3. Preliminary and Fianl Plat of a 70 Unit Senior Housing Bldg, Carver County Housing and Redevelopment AuthorityI
I
r
v'
w ;
i
4
T
1
I
I
r
v'
w ;
i
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 4/19/95
CC DATE: 5/8/95
CASE #: 95 -3 SPR
By: Al- Jaff/Hempel:v
3
QTA CC �L �/11'1T
Z
CL
Q
J
Q
C
�
O
W
F-
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final Plat to replat 2.2 Acres from Outlot B and Block
5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds
4th Addition and a Site Plan Review for a 78 63 unit Senior Housing
complex
LOCATION: North of Santa Vera Drive, West of Kerber Boulevard and East of
Powers Boulevard
APPLICANT: Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority
500 Pine, Suite 300
Chaska, MN 55318
PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential
ACREAGE: 2.12 acres
DENSITY: Average density 9.6 units /acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family
S - PUD -R12, High Density Residential
E - Kerber Boulevard
W -PUD -R 12, High Density Residential
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has steep slopes on the north side of the
property. It is devoid of vegetation.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential
►`
in
����.
NOW mr
►� �
IIIIIIy 11111 1111hi
c F
1
IM
go
_ , -- i
p
%� 0,61,
n
!gl I
0
I
L'
J
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 2
On April 19, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application
with changes and directed staff to address the following issues:
* Increase landscaping on the site.
* Re- examine the height of the building and investigate solutions to reduce it.
* Use natural materials for the retaining wall and change the roof color to reduce
the mass of the roof line.
Changes have been by the applicant to address these issues. This staff report has been
edited to reflect those changes. New information will appear in bold and impertinent
information is struck out.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a senior
housing building which is proposed to include �9 63 units. The total square footage of the
building will amount to 94 ,145 79,800 square feet. The units are proposed to be rental units
and will include 49 41 one bedroom, 19 one bedroom and a den, and 3 two bedroom units.
Parking for the apartments will be accommodated in an underground structure. Due to the
life style of the residents, staff does not anticipate more than one parking space per unit will
be necessary. In researching this project, staff and the Senior Commission visited numerous
Senior Housing complexes and learned that no more than one parking space per unit is used.
The zoning ordinance requires one enclosed parking space per unit. However, it specifically
states that in the case of senior housing, the city may apply a decreased parking requirement.
Staff will recommend that the proposed parking layout be adopted. The housing project is
proposed to be constructed on Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition.
Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition were designated as high density
sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. On April 10, 1995, the City Council approved
a transfer of density to allow a maximum of 70 units to be built on the subject site. This
transfer resulted in less units located within the westerly portion of the site and additional
units placed on the northeast corner of the site. The building and the grounds surrounding the
building are proposed to be maintained by a management company.
The overall density for the entire Planned Unit Development, including the townhouses
located to the west and south of the subject property, is 9.6 units per acre. The PUD
ordinance allows clustering of units as long as the overall density remains below that which is
permitted on the site. The underlying zoning permits 12 units per acre.
t The 2.2 acre site is located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of
Powers Boulevard. Access will be provided via a driveway off of Santa Vera Drive which
will lead to the main lobby area, and a second access off of Kerber Boulevard will direct cars
y
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 3
to the underground parking. The site is currently zoned PUD -R12, High Density Residential
and utilities are available for the area.
As mentioned earlier, this proposal includes 48 63 units. The building was designed in three
two and four story stepped, wood frame structures, with an underground parking garage.
Exterior materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl no maintenance siding and an
asphalt shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends, s#iffmeys, overhangs with columns to define the
entrance, arched windows and decks will be provided.
There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and
R -12 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be
followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The development is also subject to
the R -12 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract.
The proposed 78 63 units result in a density of 34-4 28.6 units /acre. However, as mentioned
earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units /acre. The
impervious surface coverage is 44- 40 %, however, this number does not include Outlot G,
which was dedicated to the City as part of the Oak Ponds First Addition. Therefore, the hard
surface coverage is not as high as shown. The PUD R -12 zoning district standards permits a
maximum of 50 %.
The site is devoid of vegetation. The proposed landscaping plan is well within planting
requirements. Staff will Y-eeen mead some ehanges to the landsea p The Planning
Commission directed the applicant to increase the tree canopy coverage from 15% as
required by ordinance to 30 %. The applicant was also asked to provide an average
height of 9 feet tall coniferous trees and 3Y2 inch caliper deciduous trees. The revised
plan incorporated all of those changes with the exception of 10 Bur Oak trees which will
have a 2 inch caliper. Oak trees are generally available only in the smaller caliper size
since they are more successfully transplanted and tend to establish themselves better
than larger size oak transplants. Staff believes this is acceptable.
Staff is recommending park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit,
and sewer and water connection fees be waived as this is a public project.
Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report.
BACKGROUND
The City Council gave preliminary PUD and Site Plan approval to the "Oaks" development
on December 14, 1992. The final plat included 7 outlots and the entire right -of -way for the
extension of Santa Vera Drive and Powers Boulevard. The total number of units approved
7
1
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 4
on the site was 209. Outlot A was the first phase of this development. It included 8
buildings, with each building having 8 units.
Outlots B and D were replatted into Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. It included 7 buildings for a
total of 57 units. This phase included a mixture of 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 plexes.
Outlots E and F were replatted into Oak Ponds 3rd Addition. It included 13 buildings for a
total of 51 units. This phase include a mixture of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 plexes.
BACKGROUND
Approximately five years ago, the City undertook an open -ended Senior Housing study with
no preconceived ideas. The results indicated a definite need for Senior Housing. The City
then took this a step further and conducted a Senior Housing feasibility study to ensure the
need exists. The results showed a deficiency in senior housing in the Chanhassen area. It
also indicated that most elderly are being forced to move out of the City if they can no longer
maintain their current homes. The city investigated 13 possible locations. After two years of
investigation, the list was narrowed to three sites which were selected (the parcel occupied by
Byerly's, the parcel east of Americana Community Bank, and the subject site). The Byerly's
site is no longer available, and the parcel adjacent to Americana Community Bank is adjacent
to the Twin Cities Western Railroad. There are a minimum of five train trips per day on this
line, at different hours of the day and night. The site would be unsuitable for senior housing.
The subject site is ideal for senior housing. It is within walking distance from all the
amenities within downtown, such as Byerly's, Festival, Target, Senior Center, Post Office,
City Center Park, clinics, etc. This site was also selected by the Vision 2002 Committee
after an in -depth study which took approximately one year. The Vision 2002 process
included several public meetings where this issue was discussed. In addition, a survey of
Chanhassen residents was taken to review elements of the vision plan. Through the past
five years, this project appeared before the City Council in the form of work sessions, a
joint session with the Senior Commission, and presentation to the City Council after the
study was completed. Staff kept the community updated through newsletter articles and
local newspapers. The city is working with Carver County HRA to develop the current
proposal before you today.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
General Site Plan /Architecture
The site is 2.2 acres with a gross density of 38 28.6 units /acre. However, as mentioned
earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units /acre. The
9.6 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 12 units per acre and the R -12
ordinance of 12 units /acre.
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 5
The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 7$ 63 units. The total square footage of
the building will amount to 84,14 5 79,800 square feet. The units are proposed to be rental
units and will include 49 41 one bedroom, 19 one bedroom and a den, and 3 two bedroom
units.
Parking for the apartments will be accommodated in an underground structure. Due to the
age of the residents, staff does not anticipate more than one parking space per unit will be
necessary. In researching this project, staff and the Senior Commission visited numerous
Senior Housing complexes and learned that no more than one parking space per unit is
needed. The zoning ordinance requires one enclosed parking space per unit. However, it
specifically states that in the case of senior housing, the city may apply a decreased parking
requirement. Staff will recommend that the proposed parking layout be approved. Fourteen
visitor parking spaces are provided at ground level. The current plan reflects 44 14 visitor
parking spaces; h8WOVeF,
. The housing project is
proposed to be constructed on Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition.
Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition were designated as high density
sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. The building and the grounds surrounding the
building are proposed to be maintained by a management company.
The 2.2 acre site is located north of Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of
Powers Boulevard. Access will be provided via a driveway off of Santa Vera Drive which
will lead to the main lobby area and visitor parking area, and a second access off of Kerber
Boulevard will direct cars to the underground parking. The site is currently zoned PUD -R12,
High Density Residential and utilities are available for the area.
As mentioned earlier, this proposal includes 78 63 units. The building was designed in three,
and four story stepped, wood frame structure, with an underground parking garage. Exterior
materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl no maintenance siding and an asphalt
shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends, elms, overhangs with columns to define the
entrance, arched windows on all top floor units, and decks will be provided. St aff is
f 06 8H*Mefiding that the apph6aflt- ifitFedWe some vafiatien aleng the east and west elevatiens
through the shape of windows eF adding leuver-s. In general, the building will have a pleasant
appearance. The building will have a maximum height of 44.75 44.2 feet.
There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and
R -12 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be
followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The development is also subject to
the R -12 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract.
The proposed 7-G 63 units result in density of -34-.-8- 28.6 units /acre. However, as mentioned
earlier, the overall density of the Oak Ponds Planned Unit Development is 9.6 units /acre. The
' Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 6
impervious surface coverage is 4440 %, however, this number does not include Outlot G,
' which was dedicated to the City as part of the Oak Ponds First Addition. Therefore, the hard
surface coverage is not as high as shown. The PUD R -12 zoning district standards permits a
maximum of 50 %.
' PRELIMINARY PLAT /SITE PLAN APPROVAL
' Lot/Density
The applicant is proposing to replat 2.2 acres of property zoned PUD -R12 into one parcel to
' house a senior housing complex. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
High Density (8 -16 Units /Acre). The subject sites are Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak
Ponds 2nd Addition from the Oak Ponds PUD and was created as a high density site. This
' portion was proposed to house rental housing. Through negotiations between the City and the
applicant, staff proposed locating Senior Housing on Outlot B. The applicant was agreeable
to this proposal and was willing to revise the plans accordingly.
' Original plans showed 121 units to be located within Outlots D, E, and F. The current
proposal maintains the same number of units, however, it transfers densities within the site.
This is permitted under the PUD ordinance.
The density of the site is -344 28.6 units /acre (gross). The impervious surface coverage of
' the site is at 4-1-4 40 %. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 12
units /acre and that the impervious could not exceed 50 %. As stated previously, this is
consistent with the PUD requirements. The building is maintaining a 20' 30' setback form
Santa Vera Drive. Th PUP D 12 zo r-egelations requ setback f em Santa Ver a
Drive. There are no internal setbacks.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Ordinance Project Proposal
Hard Surface Coverage 50% 44,9 40%
Setback from collector 50 feet - 50 feet*
' Internal Public Street 30 feet -20 30 feet*
external property line 30 feet 20 30 feet*
Internal Private Streets NA NA
i�
J
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 7
Overall Density
12 units
9.6 units
LANDSCAPING
A landscape plan for Oak Ponds 4th Addition has been submitted by the applicant. The site
is void of any existing trees or vegetation. According to ordinance, a 15% canopy coverage
is required for such sites. The applicant's coverage surpasses the required percent and also
meets minimum landscape standards for open vehicular use and parking lot areas.
The landscape plan includes a respectable diversity of plant materials and sizes. An increase
in canopy on the west side of the site, however, would conserve energy by providing the
greatest amount of shade in the summer. It would also benefit the residents by attractively
screening the rear of neighboring apartments. Canopy e . efage eo ld also b ' d on
the east side of the site by the pafk4ag let to r-edtiee heat and glafe in the summer- and seften
u u uiu
the - ppeaFanee ef the pafk4 g let.
Revegetation of ground cover on the site will be especially important for the reduction and
elimination of erosion and run -off on the steep slope of the north side of the site. The City
recommends utilizing seed blankets on the hill to assist in establishing vegetation as quickly
as possible and stabilizing the hillside. Native vegetation is preferred by the City on the
northern slope. A mix of native grasses and shrubs, such as sumac, will help slow runoff
considerably and benefit the site aesthetically.
The Planning Commission directed the applicant to increase the tree canopy coverage
from 15% as required by ordinance to 30 %. The applicant was also asked to provide
an average height of 9 feet tall coniferous trees and 3Y2 inch caliper deciduous trees.
The revised plan incorporated all of those changes with the exception of 10 Bur Oak
trees which will have a 2 inch caliper. Oak trees are generally available only in the
smaller caliper size since they are more successfully transplanted and tend to establish
themselves better than larger size oak transplants. Staff believes this is acceptable.
WETLANDS
An ag -urban wetland exists just northwesterly of the site. The City has utilized this ponding
area in the past for stormwater retention and stormwater quality purposes. During
construction of the Oak Ponds development, the developer has employed the use of a
temporary sediment basin to pretreat stormwater runoff prior to discharging into the ag -urban
' Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
' Page 8
wetland. According to the City's Wetland Inventory, this pond is considered an ag -urban
' wetland and therefore a buffer strip of 0 -20 with an average of 10 feet must be maintained.
Upon review of the grading plan, site grading will not be any closer than 75 feet from the
edge of the wetland.
' ACCESS
' Access to the site is proposed from Santa Vera Drive and Kerber Boulevard. Driveway
access from Kerber Boulevard is proposed to access the underground garage facility while the
driveway access point from Santa Vera is used to access the upper parking area assumed to
' be for visitors and a drop off or loading zone. Both access points should be "'er eased to are
proposed to have 26 -foot wide driveways with 20 -foot wide radiuses to accommodate
turning movements. We also recommend adding street lighting in the vicinity of the curb
' access points to improve visibility for turning movements into the site. The curb access on
Santa Vera Drive and Kerber Boulevard will intersect existing concrete sidewalks. Both
driveway accesses will need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to facility the sidewalk. The
' proposed driveway access from Kerber Boulevard will also be in conflict with an existing
street light. The street light will need to be relocated by the applicant to one side or the other
of the driveway access. This street light will also accommodate the illumination of the access
1 point as well.
GRADING & DRAINAGE
' The entire site has been previously graded in conjunction with the Oak Ponds 2nd and 3rd
phases. Additional grading is proposed to facilitate the building, parking areas and berming.
' The applicant is proposing to grade into the City's right -of -way along Kerber Boulevard. The
applicant should be aware of an existing watermain located in the west boulevard of Kerber
Boulevard which needs to maintain 7 feet of cover. In addition, street lights are randomly
placed along Kerber Boulevard which will need to be avoided or relocated as a part of site
grading.
S The plans incorporate the use of retaining walls on the site over the northwesterly corner of
the building and the easterly portion of the upper parking lot area. The retaining walls range
from two to eleven eight feet in height. The 44- 8 foot retaining wall proposed in the
northwest corner of the building. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need
to be engineered per building codes. As a result of the site grading, the existing landscaping
previously planted by the Oak Ponds developer will need to be transplanted accordingly.
Erosion control measures are *4 shown on the plans and need to . The applicant has
' provided a note indicating "erosion control fencing already exists around most of the site.
Modifications and additions will be installed as needed." The plans should incorporate a
perimeter of erosion control fence (Type I) along the west, east and south, and the northerly
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 9
portion of the slope should be protected with the Type III erosion control which may or may
not be already installed. During construction, rock construction entrances should be employed
at the access point to the site. Staff recommends that the access points be limited to the
actual curb cuts as proposed.
It is unclear whether or not excess material will be generated from the site grading. The
applicant should be aware that they will need to submit a haul route for all materials being
imported or exported from the site for review and approval by the City.
The utility plan proposes -a catch basins to convey stormwater runoff from the lower driveway
off Kerber Boulevard. The plans do not pr-epese any ethef ster-m sewer- system to e8fivey the
u Y „b re inf eFmatien rvi how the upper- level
par-14ag lot will drain The upper parking lot also proposes a catch basin to convey storm
runoff to the existing storm sewer in Santa Vera Drive. As a part of the overall site
development of the Oak Ponds development (Phases I, II, and III), a comprehensive storm
drainage plan was designed and implemented to convey stormwater runoff to pretreatment
basins located adjacent to the wetlands on the north side of the parcel. It appears part of the
site will now drain easterly to Kerber Boulevard connecting to the existing storm sewer
system. The Kerber Boulevard storm sewer system drains easterly underneath Kerber
Boulevard into the Chanhassen Pond Park directly east of Kerber Boulevard. Detailed storm
water calculations have been submitted to staff for review and approval. Staff believes
that +his the drainage plans are alter-native may be feasible with the impl °m enta " cleaning
uxc�
of the stormwater quality basin located downstream in the park property. The city's Public
Works crews will re- excavate in front of the storm sewer discharge point in the park to
improve water quality prior to seeding Chanhassen Park Pond. This shoul be fuFt of
develeped and eXPIOFed with City staff and the applioant prior- to final plat appr-evah Detailed
steFmwater- ealetilatiens fer- a 10 year- and 100 year- stefm event, at 24 hetir- der-afien, will need
The site has previously been charged the
Surface Water Management Fee and therefore no additional fees will be required as part of
this submittal.
UTILITIES
The site is serviced by municipal sewer and water from Santa Vera and Kerber Boulevard.
The plans propose to utilize the existing sanitary sewer service stub from Santa Vera and
water stubouts for hydrant placements on the site from both Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera
Drive.
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
' Page 10
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On April 19, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application.
The proposal was reviewed in detail and the following constitutes a summary of issues
raised at the meeting:
* Increase landscaping on the site: The Planning Commission directed the
' applicant to increase the tree canopy coverage from 15% as required by
ordinance to 30 %. The applicant was also asked to provide an average height of
9 feet tall coniferous trees and 3 1 / inch caliper deciduous trees. The revised plan
' incorporated all of those changes with the exception of 10 Bur Oak trees which
will have a 2 inch caliper. Oak trees are generally available only in the smaller
caliper size since they are more successfully transplanted and tend to establish
' themselves better than larger sized oak transplants. Staff believes this is
acceptable.
* Re- examine the height of the building and investigate solutions: The applicant
has reduced the pitch of the roof as well as increased the grading of the site
which resulted in reducing the overall height of the building. The applicant has
' also taken vertical elements from the design of the building and replaced them
with horizontal features, giving the building a lower profile appearance.
' * Use natural materials for the retaining wall and change the roof color to reduce
the mass of the roof line: The applicant has reduced the height of the retaining
wall from 11 feet to 8 feet. Furthermore, the applicant's landscape architect
' informed staff that a form of climbing ivy will be planted around the retaining
wall. Bur Oak and Sumac will be planted along the northerly portion of the site
which should screen the retaining wall from views from the single family homes
to the north. The applicant has prepared three color scheme alternatives which
will be shown at the City Council meeting. The applicant met with the Senior
' Commission to discuss the proposed changes. The most desirable color scheme
shows natural tones and resemble the darker shade of brick used on the City Hall
building. Exterior building samples will be provided at the City Council meeting.
' RECOMMENDATION
' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat to replat 2.2 acres from Outlot B
and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th
Addition and Site Plan Review #95 -3 for a 78 63 Unit Senior Housing Building as shown on
the plans dated " , May 1, 1995 and subject to the following conditions:
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 11
1. The Senior Housing Building shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed
by the applicant in their attached renderings. IntFeduee some at iea along th e +
and west elevations thr-etigh the shape ef windews and adding .The garage
entrance structure facing east shall utilize the same brick material as the
building.
2. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be deterred after revised site plans are
submitted and reviewed.
b. A ten foot clear space must maintained around fire hydrants. Fire hydrant
locations are acceptable.
C. The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to
support the weight regulations of the Fire Department aerial platform truck.
Weight requirements are available from the Fire Marshal.
4. Applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing landscaping and street lights
and replacing any sidewalks impacted by the site construction.
5. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan in accordance to the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall include rock construction
entrances, erosion control fences, and revegetation schedules. The grading plan shall
be revised to incorporate the storm sewer improvements proposed with the site
development. In addition, the plans shall maintain 7 1 /2 feet of cover over the
watermain along Powers Boulevard.
6. The dfiveway aisles should be iner-eased to 26 feet wide, faee to faeo of eufb, with 20-
feet adius°° addition, the driveway curb cuts will need to incorporate pedestrian
ramps to facilitate the existing sidewalks on Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive.
7. The ste drainage icy ill be fevised te inelud + rl + f err
the uppe p.:. - e a.
8. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per
building codes.
1
n
i
F1
U
' Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
' Page 12
9. 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. The applicant shall submit a letter
to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of
' the project.
10. . Type
' I erosion control fence shall be employed along the west, east and south side of the
site. Type III shall be maintained along the north side of the construction limits. All
erosion control measures shall be maintained until the site is fully revegetated and
removal is authorized by the City.
11. Construction access to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cuts. Rock
' construction entrances shall be maintained until the driveways have been paved.
12. Park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and
water connection fees be waived as this is a public project.
13. The applicant shall use a mix of native prairie grasses and shrubs such as sumac rather
' than sod along the northern slope.
14. The building shall be relocated to be consistent with the PUD compliance table:
' Hard Surface Coverage 44-.940%
Setback from collector 50 feet
' Internal Public Street 30 feet
External property line 30 feet
Internal Private Streets NA
Overall Density 9.6 units
15. The applieant wer-k with eity stag to eeme tip with natur-al fetainifig wall Matefials and
.. lighter- eeler-- Perhaps
asphalt shak4ag-.
16. Staff wer-k with the applieant to Fevise a landseaping plan . The avef age height being
n foot and th e ao,.;a, ees +roes Zip i e li an d ; ,. roams the eanep) cover-ag _ to
17. On top of the entryway into the underground parking, utilize the same railing
' features that surround the building."
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
April 19, 1995
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Albin and Marian Olson dated April 29, 1995.
2. Letter from Dorothy McIntyre dated April 29, 1995.
3. Letter from Paul Procieviat dated April 20, 1995.
4. Letter from Marion Stultz dated May 1, 1995.
5. Letter from Jane Kubitz dated May 2, 1995.
6. Letter from Sharol Howard dated May 2, 1995.
7. Letter from Selda Hienlien dated May 3, 1995.
8. Letter from Jacki Kurvers dated May 1, 1995.
9. Letter from Viola Scharrer dated May 1, 1995.
10. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1995.
11. Application and attachments.
12. Notice of public hearing and property owners.
13. Senior Housing Concept Plan.
14. Preliminary plat dated May 1, 1995.
ALBIN & MARIAN OLSON
' 406 Santa Fe Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55 317
April 29, 1995
Chanhassen City Council
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 553
' Dear Members,
We are writing to express our suport for the construction of senior
housing in Chanhassen. We have lived in Chanhassen for some 26 years,
and as many of you know, we have been very active in community affairs.
' Because of our desire to continue our community involvement and the fact
that many of our friends and family live in and around Chanhassen. we
' hope to sta in Chanhassen for many years to come. Some day in the not
so distant future we may reach a point where we no longer want to
remain in our home. At that time, without a senior housing option in
' Chanhassen. we may well be forced to leave this community. We know
that many others in town feel the same way. What a tremendous loss for
the City of Chanhassen if its senior citizens, who have so much to give to
this City, are forced to leave because of a lack of housing alternatives.
This tragedy can be avoided. We urge you to vote in favor of building
senior housing, and vote in favor of making Chanhassen a city that
welcomes all of its citizens.
' Sincerely,
v '�P
' Albin and Marian Olson
F
/v
l
- ��/ic, <�l —C�r�� -Civt� � L- Z —I�I/L � S J' �"—� —� t� -_-� _•�c�r
�I
� 1
o
It Ile
9 1225
RECEIVED
a o� � s P R 2-4-M
CH Y or (a*ni-iNHASSEN
-.— :Y�r E!�� —U� — ` -° `� � /�-` `- �L��'� �/z��_" - - -��— ./rte =�. ^
�_ -_ - -- I ! �' �,� _cue _ �� _ -- - - _ _ ��� /q/L� ` �
aot
77
ID
r
� 1
�✓In2 lkc� ✓1 � GaLc�tA� �' �a�"� fit.
r � p
��' - C �' ��• — u_�� Lit -eC.(� � ,�{/t'L C�.e'�Ga�t,�„ `� J L�ii —rz� ,
�� ,�'�.ciiclL Gt��Q..Fir� , ��C��— .lip ..c- 2�� -c�c_ �'Yi� CJ�- EC,cc. G •�G- /�.c - — �c.�� �cL.r,
J
U
✓1 �Ze 1 YtL /(/`LAC t' 7ha' G "L ?t 7� CG2{� 7� / / 7 6
CEiVED
NI AY 0 2 1995 1
''I a Y 0 C;,`it NIri is SEii I
I May 2, 1995
Chanhassen City Council Members
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Dear City Council Members:
In 1990, a Task Force was appointed to study the needs of seniors.
That study showed many needs such as Information and Referral, a
Senior Center, Congregate dining, Home help, Senior housing, etc.
In 1991, the Senior Commission was appointed to work on these
issues.
Information and Referral grew into the County Linkage Line at our
Center. A Senior Center Thanks to the City we have a beautiful
' facility which we are fast outgrowing. Congregate dining is on
hold. However, the center does have once a month catered dinners,
some lunch programs, etc.
Home help The County chore program covers that. Senior housing
We are now to the final processes of that. We have put in many
hours touring other facilities, having presenters at Commission
' meetings and Council meetings to explain planning and allowing for
future needs.
' As the years go by we seniors find ourselves unable to do many
things and become more dependent on others - families. It is not
easy for us to give up our homes, belongings and life style to live
in a senior residence. However, there comes a time when it is not
' safe or sensible for seniors to live alone especially "senior
seniors ". Senior housing is needed. Many Chanhassen seniors have
had to find such housing in other places. They want to come back
' to their "home base" where family and friends are. Then there are
those Chanhassen residents with aging parents that live some
distance away who want to have their parents nearby.
' For these reasons, I urge you to vote in favor of senior housing.
Sincerely,
Jane Kubitz�
Senior Commission
7492 Saratoga Drive
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
May 2, 1995
Chanhassen City Council Members
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear City Council Members:
Having lived my entire life in the Lake Minnetonka area and since 1955 in Chanhassen, I have
seen the area change from country to suburban. Progress and growth demand many changes
some welcome - some not. i.e. when a household has a new well and septic system, it does not
welcome a $6,000 - $7,500 expense for city sewage and water, but now after some 20 years, the
change has been proven to be the right decision in the growth of our city.
Studies have shown a need for senior housing in our city of 15,000 people . I believe this step
is necessary and I strongly urge all of you to vote in favor. Senior housing will come to
Chanhassen - now - or later when more seniors have left and building costs are higher.
Sincerely
a I � ,
Sherol Howard
Senior Commission
1005 Pontiac Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
wJ
'
�L,i. �t� r !J.::�- .t- cLv_.- /tom- c :- �- r- -s ^.t� �__ ����c1,' .- c.- �- <i:..- i:- ,- __- 4'_-� -!•`i � �c� �y� ---
'
�`- �;ti.�- ::�._��_: - _.CY- v -t'L.� ,t� -'tJ �-c` :z.- .l%s�._ -,d.. - �G�t- «i�.l. ,di-z- G�� -r.•�. «<"_� �- -�-~f<
rj
'
(,__ - �; / 7 - '[Z.L'�{ — �.� ��u��% -v _t�'i' ,�G.- :rr..y�l"� , C�. k_ F ;• i..vi -Csi- � �,y r' Cc�t.r -C. �y:-- `t.:..�d
'
r 1. ` i�:: " ? a� {�ca -ii �. - -�x. /�.i�CL, PLC"- ;.._ -�. � - �::' -<: i...•.. ✓ <. :l.C- r�.•1 -...
May 01, 1995
�I
Sharmin Al -Jaff, City Planner
'
City of Chanhassen
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Dear Ms Al -Jaff,
'
I am writing in regard to the proposed senior housing project.
I very much favor affordable housing for some of these units.
'
My mother, Marion Stultz is an active and high contributor
for the seniors in Chanhassen. Because there was no affordable
'
housing, she moved to Waybury in Jonathan 10 years ago. She
would very much like to move back to Chanhassen, as she doesn't
drive much anymore and does all her shopping and as stated above,
many activities here.
,
I realize my mother is not the only one in need of affordable
housing, therefore, I ask that you listen to their needs.
Thank you for your time,
'
Sincere ly
1
Mrs. Jacki Kurvers
7240 Kurvers
'
Point Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
F
i
1 - c
' 'Ne that dw eth in love dwelleth in Sod."
1 John 4:16
/ I-
✓U
10
"He that dwelleth in 1. dwelleth in god."
/ 1014a ZI.16
/ 9
C
• i� W
"He that dwell t in love dwelleth in 5 0d
1 John 4:16
I
r
s
r
�
r �
�IJe� J
v�
5
J
oo
r
t
L
lool
4!!: 1
�C s 1 L
3
t
III
z
e�v
l�mr_ 25�
i
f
ys
f
e that dwelleth in love dwelleth in
John 4 :i6
7
o
/ /
f .
Jle
f
i
N
11
"Ile that dwelleth in love dwelleth in Sod."
I John 4:16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OUTLOT B AND BLOCKS 5 6 7 OF OAK PONDS 2ND
ADDMON INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OAK PONDS 4TH ADDITION AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW OF A 70 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING CARVER COUNTY HOUSING
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Beth Larson
Gregg Geske
Cindy Schallock
Jeff & Sherrell McCoskey
Sherol Howard
Bunny Billison
Jane Kubitz
Paul?
Mary & Tim Anderson
Jack Thien
Greg Hromatka
Marion Stultz
Viola Scharrer
Dorothy McIntyre
Albin H. Olson
7590 Canyon Curve
7530 Canyon Curve
7501 Canyon Curve
7481 Canyon Curve
1005 Pontiac Lane
7281 Pontiac Circle
2492 Saratoga Drive
2219 Boulder Road
7550 Canyon Curve
7570 Canyon Curve
7580 Canyon Curve
110340 Geske Road #203, Chaska
110340 Geske Road #316, Chaska
110340 Geske Road 9204, Chaska
406 Santa Fe Circle
Shmmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff? I have one. Sharmin, one of the recommendations or one
of your suggestions was to add some overstory trees on the western side.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Will that be shown tonight by the applicant? That revision or could you show me
where you mean.
Al -Jaff: It would be along this area.
Mancino: Okay. And the purpose that it serves is for sheltering in the summer, etc. Was
there another area also that you had suggested more canopy coverage? Or was that it?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Al -Jaff: It would be the southern area of the building in general.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation at this time?
Julie Frick: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Julie Frick and I'm
in the Director of the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. We've been
working with the city on this project for quite some time and we've brought along some of
the renderings to try to comply with all of the requirements and still provide some ... for the
seniors in the city of Chanhassen. At this time I'll turn it over to Carol Crow from Dunbar
Development who I'm working with. And also working...
Mancino: Thank you.
Carol Crow: Good evening. I'm Carol Crow with Dunbar Development. We've been
working closely with ... Carver County and Chanhassen, both the redevelopment authorities on
this development. I have some renderings that show some of the changes that we have been
working on as requested by the staff. One thing I would like to start out with, there is some,
the layout of the building can be somewhat confusing so I'd just like to walk through that
with you so you can see how the four stories of the building lay out. This is a site plan of
the building. If you enter, the garage entrance to the underground parking area is off of
Kerber Boulevard, which is shown here. The north side of the underground park would be
the first level. Above that you have three more levels. This would be the north side here.
On the west side of the building there is no housing on the first, on the parking level. On the
first level that steps up to street level and then up to four levels and then down to three at the
very end. We have complied with the setback requirements from Kerber Boulevard. We
have pulled it back to 50 feet farther. To do that we have eliminated 7 units of housing to
bring the building 10 feet back so we do have the 30 foot setback from Santa Vera Drive.
Mancino: So there are a total of 63 units?
Carol Crow: 63 units. We also have several computer generated drawings of what the
building will look like from the neighbor's perspective. This is kind of an older photo so it
doesn't show all the homes that have been developed along here but this would be Canyon
Curve—our development. These various photos represent the front to side... There is
approximately 400 feet distance between our property and the neighboring...
Mancino: I'm sorry, what's the point of those? What are those showing me? I mean I see
the overhead.
Carol Crow: We're just showing you the neighbor's and perspective to our building...
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Farmakes: When you said 400 feet, from building to building or from property line to
property line?
Carol Crow: From our building to the neighbors.
Farmakes: From structure to structure?
Carol Crow: From structure to structure.
Farmakes: Okay.
Carol Crow: This would be more or less an aerial view of the building. These two would be
aerial views. These would be views if you were standing in one of these, this house for
example would be ... Also the rendering in this one ... this would be a perspective looking at the
back of the building. This is a photograph from down the hill at Kerber Boulevard. This is
another development right across the street from our site that is currently under construction.
This represents or shows our building on the side in relation to the building across the street.
Mancino: So we are on Kerber, where are we right now? We are on Saddlewood and
Kerber?
Mike Sepena: We're north of the site. At the first road that goes in ... I believe it's
Saddlewood...
Farmakes: What is the retaining wall material again?
Carol Crow: Pardon me?
Farmakes: What is that material again? I don't remember,
Carol Crow: I think we're looking at something like a Keystone type of block.
Farmakes: So it's not flat surface. It's textured.
Mancino: I'm sorry Carol, I have a question about that. Now I am to presume that on that
lower left view, okay. That I am in my car, which I did this afternoon on Canyon Curve, and
that's a perspective I'm going to see?
Carol Crow: Actually if you were in the house.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
' Mancino: I don't know what to say. Only that when I sat in my car, it was a much closer
feel, the land mass was, without the building on it. The land mass was much, felt much
closer to me than the perspective that you're showing there. So it's just, I don't know if
' anyone else did that. Went to where the houses were on Canyon Curve but I felt that the
perspective, it was very different than what I'm seeing.
' Conrad: I can relate.
Skubic: I agree ... seems to be much closer... illustration.
' Carol Crow: Excuse me, could I ask Mike Sepena with ... He worked on these and he might
be able to provide.
Mancino: Oh, thank you.
' Mike Sepena: I'm not sure how much more information I can provide other than basically
what we did is we plugged the whole building into the machine so we could go all the way
around it and have a bunch of different views since we don't have a model here at the
' meeting. The view that you were asking about was this one... This view is taken, this is the
pond that shows right down here. So this view is taken from over here looking in that
direction.
Carol Crow: So it's farther...
Mike Sepena: Right. Looking across the pond at the building. That was here. This one
here is taken from the road. From Kerber Boulevard looking in this direction. Then these
both are similar views except with eye level up in the air...
Mancino: Any commissioners have any questions, comments for Mike at this point?
Farmakes: What is red is berming, is that correct? Or terra cotta color.
Mancino: Julie and Carol, are you done?
Carol Crow: Oh, yes. Unless...
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Do you happen to have material samples?
As to brick, the siding, etc.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Carol Crow: I'm sorry, I didn't bring those with me. The exterior would be a vinyl siding
and the brick would be...
Mancino: What color vinyl siding?
Carol Crow: We haven't decided on final colors but what we're showing on the scheme is.
sort of a taupe.
Mancino: Okay. And the brick, what?
Carol Crow: A reddish brown brick.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? On materials or detailing. Thank you very
much. May I have a motion to open it to a public hearing.
Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public healing. All voted in favor and the
motion cmiied. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: Thank you. This is open the public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up
and have comments, please do. State your name and address.
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name's Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. I guess there's
two items I'd like to bring up. One is one that's been brought up, is the size of the building.
It is a big building. We had asked city staff and at a previous Council meeting I had asked
for renderings to be made and these renderings that were made are fine except that it would
have been nice if they were on a photographic type rendering... I think I agree with what
Nancy was saying that, because the site is up high and it juts out from the rest of this hill, the
slope, which kind of juts to the north, the filling should actually be in front or farther north
than like the townhomes will be that will be constructed west of it. It really gives the
appearance that it's closer than even like these rendering provide and that's because obviously
you're missing, it's a computer rendering, not a photographic rendering and it's very difficult, I
feel to really get a feel for what this thing's going to look like, even with what they provided
tonight. I wanted to mention one other thing. A previous plan for this site, done 3 years ago,
was originally planned to put about 40 apartment units up on the hill. My neighbors and I
had made a video. Actually about 3 years ago in a snowstorm with 30 foot poles showing
how big even a 30 foot apartment building would be on the hill and because of this and some
other comments from the Council... staff, the developer decided to put townhomes on the hill.
Now they're planning, this project puts 70, or excuse me, 63 units where 40 was too much
before. Second item is the garage entrance onto Kerber. Myself and a lot of my neighbors
have children who attend school at Chanhassen Elementary who often walk or ride their
22
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
' bicycles to school and we worry about having a driveway entrance from the building onto
Kerber and if at all possible, could this entrance be put off of, the underground parking
entrance be placed off of Santa Vera. There are no other driveway entrances north of the
' school along the entire stretch of Kerber Boulevard. I have, I guess that's my only comments
to make so thank you.
' Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. My house, if you haven't
been by there, is the sort of blue gray house. My house faces, the back of it faces directly to
that hill and I do have a concern about the size of the building also because the building, I
don't know, what is the height of the building itself?
Mancino: Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: An average of 44.75 feet. There is one side of 42 feet and another side of 46 feet so
when you average those you come up with 44 feet.
' Mancino: So the highest is 46?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
' Conrad: As measured from where to where?
I Al -Jaff: As measured from.
' Aanenson: Average grade.
Conrad: So not the north side or not the south side, but someplace inbetween?
Aanenson: Correct.
' Mancino: So on the north side it would be.
Al -Jaff: The north side is 46 feet. It is 46 feet.
' Mancino: I'm sorry, go ahead Jack.
Jack Thien: And I wonder ... my concern is the size of the building and I thought about
another concern too possibly is, how many stories is this? Four stories? Four IPVels.
1 23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Jack Thien: And my concern is, I know myself I'm getting in my 40's and I don't get around
as quickly as I used to and one of the concerns that I thought about was, you know somebody
being on the fourth level, you know if an emergency does come up of some sort, how quickly
are they going to be able to evacuate so that was a concern too. So it's just my hopes that we
can work something out. I think we had talked one time, is there a possibility of going with
the grade at all and lowering... what it is now.
Al -Jaff: We looked at that. The only problem with it becomes the underground parking.
Right now you need to match the grade to allow for the parking with Kerber Boulevard. And
if you lower it any further, Dave can you answer that question?
Hempel: I think you've addressed it pretty well Sharmin. The road does eventually... continue
to bring the driveway down further. You'll have a steeper slope into the basement garage...
unit down further, you push the grading closer to the pond.
Mancino: What is the steepness of that right now from the lower garage level to Kerber?
Hempel: I believe it's about 2% to 3 %...
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Jack Thien: I can't think of anything else. Oh, there was one thing. If you haven't actually
viewed that hill from Canyon Curve, I certainly would hope that you would do that ... because
it is a different view than what the rendering is. It's -up here you know as opposed to more
eye level and I just hope that...
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the Planning
Commission?
Kevin Crystal: My name is Kevin Crystal. I live at 940 Saddlebrook Curve. I'd just like to
repeat my opposition to the height, or their opposition to the height. It being up on a hill,
that certainly would dominant the skyline for quite an area around there.
Mancino: Thank you.
John Linforth: Good evening. My name is John Linforth. I live at 7471 Canyon Curve and
to first say that I think most of the neighbors in our neighborhood would like to have senior
housing on that hillside... None of us have, that I have heard, have voiced any opposition to
24
n
r
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
having any type of senior housing development put on that hill. The major opposition that I'd
like to voice is the height of this building. It's opening up an interesting... This project could
not be done yesterday without 70 units. Today it can be done with 63 units. So what makes
sense today is fairly random... that I'd like to ask the staff, where do they measure the 42 feet
from the northern exposure ... If I understand, the mid -point of the eaves are the measuring
points on the northern exposure. From my rough estimates, the actual height of that building
is over 60 feet tall. This will be a monolithic sized building, from a hillside that has no
vegetation at all on it. I think if you lower this building so that it conforms with the
established houses that the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen works with, it
would fit in with the neighborhood. But as it is right now, it's a huge building.
Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin, can you take a minute to clarify exactly where the 46 is by
going to the drawing on the northern elevation.
Al -Jaff: Okay we're looking from this point up to the middle of
Mancino: So from the ground level to the middle is 46?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. And in some of those peak areas, you're going to have an additional 20
feet?
Al -Jaff: With the peak areas it would come up to 50 feet. I mean if you measure up to the
peak, then you are at 50 feet.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission tonight?
Sherrell McCoskey: I'm Sherrell McCoskey. I live at 7481 Canyon Curve and my concerns
are too in the height of the building. Also the driveway going directly out onto Kerber
Boulevard. That seems to be a dangerous proposition with all the children around. I'm
concerned about the lack of landscaping. It sounded like they were just going to have sumac
or something and there are some oak trees near -by and some kind of covering, even in the
winter time would be kind of a nice thing. Judging from that hill, it will probably take me 25
years to grow a tree tall enough to cover up this building but maybe there's something they
can do on their part in the meantime. I'm also concerned about how tall the retaining wall is.
If that, do you know how tall that is?
Al -Jaff: Total of 11 feet but it's going to be stepped.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Sherrell McCoskey: And I guess I'd like to encourage anyone that's wondering what this is
going to look like, to go see a large red apartment building by ... Creek Golf Course on Valley
View Road in Eden Prairie. It is just a huge, ugly building and maybe if we went with a
color that was a little lighter or something, it wouldn't be such a monster sitting up on that
hill.
Mancino: Thank you.
Greg Hromatka: My name is Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just
obviously the height is a concern. My property is directly along the one side which you have
here and the ... from the corner of the street, which would be Saddlebrook Curve and Kerber, it
really doesn't do justice to the leveling off the hill down to the neighborhood that's directly in
my back yard and all around. Another issue would be, cars are traveling away from
downtown Chan on Kerber Boulevard ... I feel and it's basically a blind intersection for where
these cars would be pulling out. That's a real concern. That's for the kids as well as traffic...
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Cindy Schallock: I'm Cindy Schallock and I live at 7501 Canyon Curve, and just two
concerns. To reiterate that the size of the building, and also the driveway. You know, for
someone to start at that point, I thought well we could cross the street but there isn't really
any crosswalk along there. That's south of where that driveway would be and then if you
have the townhomes there, that's the only crosswalk for Kerber Boulevard. Painted crosswalk
on the street. So that corner is a big concern as far as traffic goes. I'm thrilled that a senior
community is going in there and I hope it does go through. I'd much rather see that go
through than rental townhomes... I've worked with seniors the last 12 years and, in a
community quite like this, in senior housing in Minnetonka, and I'm really excited.
Mancino: Appreciate your comments. Anyone else? I see more people. Do I have a motion
to close the public hearing?
Nutting moved, Comad seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion cwiied. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Discussion from commissioners. Jeff.
Farmakes: It's an interesting problem, but I haven't been working on it for several months
like city staff and the County. I'm very familiar with the area. I've lived here for a long
time, close by this area and have been on the commission here when we dealt with the
townhomes developed adjacent on the top of the hill here. First of all I'd like to discuss the
26
P-1
n
7
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
building or the general impressions of the building, irregardless of the height. I think city
staff did a wonderful job breaking up the facades. Creating textures in this building.
Considering some of the problems that they had, the size of the acreage, putting up many
units and trying to create something that would fit in to the residential area was a difficult
assignment. They did a nice job. The materials I think are for the most part done in such a
way not to be institutional but to create a residential feeling to the building. It actually looks
like kind of an Italian hillside town.
Mancino: Villas.
Farmakes: Yeah. I would much rather live here than in the townhouses adjacent to the top
of the hill. And the view from there is quite nice. One of the things that I've always been
concerned about in working with that particular area. We were talking about the other
development farther up the hill. There's a considerable distance that separates Saddlebrook
with the top of this hill and as difficult as that may be, when communities and cities look for
transition or what is the transition from one to the other, one of those criterias is distance that
you use and what separates that usage. In reality, we're a block from mainstreet here. I mean
it's not that far away. We're not out in the hinterlands. There's been elaborate studies done
and distance and what works for this type of housing and what the major criteria is that it's
within quick access to the necessities of life and the service areas. Grocery stores and
shopping and so on that don't require large distances to go. Now anybody who's had kids in
this city knows that you spend a tremendous time driving back and forth picking up things,
dropping people off. So I think that the need for this type of thing and where it's location is,
is pretty finite. That there are very few places that this can go to meet those criteria. And
again, I think that they've done a very good job and it isn't often that I get into this. There's a
couple of things that I would add as general comments that I would like to see. The area that
it overlooks is sort of a man made or excuse me, a human made wetland area that was put
together. It used to be an old cow slew that cows used to walk through. And there's a
couple of ponds down there but basically it's sort of been left to go to natural grasses and so
on. If some of the continuations of those natural materials, I know that the city has used
boulder walls rather than Keystoning say for the water tower and where the natural glacier
boulders are used. Something like that might be helpful. Also the color on the roof wasn't a
big mass of black. A comment was made, maybe a gray and maybe still asphalt but maybe
kind of a fake shaking creates, breaks up the light so you don't have this big mass of long
similar color going through it. But the rest of it, the brick, this is far nicer than anything I've
seen in Minneapolis and we're talking 20 some stories there, many of them, and in your
residential areas. So just because I say Minneapolis, it doesn't mean big city. We're.talking
in South Minneapolis or even in the 40th Street areas you see these two bedroom ramblers
going up and then you see a 23 story tower going up. I really think you've done a good job
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
here. On the parking lot area where the entrance is off of Kerber, is that going to be some
sort of gravel roof or what?
Mike Sepena: The top of the deck over the underground parking?
Farmakes: Right.
Mike Sepena: That would be, what we're thinking of is it would just be a concrete
patterning, concrete color ... so it's more like.
Farmakes: So it's not for use.
Mike Sepena: People can walk up there. And that garage entrance is 50 feet set back from
the property line. So any cars driving out of there are going to be visible from 50 feet before
they get to the property line and then of course there's a little more distance between the
property line and Kerber Boulevard.
Farmakes: So you then would take the railing that you have going on on the back and place
that then around that. I don't see that in the drawing here.
Mike Sepena: Yeah, we didn't show a railing but there would be something around there
because people will be up there.
Farmakes: It would be nice if that were continued throughout the building. What you have
going on in the back. The landscaping is nice. I think that the neighbors' concerns about the
traffic, I'd defer to the City Engineer and Public Safety on that issue. I walk several times a
day up and down this road. I know going through Saddlebrook and going through New
Horizon that I cross several streets going up towards downtown so I know in this particular
area there really isn't any streets for a better part of a block and a half. There is the two
before you get to, well Byerly's also has a skip out there in the apartment buildings but I
doubt whether that's going to be a higher or envisioned as a high traffic area at all. In fact
there's, they want to have fewer parking spots than what the city requires in the parking lot,
and this is based on car usage. For instance the staff report on car usage that's been in a like
facility. They have reduced the unit structure by a pretty significant amount. Almost 10 %.
I've talked enough on this so I'd like to hear what other people...
Mancino: Dave, do you have any public safety issues with the driveway access onto Kerber?
I mean are there things that we should look out for? I know in the initial drawings there was
a, on the south side, a retaining wall. Will that still be there when we go in 50 feet instead of
the 30?
28
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Hempel: It will be there proportionally but it will taper down to meeting the existing ground
...to the street. The trips generated from this type of development is far less than a rental unit
or a townhome development... There's good sight visibility along Kerber Boulevard there. If
' there is a downfall, it's the northbound traffic... Kerber, is a down grading but it's not a very
sever down grading. Less than 5 %... I don't foresee it being a problem from a traffic safety
standpoint. Pedestrian traffic...
Mancino: And there will be stop signs coming out or prior to this sidewalk?
Hempel: That's true in any case.
Mancino: And that is also the access for all trash pick -up and any sort of work that's going
to be done to the building?
Hempel: I'll have to defer that to the architect.
Mancino: Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: Would you kindly repeat the question?
Mancino: Sure. Is the trash pick -up done underneath again on the ground level?
Al -Jaff: Yes. The building will be provided with garbage chutes. Each level will have it's
own and then the dumpsters will be inside. The garbage truck will go inside the building and
pick it up.
Mancino: And what about other maintenance crews that come to the building? Will they
also have access to the lower level or will that be?
Al -Jaff: For example?
Mancino: Fixing heating or electric.
Aanenson: I would think they would probably come in the front door and check in.
Mancino: Okay. So they will use one of those 14 spaces.
Carol Crow: Can I just ... with regards to the trash...
Mancino: Ron, do you have any questions?
al
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Nutting: Jeffs comments I think fairly summarize my thoughts also. The height issue is the
issue of substance that I'm hearing. You've got an average of 44 or 46 on the peak. We're at
42 on the other side. If this was not a PUD, it would be at a 40 foot height requirement.
Where on a PUD you have the flexibility. I'm presuming that staff looked at that in terms of
the development of this site. Evaluated it. Did you come up with any options that made
sense? This is what makes sense in terms of that site to mitigate the height any more in
terms of the architecture?
Al -Jaff: We looked at grading the site and again, we're going to have a problem with the
underground parking if we grade it... One of the options is to go with a flat roof and if you
look at all of Chanhassen, you have some type of architectural element to the roof and that
has been one of the requirements of each building that has come to Chanhassen. So other
than that, no there wasn't.
Nutting: Okay. I guess my thoughts on it, the difference for me is not substantial enough to,
you know I wouldn't want to see a flat roof. I need to see the architectural break -up that we
have and going from 40 to 44 or 46, given what we get here, which I think is, this is a nice
looking project. The landscaping I guess is one issue I'm a little, looking at the maps and the
renderings that we have. Did we not have a presentation just a little while back talking about
the additional landscaping that was going to be incorporated into this site? Am I mixing two
different? It wasn't today.
Al -Jaff: I believe the additional landscaping was on the project to the west. Those were Oak
Pond Addition.
Nutting: Okay. I guess the only thing that I would add from the landscaping side is to the
extent that staff can work with the applicant in terms of putting something in that's not 3 feet
today and will take 30 years to mature but to do something to get more of an initial screening
right off the bat but we're certainly not going to cover 40 feet of building but something to
break up the building from the north side. I guess I don't have a problem with the driveway
issue, as I listened to Dave's comments and what we have there. And the other issue, the
other big issue for me is the transition issue and distance. Being a transition. It's different if
you're on a level site and if you're looking up and distance seems to disappear but we do have
the distance but then we also have what's allowed by ordinance and then we have the PUD
and so I think it's unfortunate but I'm not convinced that I have enough information here to
suggest that I can scrunch the building down to deal with the view from down below so. In
general I'm in support of staffs recommendations. That's my comments.
Mancino: Bob.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Skubic: Yes, I have several comments. I agree with what Jeff and Ron have said and I think
the idea of changing the color scheme of the roof, that that perceived height would benefit.
And also perhaps more landscaping on that back side might also act to create a perceived
horizon which might also lower the building so I think it might be beneficial to put some
trees in the back. Some taller trees. The Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan suggests transition
zones between areas of high density and low density. As has been pointed out, there's not a
real good transition zone here. The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that the City provide
sufficient senior housing, and there appears to have been a great deal of effort put into
looking for a site for senior housing and that some of those have already been lost and if we
don't move forward with this, perhaps this will pass also.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
Meyer: Just maybe a question for staff. Dave. What would it do to the angle of the
underground entrance if you lowered the building? How steep is it right now and how steep
would it become?
Hempel: This entrance is approximately about a 2% grade of the driveway. If you lower the
'
unit ... might be increased another half a percent... That type of direction, east exposure, the
type of conditions we have here, I don't recommend exceeding the 2 %.
' Meyer: Okay. So we're right about the limit that you recommend then. We could maybe
drop it a couple. Okay. And then my other comments are the landscaping too. I'd like to
see if we could maybe add something to help break it up a little bit more and get some
' coverage in the wintertime also. Other than that, it is a nice looking building. I would have
liked to have seen the materials that are used for the siding. An example, and I understand
' you don't have those here tonight. It would have been nice to see that and it would also have
been nice to see an elevation from the houses that are closest. I know the road takes a big
dip but then comes back up elevation that you have the overlay on it. That's from a lot
' higher spot than I think than the neighbors that are closest to the building. I would have
liked to have seen it from that angle but, I guess that's just a comment. Maybe something
that the Council could have a chance to see before they make their decision.
' Mancino: Sharmin.
' Al -Jaffa The applicant did provide the materials at the neighborhood meeting and I believe it
was an oversight on their part not to bring it today. The color was very similar to what you
see at the fire station. The color of the brick. It's definitely a shade darker than what you see
behind you.
1 31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Meyer: Did I miss anything with the different elevations? Was there one from Canyon
Curve? From the low point of Canyon Curve at the closest point. Was there? Okay.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: I think this is a great place for senior housing and I always knew we'd have some
multiple units here that when you zone something R -12, you're going to get multi - floors.
There's just no doubt so I think Planning Commission, at least I have always known there's
going to be some height to anything that goes on this property. A couple questions, and
some of it is hard for me to understand the underground parking visually. But I'd ask staff
and Kate a question. Have we applied the same landscaping standards here? Have we asked
them to do the same type of landscaping as we asked for the neighbors to the west?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Same? Because we kept piling on more trees and more trees. So what kind of
standards have we. I don't think the renditions, the renderings, anything that I've been given
today really speaks very well of a landscape plan that tries to deal with the height, to be very
honest. What I've seen. Maybe that's not what's in print but what I've seen is, doesn't seem
to effectively deal with the height.
Aanenson: Well, that's the issue right there. Based on the grades, no matter what you do,
because of the height, planting something now and to get it to grow, as the neighbors all
attested to, it's going to be hard to get something to grow that fast.
Conrad: And so our standard for a new planting would be a 6 foot tree in height?
Al -Jaff: Unless you ask for.
Conrad: Unless we ask for something more.
Al -Jaff: Something more.
Aanenson: And the other issue Ladd on that is what we looked at with the Oak Ponds, is that
the neighbors didn't want a manicured lawn all the way down, as Sharmin indicated... We
thought we'd put, recommend something like sumac. Something natural. Again going back
to what Jeffs comment with the boulder wall. Try to keep it a more natural feeling. Again,
to kind of increase the sense of separation between the two.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
' Conrad: And I buy that. But I also buy transition in height too. I don't buy a bush going to
a 46 foot rise.
' Aanenson: No, no. That's what Sharmin indicated. There was additional trees in the back
but what we're talking about is that other area that might be disturbed and go back and put
some.
Conrad: I like that. But again personally I don't, I'm just not convinced of the landscape
plan on the north side, and maybe Nancy you can help me with that. You know more on our
standards. And again when I'm applying our standards and precedence versus just, standards
and precedence of what guide us here. The underground garage, I probably should have
asked this earlier. Is there parking on top of that garage? There is no parking on top of the
' garage. Where, I'm just having a tough time relating to the underground and then what's.
Carol Crow: This is the surface parking here. None of this is over the underground and this
' again relates to an issue. We have reviewed this with the Fire Marshal and this does meet his
requirements. So this would be on ground.
Conrad: Okay. So the pink is.
Carol Crow: This is just the surface that we were discussing. This is the part, the surface
' parking here. Then the underground parking is this, there are no units on this side that are
over parking. The units on this side, these are actually over the parking and then the parking
' comes out.
Farmakes: And what is shaded?
' Conrad: So what's shaded?
' Farmakes: What's shaded brown there is the upper part.
Carol Crow: This would be over, yeah. Over the parking area.
' Farmakes: Where they would walk and where the railing question appears.
' Conrad: So does that mean, so there's an elevation to that. Or is that flat? Is that the same
elevation as the top parking? In other words where you can.
I Mancino: That brown.
' 33
u
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
Conrad: The brown, is that the same elevation?
Carol Crow: Yes.
Conrad: It just so happens that there is underground parking below that but it is the same.
Okay. My two issues, I think the setbacks, I probably could have compromised on the
setbacks except, or at least one of them. Maybe not out to Kerber but I think the height is a
bother to me. The height, we have a standard and you've got to rationalize and justify the
standard if you want to change it. And the standard is 40 feet. It's a case where, you know
here's a case where we do have a standard in place, and you can slip it if you find real good
rationale. Now if this is project is going to go away, I'll slip that standard. In other words, if
we won't get the senior center, I will slip that standard. But in this case, the 40 foot is our
standard. It is on a hill. It is probably a good reason to maintain that standard. I don't know
if I'm buying much by that 4 feet difference, or 6 feet. Whatever. That's my biggest problem
right now. I really don't know what I'm buying, but I do know that I don't buy slipping this
standard because of the situation that this is in. I feel real comfortable adhering to this zone
standard. So again, I'm sort of in, I'm caught by maybe somebody who can be very
persuasive or by staff or by the applicant that can say this project doesn't work any other way.
Jeff, I think it is a nicely designed project and I think there's so many nice parts to it. It's just
that, I really have a problem with slipping a standard that makes sense, especially where this
project is. So my two problems are, I have a problem dropping that standard and I do not
quite understand our landscaping to cover up the north side very well in terms of trying to
solve a problem where we've spent a lot of time with previous applicants trying to screen a
two story building and we probably haven't spent much time trying to screen a four story
building.
Mancino: Well two things that I'm hearing about size that I'm concerned with too, and a real
easy solution for the City Council and the HRA to think about is buy a little more land.
Conrad: Where?
Mancino: Next to it. I mean that issue is gone.
Al -Jaffa We don't have any additional land out there.
Mancino: But from the very beginning to lower the height, you can buy more land to put it
on, and that may be gone now but secondly, about the landscaping. I think because this is a
PUD, that we may, the landscaping ordinance right now calls for 20% coniferous trees in this
area and we could up that to 30 %. And instead of a 7 foot average height, we could go for a
9 foot average height. And for the deciduous overstory trees, instead of a 2 1/2 inch caliper
34
'
Planning ommission Meeting - April 19 1995
g g P ,
' average, go to a 3 1/2 average caliper and therefore you will get bigger trees. Taller trees to
begin with in proportion to the building. That would help. What happens with overflow
parking Sharmin? We have 14 spaces for guests. What about holiday times when, whether
' it's Christmas, someone's birthday, family reunion, where can people park in this area? Can
they park on Kerber? Can they park on Santa Vera? Where can extra people go to park?
'
Al -Jaff:
Dave.
Hempel:
Well on Kerber Boulevard we have limited parking I believe on north, I believe
'
south side... One side I know has parking.
Mancino:
So either the east or the west side on Kerber?
'
Hempel:
Either north or south. Oh, I'm sorry. Santa Vera. Santa Vera...
Mancino: So they could on the south side. And what about Kerber? Is there any parking on
Kerber?
' Hempel: No, there's no parking on Kerber.
Mancino: Do you feel that that will take care of the overflow parking? I mean because
there's bound to be times when there are going to be more than 14 people.
Al -Jaff: I believe that if it was a problem, they could also park underground.
' Mancino: Because some of the residents may not have cars. They could also park in the
Byerly's.
Aanenson: Ci ty Hall.
' Mancino: Or City Hall and come across if they want. I just wanted to make sure of that.
' Jane Kubitz: Can I say something about that Sharmin? Seniors are more apt to be going to
their families rather than having their families...
Mancino: Can you please come up and state your name.
Jane Kubitz: My name's Jane Kubitz. I'm on the commission. I said seniors are more apt to
t be going to their families than having their families come to them so there shouldn't be a
parking problem.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 1
Mancino: Well, I just know in my family that we have, as a family have gone to visit.
Jane Kubitz: But you're not... 1
Mancino: No, but I certainly have grandmothers and mothers that are so I'm sure that will '
happen. Any other discussion? Do I have a motion? Any motions? We can made friendly
amendments.
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the ,
preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres from Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd
Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review #95 -3 for a 70 '
unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the
following conditions. 1 through 14. I'd like to add 15. That the applicant work with city
staff to come up with natural retaining wall materials and roof surface material to reduce the ,
mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color. Perhaps asphalt shaking. Friendly amendment on the
landscaping?
Mancino: Oh on 16 I'll make a friendly mendment that staff work with the applicant to
y PP
revise a landscaping plan per my comments earlier about conifer trees. The average height
being 9 feet and that deciduous trees being 3 1/2 inch caliper. '
Al -Jaff: Increase the canopy coverage to 30 %, you also mentioned.
Mancino: What is it right now?
Al -Jaff: 21. ,
Mancino: 21? Yeah, I'd like to see it to 30. Thank you.
Farmakes: And 17. The railing on the, what are we going to call that? What is that surface.
The raised surface. What do we call that? ,
Al -Jaff: Top of the entryway into the underground parking.
Farmakes: Utilize the same railing features that surround the building. That's it. '
Mancino: Is there a second? ,
Nutting: Second.
i
36 1
'
Planning ommission Meeting - April 19, 1995
g g p
Mancino: Any discussion?
' Faimakes moved Nutting econded that the Planning Commission recommend approval for
g g pp
' the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acies from Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds
2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review 995 -3 for a
70 unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the
' following conditions:
1. The senior housing building shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by
' the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation along the east and
west elevations through the shape of windows and adding louvers.
2. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be deterred after revised site plans are submitted
' and reviewed.
b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Fire hydrant
' locations are acceptable.
c. The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to
' support the weight regulations of the Fire Department aerial platform truck. Weight
requirements are available from the Fire Marshal.
3. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm drainage
calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event at 24 hour duration. Individual
storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event between catch basin segments will
' also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
' 4. Applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing landscaping and street lights
and replacing any sidewalks impacted by the site construction.
' 5. The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan in accordance to the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall include rock construction
entrances, erosion control fences, and revegetation schedules. The grading plan shall be
revised to incorporate the storm sewer improvements proposed with the site
development. In addition, the plans shall maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over the
watermain along Powers Boulevard.
1 37
Planning Commission Meeting s April 19, 1995
6. The driveway aisles should be increased to 20 foot wide, face to face of curb, with 20
foot radiuses. In addition, the driveway curb cuts will need to incorporate pedestrian
ramps to facilitate the existing sidewalks on Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive.
7. The storm drainage plan shall be revised to include storm drainage improvements for the
upper parking area.
8. All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per
building codes.
9. 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. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City
documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project.
10. Existing and proposed erosion control fence shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I
erosion control fence shall be employed along the west, east and south side of the site.
Type III shall be maintained along the north side of the construction limits. All erosion
control measures shall be maintained until the site is fully revegetated and removal is
authorized by the City.
11. Construction access to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cuts. Rock
construction entrances shall be maintained until the driveways have been paved.
12. Park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and
water connection fees be waived as this is a public project.
13. The applicant shall use a mix of native prairie grasses and shrubs such as sumac rather
than sod along the northern slope.
14. The building shall be relocated to be consistent with the PUD compliance table:
Hard Surface Coverage
Setback From Collector
Internal Public Street
External Property Line
Internal Private Streets
Overall Density
41.8%
50 feet
30 feet
30 feet
NA
9.6 units
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995
15. That the applicant wo►ic with city staff to come up with natural retaining wall materials
and roof surface material to reduce the mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color: Perhaps
asphalt shaldng.
16. Staff wo►it with the applicant to revise a landscaping plan per my comments earner
about conifer trees. The average height being 9 feet and that deciduous tees being 3
1/2 inch caliper and increase the canopy cove ►age to 30 %,
17. On top of the entryway into the underground paridng utilize the same ►ailing features
that surround the building.
All voted in favor, except Conrad and Mancino who opposed, and the motion ca►lied by a
vote of 4 to 2.
Mancino: Ladd, would you like to give the rationale for the nay?
Conrad: Madam Chairman, I think the standard of 40 feet in height should be maintained and
would hope that the City Council could look at that standard.
Mancino: And the landscaping?
Conrad: Huh?
Mancino: And you also had addressed landscaping?
Conrad: Landscaping I think you addressed in the motion.
Mancino: Thank you. And this goes before City Council on May 8th. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
39
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Carver County H.R.A.
ADDRESS: 500 Pine, Suite 300
Chaska, MN 55318
TELEPHONE (Day time) 448 -7715
OWNER: See Attachment
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9. _ X
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10, X
Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $ waived pe r City of
Chanhassen
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 1 /2" 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
PROJECT NAME
I LOCATION
Chanhassen Senior Housing
Kerber Blvd. and Santa Vera Dr
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6 and 7, Oakponds
' 2nd Addition (existing) New: Lot 1 Block 1, Oa kponds
I 4th Addition
n
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PUD - R12
same
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
High Density Resi dential
' REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION same
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Site plan approval and replatting to allow
' construction of a 70 unit apartment building for senior citizens.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
' Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
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.
Qnature of Appli -anl 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 malled to the applicant's address.
Attachment to Development Application
The City of Chanhassen has entered into a purchase agreement for the site. The City will lease
the land to the Carver County H.R.A. for development of the senior apartment building. City I
Administrator Don Ashworth is managing the land purchase.
F1
�I
�I
d
1
F - �scaeo-11 APP— I
(4) f. Description of Intended Use
' The proposed development is designed for rental by senior citizens. The 70 unit building
will be a three and four story stepped, wood frame structure, with an underground parking
' garage.
' Exterior materials will be a combination of brick and vinyl siding.
The building will be fire sprinklered and include two elevators and many community
spaces for the residents.
' (5)m. Proposed Fire Protection System
The building will be serviced by a NFPA 13 -R fire protection system make code
' requirements.
F:'.INKS�CARUIECt1ANAPP.SAM
HEDLUND
Planning Eng/neering SurveyIng
Ms. Carole Kron
Chanhassen HRA
c/o Dunbar Development Corporation
REtOak Ponds 4TH Addition
Dear Ms.Kront
According to the City of Chanhassen tree preservation policy,
no significant trees exist on the parcel of land to be replatted
as Oak Ponds 4TH Addition.
SI1CeZ y,
}� �� 'Y
David E. Lindgren
Hedlund Engineering Services
o�
Q201 Fast Ploominoton Freeway. 91oominoton MinnASota 55420. Telephone (612) 888 -0289
i; -_ 1113
u
u
March20, 1995
COMMUNITY PARTNERS
1 N (' 0 R P 11 R T r', O
Ms. Carole Kron
Dunbar Development Corporation
15 North 12th Street
Minneapolis, 14N 55403
Re: Drainage Calculations
Senior Housing
Chanhassen, Minnesota
tI .t r U Li
Dear Ms. Kron:
The original development plan for this property was a townhome
project. The utilities including the storm drainage facilities
for this townhome project were under construction at the time
this property was purchased for the senior housing project.
Therefore, the existing utilities will be utilized with minor
adjustments to serve the senior housing project.
The senior housing project is virtually identical to the townhome
project in regards to impervious surface coverage of the site
(approximately 0.95 acres). The storm water runoff
characteristics and projections are therefore the same as the
' criginal townhome project which was approved for construction
last year. A sediment basin is located to the northwest of the
site which handles the stoma water outletting from the storm
sewer on the west side of the property. Due to the steep terrain
and development plans, this location presented the best
opportunity for the sediment basin and storm water ponding_
' The increased storm water runoff from the site for the 10 year
and 100 year 24 hour rainfall events based upon Technical Release
No. 55, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture is
summarized below:
1) 10 Year, 24 Hour Rainfall Event, 4.20"
Type B Soil
' Curve Number 69 (Existing Conditions)
Curve Number 77 (Proposed Conditions)
' Additional Storm Water Runoff = 0.57"
= 4,550 cubic feet
I CENTRAL 91.00K B ALDINO
405 DIVISION STREET
NOPTHFTRLD, MN 55057 -2019
'
FAX (507) 645.6037
(307) 645 -6044
Page two
2) 100 Year, 24 Hour Rainfall Event, 6.00"
Type B Soil
Curve Number 69 (Existing Conditions)
Curve Number 77 (Proposed Conditions)
Additional Storm Water Runoff = 0.77"
= 6,150 cubic feet
The senior housing project will utilize these existing storm
drainage facilities including the sediment basin and storm water
pond constructed last year.
If you have any questions or require additional information,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
63 A,�� R . 6
Bruce R. Bullert
Project Engineer
MN Registration No. 11515
' Dunbar Development Corporation
P P
95
Hr. Julie Frick
Executive Director
' Carver County H.R.A.
500 Pine, :quite 300
Chaska, I1N 55318
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Admi;ii strator
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter DRive
P.U. Box 14/
Chanhassen, i-IN 55317
Re: Senior Development
Dear Julie and Don:
Enclosed for your information please find a notice that was mailed today
to neigh} -ors within 500 feet of the project site regarding a
presentation of the design concept on Thursday, April 13.
Please give me a call if you have any questions concerning the meeting.
' Sincerely,
ff
' Carol V_r -n
Dunbar Development Corporation
enc
CC: Sharnnin Al -Jaaf
' 15 North 12th Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 (612) 341 -0005 FAX (612) 341 -0327
NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT PRESENTATION
THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1995 '
7:00 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ,
You are invited to attend a presentation regarding the senior housing development '
proposed for Outlot B Oakponds 2n Addition (northwest corner of Kerber Blvd. and
Santa Vera Drive) to be held on Thursday, April 13, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. at the City of
Chanhassen Council Chambers. ,
i'
1
MR. GREGORY W. MOURS
7637 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. BRUCE A. AMUNDSON
' 7643 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. ANH TUYET LY
7649 NICHOLAS WAY
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' MR. DOUGLAS J. HOLMGREN
7655 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' MR. WILLIAM R. HAGEMANN
7663 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. LAURA M. LUSSON
' 7669 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' MR. ELTON G. KLUG
7675 NICHOLAS WAY
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET
' MS. PATRICIA A. PETERSON
7681 NICHOLAS WAY
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. BRENT J. CARLSON
7687 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR, CHAD LEA
' 7693 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE.
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -0028
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -0028
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -0028
MR. CALVIN BRISTOW
7659 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. THOMAS A. SAUE
7665 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. DONNA M. PFAFF
7671 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. SHAWN A. BOUCHER
7677 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. CASEY POWELL
7683 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. MATTHEW J. MESENBURG
7689 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. LYDIA KIEBZAK
7695 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTIO
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -002
MS. TRACY M. HANSON
7647 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, I-IN 55317
MR. EREYNA S. SZARKE
7653 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. DANIEL D. BULGER
7661 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. MARGARET S. THOMPSON
7667 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. DEBORAH A. SCOTT
7673 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. STEVEN J. LABERGE
7679 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. JOSEPH CLEVELAND
7685 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317
MS. MONICA HANLEY
7691 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317
MR. SCOTT GREBE
7697 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 5531 " 1
J
MR. DAVID HESTER MR. GREG PETERSON
7699 NICHOLAS WAY 7701 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MR. ALAN LEE MR. PETER R. VOAS
7705 NICHOLAS WAY 7707 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. JEFF & DEBRA MILLER MS. NANCY JEAN METCALF
7711 NICHOLAS WAY 7713 NICHOLAS WAY
Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. JAMES & ELISABETH MCVIC
7703 NICHOLAS WAY
MS. PAULA LANGER
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
'
MS. JENNIFER M. PETERSON
7709 NICHOLAS WAY
MR. MARK BERGER
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
MR. DAVID A. LARSON
,
7715 NICHOLAS WAY
TERESITA BRIGINO
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
929 SANTA VERA DRIVE
MS. JOANNE K. SETEN MS. LORI CARSIK
7717 NICHOLAS WAY 7719 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MR. CHARLES A. WALKER MR. JOHN MOBERG
7723 NICHOLAS WAY 911 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MS. PATRICIA HAUCK MR. DAVID MEHL
915 SANTA VERA DRIVE 917 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MR. TIMOTHY JONES MS. BETH TRAVER
925 SANTA VERA DRIVE 927 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MS. CHRISTINA ALTHAUSER MS. JEANNE H. EGEM
933 SANTA VERA DRIVE 935 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. CONSTANCE L. COOK MS. COLLEEN HEALY
939 SANTA VERA DRIVE 945 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. JOHN LINDEN MR. LARRY A. ZAMOR
949 SANTA VERA DRIVE 951 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MR. JAMES & BARB LUGOWSKI I
7721 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. PAULA LANGER
913 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
,
MR. MARK BERGER
923 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
,
TERESITA BRIGINO
'
929 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
TRAECY WALDSCHMIDT
'
937 SANTA VERA DRIVE
Chanhassen, MN 55317
MS. SUSAN CONZET
947 SANTA VERA DRIVE
'
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. PHILIP GLEASON
955 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'
' MR. STEPHANIE PIKARSKI
957 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. BRUCE FRANSON
' 967 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' MR. BRUCE BEATY
973 SANTA VERA DRIVE
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
' MS. JOAN FOSTER
981 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. BETH HAYES
959 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. CYNTHIA L. YORKS
969 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -0028
MR. CRAIG HALLETT
983 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. MARY R. FISCHER
961 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. LURETTA LARSON
971 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DEAN R. JOHNSON CONSTRUCTIO
MR. DEAN R. JOHNSON
8984 ZACHARY LANE
MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369 -002
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, APRIL 19, 1995
at 7 :00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Senior Housing Project
Oak Ponds 4th Addition
Developer: Carver County HRA
Location: North of Santa Vera Drive
West of Kerber Blvd.
Notice You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority proposing a preliminary plat of
Outlot B and Blocks 5, 6, 7, of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th
Addition and site plan review of a 70 unit senior housing building.
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900, ext. 120. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on April 6, 1995.
��6
MS BERNICE BILLISON
7281 PONTIAC CIRCLE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' Jim Bohn
425 Chan View #310
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Jo and Allan Chatterton
425 Chan Veiw
Apt 321
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Emma Earnst
489 Chan View
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Dave Fink
' 12615 Cedar Lake Road
Minnetonka, MN 55305 -3945
' BARBARA HEADLA
6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
' EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
Mr. & Mrs. Birney Hill
10405 45th Avenue North
Apt. 204
Plymouth, MN 55442
' JANE KUBITZ
7492 SARATOGA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Ms. Faith Majhor
' 6165 Concord Hill Lane
Minnetonka, MN 55345
BARBARA MONTGOMERY
' 7017 DAKOTA AVENUE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Agnes Anderson
6470 Oriole Avenue
Excelsior, MN 55331
Ms. Muriel Bowker
440 Chanview
Apt. 1
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Elizibeth and Paulin Clench
1338 Ravenwood Circle
Waconia, MN 55387
Mae Ernst
425 Chan View
Apt 103
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Valarie Frank
711 Canastoga Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
SELDA HEINLEIN
420 CHAN VIEW
CHANHASSEN MN
Vi Bender
4569 Aspenwood Trail
Minnetonka, MN 55345
SHEROL BROOKS HOWARD
1005 PONTIAC LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Mildgrad Dittman
3113 Highway 101 South
Wayzata, MN 55391
Ms. Iren Fayn
2400 Nevard Avenue South
Apt. 313
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Allan Grow
420 Chan View #303
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Theodota Hess
110340 Geske Road
55317 Apt. 202
Chaska, MN 55318
Ms. Betty Hussman
1100 Anderson Lakes Parkway
Apt. 105
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
MARK LITTFIN
7609 KIOWA AVE
CHANHASSEN MN
Iva Johnson
420 Chanview
Apt. 302
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Shirley & Don Livingston
2621 Orchard Lane
55317 Excelsior, MN 55331
Betty and Earl McAllister
7510 Erie Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Helen Neilson
425 Chan View
Apt. 117
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dorothy McIntyre
110340 Geske Road
Apt. 204
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Jack Nelson
2800 Pacific View Drive
Corona Delmar, CA 92625
Anita O'Neill
7114 Pontiac Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Lee Plante
8935 Cedar Avenue South
Apt. 214
Bloomington, MN 55425
Marion Stultz
110340 Geske Road
Apt 203
Chaska, MN 55318
Marie Veches
4071 Kings Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Mr. Glen Oberg ALBIN OLSON
489 Chanview 406 SANTA FE CIRCLE
Apt. 303 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Paul Proceviat
Vi Scharrer
2219 Boulder Road
110340 Geske Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Apt. 316
Chaska, MN 55318
Mr. Floyd Tapper
Lellian Taylor
632 Santa Vera Drive
P.O. Box 263
Chanhassen, MN 55317
440 Chan View #5
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ms. Ione Wendt Mike Winen
440 Chanview 420 Chanview
Apt. 9 Apt. 301
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES
' 11900 WAYZATA BLVD #208
MINNETONKA MN 55343 -5358
' DAVID & DEBRA RUGG
7560 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
' CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J & JOAN BODE
785 SANTA VERA
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CURRENT RESIDENT
7570 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' JEFFREY GJERSVIK
7591 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THEODORE LUGOWSKI
7571 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' SHELARD PLAZA COMPANY CURRENT RESIDENT
SHELARD DEVELOPMENT CO 751 CHIPPEWA CIRCLE
1025 SHELARD TOWER CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426
CURRENT RESIDENT
' 7520 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT REYNOLDS
760 SANTA VERA DR
' CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY & DANA BOLLIG
7540 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HANS & MAVIS SKALLE
780 SANTA VERA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1 ECKANKAR
P O BOX 27300
1 NEW HOPE MN 55427
' DALE & BETH LARSON
7590 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL & MARY HENKE
' 7560 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREGG & MICHELLE GESKE
7530 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9033
MICHAEL & JULIE LINDELIEN
7610 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GREG & CYNTHIA HROMATKA
7580 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TIMOTHY J ANDERSON
7550 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KELLY REDLIN
7520 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KARL & MARY ROLLAR
7550 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KIP A HANSON
7580 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT M STARK
725 SANTA VERA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID LEMKE
7500 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN & DIANE LIPSIUS
740 SANTA VERA DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN LAUX
790 SANTA VERA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KENNETH WOLTER
7600 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JACK & DIANE THIEN
7570 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID & JANE CALLISTER
7540 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBT & KATHERINE BOHARA
7510 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CRAIG & JANE JOHNSON DAVID & KAREN BRAMOW SCOTT A DILLON ,
7500 CANYON CURVE 7490 CANYON CURVE 7480 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ,
Johansson Builders, Inc.
7470 Canyon Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317 -9033
JEFFREY & RONDA HIGGINS
7541 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LYNN LORD '
7531 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 '
JAMES & PATRICIA ANN RUSS
NICK & SUSAN WIERZBINSKI
MARK & CINDY SCHALLOCII
7521 CANYON CURVE
7511 CANYON CURVE
7501 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
1
MARK CVETNIC
JEFF & S MCCOSKEY
JOHN M III & JEAN LINFOR
7491 CANYON CURVE
7481 CANYON CURVE
7471 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
West Village Townhouses
P. O. Box 88
Rosemount, MN 55068 -0088
Donna Rfaff
7671 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Current Resident
7659 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Alan P. Lee
7705 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Walter & Mary Tellegen
Constance Cook
939 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Paula Langer
913 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RICHARD S BROSE ETAL Laura Lusson
C/O T F JAMES COMPANY 7669 Nicholas Way
P O BOX 24317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55424
Deborah Scott Elton & Lois Klug
7673 Nicholas Way 7675 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Maryanne Hagemann Margaret Thompson
7663 Nicholas Way 7667 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeanne Etem Tracy Waldschmidt
935 Santa Vera Drive 937 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sandra Berger John & Janice Moberg
923 Santa Vera Drive 911 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Hauck David & Amy Mehl
915 Santa Vera Drive 917 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce Gordon & Suzanne Beaty Philip & Dawn Gleason
' 973 Santa Vera Drive 955 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Gerald Oberlander & Beth Hayes Mary Fischer
959 Santa Vera Drive 961 Santa Vera Drive
' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Susan Conzet
947 Santa Vera Drive
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Michelle Linden
949 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Andrew & Christina Althauser
933 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce Franson
967 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
r
7
Joan Foster
981 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Cynthia Yorks
969 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Stephanie Pikarski
957 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Colleen Healy
945 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry Zamor
951 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Craig & Beth Hallett
983 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Luretta Larson
971 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317