is an opportunity to get public input. Go back and respond to it. It goes
back to that thing, should we put it on or wait until everything's finalized and then come
back and you get them in a different order or bring it out in the public hearing and get some
direction from everybody and go from there.
r Mancino: I just have a couple more questions. Sharmin, on the tree plan here. Are we
suggesting that there be custom grading in some of the areas where it abuts the existing trees?
Al -Jaff: Yes. They would lose some trees...
I Mancino: On that side. And quite a few on the north.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Al -Jaff: Well it will probably be more than that.
Mancino: So you're going to take off about a quarter of the trees that are there.
Al -Jaff: Correct. However, all of this will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 as required by
ordinance. We are also requesting additional trees being placed on this site. One thing that
might help is, by realigning those units, it could potentially minimize grading with those units
and it could also minimize impacts on the stand of trees.
Mancino: Trees. Okay. And when I see this tree plan, it has 10 trees that look like this.
What's that telling me? I mean they're going to take all of this but what does it mean? Are
those the specimen trees?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Going back to the canopy coverage.
Mancino: So these are the trees that are larger than 12 caliper inch that they have designated
they've shown. But the rest of the underbrush, the saplings and everything else will be saved
and they may not go in and clear cut the underbrush?
Aanenson: If that's how we define the conservation easement outside of our grading limits.
We've indicated that some will be taken out that are shown on the plan.
Mancino: Okay. But then the rest en masse will stay. Excuse me, I wrote down notes as
everyone talked. I think that's the end of my questions.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: As far as retaining walls are concerned, another aspect that I'm interested in comes
from what I'll call the Oak Pond effect and after seeing those townhomes go up, I'm just
wondering what really happened there. But the retaining walls are going to be a major visual
feature if they're built and I want to know exactly how they look when they go up because
those will be viewed all along Powers Blvd, if indeed this gets constructed like this. So I
think that's going to be extremely important. This is a PUD and I think it's important that
that be very well defined and we understand how that's going to look. Comments regarding
the landscaping. Staff has indicated the deficiencies. I guess I would like to, when this
comes back I would like to see a very detailed landscaping plan which resolves those
64
u
u
rJ
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
deficiencies. I think the plan is quite difficult to follow and I think it could use a lot of
improvement there. The idea of the retaining walls going into the treed area. To put in those
retaining walls there's going to be all kinds of grading beyond those areas. Equipment and
essentially many, many of those trees would be lost in that area so you know I would not
support those retaining walls within that treed area. I think that probably defeats the purpose.
Let's see. I guess overall I think the residents had a lot of good comments and I'm not going
to try to respond to each of those other than I think many of them have quite a bit of merit
and I'm sure we're going to go over those in detail. They've put their thoughts down on
paper which I think is great. They're very well organized and have a good handle as to what
they feel is important for their neighborhood and I certainly appreciate that. The one thing
that was, or another thing that was brought out was the runoff from the upland area. The
other neighborhood and I would, we really haven't addressed that anywhere in the staff report
that I've seen and I know it's a matter of course to consider the watershed regardless of
where the property lines are but I dust want to make sure, in this case I think it's extremely
important because there is a tremendous amount of water that will come off from the upland
area that I want to make sure that gets addressed. I'm sure it will but just to emphasize the
importance of that in terms of incorporating surface water control features into whatever
retaining walls are built or whatever and that would be kind of tricky. But that would have to
be done in this instance. I can't imagine for stability sake water cascading over those
retaining walls so, that's the extent of my comments.
' Scott: Good, Ladd.
Conrad: You know when you look at the footprint that we got, it wasn't bad. When you
think that this has really been negotiated to have 9.3 units on it, it wasn't bad. It's coming in
at 5.1 and unfortunately it's probably not meeting the real need for, the real reason for having
medium density and that becomes affordable housing. And if we're at $110,000.00 which, as
a minimum, I'm sure the neighbors appreciate that more than the $80,000.00 unit but really
when we put in a PUD and we put in medium density, the reason was to make affordable
housing and we planned that for years and years and years. That's why we do our plans so
that people know. It's there. It's been there for years. I said that and then I look at the
retaining wall and I look at some issues when you start playing around with landforms, that if
' you were here when we talked about other parcels and that starts to bother me. When we
start playing with the landforms again and putting in a retaining wall. That's when, what I
thought to begin with kind of breaks down. It's to the point though where I want to see if it
' works. It looks like it could but I'm not totally convinced of it, and that's why the applicant
has got to bring back some better. We have to visualize what this looks like. We have to, as
planning commissioners and as neighbors, have to understand what we're doing with this
retaining wall. We have to see how the landscape plan affects that and how it moves from
this medium density to the neighboring low density. So it may not be acceptable but on the
65
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any
discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am.
Mancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff ..some direction about '
and that's impervious surface. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impervious surface is over
what the PUD states.
Scott: Is it 30 on the PUD? '
..
other hand it just may but given what we've been given tonight, I don't have a clue. And
given that fact, we have to table this. We have to. There's just no doubt. We have no other
choice. My only other issue, I think a lot of the issues from the neighborhood, I think they're
'
resolved or they're close to being resolved. If you saw the staff report, we've dealt with, you
know the staff is dealing with speed limits. Staff is dealing with tree preservation. Staff is
dealing with wetlands. I think we're concerned with construction and I'm concerned with
construction and what it could potentially do to the neighbor's houses and liability there. I
think we have to let the neighbors know what it is. Who's accountable and we'll do that.
My only other issue though is the variety of designs that abut the street. You know I really
'
don't, I really don't want a row. It's not what we need there. I think generally I didn't have
a real problem with the house designs. I think they're, but I don't want a row of houses
abutting that street. There's got to be some kind of variety and I don't think it's just color
and I think the developers have tried to put some gables in and some different variations but
still they've got a great potential of a lot of units sitting exactly the same distance back from
the street and it is, it's a wall. That bothers me a little bit. So we need to see it back and
see what the developers can do but the big deal is, we have to visualize what your perspective
is of that retaining wall. We have to see it because you're changing a landform that we
really don't like to, or at least I don't like to play around with the land that much. I kind of
,
like to leave it as it is and if you're to change it, then we've got to see how you're doing it
so we can all say, yeah. That makes sense. So anyway, because again I started out, the
reason I started out with density, they contractually can put that kind of density in here and
you have, there's some other alternatives. It may not be economic for them to do it right
now. There may not be a market for the higher density right now but they have some,
contractually we're liable for putting in some units so when they come down to 5.1, that's not
bad. So we just want to make sure they're the right 5.1 units that are going there so again, I
say that to the neighbors. There's some other options that aren't as good but again, we have
to make sure that this works. In a transition to your area and that's why I want to see it
'
back.
'
Mancino: I'd second that.
Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any
discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am.
Mancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff ..some direction about '
and that's impervious surface. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impervious surface is over
what the PUD states.
Scott: Is it 30 on the PUD? '
..
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
1 Mancino: It's 30 on the PUD and they're at 34 %.
' Conrad: We can enforce that. Yet on the other hand, we could enforce that.
Aanenson: We went over on the other one...
Ledvina: I think I'm willing, personally I'm willing to be flexible on that given the type of
design that I see. If we were looking at another design, maybe 30% would be more
1 appropriate. So I think the staff recommendation as it relates to that is appropriate for, in my
opinion, for this particular development.
' Conrad: Yeah, I agree with Matt.
Mancino: Well it's probably one of the reasons why you get the row of houses also. I relate
' the impervious surface percentage to that and lining up the roads.
Ledvina: It's very, I would agree with that and I think something needs to be done to break
up the wall. And if that means losing a unit and staying... or losing more units or however
it's done and also in relation to the severity of the slope differentials. In the final analysis,
retaining walls may not be the appropriate way to develop and the density would come down.
I don't know but I think more sensitivity and analysis there will provide some answers.
' Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table action on the preliminary plat to subdivide
9.7 acres into 51 lots twin home multifamily development for Jasper Development
Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
L
I�
Scott: We'd like to see this back as soon as the applicant can do what we've suggested but
just in summary. I believe it would be very helpful for us to see a perspective view, a
westerly view of the, not necessarily the whole development but at least significant sections
of the development where the difference in grade is very severe. Number two, if it is at all
possible and we all have to understand that this piece of property is pretty much a basketcase
to try to develop and I think that this initial pass that we've seen is a good effort towards it
but if there's any way that we can get the street to meander a little bit so we have more of a
wave effect instead of just the row house, that'd be important. We'd like to see building
materials at the next meeting and.
Mancino: Detailed landscaping.
Scott: Yeah, and the other comments I think are on it. Okay, good. Thank you all very
much. We appreciate your. The public hearing is closed sir. I'm sorry.
67
I
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Resident: I understand that but I need to ask one question. Can we get the information that
we're asking too? Can we as homeowners?
Aanenson: Yes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes were available due to a copying machine
problem.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on what occurred at the City Council
meeting of August 22, 1994 and the Commission had some questions regarding the
Entertainment Complex presentation.
Mancino: My only concern, publically, is that they reviewed it much like we did. Remember
we reviewed it. It was very long. We started at 5:30 and we went until 11:30 one night or
12:00.
Aanenson: But this is just a concept. This is just to say, we should spend some money to do
some drawings.
Mancino: Exactly but I also want to say that it was too bad that I think that they did it like
at 1:00, 12:30 at night too. So I mean there's nothing to be done. I'm just saying that it's
too bad that.
Ledvina: Was it really that late?
Mancino: Yes...
Aanenson: A 2 hour snowmobile issue...
Kate Aanenson also reviewed the legal issues involved pertaining to gifts presented to public
officials with the Planning Commission.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
J
1
J
I
68 1
s
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
PRELLMLNARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRES INTO 48 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES,
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 24 STRUCTURES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS
BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWERS PLACE,
JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron Bremer
2021 Field Ave, St. Paul
Phil Jungbluth
8209 West 93rd Street, Bloomington
Larry Harris
Attorney for Applicants
Jim Jasper
Jasper Development
Mark Jeffries
Millco Landscape Products
Greg Halling
Rader and Associates
Jay Jasper
Jasper Development
Joe & Deanne Hoppe
8530 Tern Court
Kounthone Souvanna Kane
1600 Lake Susan Hills Drive
John Williams
1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Betsy Jenkins
1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Arthur N'. Stene
1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Loleta Rogers
1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Gary Conduit
8440 Pelican Court
Jerome R. Reutzel
1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Doug Jacobsen
8551 Merganser Court
Bob Lanzi
8431 Egret Court
Patrick A. Nelson
8411 Egret Court
Dave Clough
1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Pat Victoria 8530
Merganser Court
Jeff Zahn
8461 Pelican Court
Ronda Pierre
1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Tom Rasmussen
8531 Merganser Court
Sharmin AI -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments for staff from the commissioners?
Mancino: I have one. Sharmin, how are we deciding we have what three, did you say three
wetlands? Ag urban wetlands here.
7
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
A] -Jaff: I'm sorry. I
Mancino: We have three ag urban wetlands here and one of them we are retaining. It will
stay natural and then the other two.
Al -Jaff: They are ... with the mitigation that will perform, we will get much better quality
wetland. Right now the type of a wetland is still... they don't perform as well as they should.
Mancino: Okay. Are we mitigating on site or?
Al -Jaff: Yes, we will on one. Some of the mitigation will take place on the northerly portion
of this site so this wetland will be enlarged. The rest will be mitigated with the improvement
of County Road 17.
Mancino: How are we deciding, what is the procedure of deciding whether we mitigate 2:1
or whether we bank it and somewhere else? How is that set up?
on site go
Aanenson: A lot of this is part of the storm water management plan and we went through
and we did... inventorying all the wetlands and going through and banking. Like Bluff Creek
is identified as we want to enhance. We view some of these areas that aren't functioning as
well and they could add value wetland... project somewhere else. We were before you a
couple days ago to talk about the ... on the other side of Lake Susan. While we're improving
'
that wetland, we think that's going to function as a high quality wetland...
Mancino: Would you go one step further and explain to me what under utilized means
because when I think of a wetland, it creates an ecosystem that is in and of itself, whether it's
under utilized or not.
Aanenson: Well it's very, very small. It's there but we think that by enhancing somewhere
else, we're creating a better quality, better functioning environment somewhere else.
Mancino: So it has to do a lot with size?
Aanenson: Size and function. Again we're kind of, Chanhassen is very dynamic in the way
we approach this. We look at not only size and function and quality and if we can improve
and make a better one somewhere else, it does... kind of rated them all. When we did our
inventory we looked at where are the best opportunities to do some really good projects.
Instead of them all being marginal... The ones that we felt were already degregated, to
improve some of it for the chance to improve the quality of it. That was part of the rating
system.
I Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
I Mancino. Okay, thank you.
Scott: Any other questions? Well would the members of the development team like to
speak?
Larry Harris: Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation. My name's Larry
Harris. I'm the attorney for the development. I think as you can see from reviewing the
revised staff report, the developer has taken to heart the comments that were made not only
' by staff but also by the Planning Commission and the residents at the meeting on September
7th. The primary issues that were raised at the September 7th meeting, I had written down
into three categories. The first was a public safety issue. The primary areas of concern
raised there were retaining walls. The Planning Commission had very clearly wanted to see
detailed drawings of the retaining walls. They wanted to see engineering data, and Mark
Jeffries who's handling the landscape development for the development team will make a
presentation in that regard. One of the other areas raised was access to Powers Boulevard,
which staff has already explained. The plan has been substantially modified to address some
of those concerns. Greg Halling, the engineer for the development team will make a
presentation where he talks about access issues and also shows how the layout was changed
on certain issues such as berming the streets to enhance eye appeal have been dealt with.
Another area of concern related to environmental issues. One significant area was wetland
and wetland delineation. A qualified wetland delineator has been on the scene. A report has
been provided to staff. I think staff has adequately addressed that issue but if any specific
inquiry needs to be made, either Mr. Halling or myself would probably be ... to answer any
' questions that the Planning Commission members or the public might have. The third area of
concern was primary developmental concerns. Style issues, shall we talk about. The
' architect for this project, Ron Bremer has prepared a scale model showing out the units lay
out. How the roads lay. Where the retaining walls will be so people can get a better feel for
that and we'll make a presentation in that regard. Phil Jungbluth will make a presentation
' concerning what I'll call the style issues. Exterior style issues. One of the things the
Planning Commission expressed was, what is the siding on it? What are the roof lines going
to look like? What type of roofing materials are going to be there and Mr. Jungbluth will
' make a presentation in that regard. First I'd like to call upon Greg Halling, the project
engineer. He'll explain the revised layout and he'll be in a position to answer any questions
concerning utilities...
Greg Halling: I'm Greg Halling with Rader and Associates, civil engineer. Essentially what's
been done is to change the layout as the units lay out along Powers Boulevard to get more of
' a pleasing aesthetic look as you look at the units. One of the big things which Dave has
already pointed out was the elimination of this connection to Powers Blvd and in order to do
that, the road has been placed parallel and close to Powers Blvd. One of the wetlands which
9
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
was mentioned earlier that is going to be filled is in this location and on the earlier, the first
layout, that wetland would not have been filled. So what we're doing is, you know it's kind
of a balancing act. Trying to determine which item, whether it's that particular wetland or the
road, is more important, and meeting with the County Engineer, or engineering consultant,
and staff, it was felt that this was a good compromise and an improvement, particularly on the
traffic routing. The other thing that I wanted to point out, the three wetlands that are being
filled have been dug up previously because of sewer line. An existing sewer line has gone
through there so those are very disturbed wetlands and that's part of the lower quality item I
think that was mentioned before on those wetlands. Also on the wetland it is, we are looking
at increasing the wetland all on the north side here and that particular increase in wetland is
equal to the three wetlands that are on site so essentially we have the same area of wetland
when we get them on site plus there will be the increased wetland on the city's project and
location. The other thing that we've done, there were two cul -de -sacs in this area and if you
notice, this one is eliminated with the thru drive. This particular turn around in this area is
accomplished for, or the turn around is for the fire trucks and it would be accomplished in a
T type turn around rather than a cul -de -sac. And the reason that that was done is to try to
pull the units in. Try to minimize the disturbance to the large mass of...trees that are on the
site and so we're just going up to the trees, a smaller amount or trying to minimize that
impact. Are there any questions.
Ledvina: Is this model to scale?
Ron Bremer: Yes. Each of the contours represents a foot and a half. Approximately a foot
and a half.
Ledvina: So vertical and horizontal scale is equal here in this model? In terms of the
grading and all of that.
Ron Bremer: That's correct.
Ledvina: Alright, thank you.
Scott: Do those pins denote the sections that we have in here with regard to the retaining
wall?
Ron Bremer: Those represent very closely the corner points of the property line.
Scott: Of the lots?
10
F ,
L
[l
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Ron Bremer: Of the property line. Of our property line... individual lots but our overall
property line. If we connect the line between those, that'd be approximately...
Mancino: And what does this gray material represent?
' Ron Bremer: The model's generic in nature in that again, we're just generically showing
where the trees are and the extent of the tree planting. So green represents the deciduous tree
type. These little pointy gray things here represent a pine tree essentially. Coniferous tree
' type. And these simply represent planting hedges. I guess what we're trying to illustrate here
is that we're planting above these terraced retaining walls so that we can prevent people from
walking over those, even though we've minimized the height of those retaining walls but
we're also guarding those. That's what these gray strips represent. They're lines of plantings.
Mancino: I don't understand the retaining walls. I can't tell where.
Ron Bremer: Oh the retaining walls, I'm sorry. They're back here. You've got to get up to
actually observe them. That was one of the items that was discussed was the height, the
' overall height of the retaining walls. We've reduced the height of those and terraced them so
that we minimize any one single vertical jump.
Mancino: And the terraced area is approximately 5 feet? So is there any plantings on those
terraced areas?
' Ron Bremer: Actually the landscape people would have to address that. But again, they vary
slightly from 3 feet up to 6 feet in height. And again, the plantings here are generic. We
cover most of the major planting areas but there's an extensive planting program around each
individual unit that's really not represented here because of the scale.
Mancino: And the other thing that this model represents is some of the different detail work
that you're doing on the roof lines?
Ron Bremer: That's correct. We have two basic unit types which we've developed and when
' we get back to some of the boards, I'll show you more of the specifics on that. But so we
have two basic unit types and beyond that, along Powers Blvd we've developed several
various elevation types. We've introduced cross gables, dormers, and also gables at the ends
of these porches so we've got a total of 4 types that we're introducing. In addition to that,
optional decks and porches, and /or porches will be offered so there will be an additional
rhythm here. This doesn't necessarily represent exactly which units get the dormer because
ultimately that's going to depend on who buys what options but we're saying we will in fact
provide that kind of variety along Powers Blvd.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Mancino: Unless someone doesn't buy the dormer style or. '
Ron Bremer: Well, dormer style is a side issue but if they buy an attached porch, which isn't '
represented here. Say this one might get an attached porch so this may get that sort of a look
on it. So then we'll have to vary the pattern really. It all depends on what options people
buy but we will provide that level of variety. '
Scott: Are there any architectural details that are available on the back sides of these units
that will be facing Powers? ,
Ron Bremer: Yeah again, I guess we'll get to that on the boards in a little while.
Scott: Okay. How about, we all have some drawings that I believe, 6 -7 sections of the
retaining wall. Are those denoted at all on this particular model, or ... landscape architect can
probably tell us. '
Ron Bremer: He'd have to address that.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
'•
Ron Bremer: I guess before I get to the boards, just a couple additional notes about the '
model. VVe've maintained a relatively low density, at least for townhouses. We've kept the
roof pitches at a moderate level and all the strength points for the roof-masses spring off of
the first story elevation. The first story with elevation. In other words, there's no storing of '
half masses or two story masses here. We're all springing off of that. That point right up
here. So we're keeping the roof masses low I guess is what I'm getting at in order to preserve
the views across the complex. And when you get down and look at it at eye level, you can
start to see, especially when you get up here, the place on top of the hill, there's very little
impact with these people above the hill.
Mancino: Actuall y what is the elevation difference? I stood up there in different areas. '
Ron Bremer: Well the site slopes generally, that's north on the model. The site slopes
generally from west to east and also from south down to north. The high point within our
boundaries, within our ... our survey just extended slightly beyond this property line. So the
high point on our site was approximately 962. The elevation and at the low point was
approximately 912 so there's about 50 feet of slope from here down to there. And again, as
far as the scale of this complex, again when you get down and look at it, you start to see a
rhythm of, a nice rhythm of, 1 think respectfully massed buildings with plantings and density
and proximity to the street. I think this will feel more of something that might be in a small
12
Ll
1
[1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
town neighborhood rather than a high density townhouse project. And so as far as the
architecture itself, or the details of the buildings themselves, we try to play up on that feeling.
The small town sense. To do that we've tried to minimize the scale or the perceived scale of
the buildings. And also tried to introduce harmonizing elements. Or illuminizing elements I
should say on the design. So this is the Itasca, which is the walkout unit, which would be
closest to yourselves for the most part on that model. What we're doing here is we've
introduced these continuous bands around the building to sort of wrap around and what we're
expecting to do is provide a base for the building and body size and a cap if you will. And
we'd reinforce that cap by using various siding. In this case the scalloped sort of shingle style
siding. These are all premium grade vinyls and Phil will talk a little bit more about that.
Other elements that we tried to introduced that are somewhat traditional, are planter boxes.
We're providing grids on all the windows. Again at the columns, where we have columns,
we're providing a trim at the base and at the cap to give it more interest. And more
traditionally styled guardrails and that's again with heavier... posts and traditional pickets in
between. So we've given, we've tried to give these things a flavor of a little bit the traditional
flavor. So that's the Itasca unit. Now again we start talking about the variety along the street
here and I'll show you some of the elevations we've developed. Again these units along here,
these 9 units are the Itasca so they're the same unit size. They're broken up into two parts.
The curvature of the street house is kind of shifting back and forth like this and it also helps
this coming in and out a little bit. It gives us a little more of a romantic progression through
the site. So I guess in comparison this is the standard Itasca. One alternative that we've
developed along the Powers Blvd side is to introduce these two dormers on either side. One
more point to make is, the cupulas we have on every single unit aren't represented on, they
get a little too small. This again is the Itasca. Another elevation for it would be the cross
gables and cupula on top of that. We'd keep the scalloped shingles again coming from the
front. Okay, so I covered the basics. One more. This one represents what it will look like
with the screened porch on it or...
Phil Jungbluth: It could also end up either having dormers and /or a central gable.
Scott: So the cross gable is optional but not, this is the center section and side sections that
are set back but it's the cross dormer on the side sections that are an option? Not the side...
Phil Jungbluth: Right.
Ron Bremer: ...porch. So you may see this with one or the other variations of the dormers.
So I guess in sum here, we've got at least 4, in fact probably 5 different elevation types that
we're introducing along Powers Blvd. And there's only about a dozen units along there so
that's a pretty good percentage. That's our standard unit.
13
—7
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Phil Jungbluth: I guess that represents, that was the main unit of concern was the facing
Powers Blvd. You had requested to see what the materials would be so we brought some
samples today. This particular sample is what we propose to use as siding on the project and
this right here. I think you can see what it is. It's a high grade premium vinyl siding with a
,
4 inch reveal and it has a very deep setback. Deeper than the standard vinyl or standard
aluminum siding. It's also a very smooth finish so that it looks like a painted board. That's
the whole idea of this particular grade of siding. And these are the colors that area available.
'
They're all metal, earth tone colors. A continuous band that we're talking about in terms of
using as a decoration, we've decided to go with white because white will go with any of those
colors. So rather than what is... It's a very thick siding and we use it on our premium grade.
,
We offer two types of homes, because of our single family products and we use this in our
higher priced homes of $200,000.00 and up so it is something special. I don't know how
much more I can describe it. What we're also planning on doing with gables, as indicated on
the front of the units, right in here and this is on all of the buildings, is using another vinyl
product called cedar impressions which is a vinyl siding that looks like cedar shakes. It's a
very deeply embossed product used for accentuating architectural details and giving that
'
textured look to all the units that we're trying to achieve.
Mancino: So your customers can pick from any of these colors?
'
Phil Jungbluth: Well what we would do is we'd have every other house a different color.
First of all we won't let them have the blue. But they certainly could use any of these other
colors. And however it would be the case of no two houses next to each other would have
the same color. Or buildings I should say. Or across the street. We will control what site
gets which color. So that only every 10 houses have the same color.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Harberts: What was the estimated market value of the homes?
Phil Jungbluth: Well we're looking at upwards of $110,000.00. r
Harberts: Per unit.
Phil Jungbluth: Per unit.
Scott: Okay, anything else? Good, thank you.
Phil Jungbluth: Did you want to talk about the landscaping?
14 1
Ll
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
' Mark Jeffries: I don't know whether this will yield any more information than the model but
it might help to take a look at those a little bit. My name is Mark Jeffries with Millco
Landscape Products and I did the landscape design. I did not design the walls but I can
probably address some questions on the walls. I really don't have a presentation but if you
have any questions.
' Mancino: What are the walls made out of?
' Mark Jeffries: The walls will be made out of interlocking system called Stone Wall. Stone
Wall select. I have brochures to look at. I have enough, does everyone want to take a look
at one?
' Scott: Yes.
' Mark Jeffries: You also on the walls have a detail I believe that shows a cross section in 7
different places on the wall. There is one that states on that cross section 4 4 is a 3:1 slope
instead of a 2:1 slope.
' Mancino: What about on cross section 46. Is that still a 2.5 to 1 slope?
Greg Halling: They all, the minimum was 3:1...3:1 on the grading plan that was laid out.
?Mark Jeffries: Okay, so that would be 3:1 also.
Mancino: So section 96 would be a 3:1?
Mark Jeffries: Correct.
Mancino: Can you mow a 3:1 slope?
Greg Halling: Yes.
Mancino: Okay.
1 Mark Jeffries: One thing on the plan, or on this model. Well yeah, it is shown. The
planting areas here are shown in front. And you have a detail as to what those planting areas
are. They are some ... it doesn't show all of them but there's about, I think about a half a
' dozen of them. And there is one error on that also, the cardinal dogwood hedge, which is the
hedge material that would go behind the wall, here is the specifications in 5 gallon drums.
That would also meet those specs...
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Mancino: Can you review for me the berming on Powers? And the height of the berming
Mark Jeffries: Well if you take a look at that model, I think that might be more helpful to
you. The planting areas, I really concerned myself with the planting areas and those by
nature are typically bermed somewhat. And it shows on that model I think pretty well, the
berming.
Scott: Which, and I would assume that the species that you're using along Powers are all salt
tolerant?
Mark Jeffries: Yeah. Right.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Conrad: Who's responsible for the maintenance of the walls in 5 or 10 years? Is that the
homeowners association?
Mark Jeffries: The maintenance for the walls, you're saying like if they would fail?
Conrad: Well, yeah cave in.
Mark Jeffries: I guess I can't speak to what's between the builder and subcontractor who
builds the walls.
Phil Jungbluth: There will be a homeowners association, which will be funded to take care of
any future structure requirements. There's also a homeowners association which will take
care of lawns, snow removal, except for garbage... So if the wall fails or if shingles need
replacement, siding... there's a fund and the homeowners association...
Harberts: Can you describe to me how you envision the garbage collection to occur with this
type of layout?
Phil Jungbluth: I sure can't. I'm not a, you know whatever.
Harberts: Do you anticipate that it's going to be a door to door type of pick it up at each
individual unit or is it going to be a common collection point?
Phil Jungbluth: No, I would anticipate we'll have it door to door.
Scott: Any other comments?
LE
5
16 1
1
i Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Mancino: I just had one more landscaping question. On the cross sections that I'll see at the
property line, I understand should be a tree. Is that a tree at those property lines?
Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge.
' Mancino: That's the hedge.
Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge, right.
' Scott: Good, any other landscaping related comments or questions?
Harberts: I have a staff question. This is for Dave. The turn arounds with the T and with the
other sides, have they been reviewed by the Public Safety Department as to, can the vehicles,
the emergency vehicles turn around? Do you know?
' Hempel: The turn arounds have been designed in accordance with the Fire Marshal's, he has
a handout that he gives. He gives specifications described for turn arounds...
Harberts: They're not concerned with that T style turn around or whatever?
' Hempel: They use a T bone, a Y or a standard cul -de -sac.
' Harberts: Okay, thanks.
Scott: Anything else? Would the development team like to make any more comments before
we open the public hearing? Good, thank you Mr. Harris. This is a public hearing and may I
have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion canied. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Just for purposes of information, how many people would like to speak at the public
hearing? Okay. Good. You can still speak if you don't raise your hand obviously but sir, if
you'd like to start it off and give us your name and your address.
Tom Rasmussen: My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and like
Matt, I'm a civil and environmental engineer. First of all, just to address, maybe in the future
for the developers, it would be nice for the public to see this before the meeting so that we
get a chance to look at it and make some comments on it. That's just a general question.
The one thing very disappointing about the model is that there's a bunch of houses on top of
17
u
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
there and they're not shown for that. Probably my biggest issue with this thing is safety
,
reasons. Catherine, could you come here please. This is my daughter. She plays on the back
of the hill there and this is a 6 foot high ladder. Catherine, do you want to go up? I can't
afford expensive models. Do you want to go any higher? Okay. Are you scared? No?
'
Would you want to jump off from here? That's right. Okay, thank you. The development
would be fine if there was nothing on top with the retaining walls. I can't allow this to be in
my back yard. They talk about some bushes and some shrubs and stuff but if you look at
their plan, there's gaps. There's openings. I don't feel comfortable with that right now. The
way the existing slope is, when the ball goes down the hill, it stills go down right now. I'm
just, I think it's stupid. I really disagree with it and think some others will also repeat that
'
fear for the retaining walls. I think it should be a 3:1 slope throughout and no retaining
walls. One of my other issues that we've talked about are significant grading within my
property. This is my yard. This is the back of my house on Merganser Court. I'm within 30
'
feet of the property line and you'll notice on their grading plan, there's a nice little gap there
between the shrubs and then all of a sudden I've got a 5 foot retaining wall. Boom go down
to another 5 foot retaining wall and then we've got that. Sorry, if she goes sliding back there
'
in the winter and it's going to be hard for us to watch them constantly and I know that stuffs
going to happen with that. The other issue is when they're grading, they're doing significant
amount of grading extremely close to my house. Within 30 feet of it and I'm concerned with
'
foundation problems or whatever. Because my house is up here, you're going and moving a
lot of dirt and what like that. You remove that. What happens to my foundation? I don't
know. Dave and I, we had a discussion on that today and it's real... While I also have this
'
sky rail up here, I'd like to raise a couple of other issues. For this portion of the development
that's there, there's only a parking stall for just 2 vehicles. In our previous meeting we had
talked about what we were concerned where do their company park if they're going to have a
'
party here or open house, where are they going to park? There's only room for 2 of them
down there right now. For all of these units in this section, there's no other public parking for
that. The other thing, their third design wipes out is a 24 inch oak over here and a 30 inch
'
oak tree over there. You can't, can we replace a 30 inch oak? I don't think so. For that.
And I guess what I would propose and being some type of options is where I've got the blue
'
lines crossed out like that. I would propose some type of a re- shifting of the units to try and
preserve the trees and then extend the parking lot down here in this region then and try to
eliminate some of the use of the retaining walls up in this region as much as possible. That
,
is just one suggestion to try and get around some of the issues that we've got facing us and I
realize that they're trying to make some money and all that too but on the other hand, we've
got some significant safety and environmental issues that we want to talk about. We had
previously talked about, mine is cross section 44 in your pamphlet there, in case you want
to—and I've gone and done another little one myself here. But again as you'll note, this is the
existing slope and it will slope pretty much in an existing format just kind of continues on
,
and then it kind of tapers off towards the bottom of the hill. Like that. Again, it wouldn't
18 1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
take much going to all of a sudden come down and again hit these steps. The other thing
with retaining walls you need to be aware of is that back in '87 there was a significant
amount of failures in Bloomington from the super storm. They need to be properly
engineered and they need to usually have drain tile behind them also to keep these from
failing. Those are important safety concerns and design ... I do thank the developer for
addressing the wetland issues and I'm happy to see that the one on north side is being
i preserved. I am happy with the access of that too. Getting back to Dave's previous
comments about County Road 17, I'd like to state here publically that I'm extremely
' disappointed in our Roger Gustafson with Carver County as a whole for not listening to the
residents that live in that area. To our concerns. I think at a minimum where their driveway
comes in there should be a pedestrian crossing to the park that's being proposed across the
1 other road there. Why in the world, right now it's a pain to get out there. There's some cars
coming up there about 55 -60 mph and we've got to come from a dead stop and out there.
Now we've got to cross two lanes of traffic. Sit out in the middle and then come back out. 1
' know they did their projections and all that other stuff but common sense, we live in a
neighborhood. I've made two 911 calls for accidents at the north end of Lake Susan Hills
Drive and CR 17. We live there. We know what kind of stuff is going on there all the time.
Lastly, we had talked a little bit about —along CR 17. Again, what we had talked about today
is there isn't room for a berm up there of any significance to d0 anything. For noise
reduction. The residents along there, it's an extremely noisy road and if I'm, I wouldn't want
1 to buy one of these toAmhouses where right out my back yard is this road because there's no
way for that. And if they can do any type of break at all, a year round break with trees of
some significant sizes, that would help out a lot. On top of a 3 foot berm but with walk out
' units walking out to a 4 lane highway or whatever... And I guess I would like some
clarification of the price. Tonight we heard upwards of up to $110,000.00. The last time we
were here they said base price would be $110,000.00- $120,000.00.
Applicant That's what I did say. From $110,000.00.
Tom Rasmussen: From $110,000.00, okay. I misunderstood you ... So thank you for your time.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
Jerome Reutzel: My name is Jerome Reutzel. I live on 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd
like to reiterate some concerns that Tom had mentioned, and the concerns that I have. First
of all the traffic concerns. Traffic's bad on County Road 17 and I recognize at this point in
time that it may not be necessary for anything to be done. What I'm very concerned about is
whether or not, how many deaths or how many serious injuries will it take before something
is actually done, and it's not that far from reality. Will it be 1 death? Will it be 2 deaths?
Will it be my death? Will it be my wife's death or will it be my children's death? That road
19
I�
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
will be used and I'm hoping that it will be reviewed on a periodic basis, and I believe that it
will be. My second concern is the crosswalk concerns as far as getting from one end to the
other, as far as the parkland that's available on the other side of County Road 17. I don't see
any provision that's being made. I know a lot of people are making crosswalks or crossings
,
from one side of the street to the other and there's no provision for that. I was kind of hoping
to see some kind of traffic light but I can see for at this point in time that may not be
necessary. I'm hoping in time that that does become reality because I think it's necessary.
,
My third concern is the replacement of the trees. Tom had mentioned that some of the larger
trees were going to be disposed of and in looking through the report that I received from
Sharmin, I noticed that one of the staff recommendations tonight is that increased vegetation
'
be placed on this site, and I think the developers have addressed the issue to a certain amount
but it leads into my fourth issue. The fact of the safety issue with those retaining walls. I
'
have to agree with Tom. In my back yard the children play there and they spend time there
'
and it's dangerous and there are gaps where those kids could easily fall. They're young kids
and I think that there needs to be something done, seriously, in order to prevent those kids
,
from getting on the other side.
Scott: And what would you suggest?
Jerome Reutzel: Well you know I'd like to say, I'd like to suggest a fence. But from a
realistic standpoint is that visibly appealing? Not necessarily. I don't think so. I think a
hedge may very well be, a straight hedge of some type would be necessary along the border,
particularly where the retaining walls are going in. I've seen, I will speak of my parent's
development. What they have are actually spruce trees that were put behind their property to
border them from a church. That has been very effective over time to eliminate traffic.
'
However from when they were first planted, they're still is traffic going in between the church
and their yard. I think at a minimum there's going to have to be a basic hedge going in to
prevent traffic back and forth. Kids coming down that hill are not going to see those
'
retaining walls as they're going down. They're hidden and as a minimum, I implore the
developers and based upon the recommendations of city staff, I ask that something be done
'
there. It doesn't affect my property directly but I can assure you that it does, it could easily
affect my children and affect a lot of other children in that development because I've seen
them play there. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
,
Scott: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Of course you're not obligated to'speak but we
don't want to discourage anybody if you've got something on your mind. Yes sir.
Bob Lanzi: My name is Bob Lanzi, 8431 Egret Court. First of all I really appreciate the
builder working with the planning department. I really appreciate all the help that staff has
,
been. I've come at various times to ask questions and every time I've had questions answered
'
20
F - 1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
so I appreciate that. Stating one concern also, it would have been appreciated to be able to
see something like this little plot that's here ahead of time so we'd have an opportunity to
respond to it. I know for myself living right in that first cul -de -sac. The northern portion of
' this. I'd like to see exactly what that northern most wetland, what's going to be affected
there. I mean we're talking about a 2:1 restoration. I do realize it's not pristine and there's no
' formal obligation not to touch it at all but one thing I'd like to see is just kind of find out
what exactly it's going to do. Is it going to be a holding pond? Is it going to remain
virtually untouched? Is there going to be, I know on the other side of the road, the other side
of CR 17, that is more so of a holding pond than it is a wetland natural area. I know for the
whole, I can't speak for the whole development but I know as you come into the whole
development, the first thing you see is you do see that wetland and that's kind of the character
of the development as you go into it and I think that would be of some concern for all the
residents. Not only the ones bordering along the proposed development, that something is
done to keep it as natural as possible. I also saw in the proposal that there would be some
berming along the whole western side. Basically the whole back of the proposed
development. I'd like to see exactly what was going to be there. I've seen some of the plans
and it seemed like it wasn't adequate in creating some sort of a barrier between the multi
family housing and the single family housing. Sure, all the residents that are here expressed a
big part of their concern along with, the number one issue is safety. The number two issue
would be value concerns for the homes in that area. It seems only appropriate that there is a
' very good buffer. I'd like to see what the exact pitch is going to be on those berms. It seems
like a perfect time, although I haven't seen able to see it. I'd like also to see that the berming
that is done, the vegetation that is there is more coniferous. Year round. Shrubbery. More
' along the lines of spruces. I guess the only thing I concur so far with what the developer has
done on the other side of the road, and there really didn't seem to be much of coniferous. A
lot of deciduous. We live in Minnesota. 6 months a year there are no leaves on those trees
and as a homeowner looking right there, I'd like to see a berm adequately dividing the multi
family compared with single family. Thank you for your time.
Scott: Well thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public
hearing please?
Conrad: I move to close the public hearing.
Ledvina: Second.
Mancino: Joe, I just have some questions that I would, that Bob and Jerome and Tom have
brought up that I'd like Dave and Sharmin to maybe help us with. One is, Tom had said
Dave, that you two had talked about the grading and how close it will be to the foundation of
his home. Can you tell us a little bit about that and your feelings?
21
r
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Hempel: Sure, I'd be happy to. Previous to the meeting tonight Mr. Rasmussen and myself
discussed this issue with the proposed project with the grading in relationship to his home.
I've indicated to Mr. Rasmussen that I'm not a soil engineer. However, we do have other
examples in this city like when they do soil correction under a house pad, they typically go ,
along a slope, a 1:1 slope or 1.5:1 slope. Essentially it sets the house on a pyramid and as
long as that zone is not impacted, it should not impact the foundation of that home. Another
examples are ... along the Minnesota River valley. The homes that are within 30 feet of very ,
severe bluffs. Very steep and sharp slopes... Similar situation I guess but not nearly to the
magnitude of the bluffs that we have over in the Minnesota Valley there ... 5 foot retaining
walls but again, I'm not a soil engineer who could give you expert advice on that but my '
personal belief is that it should not affect the foundation of the home.
Mancino: Does somebody stand behind that? Does the developer? Do we ask the developer
to stand behind that when they're going to be so close to a foundation?
Hempel I would envision I guess that is some property damage was done to the adjacent
property as a result of site grading, the developer does have insurance to cover such
occurrences.
Harberts. Nancy, can I just interject? Who would be an expert in that area? '
Hempel: Soil engineer would be. We would need a soil engineer on site for the site grading '
to prepare the house pads and so forth...
Mancino: That's a good idea. To make sure that that's in the recommendations. Sharmin, ,
another question that came up that Bob asked a little bit about the wetland. If we will be
saving and mitigating and adding to and how will it be kept? Will it be kept natural? '
A] -Jaff: What's going to happen is the wetland will be...it would be able to function as a...
Hempel: Maybe I can expand on that a little bit. The wetland on the north end of the project '
is a very low quality wetland. It has been excavated a couple of times ... and it's still a
functioning wetland aesthetics... And they will be utilizing as a part of the storm drainage '
system, we will pre -treat the water prior to discharging into it and then essentially a water...
pond to utilize this wetland area. There should be water controlled by outlet construction ... so
it actually should enhance the aesthetics.
Scott: Good. The public hearing has not been closed yet so.
Conrad We've got a motion though.
22 1
II�
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Scott: Yes, we have a motion. Is that the end of the discussion?
Mancino: Those are just some of my questions that I think.
Scott: Which we can still discuss after the public hearing. So can I have all those in favor of
closing the public hearing signify by saying aye.
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I'm not sure on the traffic concerns how you, being a county road ... Mr. Gustafson.
I know that they use a criteria that if there are so many accidents before they consider a cross
walk and I've always been uncomfortable with that engineering talk when I hear it. It's
a ... what criteria he was using for saying that that's not factual.
Hempel: I believe at this time the park is not existing...
Hempel. That's correct. I believe that should be what's dictating... crosswalk.
Farmakes: So that would follow that development then?
Farmakes: I still know that the retaining wall's going to cut ... safe from a construction
standpoint. Safe meaning that I don't think somebody's going to hurt themselves severely by
going over that. Obviously still it's of concern that close to single family residence area.
And I don't think that the planting of a hedge is going to solve that problem. ...a few safety
issues. I wish I was more of an expert on that. Public safety... address that concern. I'm not
uncomfortable feeling that I am expertise in that area but it seems of concern to me and those
obstacles are that close to the back of the single family residents.
Mancino: Well there are two sections. Sections 4 and Section 6 where, from my calculations
the property line and the start of the first retaining wall is approximately 18 feet. So again in
Section 4 and Section 6, if children were going down the slope and they hit the retaining wall
in 18 feet. So you don't have a long.
Farmakes: Not much.
Mancino: No.
1
Farmakes: And if an obstruction is placed there to hinder them, I question whether it would
be much of an obstruction for a year or so...
23
Planning ommission Meeting - November 2 1994
g g
Scott: What about an ugly but safe fence?
Farmakes: I don't think that was the berm that the editor, the person that got up and spoke
was thinking of Not seeing a proposal for a fence and not having expertise... qualify as being
safe in that issue, I don't want to play designer on that end. I'm not comfortable with that. I
'
think there's still a safety issue with that... The issues in regards to the highway planning, I
would also like to remind the people at the public hearing that Chanhassen has two
representatives on the County Board. If you're not satisfied with the response that you're
'
getting from the County, I suggest that you call them. That's what they do. I think it would
help. The issue of the parking options were brought up. If someone has a party, where do
they park. These type of units are fairly established in Chanhassen and I'm not sure if we've
,
had a lot of problems with overflow parking in those areas. There could be potentially a
problem with that here. But I think that that's inherent ... not a lot of street and cars to park
there because of the close proximity of the home. I don't see where that's going to be solved
'
unless we create a parking lot or something like that. The property's just too narrow for it...
As to the exterior to the home, it wasn't clear when this first came back. I'm somewhat
concerned in trying to envision. There are so many variables here that as a purchaser, you
'
may get a cupula somewhere. On one side of the building and not on the other. Depending
upon which option you purchase. I'm not quite sure how lopsided that would be in the end
,
result. Some of the options I think are fairly innovative on the roof line in the back. The
front seems to be rather stationary though. I don't see many options on the front of the
building...cupulas out in front. Large expanse of ceiling there, of their pitched roof. The rest
of the options showing shudders and some of these other things. I like these things. I like
these as additions. I think it would help the exteriors to face Powers Blvd ... extent of my
comments.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Well some good points that Jeff brought up. I've got 3 or 4. I think the developers '
did a nice job coming back with the model. I appreciate that. That's neat. I think that, I
appreciate the changes they've made. I have the same concern still with the retaining wall. I ,
think something from a safety standpoint has to be done. I'm not sure, retaining wall,
maintenance, have to be assured that maintenance is taken care of Proper engineering. Have
to make sure that the retaining wall, with all the water and the problems from the r
neighborhood talking about their drainage problems, I think we have to insure somehow in
our contract that this is engineered properly so that we don't need the maintenance. And
safety. I'm not sure what to do with safety. Again, I like the terracing. I like what I see
here. I still have a problem with a drop off. And therefore, it's not totally solved in my
mind. And as much as I hate chainlink fencing, or any kind of fencing, something has to ,
indicate where that drop off is. I don't have a solution but something has to happen there.
24
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Guest parking, does this meet the standards for a higher density development that we have for
guest parking? You know, in our recommendations it says there will be no parking on the
street, which means all guest parking will have to be in the driveway. Is that right?
Al -Jaff: It will be on the driveway as well as the applicant is providing 4 stalls right there. 2
stalls. Another 2 here.
Conrad: Yeah, that's not very much. Now based on our place, our units up the street here
that are higher density, we had all sorts of parking problems there for guests. How did we
solve that? Did we solve it?
Mancino: The one across the street.
Conrad: Which way am I pointing? Yeah. Again, we had problems there and.
Aanenson Did we have problems there?
Conrad Had. I don't know if we do now. We did have a lot of problems.
Aanenson: They provided guest parking. There's some areas ... but if someone is having a
party...
Conrad I guess the point though is, do we have a standard for guest parking for a higher?
We don't have any higher density developments in Chanhassen.
Aanenson: I parking space for 6 units.
Scott: For guests?
Aanenson: For guests. Do they meet that? Yes.
Harberts: Has it been applied in the city somewhere?
Aanenson: Yes. Oak Hill Ponds. They used it. And again, it's not ... but we did opportunity
for them.
Conrad: And is that an updated standard? Are we comfortable with that?
Aanenson: Yeah. I think so.
25
11
t
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Conrad: Okay. And it's working up here. Do we know, have we not gotten any feedback
recently?
Hempel: I don't think we've had a true test yet to be honest. I guess this holiday season will
be a true test.
Conrad: Okay, but it meets our standards. We believe our standards are updated. Okay. ,
The only other question I have is the guarantee of design diversity. I like that. I think some
improvements are just real nice. Thank you for adding those options. Again, I do believe
that people should select what they want. I don't like to force a developer into design but on '
the other hand, in this case, I want some guarantee. Now in our recommendations, the staff
report said, the townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by
the applicant in the attached narrative. I'm not sure what that attached narrative is but it '
probably doesn't reference what they've presented tonight. Probably. But again, I'd be
interested for the commissioners who haven't talked how you want, you know in principle I
believe that people who buy the units should select what they want to live in. Yet on the
other hand. we don't want to have I don't know, 8 units that look exactly the same because
everybody liked the best option I guess. So I'm looking for a way around that. I'm looking
for a way to solve that in terms of encouraging the developer to make sure that happened. I '
heard them say that they would try to make that happen but I really don't see anything in our
staff report that would make me feel comfortable that some kind of diversity will happen.
The options are there and I like that. The developer did their job. ,
Aanenson Can I clarify that Ladd?
Conrad: Yeah.
Aanenson: What our intent would be—these design options and the no... '
Conrad The key word is options Kate. So we're stuck with options. I
Aanenson: We can put that into the PUD...
Conrad: But an individual may not choose. The ones that buy these 9 units may not choose '
any options other than the basic option.
Al -Jaff: We can have them specify.
Aanenson: On the site plan, just as they did tonight. They have to be either Itasca or... ,
26 1
7 J
i
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Conrad: Yeah, and it's probably appropriate to do it, what Kate just said yet on the other
hand, it doesn't insure it. So you know I don't like to decree design but as long as the options
are there, are we happy?
Aanenson: Well what you're getting on this, you're giving them the basic. The framework.
Okay, if they want to put ... they have that option. What we're saying is at a minimum these
are the design...
LF-1
Conrad: Right. So I'm okay with the parking has met our criteria. I'm probably okay on the
design diversity. I'm still not quite there on the retaining wall.
Scott What would you suggest? Like a 3, instead of having a 5 foot drop, 6 foot drop, have
it like no szreater than a 3? 4?
Conrad: Joe, I can't figure that out. I really don't know. I don't know, I think if we had a 4
foot, I think the neighbors would still come in and say we have a 4 foot drop. You know I
don't know that there's a magic footage there. It's just that my concern still is, it is, there's no
warning that it's there. So in my mind we have an option of putting a chainlink fence around
the entire. Every time there's an entire upper part, which is not the most aesthetic thing to do
there yet.
Mancino: I'd like to hear some options from the applicant.
Scott: Yeah. Well I was just looking at the brochure. There's fence, fence.
Conrad Yeah.
Scott: So it may be a combination of less severe steps and some sort of a continuous barrier,
year round barrier.
Conrad Maybe. I don't know.
Scott: Okay. Anything else?
Conrad: No.
Scott: Diane.
�l
Harberts: I don't know why but I think the staff should consider looking at a centralized
garbage collection point in the main body of the development. I'm just a little uncomfortable
27
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
with the how tight things are. And given some of the discussion with City Council. I know
this is a private street and stuff but if there an opportunity to have a centralized garbage
collection. Just maybe to look at it to consider it and see. I don't know why, I guess it's Just
because of how tight the development is. With regard to the pond and some of the discussion '
in the staff report. Is it possible to have Diane go out there and take a look, or just kind of, I
don't know, just kind of look it over and make sure that it does get to be an enhanced pond
rather than a breeding pond. ,
Al -Jaff: She has a ... and she has worked very closely with their wetland delineator.
Harberts: Okay. So you're comfortable that it's moving in the right direction? '
Al -Jaff: Right.
,
Harberts: Okay. I don't have any comment with regard to retaining walls. Here I understand
it's an issue. I guess I certainly understand the concern by the neighbors in terms of the
safety. It certainly is a PUD so we certainly have some flexibility here but I think the
homeowners on the back side also may want to take a look at options that they may want to
look at in terms of safety for their families with a fence, or whatever. Let's see, collector.
Fencing. I like the design. I like the materials. I think it's going to be a nice building
materials. A nice look to the area. I think it fits in okay in terms of the density of Lake
Susan. One of the questions I have, tell me about the trails. The trail system on Powers. Is
there any trail system?
Al -Jaff Yes, and it's going to be built in front of the improvement of County Road 17.
Harberts And so the trail would be on this side?
Hempel. Both sides.
Harberts: Both sides? And when it talks about park and trail dedication fees shall be paid,
are they then, rather than having the developer put in the trail system now, we're just
collecting the funds to build it later? Is that the idea? ,
Hempel: The trail system is part of the overall upgrade of Powers Blvd and trails are a big
part of the funding for the county road. Previously with this development, the developer had '
dedicated considerable parkland in the overall Lake Susan Hills development. Therefore, their
trail fees and park fees, or no trail fees and half park fees are going to be collected.
Harberts: Say that again Dave. ,
28
fl
n
II
L
1
F11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Hempel: The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees.
Harberts: Because of the previous dedication of land?
Hempel: And trails.
Harberts: And trails. But did I understand that there's going to be trails built on this side and
my question is, have we collected then either in land or in fees, to take that into consideration
then?
Hempel. Yes we have.
Harberts: Okay. And we have plenty of right -of -way?
Hempel: Plenty of right -of -way, yes.
Harberts: Okay. Interesting comment from someone. I think it was the first gentleman. I
wouldn't want to buy one of these homes being right up against a busy street like that either.
So it'll be interesting but I guess that's where, it's a free enterprise system folks so build them
and see if they come. I guess that's about it.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: There was a question on the design and condition number 3. I don't know how
we'd get at that but the developer had done quite a few units on the east side of Galpin, just
to the north of that so, and I've seen those units and they're very nice. I think they've done a
real good job with the colors.
Mancino: Where?
Ledvina: Just to the east and north. Right of this development. That's your development, is
that correct? Okay. So I guess you know there's also a track record that we have here and I
think that's, they've done a nice job there and I'm sure that they'll do a nice job on this
development with their building styles and things like that. I like what I'm seeing tonight in
terms of the elevations and the materials, etc. Let's see. Looking at the retaining wall, I
think I have the same concerns as it relates to safety and I'm wondering if possibly we could
use a short fence. Maybe a 3 or 4 foot fence behind the plantings that might work as kind of
like a safety net if a kid racing, or something like that, the fence would stop him for sure.
And if he's going to go over, if he's going to want to go over the fence, he's going to know
that there's something on the other side of the fence. I mean a 3 or 4 foot fence won't
29
i Commission Meeting - November 2 1994
Planning g o ,
prevent the kid from physically climbing over the fence. It will prevent him from having an
accident like a runaway sled or whatever. I don't know but I think that can work. And with
plantings in front of that fence, you could screen it from view.
Mancino: When you're saying front view, are you talking about on the east side or the west '
side of the fence? On the neighbor's side?
Ledvina: The east side of the fence. '
Mancino: The east side of the fence. I
Harberts: That would have to be on the, it would have to probably be on the side of the
development because in the homeowners association then would probably be liable for the I
fence as well. As well as continuing maintenance so.
Ledvina: And maybe the fence can be taken down after 4 or 5 years when the hedge or the ,
shrubs or the conifers get large enough so that there is a definite you know break there. But
a safety break and that's, I think what has to be done and I guess I, in terms of what we're
looking at tonight. I would suggest that a condition be added to that effect and I don't know
what the agreement is on that but I think if a fence is added in' that regard, we can provide
that safety element.
Scott: Is that at the property line or near the.
Ledvina: Near the plantings. 1
Scott: Near the retaining wall.
Ledvina: Right. ,
Scott: Okay.
Ledvina: Behind the plantings or to the west of the plantings.
recognize that this is the Planning '
Larry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I recog g Commission's deliberations
but both the landscape engineer and myself have some additional information. Seeing that the '
Planning Commission seems to be fixed closely on this issue. Would you like to hear what
the developer believes it can do in terms of fencing and how the shrubbing would actually
work along the retaining walls? I
30 1
I rj
I r
u
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
1
Scott: Well maybe what we should do, what would you think about passing this on to the
City Council noting that we have a concern and some possible solutions for the retaining wall
and safety issue. You're going to be at that meeting anyway and then address that during the
public hearing. But then I'm not speaking for the other commissioners. This may not move
forward, but if it does, that would give you probably a better forum and then we'll just let
them know and hopefully they'll be reading their Minutes. Okay, anyway Matt. Continue.
Ledvina: Enough with that.
Mancino: Well I also think it's important for the citizens who've come to also hear maybe a
suggestion that they have so they can prepare for the City Council meeting knowing what the
suggestion is going to be.
Harberts: But wouldn't the suggestion be incorporated into the packet that's going to be sent
' to the Council members?
Mancino: Yeah, but this is a public hearing so I would like the citizens to be able to hear it
too.
Harberts: Well the public hearing's closed.
Conrad: Joe, I think we should continue our deliberations and then give the developer a
couple minutes to talk about the safety concerns that we have and that way the residents can
hear so when they go to City Council, they know what is being presented.
Scott: Yeah, it won't be a public hearing but I think this is a rare exception to how we do
1 things so any other comments?
Ledvina: Yes. One of the things on the south side of the property we clustered that group of
buildings there to that southern extent and we did a lot of things with that connecting
roadway to preserve the trees that are in that area. The plan that I see with the layout, I don't
think it does that very well. I note that there's 9 oak trees that they've identified in their
landscaping plan and from my estimation, 6 of the 9 oak trees will be taken out. I think that
that's way too much. I think we're defeating the purpose of our efforts and maybe the
developer doesn't even realize that but specifically unit 20, there's 2 oak trees. There's a 24
inch oak and a 30 inch oak. They're very close to the building line and that building, that
unit has to be moved if those trees are going to be saved and I think that would be an
absolute must. The other trees in the cluster to the south, there is 4 oak trees there that
appear to be lost in the current layout and I don't know exactly what can be done in that area
but I think that if we can save 2 of those trees, because as I look at the stand of trees, going
31
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
out to the site, you see the oaks along the edges and there aren't that many, that's it in terms
of the oak trees. There are sugar maples in the center and there's a lot of scrub in there too
but I think we can do, I think the developer can do a better job of relocating those building
locations to save more trees.
Scott: Do you have a condition?
Ledvina: Yes, I would add a condition to that effect.
Harberts: To delete or just move or what? I
Ledvina: Well specifically Unit 20 would have to be moved to save those 2 trees. I don't
know if I would go so far as to say that the developer eliminate Unit 21 to save those, and I ,
believe that if they did that, 4 oak trees could be saved in that area with the shifting of the
northern unit in that area so. I don't know if I would go that far. But I think it's, again I
look back at the general purpose as to what we were trying to do with our efforts in that and
I don't know if we've gone far enough. I think we can do a little bit more and really hit the
center of the Target.
Harberts What exactly are you at? Are you saying Matt, I'm hearing two things from you.
One, well what I'm hearing is that we should save the trees and if, the trees should be saved
as our primary goal. And if that can be achieved by just moving 20, 21, fine.
Ledvina. Unit 20 specifically and I don't know about 21. I'm telling you that I don't know
where I'm at with that one.
Mancino: Do you see a way to move and save? I
Ledvina: I don't specifically see a way of moving Unit 21 and saving trees. I guess if 2 of
the 4 trees there could be saved, I would say then move it. If not, lose it.
Harberts: Lose the unit?
Ledvina Yeah.
Mancino: And that's something that we could put in a recommendation and have staff and
the applicant figure out if they can...
32 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Ledvina: I think that's reasonable because the, you know we're looking at the most, some of
the most significant trees on this site. And I think that was also one of the goals here. Let's
see. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Good, Nancy.
' Mancino: I don't really have any new comments at all. I think everybody's touched on them.
I do think that this has been a good process, meaning that the Jasper Development has come
back with some changes that the citizens, homeowners in the area have brought to our
attention and I thank you for all your comments, because they've been very good ones. I also
feel that when we are going to have models, and I know this isn't in an ordinance and I don't
know how to put it in but that citizens who are coming to talk and be part of the process do
have some time to come and look and to process it and ask some questions about it. And if
we could, this is just a tremendous visual. 3 dimensional representation, if we could get these
48 hours prior to a meeting and have them on display here, it certainly helps. My last point,
and this has nothing to do with Jasper Development. It just is a comment that I'd like to
make to our commission and to our staff is that, I think this PUD in this particular area, this
1 Outlot B was not well planned from the very beginning. Taking a, you look at it and it's like
somebody decided that we needed multi - family in this area. I mean it just wreaks of that.
They put a little strip with multi family and it looks like a strip multi family development.
So from the very beginning of the process in 1987 when this PUD was passed, I don't think it
was planned, well planned. I think that when we do do multi family, we want to integrate it
into the rest of our neighborhoods. We just don't want it to be this sore thumb sticking out
like this. I think it has made this development problematic at best. I think there would have
been other ways to have entered this development other than Powers. 1 think Jasper has done
the best they could but I think they started out with not good planning on the part of staff,
Planning Commission and City Council. And I think that we should realize that and I think
that when we are looking at developments like this in the future, we'll be seeing another one
tonight which is multi family near single family which also has an outlot. That we should
think about the implications and what's going to happen in the future.
Harberts: Nancy do you think that, you know with your comments, do you think it's because
of kind of the piecemeal approach to the development?
Mancino: I think that the very beginning when it was passed as a PUD and somebody said
we needed multi family exactly nobody, they just kind of said in this outlet let's put multi
family there and I don't think anybody thought through the implications of how do you put a
road in there. How do you, you know what's this going to look like? How is it going to
serve our community? How is it going to serve that neighborhood?
33
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Harberts: It should have been a little bit more integrated I think. I
Mancino: Yes, much more integrated.
Scott: That also points out I think a major role that we play when we have multi, I think of
Mission Hills. I think of the development that's coming up. I think of this one. One of the
big roles that we tend to play is focusing on the transition between dissimilar uses, or similar I
uses, dissimilar density. So yeah, I think your point is very well taken.
Harberts: Well I think one advantage too when you look at Mission Hills, we had the whole ,
picture. Whereas with this it seems it was that piecemeal approach.
Mancino: Well the outlots kept getting developed but still, the overall concept was there to
begin with. I mean somebody decided at the beginning that these.
Harberts: Yeah, but we still didn't have that full picture. Not like we did with Mission Hills. '
Mission Hills was easy because you could see how it would integrate. How the transition
would occur or not. You know make these lots a little larger, things like that. That was easy
you know versus something like this. This seemed like anything with Lake Susan Hills was
just like pulling teeth every step of the way. I don't know why.
Mancino: VA'ell we have single family to the west of it and we have single family to the
north. We have park to the east and we have single family to the south. It just doesn't work
for me from the very beginning. From the get go but I just would like us to remember that
and hopefully use that as knowledge as we look ahead.
Conrad. Well then the PUD should not have been approved in the, I don't necessarily agree.
The PUD should not have been approved in the first place. Then you're going to have to
force every PUD to give you a design of all the outlots. That's what you're asking for. Mr.
Chairman, I'd like to hear the developer's comments on their retaining walls.
Scott: Okay. Do you have a very brief description of your thoughts? Mr. Harms.
Larry Harris: Thank you Mr. Chair. I realize this is not your normal procedure but I wanted
to get the information and I agree with Ms. Mancino. I think the residents want to know
what the developer can do. Essentially the developer can do one or two things. Or maybe
even a combination thereof. The developer proposes putting shrubbery across the tops of the
retaining walls because it's the most aesthetically pleasing. Mark Jeffries tells me that in 5
gallon containers, one option would be to plant, and maybe not double but a significant '
portion greater than what would normally be planted for that density in year one and then
34 1
7L
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
year two ..do some pulling. If you do that he says that at the end of one year you should
have full hedging across the top. That full hedging of course the benefit of it being
aesthetically pleasing and providing a barrier. However, the developer is also willing to put
fencing across the tops of the retaining walls. I mean the obvious solution would be 4 foot
galvanized, and probably black vinyl covered and just mirror and follow the retaining wall all
the way across... The developer is more than willing to present that. To be honest, I think we
want some direction from the Planning Commission and/or the neighborhood as to which way
to go. In terms of restructuring the retaining walls, it's really not viable to develop the
property with intervals or steps less than that. It just's an engineering nightmare and even if
in the one area you went to 3 -4 foot intervals, the concern of the neighborhoods and the
concern about, the safety concern is the same whether it's a 4 foot drop or a 6 foot drop. The
issue is, what can we do to screen and protect the wall and I guess what we'd like to hear is
maybe some feedback either from the Planning Commission or the residents as you see
appropriate and the appropriate recommendation is going to be included in the information I
guess submitted to the City Council.
Scott: Well I'll tell you what we can do is put in a condition that either or both and then
we'll have another public hearing and the residents can come. Express their preferences and
go from there so that's.
Larry Harris: Who will have the other public hearing?
Scott City Council. That's assuming that the project goes forward. Can I have a motion
please`'
Ledvina: I would move that the.
Aanenson: Can I make a clarification of the motion? There is one item as far as wetland...
There is a Wetland 994 -5.
Ledvina: Okay, do I add that to a specific item?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: Which page are we on, 17?
Ledvina: Which? I'm sorry, which item?
Al -Jaff: 17. Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #87 -3, Wetland Alteration
Permit 494 -5. The rest remains the same.
35
1 nin Commission Meeting - November 2 1994
Planning g ,
Ledvina: Okay. Well then I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend
approval, I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD 487 -3,
Wetland Alteration Permit 994 -5 and Site Plan Review 994 -7 as shown on the plans dated
September 23, 1994, and subject to the conditions in the staff report with additional
conditions noted as follows. Number 33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for
impacts to adjacent building foundations during the grading process. 34. Retaining walls
shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff. 35. The
applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection. 36. The applicant
shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from
falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and
approved by city staff considering the discussion held this evening. 37. The applicant shall
relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. Also, the oak trees in the vicinity of
Unit 21, change that. The 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21 at a
minimum by relocating the placement of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the
4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the development.
Harberts: I have a clarification for Matt... Is it my understanding that assessment is to be
done by a certified soils engineer? Was that your intent?
Ledvina: Sure.
Harberts: Okay, just wondering.
Scott Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staffs recommendation with
conditions as added. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
PUD 487 -3, Wetland Alteration Permit 494 -5 and Site Plan Review #94 -7 as shown on the
plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
hall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate
1. A No Parking restrictions g g p pp riate p
"No Parking" restrictions /signs shall be placed on the private street. 11
2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot
exceed 35 %. 1
36 1
P
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the
applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing
Powers Boulevard through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways,
adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span.
4. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval.
5. A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street.
6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2
canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
9. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets.
10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along
Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site.
1 1. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division
for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the
approved names after their review.
1 12. Fire Marshal conditions:
0
a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The
remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall
be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for exact locations.
b. Submit new street names for review and approval.
C. A twenty foot wide fire land must be maintained on the new proposed
north /south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides
of the street with 75 foot spacing.
37
17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
18. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide
the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
38 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
13. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval.
14. 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.
15. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of
the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The
street shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for
multi family zoning (Ordinance 9209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the
utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities,
except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and
maintained by the homeowners association.
16. 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 $20.00 per sign.
17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality /quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if
sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
18. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide
the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
38 1
1
i Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
, L
29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss /resolve the
specifics on pond design and access to the site.
39
20.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan
1
Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota
Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
21.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from the units.
21
The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access
for maintenance of the ponding areas.
23.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way or utility and
drainage easements without approval by the City. The applicant shall enter into an
encroachment agreement.
24.
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands
shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
25.
The proposed storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at
'
the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water
Management Plan.
26.
Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
27
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.
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
, L
29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss /resolve the
specifics on pond design and access to the site.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 199 4
30. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the city's drainage and
utility easements.
31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to
accommodate public safety vehicle turning movements.
32. The plat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25
foot building setback line.
33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations
during the grading process.
34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface I
water runoff.
35. The applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection.
'
36. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help
prevent children from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or
fencing shall be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held at
the Planning Commission meeting.
37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4
oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the
placement of the unit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that
vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: This goes to the City Council.
Aanenson: 20th.
Scott: 20th? 28th? I'd like to thank the developer for working with the neighbors and I
appreciate the neighbors coming in. As you can hopefully see, and Mr. Rasmussen, thank
you for taking the time to kind of consolidate your neighbors' thoughts, but thank you very
much for coming and we'll take a couple minute break while we exchange people because we
have another issue coming up.
40 1
11/08/94 14:48 FAX 612 442 4934 JASPER HOMES
gasper
Development
Corporati m of Waconia
Nover. fiber 8, 1994
Ms. Sl armin Al -Jaff
Planne
City of ' Chanhassen
690 Cc , utter Drive
Chanh; Essen, MN 55317
RE: P )wers Place Approval
Dear S iarrnin:
Before the Planning Commission's recommendation for this project is forwarded to the City
Counci ., we would like to clarify and respond to some of the approval conditions so that we
undersi and all of the issues raised.
Referri ig to the Recommended Conditions of Approval listed in your report, our comments are
only or those for which we have a question or comment, as follows:
21. We do not think the drain tile system for the sump pumps will be needed. All of
the "uphill" units are the Voyageur model which is a slab on grade unit and thus
will have no sump pump. All of the Itasca models are walk -out units and will have
positive drainage to the road or the sediment pond.
26. & 27. We would appreciate a clarification as to how the fees have been calculated.
2001'003
2I9 E. Froa "e Road, Waconia, MN 55387
Phone (6I2) 442 -56II Fax (612) 442 -4934
Ms. SLarmin Al -Jaff
Nover fiber 8, 1994
Page 2
Supple mental conditions added at Planning Commission meeting:
1. Retaining wall engineering - we will provide.
2. Garbage collection - we intend to contract for door to door service using small trucks.
We think central collection points are too difficult to maintain,
3. Fencing - we propose to install a 4 ft. high cyclone type fence at the top edge of the
retaining walls where the total height exceeds 5 ft. Attached is a plat showing the
proposed locations.
4. Units 20 & 21 are being relocated to reduce the risk to the mature trees. We assume
staff can ok the new location.
5. Setback encroachments - no buildings, decks or patios will encroach.
b. Road curves - curves will be softened as allowed by the'relocation of units 20 & 21
I hope hese comments are satisfactory to you.
Respec :fully,
JASPE t DEVELOPMENT CORP OF WACONIA
James I ;. Jasper
Preside it
JEJ /tj s
;chan
M ,
CD
O
I
LLI
ti
C)
06
ct
cli
CID
U)
0 x
10
t.. 1 1 WOMW - 1 4—
I
I
Yj
1 -i
WE"i / MA.P
ETA.041 6 A.L.L SECTIONAS
ZETAiN04& WLLL FEMCIE-:
J9
RWN)m and AssocimAes. bw
DO&U"'AM LAM %MMAM
m w m m= m mm M m m m W m m m= m
POWERS BOULEVARD
a
Re
rK
�`'„�-
...
1 `�-:
� -a-:.J
.,. �i
ti .,�
i���
��
����;;�
t.. 1 1 WOMW - 1 4—
I
I
Yj
1 -i
WE"i / MA.P
ETA.041 6 A.L.L SECTIONAS
ZETAiN04& WLLL FEMCIE-:
J9
RWN)m and AssocimAes. bw
DO&U"'AM LAM %MMAM
m w m m= m mm M m m m W m m m= m
r ■ m m m m m m m m= rw m m m mm
r
LEGEND
•- • �vavk +wsnc
ED --coo wm
T ■ '�sa oru...�.
- � •rcaz rc•.t
., • MO►G�R rr ar
+r- Ilrlpp o•/nr
r r g' rp
• A wC
- � -- 4Db• rVJ#
_ - -n.. F1OML IIp.r •Kr
lIDl.r W w
— co w•r ftft� ne:x uc
-I wK samm M.Cm. LN
w CARW COVI&.
I
PRFL IUnARY
6R/I N PLM
POAERS MACE
':P i' Of' CHANHASSEN
m
IL
J
Q
O
I—
E
To �� 9 3 .
- --�ri�
0
0
!-
940
9 \\
-- 9 0°� N
N
94 .0 0�
0 9 7.0
1 4 "Dak
/
1 46.0 x \
938 r \ 94-
6 ti i
�,
Q 5 0 '•
V
WO 41.
G , 51.0 CO g
0 9-1.33
r 9 940 -�
0 9 x
950.
0
958 960
il/OSi199 17'-3$ RENDER & ASSOCIATESP .•r• - --
�74
i
4 "Oak
i
x Qj 6 - -�l
�
G 941.5
FF 94J.8
x
30 C Z
c
2 -24�dt aple
i