3. PUD Amendment to allow transfer of density Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 8.5 Acres into 52 lots and stie plan Approval for 51 owner occupied multi-family unitsC
STAFF REPORT
PC DATE: 3/1/95
CC DATE: 3/27/95
' v ' CASE #: 92 -3 PUD
Tl • 7 T
r
H
�Q
U
IJ
a
I'm
�a
1~
0
�w
F-
1"'
PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow transfer of density,
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 8.5 Acres into 52 Lots and Site Plan
Approval for 51 owner occupied multi - family units.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CITY OF
CHANHASSH
North of Santa Vera Drive, West of Kerber Boulevard and East of
Powers Boulevard
Mr. Dean R Johnson
8984 Zachary Lane
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Mr. Brad Johnson
Lotus Realty
P.O. Box 235
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential
Action bV aty Admhd*&W
ACREAGE: 8.5 acres
Fn
DENSITY: 6 units /acre Mode _'_.___._
Rejecte )
dat -K — I :
ADJACENT ZONING Date Jubmitted to Commb taNl
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family _
S - PUD -R12, High Density Residential Aft Submmdd to coin
E - PUD -R12, High Density Residential 3 -a -7 -9"S
W -R -12, High Density Residential
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of
the property. It contains a significant stand of trees.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential
a
a
IVi
-ml 111V
o
r•,
, q� rxi ur
HU 11HI
I
A
�• ,
A 4
� E
s 22
a
a
J
j t-i a
0
C
r
r
n
0
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 2
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 51 unit
multi - family housing project on Outlots E and F. These two outlots were designated as high
density sites as part of the Oak Ponds PUD approval. The units are proposed to be owner
occupied and to be located on 51 zero lot line parcels. Lot 52 is designated as a common
area which staff recommends changing to an outlot. The housing style and density generally
falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 8.3 acre site is located north of
Santa Vera Drive, west of Kerber Boulevard and east of Powers Boulevard. The gross
density is 6.0 units per acre. Access will be provided by two private streets located on
community property (Lot 52) and will be designated as an outlot and owned and maintained
by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD -R12, High Density
Residential and utilities are available for the area.
The replatting of this project was triggered by a Senior Housing Study which was conducted
by the City. Approximately five years ago, the City undertook an open -ended 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 sites in the city. After two years of
investigation, the list was narrowed to three sites (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. The city is currently working with Carver County HRA to put a proposal
together. This proposal will include 70 units. There has been some concept designs done for
the senior housing building. Staff has attached a copy of the sketch. We wish to remind the
Planning Commission that this is only a concept and not a final design. If the Planning
Commission and City Council approve the transfer of density within the Oak Pond site, the
overall total number of units will increase by two units but will remain less than the total
number permitted by ordinance. The R -12 district allow 12 units per acre. The overall
density for the entire PUD is 9.6 units per acre. There will be less units located within the
westerly portion of the site and additional units will be placed on the northeast corner of the
site.
The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized
and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. There will be two types of
buildings designed for this site. Both buildings A and B are two story. Building A is a two
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 3
story unit with full basement walkout and the master bedroom is on the main level It will be
used on the steeper portion of the site. Building B which is also a walkout design
accommodating the flatter portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl, no maintenance
siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends and chimneys on building A
contrast with overhangs with columns to define the entrances on building B. Gridded vinyl
windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks made of
treated lumber will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain
the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions.
There are two regulations which influence the development of this site. A PUD contract and
R -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 51 units result in a density of 6.0 units /acre. The impervious surface coverage
isr- 35.2%, 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 proposed landscaping and tree preservation plan for Oak Ponds is well within the
required tree preservation and planting requirements and will not need to supply the site with
any more additional plantings than the ones already proposed.
Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication per city ordinance. One -third
of the fees shall be paid at the time of final plat, and two - thirds at the time of building permit
application.
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
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.
C
L
C
L
11
LI
I J
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 4
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
General Site Plan /Architecture
The site is 8.5 acres with a gross density of 6.0 units per acre. The 6.0 units per acre is
under the allowed PUD density of 12 units per acre and the R -12 ordinance of 12 units /acre.
The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 51 owner occupied units. The current site
plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands
of trees on the site must be preserved. There will be two types of buildings designed for this
site. Both buildings A and B are two story walkouts. Building A is a two story unit with
full basement and the master bedroom is on the main level It will be used on the steeper
portion of the site verses Building B which is also a walkout design accommodating the
flatter portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl, no maintenance siding and an asphalt
shingle roof. Louvers on gable ends and chimneys on building A contrast with overhangs
with columns to define the entrances on building B. Gridded vinyl windows with wide trim,
columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks made of treated lumber will be
provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and
enforce their covenants and restrictions.
Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce some variation among buildings facing
north, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or
color. Staff is also recommending the introduction of some elements to the roof design to
break up the large spans on building B.
PRELIMINARY PLAT /SITE PLAN APPROVAL
I Lots/Density
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.5 acres of property zoned PUD -R12 into 51 zero lot
line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
High Density (8 -16 Units /Acre). The subject sites are Outlots D, E, and F 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 D. The applicant was agreeable to this proposal and was willing to
revise the plans accordingly. We note that the senior housing proposal is at a preliminary
stage and has not received any official approvals. All agencies that will be involved in the
future of this project are aware of the progress of it.
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 will transfer densities within the
site. This is permitted under the PUD ordinance.
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 5
The lot sizes differ through out the proposal. Lots 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25,
26, 27, 44, and 48 have an area of 2,312 square feet. All those lots are for end units of
Building A.
Lots 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 45, 46, and 47 have an area of 2,176 square feet.
All those lots are for interior units of Building A.
Lots 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 43, 49, and 51 have an area of 1,620 square feet. These lots are for
exterior units of Building B.
Lots 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, and 50 have an area of 1,512 square feet. These
lots are for interior units of Building B.
The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Lot 52 on
the preliminary plat. Lot 52 contains the private streets and open space. Staff is
recommending that Lot 52 be changed to Outlot A. This is consistent with any community
property which will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Also, if it is an
outlot, it is clear to all that it can never be built on.
The density of the site is 6.0 units /acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with
private streets and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density rather than the
typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 35.2 %. 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
townhome units are maintaining a 30' setback form Santa Vera Drive. The 30' setback is
from the PUD -R -12 zoning regulations. There are no internal setbacks since the site is
serviced internally by a private street.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Ordinance Project Proposal
Hard Surface Coverage 50% 35.2%
Setback from exterior street 30 feet 35 feet
Internal Private Streets NA NA
Density 12 units 6 units
n
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 6
PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication per city ordinance. One -third
of the fees shall be paid at the time of final plat, and two - thirds at the time of building permit
application.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Tree Survey Plan. One hundred and two trees
exist on the Oak Ponds property to be developed. A large majority of those trees exist
outside of construction limits and therefore won't be affected by development. Tree
protection and erosion control fencing will be installed along the construction limits thereby
providing maximum protection for the trees. Within the development area, 24 trees that are
in building pads or grading areas will be removed. A total of 9, three to five foot pines and
spruces, will be removed and transplanted elsewhere on site.
L The applicant will attempt to preserve six large, mature deciduous trees within the
construction limits. These include numbers 1 -5 and 81. Grade changes will occur around all
of the trees, but significant differences will occur near 81, 1, 4, and 5. Retaining walls will
' be needed near all of these trees for the following reasons.
0
u
u
[7
u
The existing elevation of tree #81 is 989.9, grade changes will produce a 4 foot drop from the
roadway approximately 20 feet away. A retaining wall has been proposed along the road and
will help minimize any drastic elevation difference. Grading should not occur within the
dripline or 15 feet from the trunk, whichever is more feasible. Tree #1 to the west of home
#49 also has a significant grade change that will occur within approximately 10 feet of it. A
four foot drop from the proposed grad of 998 feet to the tree's existing grade of 994.3 feet
will necessitate the construction of a retaining wall. Because of the close proximity of the
grading to the tree, it will be very important to maintain as much area as possible at current
grade around the tree. A retaining wall placed furthest from the trunk of the tree as possible
against the new grade will help minimize the difference. Elevation changes around the rest of
the tree's root zone appear minimal. Properly placed tree fencing around the tree's root zone
and construction workers' respect for the fencing will make the difference in the ultimate
survival of this tree as well as other trees. To the northeast of home #51, tree #4 is at 998.0
feet. The proposed roadway is 10 - 15 feet from the tree and will be at approximately 1002
feet. Again, a retaining wall will be necessary to preserve existing grad within the root zone.
Tree #5 has the greatest difference in grades. The tree is at 996.1 feet. The nearby road and
parking area is at 1002.5 feet, a difference of 6 feet. A retaining wall built to protect the root
zone closest to the road and parking area will help ensure the survival of the tree. To fill in
on top of the root zones of any of the trees will cause serious damage and will greatly lessen
the chance of survival. Each of the trees will add considerable attractiveness to the site and
its landscaping and are very much worth the effort to protect them.
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 7
The city's tree preservation ordinance was passed after the approval of this development.
However, under the PUD conditions, Oak Ponds should be held responsible to meet the
ordinance requirements. According to their tree survey and landscaping plan, they are well
within the required tree preservation and planting requirements and will not need to supply
the site with any more additional plantings than the ones already proposed.
The following change should be included in the applicant's Conditions of Approval. On sheet
6 of 10, the plans indicate a definition of the construction limit fencing that states "...snow
fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity in the canopy area..." The
wording should be changed to read "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner
construction activity out of the canopy area..."
GRADING & DRAINAGE
As a result of changing the rental units to the owner - occupied units on the north side of the
development, the units are actually pushed further down the hill. This is due to the units
actually being longer than the rental -type units. The units on Lots 7 through 14 are extended
further down the hill between 10 to 40 feet from the originally approved grading plan (Phase
I). The units on Lot 15 through 27 are 10 to 20 feet further down the hill. All of the units
are proposed with walkout -type basements to blend in with the existing contours.
Staff has met with the applicant previously to discuss minimizing or reducing site grading and
tree loss. The applicant has responded positively by moving some of the units around and
breaking up the massing a bit. In addition, some of the walkout units will now have 9- or
10 -foot high ceilings in the basement level in order to conform better with the terrain. On
some of the units, a block foundation wall may be extended beneath the walkout opening in
an effort to reduce retaining walls and the need to grade further on down the hill.
This phase is the third and final phase of the project. The site was partially graded and used
as a stockpile area for the previous phases. Staff believes that this project will generate
excess material that will need to be exported from the site. The applicant shall be required to
submit a detailed haul route including a traffic signage plan to the city for review and
approval. Site grading will not be permitted until the applicant enters into a PUD agreement
with the city and the final plat is recorded at the County.
In conjunction with the previous two phases, sedimentation basins have been designed and
constructed to pretreat stormwater runoff from the entire development prior to discharging
into the wetlands to the north of this development. The storm drainage system has been
designed to accommodate the entire development. Individual storm sewer catch basins are
proposed to convey runoff from this development into both sedimentation basins. The
sedimentation basins were previously constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). The applicant has also paid the necessary SWMP fees with
' Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
' Page 8
Phase I, therefore, no additional SWMP fees will be required with this phase. Staff will need
' to review the stormwater and ponding calculations to determine if additional catch basins may
be needed. The applicant will need to provide the city with updated storm sewer and ponding
calculations for the entire site including the two previous phases. The overall storm sewer
system should be designed for a 10 -year storm event. Staff reserves the right to require
additional catch basins as needed depending on review of the storm sewer calculations.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading proposes erosion control measures throughout the site. Staff recommends that
Type III erosion control fence be installed and maintained along the westerly perimeter of the
grading limits adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining erosion control measures adjacent to
Santa Vera Drive may be the city's Type I erosion control fence as shown on the plans.
Additional erosion control fence may be required behind the south curb line of Kimberly
Lane to help minimize erosion into the street and storm sewer system during construction of
the units. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be in accordance with the Best
' Management Practice Handbook. The site shall be immediately reseeded and mulched upon
completion of the site grading unless the Best Management Practice Handbook dictates
otherwise.
' UTILITIES
' Municipal utilities are available to the site from Santa Vera Drive. The applicant previously
installed sanitary sewer and water stubouts for this future phase. This phase along with the
other two phases are considered private street and utility improvements and therefore will be
maintained by the homeowners' association. The appropriate cross access easements and
maintenance agreement will need to be developed and recorded by the applicant. Review of
' the utility construction plans were not fully completed at time of preparing this report. Staff
believes only minor modifications will be required after a thorough review by the City's
Building and Engineering Departments. Since the utility and street portions of this project as
fairly substantial, staff recommends that all utility and street improvements be construction in
accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon
completion of the improvements, the applicant shall supply the city with as -built drawings.
' The applicant should be required to enter into a PUD agreement with the city and provide the
city with the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the site improvements in
' compliance with the conditions of approval.
0
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 9
STREETS
The street system throughout this phase is considered private. The street shall be built in
accordance with the city's private street ordinance which requires a minimum of 24 -foot
wide, face -to -face street section built to 7 -ton design standards. Street grades for the private
streets fall within the city's ordinance. The city's fire marshal had a concern with Kelly
Court since there is no adequate turnaround proposed. The fire marshal has recommended
either providing an acceptable turnaround or sprinkling the units beyond 150 feet on Kelly
Court
Staff has reviewed the driveway alignments throughout the development. It is recommended
that the driveway for Units 49, 50, and 51 be separated so Unit 49 has separate driveway
access and Units 50 and 51 share a common driveway. Staff believes this will eliminate
potential parking conflicts in sharing three units on one driveway. This, however, will result
in eliminating two of the parking stalls proposed along the south side of the road. Another
set of parking stalls that are of concern are the first two on the left -hand side as you enter the
northeasterly access to Kimberly Lane. The northerly parking stall will most likely need a
retaining wall built around it to protect an existing oak tree to the north.
The plans do not propose any street lighting. The applicant should include street lights along
the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive. The plans should be revised and
submitted to staff for review and approval.
MISCELLANEOUS
The final plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement
along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 52 for the existing storm sewer line. Landscaping in this 20-
foot area should also be modified so as to not be in conflict with the storm sewer line or
prohibit access to the stormwater pond.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On March 1, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed this application and complimented the
quality of the proposed development. They all agreed that the transfer of density is
acceptable and the northeast corner is suitable for senior housing, however, they would have
preferred to see the Senior Building design at the same time they approved the transfer of
density. Staff assured the Planning Commission that they will review the site plan application
for the senior housing building once a complete application has been made. Some neighbors
expressed their concern regarding the proposed development and felt that there was not
enough buffering between them. The Planning Commission felt that the existing and
proposed vegetation, as well as the pond and wetland, create a natural buffer. They also
stated that the distance separating the proposed development from the existing houses located
r
r
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 10
on Canyon Curve, represent the transition between the developments. Some neighbors
pointed out that the footprint of some of the buildings will encroach further north and down
the hill than what was shown on plans submitted in 1992. They also realized that the site
topography is difficult, therefore, the neighbors requested additional landscaping be added to
the north to provide additional buffering.
Commissioner Mancino requested tabling action on this item because some of the neighbors
' indicated they had not received notice of the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning
Commission indicated that they have reviewed this application and addressed all the concerns.
Commissioner Conrad explained that the City Council always holds a public hearing and
' allows the neighbors to speak. To the best of staff's knowledge, a public hearing notice was
sent to all neighbors and a copy of the notice is attached to this staff report.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves of an amendment to PUD #92 -3, the preliminary plat to
subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site Plan Review #95 -3 as shown on the
' plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995 and subject to the following
conditions:
' 1. Change Lot 52 to Outlot A.
2. Amend the PUD Contract to permit the transfer of density within the development of
Oak Pond to allow the construction of 70 unit Senior Housing Building.
' 3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the
applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation among buildings,
through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers
and color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span on Building B.
Utility Meter Boxes (electric, water, gas, etc.) shall be camouflaged by boxes or
landscaping.
' 4. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the overall development plans. Street
lights shall be placed along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera
Drive. The plans shall be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval.
5. A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street
' and utilities.
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 11
6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication as required
by ordinance.
7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2
canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
9. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Provide an approved turn - around at the west end of Kelly Court or sprinkler
units beyond 150 feet from the intersection of Kelly Court and Santa Vera
Drive.
b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly
Court at 75 foot intervals by the applicant. Pursuant to City Policy #06 -1991.
C. Turning radii on the private streets shall be approved by City Engineering and
Fire Marshal.
d. Additional fire hydrants will be required at the east entrance to Kelly lane off
Santa Vera Drive, also at the east entrance to Kelly Court off Santa Vera Drive '
and between Lots 29 and 30.
e. A ten foot clear space must maintained around fire hydrants.
10. The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the city and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
11. Building Official recommendations:
a. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to clearly show the
lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor
elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Revise the preliminary grading and erosion control plan to show standard
designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
C. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
d. Revise the preliminary plat to permit the proposed building projections to be
built as non -rated components of the building. This should be done prior to
final plat approval.
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 12
12. On sheet 6 of 10, the plans indicate a definition of the construction limit fencing that
states "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity in
the canopy area..." The wording should be changed to read "...snow fence shall be
constructed to keep all manner construction activity out of the canopy area..."
13. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire
westerly perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the wetlands. Type I erosion
control fence may be used on other areas. The applicant should be aware that
additional erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of
Kimberly Lane.
14. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed
and mulch, sod and /or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading is
completed unless the City Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All disturbed slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed
and wood fiber blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before
November 15, 1995.
15. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with
' the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction
plans are subject to a final city review and approval process. Upon completion of the
street and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the city with as- built, mylar
drawings.
' 16. The developer shall obtain all of the necessary permits from the Watershed District,
DNR, MWCC, Minnesota Department of Health and comply with all conditions of the
permits.
17. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins
until the entire development is built out and all areas are fully revegetated. Upon
' completion of the project, the sedimentation basin located in the northeast corner of
the site shall be abandoned and the storm sewer extended to the east pond.
' 18. The applicant shall provide the city with updated drainage and ponding calculations
for the entire development including Phases I and U. The storm sewer shall be
designed for a 10 -year storm event. The applicant shall document that the existing
' storm sewers are capable of the additional runoff from Phase III. The city may
require additional catch basins pending review of the final storm sewer calculations.
19. The applicant will be responsible for restoration of the city's boulevard along Santa
Vera Drive. Security shall be included in the PUD agreement to guarantee boulevard
restoration.
Oak Ponds '
March 1, 1995
Page 13 '
20. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turnaround to the fire marshal or all units
beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered. '
21. Landscaping shall be rearranged along the east lot line of Lot 52 in a fashion that will
allow access to the easterly ponding area by city maintenance crews. '
22. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 52 for wetlands
and the stormwater retention ponds up to the 100 -year flood level. In addition, a 20- ,
foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the
east lot line of Lot 52.
23. The applicant shall submit to the city for review and approval haul routes for
exporting of material from the site.
24. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by
the homeowners' association. The covenants /association bylaws shall incorporate
language notifying the homeowners of this responsibility.
25. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51.
26. The Lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted by ordinance at the property
boundaries. All light fixtures must be directed on site. No light fixture may shine
directly onto adjacent properties located to the north.
27. The size of decks shall be limited to 80 square feet.
28. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings
along the north side of the development.
29. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development.
30. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the
footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to
staff.
31. The City Forester will visit the site during high impact construction season.
32. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting."
I
Oak Ponds
March 1, 1995
Page 14
ATTACHMENTS
1. Reduced concept PUD.
2. Location of unit on lot.
3. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 24, 1995
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 21, 1995.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated February 22, 1995.
6. Senior Housing Concept Plan.
7. Notices to property owners.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated March 1, 1995.
9. Plans dated February 16 and February 21, 1995.
� / •a�w I — wa�w )
ct •o>,t -� ary 3.s.da.s utano�
F
z�
I
0,4,K PQ NP5 3RO ADV vrioN
� PAN H ,p. 4 � M if.J
I /
FR0�1 T
U N ET 127 ' 44 - 46
Unr� locah�
WilhiI7 lot
- PRbP�RT�f l.►N�
But�D�r1C�
I
1
�--- PRG L19
pu�l�Dtt1C�
FqV NT
U N 1 26-43 - 1 5 - 1
t"=,201
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer AW
DATE: February 24, 1995
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition
Project No. 95 -7
Upon review of the preliminary plat documents prepared by Meadowood Engineering, dated
September 30, 1994, revised February 15, 1995, I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
GRADING & DRAINAGE
As a result of changing the rental units to the owner -occ
development, the units are actually pushed further down the
being longer than the rental -type units. The units on Lot
down the hill between 10 to 40 feet from the originally a
units on Lot 15 through 27 are 10 to 20 feet further down t
with walkout -type basements to blend in with the existing
spied units on the north side of the
hill. This is due to the units actually
7 through 14 are extended further
proved grading plan (Phase I). The
to hill. All of the units are proposed
Staff has met with the applicant previously to :discuss minimizing or reducing site grading and
tree loss. The applicant has responded positively by moving some of the units around and
breaking up the massing a bit. In addition, some of the walkout units will now. have 9- or 10-
foot high ceilings in the basement level in order to conform better with the terrain. On some of
the units, a block foundation wall may be extended beneath the walkout opening in an effort to
reduce retaining walls and the need to grade further on down the hill.
This phase is the third and final phase of the project. The site was partially graded and used as
a stockpile area for the previous phases. Staff believes that this project will generate excess
material that will need to be exported from the site. The applicant shall be required to submit
a detailed haul route including a traffic signage plan to the City for review and approval. Site
grading will not be permitted until the applicant enters into a PUD agreement with the City and
the final is recorded at the County.
MEMORANDUM
�J
C
J
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 24, 1995
Page 2
In conjunction with the previous two phases, sedimentation basins have been designed and
constructed to pretreat stormwater runoff from the entire development prior to discharging into
the wetlands to the north of this development. The storm drainage system has been designed to
accommodate the entire development. Individual storm sewer catch basins are proposed to
convey runoff from this development into both sedimentation basins. The sedimentation basins
were previously constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP). The applicant has also paid the necessary SWMP fees with Phase I, therefore, no
additional SWMP fees will be required with this phase. Staff will need to review the stormwater
and ponding calculations to determine if additional catch basins may be needed. The applicant
will need to provide the City with updated storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire
site including the two previous phases. The overall storm sewer system should be designed for
a 10 -year storm event. Staff reserves the right to require additional catch basins as needed
depending on review of the storm sewer calculations.
EROSION CONTROL
The grading proposes erosion control measures throughout the site. Staff recommends that Type
III erosion control fence be installed and maintained along the westerly perimeter of the grading
limits adjacent to the wetlands. The remaining erosion control measures adjacent to Santa Vera
Drive may be the City's Type I erosion control fence as shown on the plans. Additional erosion
control fence may be required behind the south curb line of Kimberly Lane to help minimize
erosion into the street and storm sewer system during construction of the units. Erosion control
measures and site restoration shall be in accordance with the Best Management Practice
Handbook. The site shall be immediately reseeded and mulched upon completion of the site
grading unless the Best Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise.
I UTILITIES
I �
Municipal utilities are available to the site from Santa Vera Drive. The applicant previously
installed sanitary sewer and water stubouts for this future phase. This phase along with the other
two phase are considered private street and utility improvements and therefore will be maintained
by the homeowners' association. The appropriate cross access easements and maintenance
agreement will need to be developed and recorded by the applicant. Review of the utility
construction plans were not fully completed at time of preparing this report. Staff believes only
minor modifications will be required after a thorough review by the City's Building and
Engineering Departments. Since the utility and street portions of this project as fairly substantial,
staff recommends that all utility and street improvements be construction in accordance with the
City latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the
improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as -built drawings.
The applicant should be required to enter into a PUD agreement with the City and provide the
' City with the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the site improvements in
compliance with the conditions of approval.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 24, 1995
Page 3
STREETS
The street system throughout this phase is considered private. The street shall be built in
accordance with the City's private street ordinance which requires a minimum of 24 -foot wide,
face -to -face street section built to 7 -ton design standards. Street grades for the private streets fall
within the City's ordinance. The City's fire marshal had a concern with Kelly Court since there
is no adequate turnaround proposed. The fire marshal has recommended either providing and
acceptable turnaround or sprinkling the units beyond 150 feet on Kelly Court.
Staff has reviewed the driveway alignments throughout the development. It is recommended that
the driveway for Units 49, 50, and 51 be separated so Unit 49 has separate driveway access and
Units 50 and 51 share a common driveway. Staff believes this will eliminate potential parking
conflicts in sharing three units on one driveway. This, however, will result in eliminating two
of the parking stalls proposed along the south side of the road. Another set of parking stalls that
are of concern are the first two on the left -hand side as you enter the northeasterly access to
Kimberly Lane. The northerly parking stall will most likely need a retaining wall built around
it to protect an existing oak tree to the north.
The plans do not propose any street lighting.
interior streets and intersections with Santa
submitted to staff for review and approval.
MISCELLANEOUS
The applicant should include street lights along the
Vera Drive. The plans should be revised and
The final plat for Oak Ponds 3rd Addition shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement along
the easterly 20 feet of Lot 52 for the existing storm sewer line. Landscaping in this 20 -foot area
should also be modified so as not be in conflict with the storm sewer line or prohibit access to
the stormwater pond.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly
perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the wetlands. Type I erosion control fence
may be used on other areas. The applicant should be aware that additional erosion
control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane.
2. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and
mulch, sod and/or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading is completed
unless the City Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber
blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995.
3. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans
' Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 24, 1995
Page 4
' are subject to a final City review and approval process. Upon completion of the street
and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as- built, mylar
drawings.
' 4. The developer shall obtain all of the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR,
MWCC, Minnesota Department of Health and comply with all conditions of the permits.
5. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the overall development plans. Street
lights shall be placed along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive.
The plans shall be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval.
6. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until
the entire development is built out and all areas are fully revegetated. Upon completion
of the project, the sedimentation basin located in the northeast corner of the site shall be
abandoned and the storm sewer extended to the east pond.
7. The applicant shall provide the City with updated drainage and ondin calculations for
pp P Y P g P g
the entire development including Phases I and II. The storm sewer shall be designed for
a l0 -year storm event. The applicant shall document that the existing storm sewers are
capable of the additional runoff from Phase III. The City may require additional catch
basins pending review of the final storm sewer calculations.
8. A no parking restriction shall be designated along Kelly Court and Kimberly Lane. The
' appropriate no parking restriction /sign shall be placed in the private service drive in
accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control.
' 9. The applicant will be responsible for restoration of the City's boulevard along Santa Vera
Drive. Security shall be included in the PUD agreement to guarantee boulevard
restoration.
' 10. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turnaround to the fire marshal or all units beyond
150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered.
t 11. Landscaping shall be rearranged along the east lot line of Lot 52 in a fashion that will
allow access to the easterly ponding area by City maintenance crews.
12. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 52 for wetlands and
the stormwater retention ponds up to the 100 -year flood level. In addition, a 20 -foot wide
' drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the east lot line
of Lot 52.
' 13
The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting
of material from the site.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 24, 1995
Page 5
14. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the
homeowners' association. The covenants /association bylaws shall incorporate language
notifying the homeowners of this responsibility.
15. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval.
16. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51.
jms
c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
gAe ng\da ve\m e m os\oak3. ppr
t
t
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official. (�-k
DATE: February 21, 1995
SUBJECT: 92 -3 PUD (Oak Ponds, 3rd
I was asked to review the proposed planned unit c
OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, FEB 16 1995,
above referenced project.
Analysis:
Elevations. Proposed lowest
elevations are required in i
Engineering Departments. VA
instances to what elevation t
level elevations, top of fo
to insure adequate plan
some of this information
amendment plans stamped "CITY
SEN PLANNING DEPT." for the
ition elevations and garage floor
iew by the Public Safety and
rovided, it is not clear in many
Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the
Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory
plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO
or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types. These standard
designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process. I have included the
1993 memo which lists and explains these designations.
Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and
verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes.
Sharmin Al -Jaff
February 21, 1995
Page 2
Dwelling Construction Requirements. In order to adequately review the proposed subdivision
details on the proposed dwelling must be supplied. Construction requirements vary depending
on the distance to the property line. These requirements regulate type of construction, openings
and projections. Drawings showing the dimensions of each different type of dwelling, overhangs,
wall openings and proposed optional additions (decks, porches, etc.) must be submitted.
Proposed Plat. A proposed plat was not included in the submitted documents. Plan review by
the Inspections Division cannot be done without knowledge of the proposed lot dimensions.
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to clearly show the lowest floor
level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations. This should be
done prior to final plat approval.
2. Revise the grading plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done
prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of
any building permits.
4. Furnish details on each size of dwelling unit. These details should include exterior
dimensions, overhangs, exterior openings and proposed optional additions. Designate
which unit will be constructed on which lots. These details should be supplied prior to
preliminary plat approval.
5. Provide a copy of the preliminary plat. Review for presentation to the planning
commission cannot be commenced until this condition is met.
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g: �safety\sak \nemos\planbakpnds3.sj 1
L1
� I
J
C
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official )�-cr.
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SL Designates Split Fury. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with,the,basement floor level approxmately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
' TU ( R SEWO WO FLO
- - - - -- 5E -- , - - - - -- OFRLO
r — r ——
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
en
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner H
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
February 22, 1995
SUBJ:
Oak Pond 3rd Addition
I have reviewed the proposed 3rd Addition for
1.
Provide an approved turn- arouni
to Santa Vera Drive.
2.
"No Parking Fire Lane" signs
Court at 75 foot intervals. Pur
3.
Turning radius must be approv
4.
Additional fire hydrants will b
Santa Vera Drive, also at the e
and between Lots 29 and 30.
5.
A ten foot clear cnace mist mai
&\safety\mMakpondle
Ponds and have the following requirements:
e west end of Kelly Court or provide access
will be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly
suant to City Policy #06 -1991.
ed by City Engineering and Fire Marshal.
e required at the east entrance to Kelly lane off
ast entrance to Kelly Court off Santa Vera Drive
hydrants.
COMMUNITY 1 B R 1 B R 1 B R 1 B R N
SPACE
UP i ❑
� w
ATRIUM w
rl
N VEST, ENTRY t
EXIT --4
PARKING — 70 CARS
NEWHEURNOWN
T = 30' -0'
c IFIV MASSEN SEMOR HOUSING
iNG
( I I A\I l AtiSl' \_ X114
NOVEMBE 70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING
1 994
4 1BR UNITS
4 UNITS TOTAL
CONCE7PT
mm
' auttatMrtun
0
a
1BR 1BR 1BR N
ATR i L
OFF, i LOBBY VEST,
N TR. LOUNGE
1BR
GUEST
SUITE
1BR 1BR
N
1BR +D [ a 1BR
STAIR
1BR +D 11BR +D
LEVEL 1 PLAN
mm
12 1BR UNITS
S 1BR +D UNITS
1 2BR UNIT
18 UNITS TOTAL
�.. =( I I • \\ } I AM} \ S1- OR I IOUIII \0
( I I A\ I I Atitil \. Z11\
C ONGREGATE 70 UNIT •
N OVEMBER ...
>
0 1Df T1J UINi I S
1 2BR UNIT
sMEN nOrs LOW
( I I A\ I I ASShlN SEMOR HOUSING
l I AN I I AtiS h!N . UN
70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING
3 NOVEMBER 1994
20 UNITS TOTAL
182' -6"
900 + SF 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR 1BR N
' STAIR 13 1BR UNITS
6 1BR +D UNITS
1 2BR UNIT
' 1BR +D 1BR +D
20 UNITS TOTAL
' 19' -2" 72' -20 91'-2"-
LEVEL 3 PLAN
1' a 30' -0'
CHANHASSEN SE\\HOR HOUSING
C HMHAMEN9 MN
70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING
' 3 NOVEMBER 1994
cV
N
'
iBR +D
875 SF
ST ❑.
-j
*LOUNG
'
N TR,
1BR
1BR +D
910 SF
720 SF
1BR
1BR
El.
1BR
1BR
1BR +D
1BR
' STAIR 13 1BR UNITS
6 1BR +D UNITS
1 2BR UNIT
' 1BR +D 1BR +D
20 UNITS TOTAL
' 19' -2" 72' -20 91'-2"-
LEVEL 3 PLAN
1' a 30' -0'
CHANHASSEN SE\\HOR HOUSING
C HMHAMEN9 MN
70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING
' 3 NOVEMBER 1994
cV
N
� LEVEL 4 PLAN
UJIMANTHASSEN SENIOR HOUSING
( I I A\ 1 I • \SI \. \ 1N
70 UNIT CONGREGATE HOUSING
3 NOVEMBER 1 994
8 UNITS TOTAL.
0 1D1\ VIV1 I J
8 1BR +D UNIT
March 14, 1995
Dear Property Owner:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
This letter is to notify you that the public hearing for the following item has been scheduled
in front of the City Council on Monday, March 27, 1995, at 7:30 p.m.:
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT for Dean R.
Johnson Construction for the reallocation of density to include 51 townhouses and 70
senior housing units and site plan review of the townhouse units for the Oak Ponds
3rd Addition located north of Santa Vera Drive
S:v
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
February 3, 1995
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to notify you that the public hearing for the following item was advertised and
subsequently has been rescheduled to the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday,
March 1, 1995, at 7:00 p.m.
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT for Dean R.
Johnson Construction for the reallocation of density to include 51 townhouses and 70
senior housing units and site plan review of the townhouse units for the Oak Ponds
3rd Addition located north of Santa Vera Drive;
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Sharmin Al -Jaff
Planner H
S:v
January 20, 1995
Dear Property Owner:
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
This letter is to notify you that the public hearing for the following item was advertised and
subsequently has been rescheduled to the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday,
February 15, 1995, at 7:00 p.m.
PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT for Dean R.
Johnson Construction for the reallocation of density to include 51 townhouses and 70
senior housing units and site plan review of the townhouse units for the Oak Ponds
3rd Addition located north of Santa Vera Drive;
S:v
ENTERPRISE PROPERTIES TIMOTHY J & JOAN BODE KARL & MARY ROLLAR
11900 WAYZATA BLVD #208 785 SANTA VERA 7550 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
MINNETONKA MN 55343 -5358 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID & DEBRA RUGG
7560 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CURRENT RESIDENT
7570 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KIP A HANSON
7580 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
TIMOTHY & DANA BOLLIG
7540 CHIPPEWA TRAIL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT REYNOLDS
760 .SANTA VERA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ECKANKAR
P O BOX 27300
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
HANS & MAVIS SKALLE
780 SANTA VERA DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
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
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
JOSEPH PERTTU
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
7500 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID & KAREN BRAMOW
7490 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SCOTT A DILLON
7480 CANYON CURVE
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 SCHALLOCK
7521 CANYON CURVE 7511 CANYON CURVE 7501 CANYON CURVE
' CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' MARK CVETNIC
7491 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
' West Village Townhouses
P. O. Box 88
Rosemount, MN 55068 -0088
JEFF & S MCCOSKEY
7481 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD S BROSE ETAL
C/O T F JAMES COMPANY
P O BOX 24317
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55424
JOHN M III & JEAN LINFORTH
7471 CANYON CURVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Laura Lusson
7669 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
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
Deborah Scott
7673 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Maryanne Hagemann
7663 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeanne Etem
935 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sandra Berger
923 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Hauck
915 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Elton & Lois Klug
7675 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Margaret Thompson
7667 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Tracy Waldschmidt
937 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Janice Moberg
911 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Amy Mehl
917 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
& Mary Tellegen
' Walter
Constance Cook
939 Santa Vera Drive
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Paula Langer
' 913
Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Deborah Scott
7673 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & Maryanne Hagemann
7663 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeanne Etem
935 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mark & Sandra Berger
923 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Patricia Hauck
915 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Elton & Lois Klug
7675 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Margaret Thompson
7667 Nicholas Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Tracy Waldschmidt
937 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & Janice Moberg
911 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & Amy Mehl
917 Santa Vera Drive
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 John & Michelle Linden
947 Santa Vera Drive 949 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Andrew & Christina Althauser Joan Foster
933 Santa Vera Drive 981 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Bruce Franson Cynthia Yorks
967 Santa Vera Drive 969 Santa Vera Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 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
0
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
I
MS. LAURA M. LUSSON
7669 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. ELTON G. KLUG
' 7675 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
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, MN 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 55317
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
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 & ELISABETH MCVJ
7703 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MS. JENNIFER M. PETERSON
7709 NICHOLAS WAY '
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MR. DAVID A. LARSON
7715 NICHOLAS WAY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 '
MR. JAMES & BARB LUGOWSKI ,
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
n
' 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
r
r
r
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
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
15. The applicant shall work with the developer of the Byerly °s site to resolve the existing '
drainage problem on the service drive along the east side of the site prior to paving
their parking lots and service drive.
16. The developer shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide '
the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval.
17. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as
the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all
right -of -ways.
18. To minimize off -site impacts, light levels as measured at the property line, shall not
exceed one -half foot candle. Lighting fixtures shall incorporate the use of
photoelectric cells for automatic activation. Light poles shall be neutral in color.
19. The applicant shall submit to staff, and work with staff, on a maintenance plan for the
upkeep of the plants on the northein slope and to mvise the landscaping plan to
include more diversity of sizes in the plant materials.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE REALLOCATION OF
DENSITY TO INCLUDE 51 TOWNHOUSES AND 70 SENIOR HOUSING UNTTS AND
SITE PLAN REVIEW OF THE TOWNHOUSE UNTTS FOR THE OAK PONDS 3RD
ADDITION LOCATED N_ ORTH OF SANTA VERA DRIVE, DEAN R. JOHNSON
CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dean Johnson
Bill Olson
Tim & Mary Anderson
Craig Hallett
John Linforth
Dave Callister
Mark Littfin
8984 Zachary Lane
1521 East Highway 13
7550 Canyon Curve
983 Santa Vera Drive
7471 Canyon Curve
7540 Canyon Curve
7609 Kiowa Avenue
27
C
u
i
7
C
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Name Address
Emily Tischleder
Viola Scharrer
Marietta Littfin
Bernice Billison
Sherol Howard
Barbara Montgomery
Greg Hromatka
Earl & Betty McAllister
Gladys Schueren
Albin Olson
185 Pioneer Trail
110340 Geske Road, Chaska
7509 Kiowa Avenue
7281 Pontiac Circle
1005 Pontiac Lane
7017 Dakota
7580 Canyon Curve
7510 Erie Avenue
204 West 77th Street
406 Santa Fe Circle
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: So are we, by passing this on today, are we committing ourselves to putting 70 units
on the space adjacent to Kerber Boulevard?
Aanenson: If you were to approve this PUD, yes you would. Part of this, as Sharmin
indicated, is we're looking at the transfer of density so that does, what we said is we need 70
units in order to make the financial numbers work. So if you're uncomfortable with that,
that's part of your motion. You're allocating. What we are saying is that we're not reviewing
the site plan on that project at this time. You will have the opportunity to review that site
plan at a future date. But yes, you are, what you're doing with this is approving the
allocation of 70 units for that parcel of property.
Mancino: And we're increasing the whole by 2 units.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay.
Al -Jaff: But we are still under the 12 units per acre. We will exceed the overall number
that was approved in 1992.
Mancino: By 2.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Sharmin Al -Jaff continued with the staff report at this point.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Scott: Any questions? Ma'am.
Mancino: Does the city own Outlot D?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're in a purchase agreement with the applicant.
Mancino: Oh, okay. To be buying Outlot D.
Aanenson: Yes. The City Council did authorize the City Manager to pursue a purchase
agreement on the property.
Mancino: Okay. Is this development getting TIF funding?
Al -Jaff: Yes it will.
Mancino: The entire development is? Or just senior housing. Or is it all under, in the TIF
district that is getting HRA.
Al -Jaff: I believe the entire site is within a TIF district.
Mancino: Okay. And I just need a little bit of background and then I'll stop but I need a
little bit of background. When this originally came in front of the Planning Commission in
what, 1992. The whole area came as a PUD and from reading the report, and please let me
know if I'm wrong, Outlot A and Outlot B have been constructed. Outlot E and F are what
we're going to see tonight. Outlot D is senior housing. Outlot G the city owns. Where is
Outlot C? Is there an Outlot C?
Al -Jaff: This is Outlot C.
Aanenson: That was proposed for a recreation center project. That was the recreational
center that was proposed with the project.
Mancino: The recreational center, okay. My other question is, when this was originally
proposed in '92 it had a combination of owner /occupied and rental housing, correct. And the
reason that, and please stop me if I'm wrong. I mean one of the reasons that the Planning
Commission was approving it and supporting it a lot was because there was some rental units
here and we are in desperate need of rental units in Chanhassen, or so I believe. Is that, is
what I'm saying correct?
29
n
'
Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995
g g ,
' Aanenson: I think part of that was true. The other factor was the footprint of the building.
The neighbors were concerned, they wanted the owner /occupied adjacent to them and the
rentals on the other side. And you'll recall we went through a lot of issues, because of
' topography that was felt that based on the footprint of these, there was greater preservation of
the natural features with the footprint of the apartment buildings. That's how they ended up
that way. I'm not sure we really discussed that that was a reason for approving the PUD was
' the apartments. All I can say is that the apartments were on the northern portion based on
preservation. They were able to snap the units in such a way to preserve more of the
topography.
' Mancino: Okay. So we weren't trying to fulfill a need also for housing in a TIF district?
L
C
Conrad: Not to my knowledge.
Aanenson: Not to my knowledge.
Conrad: But that doesn't mean anything. But I sure don't recall that.
Mancino: That's what I wondered. Just because if there had been a change, seeing from
what I saw in the report.
Conrad: I just remember the neighborhood being so concerned with rental property across
from them. Very concerned.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's kind of the background that I wanted to get was how
important that was or wasn't it and etc. Thank you.
Scott: Any other comments?
Ledvina: I had a question for staff, Mr. Chairman. As it relates to the 70 units that are
proposed for the senior housing. I imagine the city has done conceptual designs to
demonstrate the feasibility of those units on that parcel and everything fits and we're not
going to have a problem with jamming things in.
Aanenson: No, we've got a tentative model here we can show you.
Al -Jaffa Keep in mind that this is a concept at this point.
Scott: While we pass this around, are there any other comments?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Ledvina: This shows that the elevation to the west is higher. Actually higher in elevation.
That's really not going to be the case, is it? Because it seems to me that there's a graded pad
out there already and it seems to be much higher than the surrounding topography.
Hempel: I don't think I can answer that because I'm not aware of any of the plans that I have
seen.
Ledvina: Because this is.
Al -Jaff: This is the east. This is the west.
Ledvina: Wait, okay. I'm sorry. Then the east. This is Santa Vera.
Kirk Valette: The east is a little higher. The east is that Tower Road. That Tower Road is a
little higher than the grade is at.
Ledvina: I'm thinking over here. I think the pad seems to be higher but maybe it was an
optical thing. So obviously we've looked at that and there's many, are there.
Aanenson: If I can give you some more background on that. When the city held a meeting
last fall, when we were looking at this, the City Council held a meeting and the neighbors
were invited and the Senior Commission was also invited to that meeting and this model was
available just for discussion purposes to let the neighbors know that the city was interested in
this and that came out of the Vision 2002 study that the city was involved in and looking at
senior housing and the options they were looking at. The property at West 78th and some
various options so a neighborhood meeting was held to let people know that the city was
interested in pursuing this site and it was subsequent to that meeting that the Council
authorized the city manager to go out and work on a purchase agreement. So a neighborhood
meeting was held to let the people know that this was being considered for senior housing.
And it kind of evolved as we went through the Vision 2002, and that model was there.
Mancino: And the height stays within our ordinance?
Al -Jaff: It's a planned unit development.
Aanenson: The R -12 is 40 feet.
Scott: Pardon me? The R -12 was what?
31
n
' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Aanenson: Is 40 feet, or 3 stories. So it's under the PUD we'd have to look at that. And
' Sharmin, based on the model here, that was just put together and there's been a lot of, maybe
Sharmin can walk through that but what we're looking at as far as to reduce the impact of that
imposing. I don't want to get too much into it but obviously the two are wrapped together
but it is a concern for those neighbors. The imposing perspective of that product.
' Scott: And I think also the history too because, although I wasn't on the Planning
Commission in 1992, I had some, by accident had some experience talking to some of the
neighbors and from what they're telling me, and I think I've gotten more contact from
' neighbors on this particular issue than any other issue I've dealt with the last couple of years.
And perhaps if there are neighbors here that can probably articulate it better than I can but the
feeling that I picked up on this, and it wasn't very hard to do this, is that their expectation
' was one of a couple story buildings, rental, to own and so forth and then we're looking at a 4
to 5 story structure, which makes them quite uneasy because they felt that when they went
through the process and were expressing their concerns about the development, their
' expectation was that the entire property was basically to look like the stuff that's there now.
And so anyway, the concern that I've got is I think, we absolutely need that sort of a
structure. Or not necessarily that sort of a structure but we do need that sort of housing.
' That's pretty obvious we have a dearth of that here and I'm interested in hearing from the
neighbors at the meeting. But to basically get the, to make the project financially feasible
we're looking at about a 4, 4 to 5 story structure.
' Al -Jaff: Again, the design has not been finalized.
I Scott: Well I can ask the applicant about it.
Al -Jaff: Yes. We can definitely say that we need 70 units because that's the only way the
' project will be feasible and we will have the cash flow. And Julie Frick with Carver County
HRA who has been working on this project as well, could attest to that. The City is working
with Carver County HRA at this time to make this project potentially happen. Again, it's the
' 70 units that we can...
Aanenson: What I wanted to say is Sharmin's working with the, we do have a design team
1 on that. We're trying to step back the units so there's not one straight sheer wall. Trying to
make it less imposing so we're working with some different designs. We know there's a
concern about that and we .... lower profile owner occupied ones right in that area so it is a
' significant difference.
' Al -Jaff: One other thing that might be added. If you look at the model that's up there and
this one, we've already made some changes where the fourth floor has been stepped back. So
I
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
changes have started to take place but again, this is far from complete. So many changes
have to take place yet.
Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Dave, do you have anything?
Hempel: If I could just make one point on conditions of approval. To duplicate what the
Fire Marshal, condition number 1. I'd like to delete number 1 and condition 10(b) is the
same.
Scott: Good. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Kind of a redundant
question but I'll say it anyway.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Brad
Johnson. I'll attempt to give you an overview of where I believe we are on this project and
speak a little bit about what is going on. This site originally was zoned, the total site, for 324
units and during the original process back in 1989 as we started through the city, the city
adopted a very restrictive zoning code relative to any type of housing requirement. In any
district you'll see that you have to have 2 car garages per house for sale. We came back later
on, 3 years later with the project that we believed was the correct one for this one. At the
time there had been no successful townhomes sold in Chanhassen and there was, and still is,
as Nancy has said, a need for rental housing in Chanhassen. And so as we went through
there we ended up with a project that was approximately half townhomes and I won't say a
low end but they were at an entry level pricing because that's all we were, this was before
Byerly's. We all felt that never could be sold here and that project has been very successful.
And during that period of time, for your information, the townhome market, primarily for
empty nesters, and non - traditional families which is just about everybody without kids, and
most of you probably. We found that the market has increased in Chanhassen for the
townhome type. We probably still have a shortage of the next level of townhomes. I believe
there's only one project currently fulfilling that need. We're trying to get another one going in
a much higher price range, $150 -250. This, we have conceived that we can now market in
Chanhassen a townhome project between $1304150,000.00, and maybe up to $160,000.00.
In real life you'd probably get more but that's what we're proposing. At the time we did the
original project, we could not conceive selling that price range and so we went to the rental
approach. If you recall, we had 60 units like that and if that was to appear, we were hoping
that we may never get it sold and that was kind of the idea. The reverse happened on the
rental. There still is a demand for rental here in the city but our costs of development of
rental in Chanhassen are extremely high.
Mancino: Property taxes.
33
' Planning Commission Meetin g - March 1, 1995
Brad Johnson: Back to because of many of the ordinances. They don't allow detached
' garages. They don't allow, and I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just very expensive to
build a unit here. In addition to that, because of the timing, not because of the city. The
city's been very cooperative, and at one moment in life probably we could have built those
' rental units. And that was when the interest rates were at 7 1/4 %. And we couldn't get the
project through the FHA. It took us 2 years. By the time we had gotten it through, the
project had become unfeasible, again because of the rental level hadn't, if you recall rents
hadn't really started going up 2 years ago. They just started going up recently now. No
matter what, because we needed a rent level pretty close to $900.00 to $1,100.00 per unit to
make them work. They probably could have gotten that rent today but ... and now with the
interest rates, it's just a very tough thing to have happened. So sooner or later you have to
come up with something and Mr. Johnson of Dean R. Johnson has been very successful with
' the first one. Feels comfortable. I think he's come up with, and we'll go through that ... so
that's kind of some history. In the process, as some of you recall, we had a real battle with
the neighbors getting the approval of this project because simply they do look right at it and
' there are some very valuable trees and those kinds of issues. ...we answered most of them at
the time we got the rental approved. We have taken pretty much the layout of the rental and
then adapted it what you're proposing and we have been very concerned about the concern of
' the neighbors and the community as far as preservation of the trees. And so the road system
and everything are very similar. It is a different unit that we're coming with because the ones
that were down the hillside just happen to have the garages out in front so it adds about 20
feet and ... garages as a tuck under out in front because most of the people that are going to
pay this type of money would prefer not to walk up some stairs to get to their main level, as
we do in the other units. And these are natural walkouts so there have been some... We've
gone from 324 units on the total site down to approximately 210 so we're well below what
the guided of density of 12 units per acre is. On this particular site, we had approved 104
rental units. We're proposing to be one for sale. We always kind of kid the neighbors, and
we actually get along with the neighbors but they're saying now they want to have, what did
you say, 27 eyes looking at you. Two pairs. Before you had 44 or 50 so we've actually
decreased the presence of people on the hill. We met with the city and David and Sharmin
and Kate and we made some changes on the project, and we've actually moved everything up
the hill as much as we could. The next thing is we had a meeting with the community
representative ... and they were concerned about things like lights, and as you recall, most of
' the people are concerned about lights and you can put lights down like we do in all the
shopping centers around here and they just don't have the glaring light. And that can be
arranged. They were concerned about the trees so in our presentation we'll deal with that
issue as to where they are and even ask any questions about that. They're concerned about
more trees and we've added more. They wanted to see how we looked compared to the other
one tonight. I think in general we've been trying to answer and change as much as we can
within the buildable area. You know we still have to get in and out of it and as Dave just
34
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
pointed out, we've got to sprinkle a couple of the buildings now because there are some
grades in there that we're better off not destroying. And so we're going to sprinkler some
buildings and pretty much the report that you've gotten from the staff, we agree with. So
we're at the point where the staff has looked at the project. I believe they, as much as they
can be, are for it. We've tried to meet some of your new things. We've got a model. We
actually have changed the plan after the model was done. You know moved certain things up
and maybe Kirk, you can show them what we've done there so, but the idea is there. And
that's kind of where we are so Dean's here. Dean Johnson who will be the developer and is
the owner of the site but the main presentation will be done by Kirk Valette who did the
original architecture for the original plan. He is involved in the design of these buildings.
And then Bill Dolan who is the engineer and it more aware of and I don't know if you have a
solution but at least you could say what we are doing relative to this tree issue and the site
issue so those are the two things I think we want to call and I'd like to have Kirk come up
here now and be happy to answer questions. I want to point out also, because I can see this
happening, that we are simply here to have this site approved as planned and I believe all
we're doing is shifting density over to the other parcel. But we're not doing a site plan...
involved in what this looks like, and I think what the staff was trying to say is we're not,
that's not our mission at this time. We're just shifting density over and I would believe that
over time, between the neighborhood and the staff and the senior community, somebody will
work out a way of getting the building built. But I think it's going to be one of those that
will take a little time. That's my opinion. So Kirk, do you want to take over.
Kirk Valette: I'm Kirk Valette with BRW Ellness Architects and we did the original plans
that were approved in '92. The buildings that we're proposing now, although it looks like the
mass on the north side of the buildings are similar in length, the height actually goes down
because the buildings that are on the north side are this type of building and the previous
buildings, the rental buildings on that side were 2 and 3 story buildings. Predominantly 3
story. The new buildings now are 2 stories high with a small area of 3 stories. So the actual
height of the buildings on that north side will actually be a little less than what the rental
housing was going to be.
Mancino: Kirk, is this the same that you just showed? These are B.
Kirk Valette: No. Those are the ones that are up more in the center of the site. The one that
I just showed, I'm sorry. I don't remember the A and the B.
Aanenson: It's A.
Kirk Valette: A.
35
n
'
Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995
g g ,
t
' Mancino: I have from the staff report all the B's on the north side. According to the staff
report. Of Kimberly Lane. So I'm just trying to get a feel for, and that is what I'm assuming
is this.
' Kirk Valette: It's the A.
' Mancino: Well according to the staff report, the A is on the, all A's are on there, or maybe I
should add this. 19 units of A's and they're all on the south side of Kimberly Lane, not going
down the hill. I color coded them.
Al -Jaf. . A is to the north. Where you have steeper elevations. And B is to the south where
you have flatter elevations.
' Mancino: So Sharmin, I'm sorry to raise this right at this point but I want to track with you
as you're talking. I'm sorry. On page 5 of the staff report, when you list those lots 1, 4, 5.
' So if I looked at 1, 4 and 5, I listed those as B's. Was I incorrect? And maybe I should have
reversed them.
H-
I
0
C1
n
Kirk Valette: The first two would be actually building A.
Mancino: Okay. So there are going to be more building A's. There's going to be 32 of
those units and 19 of B's.
Brad Johnson: 32 of the A's.
Mancino: 32 A's and 19 B's and the A's will be, what I have that are green on this whole
north side and the A's are going to be more towards the street. Santa Vera is it?
Kirk Valette: No. These are the ones that occur there, correct.
Mancino: Okay, so it's in reverse than what's in the staff report.
Kirk Valette: Right.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. That's my frame of thinking, thank you.
Kirk Valette: I think the other thing about the units now is they lay out on the street side, is
that there's a little more variation because we have less density on the units so there's more
variation in providing garages with insets for the entryways. So there's a little more of a third
dimension than there was on the rental units, which were more two dimensional because we
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
had to get the quantity of parking that was involved with those units. I think those are I think
two big differences and very important differences on this plan and mostly just the scale on
the north sides of the buildings and the scales of the building as a whole just being broken
down because there are fewer. And with the townhouses, you start looking for more variety...
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: Yeah Kirk, how do you respond to staffs recommendation that you vary some of
the road? Is that something that you want to respond to and I think it's in recommendation
number, Sharmin do you know where you put, you wanted them to vary some of the outside
appearance of A and B?
Al -Jaffa It would be number 4.
Mancino: Number 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design architecture as
proposed by the applicant. Introduce some variation among buildings facing north with the
shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entryways, adding dormers or color. And I guess
I would put and color there. Do you want to respond?
Brad Johnson: We've talked it over. That's why we said we've agreed with the staff report.
The only thing we would like to do is just look to have you authorize us to work that out
with the staff, because it's kind of difficult in this kind of a group to plan a building but I
think working with the staff, we can come up with a variance in both color and some on the
outside and Dean's got some ideas on how to do that so.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Brad Johnson: If there aren't any other questions of the architecture, I'll deal with the site
plan and Bill, do you want to go through that?
Bill Dolan: My name is Bill Dolan with Meadowood Engineering. I've been the engineer on
this project from the beginning and so I'm familiar with it. What I'm trying to do, first of all
let me say from an engineering standpoint we also are in agreement with all the staff and the
recommendations but I just tried to pick out the engineering recommendations and just give a
brief comment. The first one would be number 8, and that talks about putting in a turn
around on Kelly Street... The parking spaces that are required are 9. We now have 21 as the
visitor parking. We are going to put a small turn around on the end of Kelly Street and
eliminate two parking stalls there. However, we cannot make a turn around large enough for
the fire engine to turn around, and the end of the street is at about a 3 1/2% grade which is a
little steep for a fire engine if you start backing up and trying to do those kinds of things to
37
' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
turn around. So we decided just to put a small turn around in there and eliminate 2 parking
' stalls and then we will go to the sprinkling of the units which was the alternate that the Fire
Chief had in his recommendations. And with that change and with the change down on Lot
49, where the staff said that they would like to have an additional driveway, we don't have
any problem with the driveway but that will eliminate 2 parking stalls as they pointed out in
their report. And that would reduce us then to a total of 17 parking stalls for visitors and
' again required is 9, so we are almost double so we feel we have adequate parking provided.
Item 10 then continues on with some of the things that the Fire Marshal wanted and we
covered the first part of that and he asked for 2 additional hydrants, which ... and again the
' buildings will be sprinkled. Item 12 talks about the grading plans and show floor elevations
and the standard building types and so on and this is from the Building Inspection Department
and we have now included all those various elevations on our plans and have them on here.
' And item 13 is our typical... where we said that we're going to grade against the trees and
away from it so that was... You caught us on that one. Let's see. Oh yeah, the erosion
control plans do show that the Type III fence will be all along that... And we have included
' the city's standards plates in our plans and so on. Now, perhaps we can talk a little bit about
the grading and I think the model is an excellent example on how the grading, even though
we have split these two units off of here so we don't have the 6 units. Basically we only
' have 4 and these 2 units are brought over here to reduce the impact of the building. But what
happens on this side is of course you've got a very steep slope and we're building the building
down to match the existing ground. We're not going to grade on the outside of the building.
' We're not going to grade on the outside of the building. We have increased the basement
elevations from the standard 8 foot to 9 foot. In some cases along here we have 10 foot...
from floor to ceiling. Then if we have, we have a couple places where we have a draw here.
' Right on this corner we have a spot and right on this corner we have a spot and this corner
we have a spot where there is about 3 or 4 feet from the basement floor, when you actually
put a stake in the basement floor elevation to the existing ground. What we will do in that
' case is we will take the block work and building face right down to natural ground and then
we will go right down from that for our 40 feet, not grading on the outside of the building so
the building will just go right down. But most of these buildings now, these buildings, these
' buildings, this building, this building, the two units in these buildings here, with the entries
from 8 to 9 to 10 foot. The basements do match very close to the elevation of the outside.
Now when we do that, we come down between the buildings, we have to in some cases,
' where we have this draw here, in this area, we have in some cases pick up that elevation
change because we don't want to grade beyond the buildings. So in those cases we have a
little 4 foot retaining walls that run between the buildings here and they'll show on the
' grading plan and I think there's 1, 2 and 3 of those. There's one in here by this big oak tree,
and I think there's one here and maybe over here. But anyway, that has to be done so that
' we do not grade beyond the line and that's very important because this environment out here
is something we want to save. And we can look at our tree preservation plan here, first of all
lJ
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
at these pictures here are of the trees on the site. While I'm talking I'll pass some of those.
They're kind of hard to see from a distance so I'll pass some of those around for you to look
at while I'm talking about the trees. And we'll just talk about the ... here which is over here.
Your new ordinance, which was not in effect when we did the first plan but it's a strange
thing. The first plan saved the same trees that we are now saving, except one. The first plan
said we were going to save this brown tree up here and we're now going to take it, and I'm
really not sure that we could have saved it in the first place. But we said we were going to
save it but now we're taking it. The brown trees are the ones that are going. The green, dark
greens are the ones that we're saving. Now we had an original canopy of 37% and after the
removal of the trees, we still have 25% which meets your ordinance. And after we landscape
again, the credits we get for the new landscaping plan, which we'll go through in a moment,
we come back to 44% canopy coverage which is more than we had originally so this is a,
from a canopy standpoint and vegetation standpoint when the project is done, is going to be
better than it was. So we were talking about trees and I wanted to point out that this tree is
the tree that is going to go and it's a big, old oak tree. It's one we'd like to save but it's going
to go now but it's the only one and actually there's probably one in here I think. It's a small
one. I guess it's down here that we're going to save that we weren't going to save originally.
But the point is, that the canopy is there. We meet your canopy ordinance. We met it in the
first place but we didn't have to but ever since we first started on the hillside and working
with the hillside, the idea was, and I think Nancy was talking about it, eluding to it earlier
that the apartments were designed to try to preserve the hillside and indeed they were. And
so was this project. This project only takes out one tree different. Okay now, we'll turn this
over and we'll talk about the trees and the landscaping. Now this is the landscaping plan.
Here again the existing trees that are shown out here. Now, we met with the neighbors here.
I wasn't at the meeting but when they came back they told us that there were a couple of
open spots on the plan where the existing trees were not really covering. See the existing
trees here do a wonderful job of covering these units and here they do a good job, as you can
see that from the photographs but here there was a gap and so in this spot we have added 7
pine trees, 6 feet high to start the screening of this particular open spot here. And then there
was a couple other open spots, one here which was open and there were 3 trees there and
then we've added 7 trees down here to screen that area which was opened from the Powers
Boulevard, back across. There were some trees down here but these are quite a bit lower and
down along the wetlands there and then this hillside here looks bare so we added some trees
to screen that. Now the question was asked at the neighborhood meeting, how does our
landscape plan compare to what was proposed in 1992. And we took out our other
landscaping plan and we compared them. And in comparison is this. On Santa Vera Drive,
the original plan had 46 plantings along Santa Vera Drive. We now have 85. The original
plan had 27 plantings along this internal plan. This long internal drive here and we now have
26. The original plan had 27 pine trees located along the outside of the, the perimeter of the
plan on the hillside. We now have provided 19 in these open spaces, okay. And then we had
39
t
Planning g Meeting -March 1, 1995
originally from the old plan, when we finished Phase I, we planted 9 pine trees out there and
you can see them on some of those photographs. And those are going to be moved and
situated to fit the new layout here so that they will still remain on the outside. So when you
add the 9 to the 19, we get 28 which compares to the 27, that was our original. So in each
case we're within a tree. One over, one under except on Santa Vera Drive and because this is
now for sale, we felt that the units along the outside here needed to be screened from Santa
' Vera Drive and so that's why we have the additional plantings out there. More plantings than
we had originally. So that these for sale units here can be screened and make this area a little
more private. I think that pretty well covers everything that I wanted to talk about, and I
think the staff report referred to getting the final drainage calculations for the project, which
of course we will supply them. But I will point out that when the project was apartments,
there was more impervious area than there is now because of the extensive parking and the
' drainage that was designed in Santa Vera Avenue and going down to the ponds here, was not
designed on the basis of that project being apartments which had more impervious area,
therefore more runoff. So the new calculations will be looking at that. If there are any
questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you.
Scott: Any questions? Thank you sir. Is there anybody else from the development team
' who would like to speak? Okay. This is a public hearing, and if I may get a motion to open
the public hearing.
' Mancino moved, Udvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Anyone from the general public who wishes to speak, please step up and identify
yourself. Give us your address and let us know what you have to say.
Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve, just to the
north of the proposed development. First of all I'd like to say I welcome the change in the
plan from the higher density apartments to the residential, or the owner occupied townhomes.
I also welcome having the senior housing... property. But I guess a couple issues that I'd like
to address tonight. One is the footprint of the buildings to the north. I know Sharmin had,
' put together a couple of overheads that overlaid that previous development which was
apartments on top of the new proposed development. I guess I'd just like to show is that we
had some concerns that the buildings as they're planned now are closer, farther down the hill
and closer to our property than we were previously. It appears to be well, at least 10 to 20
feet in some cases, and that does not include the deck that could be put on the units.
IF
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Scott: Dave, just a question from a deck standpoint. Given the grades that we have on the
north side of this development, would that be quite an undertaking to be able to put a deck
out of the back of some of these things? You deck builder you.
Hempel: I'm no deck builder Mr. Chairman, but I have seen decks which are on...
Scott: Pretty scary?
Hempel: They're probably not 20 x 20 foot decks. A small deck.
Scott: So you're thinking that from a cost standpoint they would probably be relatively
small? Just because of the kind of California terrain.
Aanenson: Well I do think that if that's an issue, then we should we clarify that because we
came up with this problem before when we were under the assumption, that because they
included porches we wouldn't see decks, and all of a sudden decks appeared. They were still
within the setbacks. So I think if that is an issue to the neighbors, we should try to come to
some resolution. That if they are decks, they be a certain size or they maintain a certain
setback because if they're under the assumption that they won't be, or they'll only be small,
and some big one comes in and they're still within the setback so I think if it is an issue, that
we should try to get some concurrence on that.
Kirk Vallette: The decks are 8 x 10.
Aanenson: You may want to make that condition, that that be the only size or something.
Scott: Mr. Anderson, are you representing the neighbors?
Tim Anderson: I'm representing myself...
Scott: Okay.
Tim Anderson: Is it possible to put that overhead on? Another thing to make note of,
another thing of concern is that even though there's less units, that they're actually closer
together. In the previously proposed plan the .... were actually set apart a farther distance.
And now it's going to give an appearance of a train going all the way on the hillside. And...
discuss it, that was an issue. I know the City Council, that they didn't want the appearance of
a train going all the way up along the ridge. The hillside but part of the, that was addressed
in some part because they took out, ended up taking out some units and ended up trying to
take out one of the buildings—that's a concern I would like to see addressed. On possibly
41
' Planning Commission Meetin g - March 1, 1995
either pulling the buildings back, taking out a couple of units, whatever that may take. Or
additional landscaping or such ... I'd like to see if there is a possible... separating somehow.
And I think there was one other thing I wanted to discuss was that the previous development
included a conservation easement to go up to the buildings and I haven't heard any discussion
on that. If that's going to be included and at what point, where on the property will that
occur on the conservation where there won't be any type of lawn maintenance and such. I
know Karen had a concern about the senior housing. I'd like to just mention before I leave
here is that we are concerned about the size of the building. We, but like I say, we really
welcome having seniors as neighbors and I guess I have one question I have. Is, are we
' locked into 70 units up there? Can it be 60 units or whatever? If this is approved tonight as
is, is the city bound to 70 units of senior housing on that property or can the density change?
Either it be moving senior housing to another location or just putting less in that parcel.
' Scott: Well if this moves forward as is, basically we've committed to a density transfer which
will allow for 70 units to be placed on the outlot that's on Santa Vera and Kerber so the die
' basically would be cast. From what my understanding is, is that the number 70 came from a
financial model relative to the financial success of the project so.
' Tim Anderson: I don't want to, I know ... other than the densities.
Scott: But they are tied together basically because there's a density transfer.
Tim Anderson: Yes, I understand that. I don't, I guess I have a fear that it's implied now
that once this is approved, that approval could go ahead and build 70 units up on the hill. I
guess is that what's going to happen?
Aanenson: Well just the density transfer, as I indicated. They would still have to go through
' site plan review so it would still come back and there'd be a hearing on that for you to
comment on the design and the city certainly wants to work with the neighbors on that issue.
Tim Anderson: That's a big concern. I guess one thing I'd like to see, again this isn't related.
I apologize ... is that when this comes in the next few months, they have an actual photo
rendering of the building at various angles, including from our neighborhood be done. I'd
truly like putting an image on a photograph so we see exactly what it's going to look like.
The Council and the Planning Commission can see it also.
' Scott: That kind of reminds me of an ordinance we have floating around. Did that actually?
' Aanenson: Yes, that's an approved ordinance.
' 42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Scott: Okay, so that's a requirement.
Tim Anderson: Yeah, because I see something like this and it's hard to interpret a drawing.
It looks 2 dimensional and this isn't what it looks like when I look out my window. I know
they made a good attempt to try to do that but actually on a photo rendition it would be very
helpful and more useful. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister. I live at 7540 Canyon Curve, Mr. Chair and
Planning Commission members. First of all I was not aware that we would be talking about
a senior housing issue tonight so I guess I don't really have any comment on that other than
what Mr. Anderson said previously. The size is a concern. I haven't seen anything for
tonight but the bulking would be a definite concern. I haven't had a chance to look at the
details.
Scott: Yeah, the public hearing is for another section but I think because of the nature of the
density transfer and what happens here casts the die over there, I think your comments are
appropriate.
Dave Callister: And with just the specific proposal that's in front of us this evening, I guess I
think it's a much better proposal than what we had 2 years ago. The density is lower. The
type of units and the type of resident that we're going to see in these units, definitely from a
neighbor's perspective is better. So I think there are a lot of good things about this new
proposal that the developments have tried to incorporate into it. I do have a couple of
concerns. One with the location of the buildings. You've heard this before about creeping
down the hill. Apparently, and I've had several discussions with staff and the developer on
this and basically what they told me is this is as far, this is where it has to be simply because
of the logistics of the site. Given that, I guess I would like to see, if that can't be moved up
the hill any further, I would like to see more trees. I know they have indicated there's some
pine trees ... 6 foot pine trees if you're looking up at a hill like this, and you've got a structure
of maybe 25 feet, a 6 foot pine tree really doesn't buffer for a few years anyway. So I would
like to see, first of all more trees. Second of all, maybe some larger trees in there. And then
third, maybe some deciduous trees to cover for some of the other trees that may be lost in the
future. So that would be a concern of mine. The last thing that I want to touch on, and
we've already touched on many of the things that I have here, would be the construction
limits. We talked a lot about this in 1992 about having heavy equipment in sensitive areas
around the tree roots and I think last year sometime when they did some drainage
improvements, where... down the hill, woke up one morning and all of a sudden there was
heavy equipment down there. And the heavy equipment wasn't as much of a shock as the
43
L
1
[I
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
footprints through the trail that they had and they knocked over branches from oak trees.
They were within probably 3 or 4 feet of the oak trees. Totally disregarding everything we
talked about, about staying away from the drip line of the oak trees. Apparently it wasn't the
contractor but it was some subcontractor but nonetheless, I would like to see some precaution
or some regulation that we could establish that would ensure that the things are adequately
fenced off in the case of any damage and I think they have to replace it on a 1.2 to 1 basis or
something like that. I don't know if you have any flexibility to increase the penalty but I
think it's, especially it's so sensitive in this area with ... buffer, that if you knock them down
during construction and you say whoops, you knock over a few trees and we'll plant a few 6
footers over here to make up.
Scott: There's a couple of ordinances that have come into play since then. The first one
being an extremely comprehensive tree preservation ordinance which one of the requirements
is that the drip lines of the trees are actually marked by fences. Snow fence which obviously
is not going to keep a piece of heavy equipment out but it's a lot different than what we had
before where traffic actually could go over the drip line areas. And then another ordinance is,
and I'm sure that the developers are aware of this. Is that there's actually some, what we
consider to be fairly attention grabbing fines for the damage of erosion control fencing. To
summarize that, there's a penalty and then within, I believe it's a 24 hour period of notice by
the city, the city will hire a subcontractor to go in and fix the erosion control and charge it
back to the developer. So that was something that just went through recently so we feel that
we've gotten a little bit more sensitive to those sorts of things. And of course, it's difficult
enough as an appointed or elected official to keep track of the ordinances, much less a
member of the general public, but just to kind of let you know that these are some of the
things that we've done.
Dave Callister: That's good to hear. Do you know when that was actually incorporated or
when that was adopted?
Scott: Well it came through the City Council.
Aanenson: The erosion control just got approved like the last month.
Dave Callister: The tree preservation.
Scott: The tree preservation's been 8 months.
Aanenson: The tree preservations been the last year, yeah.
Scott: Yeah, something like that.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Dave Callister: ...it's a question of monitoring and I know staff has a lot of work to do
Scott: Well we've actually, one of our newest planners was specifically brought on board for
ordinance enforcement purposes so.
Dave Callister: Just a concern and I want to make sure it's adequately...
Scott: No, appreciate you bringing that up.
Dave Callister: That's all I have at this time, thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
Yes sir.
Greg Hromatka: Hello. My name's Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just...
I like the idea of the senior housing. I'm not going to say anything about that. I'd like to deal
with the idea of transition. Just with that there ... it doesn't seem to flow. I do have a question
about how that would be, what the senior housing will be. As an area, the total picture. Is it
going to be a fifth or a sixth of the total land area?
Aanenson: It's 2 acres. A little over.
Al -Jaffa A little over 2 acres. 2.2.
Greg Hromatka: Of the total amount.
Scott: I guess what is it, 9?
Aanenson: Well that's just for this phase.
Greg Hromatka: So that's a 1/13 of the total and you've got 70 units on 1/13 of the total
space. That's my driving point. Smallest chunk of space with the largest number of units.
That's short and sweet.
Scott: Good, thank you. Yes ma'am.
Mary Anderson: Hi. My name is Mary Anderson and I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. The
only point I'd like to make is to reiterate the neighbors' concern of the units coming down the
hill. I don't want the commission to think that the neighbors are not concerned because of the
numbers that are here. What I'd like to say is this the second time that we've had a public
45
'
Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995
g g ,
hearing that the neighbors were not formally notified. And if there is another public hearing
concerning this, we want to make sure. I know when my husband told this to Sharmin, she
said we should have gotten something in the mail saying there would be a public hearing and
' I called ... our neighbors today and no one received notice. So that is, this project is a great
concern to the neighborhood. There would have been more people here tonight had everyone
not known at 5:00.
Scott: Well how did you find out?
' Mary Anderson: When we met with Dean, he mentioned it may be on the agenda tonight and
it just clicked in my mind as the Ist so I went can called and sure enough it was. We were
told we were notified but no one had gotten the notice.
' Scott: If I could just ask the, let's see. Mr. Anderson, how did you find out about the
meeting tonight?
' Tim Anderson: I called Sharmin this morning.
' Scott: Okay, Mr. Hromatka?
Greg Hromatka: Neighborhood.
' Al -Jaffa We did mail out notices to all the neighbors.
' Mary Anderson: Then why did no one get one? I mean I can see if one family didn't but no
one on Canyon or no one right in that area on Canyon Curve received anything. And the last
time we went through this... development, the same thing occurred. And I just want to stress
' that this is a very important issue to the neighborhood and we would have been here in more
force and more prepared had we known.
' Scott: Yeah. I didn't, is there a, I didn't get a notice list in my packet.
Aanenson: We can pass it around. We did receive calls so some people did get notice. We
did verify, after we received the call, we did verify that notice was sent to that address.
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am.
Sherol Howard: My name is Sherol Howard. I live at 1005 Pontiac Lane and I'm the
Chairperson of the Senior Commission and I've lived in Chanhassen 40 years and I've seen a
great many changes take place. And we seniors are pleased with our residence to be built
1 46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
here ... and we have every confidence that the differences will be able to be worked out for a
housing that's very much needed and we have eliminated many locations, and this one seems
to fill all our needs. So we're sure you can all work it us for us. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you ma'am. Yes sir.
John Linforth: John Linforth, 7471 Canyon Curve. Mr. Chairman, the last time we had a
meeting on January, on February 15th, excuse me. I asked you if this item was going to be
on that program at that time because I had received in the mail a letter to this effect. I should
have received a letter saying that it was not on that docket for that evening and I had received
no information that it was on the schedule for this evening. I read all the mail that comes
into my house. I collect it out of my mailbox. Nothing from the City of Chanhassen arrived
at my house anywhere... I would like to ask, or address the issue of where the transition from
high density to single family. There is no transition with a large 70 unit structure on a 2 acre
lot. You're going directly from 70 units to a single family. There is no transition. It would
appear that listening... and all the nuances and what goes on in this procedure but by your
approval tonight, you approve it. It sounds like this, at this point is for you to decide whether
it goes or whether it doesn't go. The structure that you have in front of you here, if you'll
note on the north side of that building, which faces our subdivision. You're looking at
something close to 60 feet tall. That is a very, very long structure that they're asking to build.
The reason for it to be built there, it's explained to me that it's close to downtown so they can
walk to it. Why don't you put 70 apartments facing underneath. Why do you need parking if
they're going to be walking? If they can drive, they can put it on something that's more
aesthetically pleasing to the marketplace. Finally, this hillside that they wish to put this unit
on is a very, very high point in town and to put a very, very tall structure on top of it would
be very, very noticeable. It is not a good use of property.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to make any comments?
Emily Tischleder: Hi. Emily Tischleder, 185 Pioneer Trail in Chanhassen. And I just want
to say that most of the seniors have lived here 30 plus years and now we're in the position
where we're ready to sell our homes. We don't need the large homes anymore. We would
like to stay in Chanhassen because we have nowhere else to go unless this is built. The City
of Chaska has a population approximately the same as Chanhassen. They have two senior
units in their city and I was hoping that the City of Chanhassen will consider having ... thank
you.
Scott: Thank you. Any other comments before we close the public hearing?
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, would it be proper for us to answer some of these questions?
For instance...
Scott: Which specific questions do you wish to answer?
Brad Johnson: I just want to go through the list. This will just take a second. One thing we
should realize, I think what's the setback from the point from the property. What would be
the required?
Al -Jaffa The ordinance would require 25.
Brad Johnson: Okay. We're 225 to 300 feet from their property line. I think we always
forget this.
Scott: Well that's the setback from the property of your project. Not the setback from the
property line of the neighbors, right?
Aanenson: That's the property line.
Brad Johnson: That's the same number.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Scott: Okay.
Brad Johnson: ...football fields away and 2/3 of a football field away in this case on our
project. The problem is the hill and what they see. We will agree that the decks will be no
greater than 8 x 10. I think what they've said is they would like to see more landscaping to
cover, we'll call under story and some over story trees. We would agree to come in with
other trees other than pine trees to fill that area up, wherever it is. Okay. As you can see by
the photographs, probably we're talking more about trees underneath than over but we're more
than happy to work that out by the time it gets to the Council with the neighbors. There is a,
what we'll agree to a conservation and one of the concerns was that we'd agreed not to
landscape down the hill ... so whatever that would take.
Aanenson: I think the intent was to leave it natural so people wouldn't...
Brad Johnson: Yeah, but ... want it in writing ... I think though the heavy equipment thing was a
mistake. They were just saying, the guys wasn't supposed to be there. I asked Dean why the
Sup wasn't there to make sure the guy wasn't there, and he said they weren't supposed to be
48
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
working there but in the future he'll be fined and that will take care of that. But that's, I think
we've apologized for that and we're going to try to make sure that that doesn't happen. But it
just, it happened. The guy wasn't supposed to be there. It was one of those days ... I think
we're more than happy to, we don't want to lose units. The last time we went through this
whole thing we kept losing units and we don't see a need for that. I think Dave's suggestion
that we try to landscape more and cover up, because they're just worried about what they're
seeing and we'll see what we can do. We thought we added some. We can add more. Okay.
Scott: Good. Thank you. If you have new information that you'd like to add, please come
up.
Dave Callister: Dave Callister, 7540 Canyon Curve. This just came up. We were talking
about in '92, and I don't know how many of you were around in '92. This is a totally
different issue now. The City is apparently going to acquire an outlot with the ponds, for
their half of the ponds, is that correct?
Hempel: It's already been done.
Dave Callister: It's already been done? Okay. One of the conditions of the last PUD was
that there was at one time talk about a trail going through there. A paved trail on that slope.
Aanenson: That was eliminated a long time ago.
Dave Callister: Okay is that, we just want to make sure it doesn't come back.
Aanenson: No. I think the intent is, I think that's always been understood that you don't
want people back in there. That anything beyond 30 foot beyond the house pad is a no touch
zone. No mow and we'll put that language in there.
Dave Callister: That's all I wanted, thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you. Could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, I have a question. And I'd like to hear from other commissioners. I am
very concerned that the neighborhood, I mean this is our only time to have a public hearing.
We don't have public hearings at City Council, etc. And I'm very concerned that none of the
neighbors got notices to come tonight, and I think if this is the only forum for them to speak
49
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
and to say what's on their minds, and I think that we need to make sure that they have that
right. And if we didn't offer that to them, I think we need to and I'd just like to hear other
people's. If you're as concerned as I am, that maybe we table this and have a public hearing
and make sure that the neighbors are notified.
Ledvina: I'd like to understand what staff had done and their reaction to what the comments
have been.
Aanenson: I believe this was noticed at least twice before this, and we pulled it off based on
we felt that information that we needed in order to put it on the agenda wasn't here so it was
noticed twice before. We had met with a lot of the neighbors, and neighbors were tracking it.
Had come in and asked questions. This has been over the last 2 months while this thing has
evolved because we've tried to get the development where we felt comfortable coming
forward to you. As you see, some of the changes aren't even reflected here. We worked very
hard to try to get this where we knew the neighbors' concerns were so there has been a lot of
dialogue between the neighbors. Now it's our understanding, there was we know for sure two
notices before this. Again, it was tabled as this gentleman indicated at the last meeting. It
certainly was our intent to notice everybody again. It's our understanding it was. If it wasn't,
it certainly was not any intention. If it wasn't, it was an oversight. Our secretary is
responsible for making sure that all public hearings are noticed. It's our understanding that
that was done. If it wasn't, we're not aware.
Scott: And I think our feeling too is, and I was at the, I'm not going to talk about organized
collection. I'll use the City Council meeting as a ... to the effect (a), don't people read the
newspaper, and (b), don't people do this and we've been doing this for 2 years, so on and so
forth. I think we've got a responsibility as elected or appointed officials that even though
we're following the rules and we're doing the right things relative to notice, I think it's still,
I'd agree with Commissioner Mancino, that it's still incumbent upon us to give that one last
shot to let the residents come in. And if we have a couple people here the next time, I think
what we would want to do however is, instead of having a full blown public hearing, to do
something else because what we don't want to do is we don't want to have the same
information come up again to perhaps give people the opportunity who haven't had the chance
to speak. I think we understand the issues. I think those are pretty evident and I don't see
new issues coming up.
' Conrad: If that's the case Mr. Chairman, the City Council always holds a public hearing
anyway. The point is that we understand the neighbors concerns. I think the people that
have been here, were within neighborhood groups. My perception is that the staff has
' listened to the neighborhood. The developer has listened to the neighborhood. The neighbors
have been here. They echo pretty much their concerns. They're the same concerns I heard
50
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
the last time we were putting rental units here. That's not to say that everybody doesn't
deserve a public notice. They do. If it didn't happen, they should be notified for the City
Council meeting. I don't think I need to have another public hearing to find out more
information I guess is what I'm saying. City Council has a public hearing. If they didn't, I
would say table it.
Mancino: They're not required to are they?
Conrad: They're not required to. They always do Nancy.
Mancino: They always do. Because I don't know if there's something else that someone may
come up and say that I haven't heard tonight. You know I wasn't here previously when this
was up in front of the Planning Commission so this is the first time I've heard this and I've
heard the neighbors. So, and when I hear that nobody that's here got a notice, I'm concerned.
For tonight.
Scott: You know there's another, a thought that I had when I was listening to it, and when I
look at the list of parties who are involved in this PUD, Carver County HRA. There's tax
increment financing dollars. The City is going to get involved. I believe the HRA is going
to be bonding for this particular, or at least the senior housing project. We're starting to see I
think how PUD's really were designed to work where there's certain things that we want as a
community and we're starting to get some players involved. There's one component however
that we've been asking for and a PUD really is the only way that we can get, add to it and
that's the idea of entry level housing, affordable housing. Whatever you want to call it. I had
a discussion with the Mayor about this and kicking around some ideas. Obviously in the day
of unfunded mandates and so forth, I think that that's a real issue that we happened to be
targeted because of the tax base that we have and I think we're all aware of what the
Metropolitan Council's blueprint has to say about their plans for affordable housing in
Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Eagan and so forth. And one of the things that I talked to the
Mayor about is a concept where in order to gain something that we're also lacking, that either
a density trade because obviously you can't put a developer in a situation where they have to
take the hit on the sale or rental of market property because obviously our tax structure, our
property costs, just won't support this kind of thing. So one of the things that crossed my
mind is that what we may want to consider, if you all want to do this, is to try to determine
how we could have that affordable housing component introduced here or in another PUD
that may be forthcoming. So I wanted to toss that out to see if that's worthwhile considering.
Great. If it's not, move on to something else. So I wanted to get your input on that. Ladd.
Conrad: I think it's, well I know. It's a good thought Joe and I'd like to review it. I don't
think it's fair. When a developer has done this. We just can't do that to anybody. I don't
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
' care if it's a good project, bad project. You know we've made some commitments to them
and they've gone ahead and done some things and then to introduce something new. As valid
as that may be, and I really would like to pursue it.
Scott: And I figure we can throw it out just because we got the County HRA involved.
' Conrad: Yeah. I guess I'd like to make sure we address that thing soon because PUD's are
probably a good way to do it. But I don't think it applies here. I'd rather not do it here
because I don't think that's fair.
' Scott: Well I wanted to throw it out because it seems like, I mean we may have more of
these kinds of opportunities we hope.
Conrad: Well again, if we care, we make that a priority.
1
1
Scott: Is that direction to staff?
Conrad: No, no. That's a direction to you.
Scott: Well then I'll send that direction to staff. I think since we've talked about this for
many, many hours here and we all know what the environment is and at least what I would
like to direct staff to do is that, you know what's coming up before we do. If we see a
situation where we've got a PUD coming up where there's a mix of different types of housing,
I think what needs to happen initially in the conversation with the developer, is introducing
that some sort of component. However, it's got to be done in a way where perhaps they get
additional density. I mean it's a give and take and it has to make financial sense because
we're not going to get any financing for that. And we don't want to mess around with the
market, if we don't have to so, take that under advisement. Ron.
Conrad: Well there's still the issue at hand. Nancy wants to table this.
Mancino: Well not table it. Keep it going. I mean there's another thing besides opening it
up completely again so that, I mean we've heard the applicant and we've heard some
neighbors but any new. I don't know what it's called. Yeah, I mean I have, when people
haven't received notices, or it seems as if they haven't, I have a problem with that. Because
by the time you get to City Council, it's done.
Ledvina: Well I would agree with Ladd on this one as it relates to the notice. I was here
when we went through this initially and.
52
Planning Commission Meeting s March 1, 1995
Mancino: Two years ago? Or three years ago?
Ledvina: Two years ago. Three years ago. I think what we have at this point is a proposal
that's much more acceptable to the residents. The neighboring residents given the fact that
the density has been scaled down for this particular development. I think there's some small
issues. While they're important issues but they're resolvable issues as they relate to the
conservation easements and some landscaping. I don't know that anything else is going to get
driven out of the wood, or whatever. I think that this has been extremely reviewed many
times and I think it's in good shape. But that's my feeling.
Conrad: This is a great staff report. It's far superior to what we had seen before. It's just,
you know if we listened to what the neighbors said before, this is paying attention to it. I
think what I'd prefer that we do is move it along. And normally Nancy I'd agree. And
normally I like to find out about the lack of notice before we spend 2 hours. We should have
killed it and brought it back rather than, you know no matter. Every time you open a public
hearing, we're going to get the same input. It's hard to control. You know people want to
talk, and I think the neighbors that said we didn't get notice of it, and more people would be
here. That's right. They would and I think they still have a great opportunity to make their
concerns known at City Council. I wouldn't say that if Council didn't open public hearings
but they do and they make, you know. I think we're going to identify the real issues based
on the comments and I think if the neighbors want to show their support for their feelings,
they will show up and staff will make sure that they noticed. So again, I don't want to
dominant this. There are more folks here but I don't really see a reason to bring it back and
force citizens to come back at this level. The Council's still going to make their decision and
the residents are still going to have the opportunity to talk to them. I'm pretty comfortable
pushing it forward.
Scott: And you're comfortable with the density transfer?
Conrad: Absolutely. I think it's, yeah.
Scott: Okay, good. That was another kind of a side issue. Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I'm also ... to taking it forward. It's not, odds are we probably haven't heard every
single issue that all of the neighbors would bring up but I think we've certainly got the
significant flavor of what those issues are. And again, there seems to be a steady back and
forth between the developers and the neighbors. That's attempting to address the issues. It's
always a very difficult process but, and to my limited experience I've always seen public
hearings too but I don't know that to the length of Ladd's experience. So I guess we're, Mr.
Chair I guess the question is do.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Scott: I guess we'll go for a motion.
Conrad: Well I think we should have issues.
Mancino: Well no, I think I'm hearing everyone say. I mean I'm still, you know I feel very
principally believe that that's the responsibility of the Planning Commission to do it. I'm not
saying that I think a lot of issues have been resolved, etc. I just think that there's a time and
place that the principal of everybody getting to be at the public hearing and having their say,
I just want to preserve that in a very formal way. And that's what we're here to do. So, be it
as it may.
Scott: Any other discussion?
Conrad: Not on that issue.
Scott: Another issue then.
Conrad: Do you want to just talk in general?
Scott: Sure.
Conrad: Do you want me to lead it off then? Real quickly. I am impressed with a lot of the
things that have transpired. I am impressed with the staff working on this. There's no perfect
solution and I think that the residents and the neighbors are always going to have certain
concerns. It's a little bit different housing type but again if my memory serves me properly,
this is a quantum leap from the housing that we had scheduled to go here. It may not really
be in the maybe the best interest in terms of rental. There is a rental need, more than likely.
But in terms of a quality product that's going into Chanhassen, this certainly does do it. It
may be even an income generator for the city, which is not any of our concern but it's
probably such a quality that it's a real asset. I'm really not concerned about decks but I'll let
somebody else. You know our setback is so far, I guess I don't get it when we start talking
about decks and we're going to limit deck size. I don't understand. I don't know the rules
that we're playing with when we start limiting decks. When we're a couple hundred feet
away from the property line or whatever. I like what the developer said in terms of the lack
of disturbing the grading. I do agree with the density transfer. It does lock us in however to
the density going to the other area but I'm pretty comfortable with that at this point in time.
The conservation easement, I think we should put in. The lighting, so it's directed down, I
think we should put in. I think that's it. I really have very few comments on the actual items
in the staff report other than the one that Dave wanted to delete. I guess I'm just approaching
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
it from where we were, and from where we were 2 years ago, and what we approved, this is a
better project.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: Looking at the density issue. I think this is a very good site for the senior housing
project and I would definitely support the density transfer. The city in conjunction with the
Senior Commission has been working very diligently to find a site and when you look at all
the work that they've done to look at sites and evaluate them and I know there's been actual
field trips and combing the city essentially to find a site that meets their needs and I think
they've found one here, and I think it will work out very well. I think in terms of the
buffering and the transition, it's essentially on the corner of Santa Vera and Kerber. There is
buffering to the north with the locations of those ponds and trees, etc. You can talk about a
transition but if you have appropriate buffering, that specific density transition is not
necessary, in my opinion. I think that type of density will work at that location. Looking
specifically at the project that's in front of us, I have some questions about the layout of the
buildings. Where we have the apartment buildings on the south. Let me back up a little bit.
I know we had two interior roads and I know we had double frontage when we were looking
at double frontage on the buildings. When we were looking at the apartment buildings but
we have double frontages now for these townhomes and that concerns me a little bit. I don't
know of instances where we really want to do that, especially when you have decks and those
kinds of things off the back and we're 30 feet from a roadway. Can you address that?
Aanenson: Well that's where the setback, Sharmin indicated is 25 feet so that would be
obviously a prohibitor as far as putting an additional deck on there and I believe the applicant
spoke to the fact that that's why they also want to put additional landscaping along Santa
Vera to buffer that.
Ledvina: Well Santa Vera, yes. But the interior I'm speaking. I just don't like the looks of
that type of double frontage. I think it's really tight in there but the backs of those homes and
the street, Kerber Lane in specific, the backs of the homes that will be constructed on the
north side of Kelly Court. Just those units 28 to essentially 38. Those 10 units. I think
there's something that's not quite right there and I don't know what we can do about it or
what your comments might be.
Aanenson: I guess I would compare it similarly to what's already there right now with the 8
units. You've got the 4 facing each other. It's a similar type thing. I mean there's just a
driveway between them and they're facing each other and that's I guess the nature of the beast
when you're looking at a townhome type product.
55
n
'
Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995
g g ,
Ledvina: That they're facing each other, are you saying there's not a street in the back of
' them, is there?
Aanenson: Well it's the driveway approach. So you'd have, here. Put this one up. That's
the existing, right now we've got the driveway going between those units so you've got 4
units facing each other. Actually 8 units.
Ledvina: Could you point to the unit?
' Mancino: This is what's behind Byerly's right now.
Aanenson: These are the units that are built right now. So right now there's a driveway that
comes down all the way to the end. So there's decks on these, and these 4 units all face
either other.
' Ledvina: But those are 8 units a piece. They don't have any rear to them. But there's no
rear to the home.
0
t
0
Aanenson: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay. So that's really not the same kind of thing. I guess I'm thinking of it in
terms of a detached situation. I know in a detached situation we'd say no way. That's not
acceptable. And I know this is a little different scenario but at the same time, people will be
using those back yards, you know. Well, maybe I should ask the applicant. Are there
walkouts on the backs of those buildings?
Bill Dolan: Yes, those are walkout units and they do face that street down there. On
townhomes what you try to do is give them room for their patio and then as you might have
noticed, some of the patios on the existing townhouses as they go up the street. But the
patios do come out. They have a fence. So what will happen on those units that face that
street where those patios come out, they'll be fenced so they don't bang the street right up to
them. And they are, actually they were a little closer to the street and staff and so we talked
about it and we decided we could move back a little. I think that we will come back to
where they're 20 -25 feet from the street there now. With the fencing, we feel that will be
satisfactory. Now the reason they are faced that way is because, you know the side and
every ... it's a big deal and it goes up to the top of the hill. So you can't just shave the top of
the hill off. You have to build into it...
Ledvina: Right. No, I understand that. I guess I'm just seeing that the distance between the
back of the homes and in Kerber Lane, or Kimberly Lane, I'm sorry. It's extremely tight.
56
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Bill Dolan: No question about it. We will be fencing those patios.
Ledvina: And then that raises another issue. Do we want fences along Kerber Lane? How
is that going to look in terms of the streetscape?
Bill Dolan: Well, that's typically what we do with those and maybe it's a good thing we talk
about that now if you don't particularly want them. But that's typically how we do that to
provide some privacy for people. And the fence is typically right at the end of the patio,
which is like ... and then the grass would go down the street.
Ledvina: Right. Well, I don't know if I've got a solution for that other than to say that things
are too tight in there and I know that things have been tighten up to bring units away from
the hill and that's a very strong objective but I'm thinking about our future residents that will
live along this street and what they're going to have in terms of their streetscape. I guess my
opinion would be that I certainly wouldn't want to see fences along there. I'd rather see that
be, it would have to be heavily landscaped. I don't know if you can even stick a berm in
there and landscape the berm. I think that might be real difficult. But the way I see it now, I
don't really like it.
Bill Dolan: ...say we don't build lot fences there, I guess we do that typically with our patios
now. We have on the other projects.
Ledvina: Right, okay. I'll let some of the other commissioners comment on that. I think the
units on the north side, they're okay. I guess some of them are fairly tight. There's about 15
to 20 feet in some instances. Maybe even less. Like between Units 11 and 10. And then
again on the south side they get tight in spots as well. I don't know solutions other than
reducing the number of buildings in terms of that feeling of tightness. I guess we've got a
piece of land and we talk about potential density of x number of units, whether it's 9 or 12. I
think when you look at the usable acreage, you still have to make sure that even though
you're at a density of 6 or 9 or whatever it happens to be, that what you have in the area that
you're developing, really works. I'm not saying this doesn't work but I think there's got to be
some fine tuning that's able to be done to help this out a little bit. I don't really know what
that is right now but I'm open for suggestions on that. Questions on the conservation
easement. Did we suggest that it would be 30 feet from the rear of the, or 30 feet from the
building along the north side? Is that how it was laid out?
Aanenson: Correct. I think it was always the intent of the neighbors that that part be left in
a natural area. I guess their concern was that you have people end up mowing or planting
gardens and pretty soon it's down. They've taken out vegetation.
57
C
1
0
11
C'
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Ledvina: Can we add it as a condition?
Aanenson: Sure. I think the developer's agreed to that.
Bill Dolan: No problem. We expected that.
Ledvina: Okay. Okay.
Bill Dolan: Typically townhouse people, other than their own patio. See they don't mow the
grass anyway. So that's common grounds so.
Ledvina: Yeah. I wouldn't want to. I mean ... but just a message, or just a comment about
the situation with the decks. I would support putting in a condition limiting the size of the
decks to 80 square feet. And the reason that I would do that is I think you talked about this
earlier. If you build off the back, you're going to have these structures. You know, even
though they are several hundred feet from the neighboring properties, you're going to have
these posts and things like that, that are 20 feet long to get the footings down into, down the
side of the hill so I think 80 square feet is usable space and it also will keep them fairly close
to the ground. So I would support that. Well I think that's it for me right now.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Let me start with saying that density transfer and to the senior housing, I'm in full
support of I am a little concerned about knowing there are going to be 70 units and not
seeing a layout of them and how it's all going to work. I mean I have some concern but
there's no question that I do fully support the senior housing and in that location. I think it's
been worked out well. One of the questions Matt, or somebody brought up about the backs
of those townhomes on Kelly Court which will back up to Kimberly Lane. Just a suggestion.
Can you shorten the driveway at all so that you have a little bit more room to do some
berming and some landscaping behind the patios?
Bill Dolan: On the other side? We will shorten it as much as we possibly can.
Aanenson: We looked at that already.
' Mancino: Is that something that helps?
Aanenson: We tried to condense this because when it first came in we were concerned about
how far down the hill. We are also concerned that we have enough parking when visitors are
there that we're not blocking the street. Just to respond further back to Matt's concern. I
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
agree, it's a concern and we looked at this as a product but I don't think that it's any different
than we looked at on Mission Hills and the one we most recently looked at on Autumn
Ridge. We have a few places where this is a private street. And typically they're not, people
aren't buying these for the yard. I understand what your concern is but we tried to take those
units and bring them up the hill and we've condensed them as much as we can and still allow
where we've got enough space for people to park in the driveway. We looked at that and
believe me, that's why this was noticed twice before it came here because we've kept trying to
revise it and crunch it as tight as we can get it and still make the numbers work. But I
understand your issue. But we want to make sure we've got driveways that cars can park in,
because there's no parking on a private street. There's no parking. So we have to make sure
that we do have enough parking in there that we can get emergency vehicles through so. If
there is room to look at it but I think we're pretty tight.
Bill Dolan: Oh we are. Obviously if there's anything that we can do, we'll work it out with
staff. We've been working with them all along.
Mancino: And the only other suggestion that I would make on top of Matt's is, I would favor
a more densely vegetated area versus a fence. A privacy fence. Now, I don't know if that
means the people can still put up a privacy fence if they want to or not, but at any rate.
Ledvina: Well I don't know.
Aanenson: It's a PUD. You can make it a condition of the PUD.
Ledvina: I think fences along that street would be very unattractive and I would support
making that a condition. Eliminating the use of fences.
Mancino: Okay.
Bill Dolan: You're suggesting use vegetation instead?
Ledvina: Yes. If they want to achieve screening, that they use vegetation and landscaping to
provide that screening.
Mancino: I'd like to make the comment that I think that the applicant has done a wonderful
job of, extraordinary job of trying to preserve as many of the oaks, the white oaks as possible.
Building retaining walls, etc so I am very glad about that. One of the things that I would
suggest to city staff is, is that during this time of construction, which is you know, the oaks
are very susceptible and very fragile, that our forestry intern spend some extra time ... that she
visits the site and makes sure that everything is going well.
59
u
C
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Bill Dolan: ...you mentioned that. The environmental laws that are now getting passed and
the tree ordinance and so on that you have passed in the last few years and so on, we're
taking note of that as to design and so on and so forth ... and that's what happened and this
gentlemen was talking about, what he doesn't know that before we got through with that
project, I personally fined that fellow. But now he's learning, okay. And now we have
fences. We fence those areas and so on and so forth but until we all get in step with
everything...
Mancino: Okay. On recommendation number 2, I would just like to add to change Lot 52 to
Outlot A. I would like to also add the line, this outlot can never be built upon. Because I
think outlots can be built on. I mean we've built on.
Al -Jaff: No, they can't.
Mancino: Oh they can't? Aren't we building on an outlot right now?
' Aanenson: Well it'd have to come back and get ... we're just doing the preliminary plat right
now.
I Mancino: Oh! So we don't need to add on that?
' Aanenson: No.
Scott: Do you have any questions, specific questions for the applicant because you've been
' standing there.
Bill Dolan: Oh, that's alright.
' Mancino: No, I don't.
' Scott: This is kind of more of a discussion time for the commissioners so, have a seat.
' Mancino: Sharmin, about the height of buildings. Where do we measure the height of the
building? For instance, there are some buildings that I have seen that look over 40 feet tall to
me in Chanhassen and that is, I mean like on the townhouses that are going to be on the
' north side of Kimberly Lane and the basements are going to be 9 or 10 feet tall. Do we, is
the height at the lowest building point?
Al -Jaff: We're actually taking average between the heights and the... elevations.
WE
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Mancino: It's an average, okay. So there are, that is why there are buildings that are taller
than, I thought you went to the lowest. So what will the building heights of these be from
the lowest level? Do you have any idea? Do you have any idea of the product?
Kirk Vallette: From this point of the roof ..will be about 35 feet, even on the back side.
That's the mid -point of the roof.
Mancino: Is that here or is that at the peak?
Kirk Valette: No, it's not at the peak. It would be halfway between those two. A vertical
distance would be right...
Mancino: And that's about 35?
Kirk Valette: 35...
Mancino: Okay. The only other suggestion that I would like to make is that in number 4, I
would like to add, not or color but and color so that we do have a variation in color between
the townhomes. And also that if the electrical, and I'm thinking of Oak Ponds right now. If
the electrical from the 4 units are going to come together in one place and be on the outside
of the unit, that that be covered. Boxed in. Because one of the things that I notice on Oak
Ponds as I drive through there is that all the electrical faces to the streets and I would like to
camouflage or hide.
Aanenson: We'd have to check on what we can do as far as building code because that's the
power panel box. There are specific.
Mancino: They're actually attached to the units?
Aanenson: Right. There are specific codes as far as height but we can certainly check on
that and see what you can screen it and landscaping wise.
Mancino: Yes, it can be landscaping but it would be year round landscaping. Thank you
Those are all my comments.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: I'm also in support of the density transfer. Also to echo the comments about the
conservation easement. The lighting issue. Decks and also Matt's and Nancy's comments
with regards to the privacy fences. We get into the subject of transition here and I think
61
[I
' Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
really the main issue I see for transition is really the screening and the buffering in terms of,
' it appears to be that there's a good back and forth going on with the developer to put in some
additional trees and so forth. Like it or not, the distance is some element of transition and in
the process, and that is my perspective and so, I think any additional cooperation between the
' two sides with respect to the screening and the height and so forth is really what I see as
being one of the key issues. So other than that I would support the additions that have been
' discussed thus far.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
' Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Amendment
to PUD #92 -3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one outlot and Site
' Plan Review #95 -3 as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21, 1995,
and subject to the following conditions. Outlined in the staff report with the following
changes and additions. Elimination of condition number 1. Modify condition number 4 to
' change the second sentence to read, introduce some variation among buildings facing north
through the shape, eliminate facing north. Introduce some variation among buildings through
the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers and color. The
' rest will read as stated. Condition number 12. Should I go through everything?
Aanenson: We've got them modified.
' Ledvina: Okay. Condition number 12 to read per the recommendations identified in
memorandum dated March 1, 1995 from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al -Jaff, subject 92 -3
' PUD. Okay. An addition of condition number 27. The lighting shall meet the maximum
intensity permitted at the property boundaries. The maximum permitted by ordinance.
Number 28. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. Number 29.
Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings along
the north side of the development. Condition number 30. Fencing for screening is not
allowed within the development. Condition number 31. The applicant shall provide
' additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the footprint down the hill and to
provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff. Condition number 32. Preliminary
plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting.
' Conrad: I second.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we pass along the staffs recommendation as
modified. Is there any discussion?
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
Ledvina moved, Comad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an
amendment to PUD 992 -3, preliminary plat to subdivide 8.5 acres into 51 lots and one oudot
and Site Plan Review 995 -3, as shown on the plans dated February 16, 1995 and February 21,
1995, and subject to the following conditions:
1. Change Lot 52 to Outlot A.
2. Amend the PUD contract to permit the transfer of density within the development of
Oak Pond.
3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the
applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation among buildings
through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, and
color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span on Building B.
4. The developer shall incorporate street lights into the overall development plans. Street
lights shall be placed along the interior streets and intersections with Santa Vera Drive.
The plans shall be revised and submitted to staff for review and approval.
5. A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street
and utilities.
6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication as required by
ordinance.
7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy
basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
9. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Provide an approved turn - around at the west end of Kelly Court or sprinkler units
beyond 150 feet from the intersection of Kelly Court and Santa Vera Drive.
b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed along Kimberly Lane and Kelly
Court at 75 foot intervals by the applicant. Pursuant to City Policy #06 -1991.
63
u
I Planning ommission Meeting - March 1 1995
g g ,
C. Turning radii on the private streets shall be approved by City Engineering and Fire
' Marshal.
d. Additional fire hydrants will be required at the east entrance to Kelly Lane off
Santa Vera Drive, also at the east entrance to Kelly Court off Santa Vera Drive
and between Lots 29 and 30.
e. A ten (10) foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
I 10. The applicant shall enter into a PUD contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
I 11. The applicant shall comply with the Building Officials recommendations as outlined in
the memo from Steve Kirchman to Sharmin Al -Jaff, dated March 1, 1995.
' 12. On Sheet 6 of 10, the plans indicate a definition of the construction limit fencing that
states "...snow fence shall be constructed to keep all manner construction activity in the
canopy area..." The wording should be changed to read "...snow fence shall be
' constructed to keep all manner construction activity out of the canopy area..."
13. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed and maintained along the entire westerly
' perimeter of the construction limits adjacent to the wetlands. Type I erosion control
fence may be used on other areas. The applicant should be aware of that additional
erosion control may be required behind the curb on the south side of Kimberly Lane.
L
I I
14. All areas disturbed during site development shall be immediately restored with seed and
mulch, sod and /or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading is completed
unless the City Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber
blanket. In any case, all disturbed areas must be restored before November 15, 1995.
15. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The construction plans
are subject to a final City review and approval process. Upon completion of the street
and utility improvements, the applicant shall supply the City with as- built, mylar
drawings.
16. The developer shall obtain all of the necessary permits from the Watershed District,
DNR, MWCC, Minnesota Department of Health and comply with all conditions of the
permits.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
17. The developer will be responsible for maintaining the storm sewer sediment basins until
the entire development is built out and all areas are full revegetated. Upon completion
of the project, the sedimentation basin located in the northeast corner of the site shall be
abandoned and the storm sewer extended to the east pond.
18. The applicant shall provide the City with updated drainage and ponding calculations for
the entire development including Phases I and II. The storm sewer shall be designed for
a 10 year storm event. The applicant shall document that the existing storm sewers are
capable of the additional runoff from Phase III. The City may require additional catch
basins pending review of the final storm sewer calculations.
19. The applicant will be responsible for restoration of the City's boulevard along Santa
Vera Drive. Security shall be included in the PUD agreement to guarantee boulevard
restoration.
20. Kelly Court shall provide an acceptable turn around to the Fire Marshal or all units
beyond 150 feet within Kelly Court shall be sprinklered.
21. Landscaping shall be rearranged along the east lot line of Lot 52 in a fashion that will
allow access to the easterly ponding area by City maintenance crews.
22. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over Lot 51 for wetlands and
the storm water retention ponds up to the 100 year flood level. In addition, a 20 foot
wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat along the east lot
line of Lot 52.
23. The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval haul routes for exporting I
of material from the site.
24. All of the utility and street improvements will be privately owned and maintained by the '
homeowner's association. The covenants /association by -laws shall incorporate language
notifying the homeowners of this responsibility.
25. The driveway access to Lot 49 shall be separated from Lots 50 and 51.
26. The lighting shall meet the maximum intensity permitted by ordinance at the property I
boundaries.
27. The size of the decks shall be limited to 80 square feet. '
65 '
J
J
l
7
Planning Commission Meeting - March 1, 1995
28. Conservation easement shall be established beyond 30 feet of the rear of the buildings
along the north side of the development.
29. Fencing for screening is not allowed within the development
30. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to account for the expansion of the
footprint down the hill and to provide additional vegetation in areas acceptable to staff.
31. Preliminary plat shall be public noticed for the City Council meeting.
All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Scott: And Commissioner Mancino, your summary.
Mancino: My no has nothing to do with what the applicant has brought before us. It has to
do with looking at a preliminary plat, a revised one that came in 3 years after the first one
and it seems tonight that the neighbors in the area did not get notice of it. And that's why
I'm against it.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUD AMENDMENT FOR CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER TO SUBDIVIDE
OUTLOT C INTO 7 OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/WAREHOUSE LOTS, AND ONE
OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF AUDUBON ROAD
SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD, AND NORTH OF LAKE
DRIVE WEST, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER SECOND ADDITION,
ENGELHARDT AND ASSOCIATES.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, any questions or comments for staff? Dave, comments?
Hempel: No initial comments.
Scott: Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation please?
Bill Engelhardt: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Bill Engelhardt. I'm
representing the owners of the project which is the Audubon 92 Partnership. I think I can
make this very brief, unless you have some direct questions then we can address those.
..
C