Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
3. Prairie Creek Townhomes
1 3 i „ C ITYOF - - - - 1 CHANHASSEN I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by City Administrator 1 MEMORANDUM Endorsed_ ✓ Modified 1 TO: Planning Commission Reiecte' De FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Date Submitted to Commission I DATE: March 30, 1993 Date Submitted to Council 4 - a f -93 I SUBJ: Prairie Creek Townhomes I On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and site plan for the Prairie Creek Townhomes. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the item until the following issues could be addressed: 1 1. Impervious coverage. 1 Planning Commission Comments: The majority of the Planning Commission stated that the impervious coverage should not exceed 35%; and if the applicant wants to exceed 35 %, they must convince the Planning Commission why. Ladd Conrad thought that the 1 impervious coverage was originally limited to accommodate affordable housing and that the proposed site plan had too little open space. Other Planning Commissioners felt we 1 would be setting a precedent for the other PUD multi - family outlots by allowing this site plan to exceed the permitted impervious coverage. I Applicant's Comments: The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which removes one additional unit for a total of 24 townhome units (3 less than the original proposal), and an impervious coverage of 40 %. The applicant has submitted a letter explaining their I position on this (see attached). The type of units that the applicant is proposing are similar in floor plan to a single family residence, which results in more impervious coverage than if a "stacked" unit would be proposed. The applicant has explained that I this proposed style of unit fits the needs of the user they are building the units for and for which there is an existing demand for. The applicant has stated that they are not going to propose the "stacked" units and they do not believe a higher density housing type I would be acceptable to either the neighbors or the City Council. They are requesting the Planning Commission to act on this most recent submittal -- either approval or denial -- so that the item can go on to the City Council. 1 I It r PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 2 Staff's Comments: As was pointed out by Ladd Conrad during discussion at the March 17, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, the multi- family outlots were required as part of the PUD approval. The original zoning for the PUD site (prior to the Lake Susan Hills ' PUD) contained multi- family zoning (R -4, R -8, R -12), and the city did not want to lose the opportunity for provision of a variety of housing types in Chanhassen. Therefore, we required multi - family areas to remain. The outlots for multi- family which were created ' as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD were tied to a total number of multi- family units permitted for the whole site. Detail review of the outlots did not take place, as far as applying the proposed densities, setbacks, etc. This detailed review was left for the process we are going through now. When staff first reviewed the proposed submittal, it was clear that the plan was not ' intended to result in "affordable" housing, but it did result in a clustered unit which is in demand by certain types of our population. It also met the definition of medium density housing. The proposed dwellings were of unusually high quality, were attractively designed, and located on a site plan that could, with improvements, be acceptable. Therefore, staff took the position to work with the proposed site plan. As a result, staff required the applicant to reduce the number of units and impervious surface, but allowed the same type of units as proposed and allowed increased impervious surface cover. In replacement for the higher impervious surface coverage, we asked for increased landscaping and architectural design. The proposed units, which are directly adjacent to existing single family units, were a design which was compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. In fact, the residents were very pleased with what was being proposed. The residents, after leaving the Planning Commission meeting, were adamantly opposed to higher density housing being located ' at the proposed site. The revised site plan results in an impervious surface coverage of 40 %, which meets staff's original recommendation. This does not meet the Planning Commission's recommendations of 35% impervious surface coverage. The Planning Commission should understand that 31% or 35% impervious surface coverage does not permit the type of housing proposed, and that a higher density unit is all that will meet the conditions. If higher density housing is what the Planning Commission feels is most suitable to this site and necessary to provide, then the Planning Commission should recommend denial of the proposal. Staff will continue to recommend approval, with conditions, because we feel the intent of the original PUD is still being met. A few years ago, Lundgren Brothers applied for a change to their Near Mountain PUD, which had created a high density outlot on the Summit. Lundgren Brothers requested permission to change the high density units to single family units because the housing 1 Planning Commission 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 1 Page 3 demand was for single family development, not for higher density. Staff recommended against this proposal because the city was loosing an area designated for higher density housing, and because that higher density outlot was one of the reasons the original Near Mountain PUD was approved. Both the Planning Commission and City Council approved of the change from high density to low density because they felt single family units were suitable to the site. Staff's position in this current case (Prairie Creek), is to recommend approval because an alternative housing type is still being provided. Thus, our goal of providing a mix of housing opportunities in Chanhassen is being met. 2. Apply new PUD regulations. Planning Commission Comments: The Planning Commission requested staff get a legal opinion as to whether the new PUD regulations can be applied to this proposal. 1 Staff's Comments: The answer to whether the new PUD regulations can be applied is yes (see attached letter from Roger Knutson). The PUD contract has a 5 year grace period, after which new regulations can be applied. Applying the new PUD regulations results in an increased setback from 25' to 50', and 30' along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Drive. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be permitted, but in no case shall the density exceed the comprehensive plan. The new PUD regulations also require increased landscaping/buffering and architectural design over the earlier ordinance. When staff first reviewed this submittal, we compared the new PUD regulations with the existing PUD contract and the proposed site plan. Staff understood that we could apply the new regulations, but also that we cannot pick and choose from the new and old regulations as to which regulations we want to apply. The choice was to use the PUD contract in its entirety or the new PUD regulations in its entirety. We believed that the proposal could meet or exceed all current PUD landscape and architectural design standards, and use of the new PUD ordinance was not required to obtain compliance. Furthermore, we noted that the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with the terms of an approved PUD contract and are reluctant to use a technicality to void it, particularly when there appeared to be little or no net gain for the city or area residents. 1 The increased PUD setbacks will substantially reduce the amount of buildable area of the outlot. The increased setbacks will also result in more open space and reduced impervious surface coverage. Applying the new PUD ordinance, the type of proposed units would have to be reduced, and the provision of an internal private street, which meets fire code, may not be possible. The current proposal does not meet the 5,000 square ft. minimum, but it does meet the density as stated by the comprehensive plan (up to 8 units /acre). If the Planning Commission/City Council recommends reduced 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 March 30, 1993 Page 4 ' impervious surface coverage and higher density, the lot sizes will be even less than what is currently proposed, and the density would exceed the comprehensive plan (4 -8 units /acre). Therefore, the new PUD regulations may conflict with the direction the 1 Planning Commission is taking. The current proposal meets, if not exceeds, the new PUD landscaping regulations, and the 1 architectural design is of very high quality. In summary, staff felt that we were getting essentially the same using the PUD contract 1 and R -8 regulations as what we would have gotten with the new PUD regulations. The only major difference was the increased setbacks which would have resulted in more open space. The outlot was created with the old regulations in mind, 25' setbacks, and applying the increased setbacks to an existing lot of record results in the use of the lot being reduced. This, in addition to having to apply the other new PUD regulations (which further reduced density and lot area), was the reason staff chose to apply the existing PUD contract in reviewing the proposal. 3. Architecture of the buildings. Planning Commission Comment: - The Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide more architectural features on the rear of the townhome units. Applicant's Comment: The applicant has provided increased window treatments to the rear of the units and has drawn in the decks. The result is a more attractive elevation (see reduced plans). The applicant is not proposing trim boards, stating that this is not consistent with the architectural style that they are proposing. Staff's Comment: The proposed rear elevations are acceptable to staff. We continue to believe the units are of high quality and are in favor of the proposed design. ' MISCELLANEOUS 1 The revised site plan has removed one additional townhome unit for a total of 24 townhome units. The applicant had previously agreed to remove two townhome units. The applicant has removed three townhome units from the originally proposed 27 townhome units. The units that 1 have been removed were adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard. The applicant has also provided four (4) visitor parking spaces as recommended by staff. The revised site plan has broken up the expanse of the townhomes along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive. The applicant has also shifted the alignment of the townhomes adjacent to the existing single family residences to provide increased separation. 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 5 The applicant has provided a revised landscaping plan to meet the conditions of the staff report and comments made at the Planning Commission. The revised landscaping plan provides details on the proposed berming. The berming will contain extensive landscaping which will be 3' -5' in height, with the potential to increase to 15' in height. This will provide additional screening 1 where necessary. The applicant has added an American Linden to Lake Susan Drive and some berming. Berming and landscaping has also been added to the interior lot line. The PUD contract stated that $500 worth of landscaping had to be provided for each multi - family unit. The applicant has stated that the proposed landscaping greatly exceeds this dollar amount. The overall landscaping plan is equal to, if not greater than, what would have been required with the new PUD regulations. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On April 7, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended on a 6 to 1 vote to recommend approval of the Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans with two minor additions to staff's conditions. These additions are noted in the recommendation to the City Council in bold. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25, 1993, with the following conditions: 1 1. Change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By -laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site. , 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of this site O..*' B, C and D cannot exceed 40 %. 1 3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right -of -way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 1 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24, 1993. 1 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 March 30, 1993 Page 6 ' 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed within the development in accordance to the City's typical 8 -foot wide bituminous trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within the County right -of -way by Carver County and City. ' 7. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall construct an interim 1 sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. 8. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 1 9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 10. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. ' The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 11. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 12. A cross - access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 13. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief [pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w)]. See site plan 1 submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. 1 b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted site plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed)]. 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 1 Page 7 c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre -Fire Plan," pursuant to Chanhassen City PP P Y Policy #07 -1991 (copy enclosed). e. Add and /or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site, pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3. f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specifications, pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(0. g. Premise identification Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 14. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on 1 the grading plan prior to final plat approval. b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pads and 1 elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval. d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final plat approval. e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval. 1 15. The applicant shall submit sight line details for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project." 1 1 1 Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 8 1 ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Letter from applicant dated March 24, 1993. 2. Letter from Roger Knutson dated April 1, 1993. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 17, 1993 4. Staff Report dated March 17, 1993 5. Reduced Plans. 6. Front and Rear Elevations. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated April 7, 1993. 8. Plans. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Jasper 'Develo rye p te 235 W. lst St. • WACONIA, MN 55387 ' 443 -2181 Metro • 442 -5611 Local • 442 -4934 Fax 1 March 24, 1993 i Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 4 RE: Prairie Creek Preliminary Plat and Site Plan ' Ms. Olsen: ' We are hereby requesting that the Planning Commission review of this project that was tabled on March 17th be placed on the agenda for the April 7th meeting. In response to the questions that were raised at the March 17th meeting, we are herewith submitting a revised site plan reducing the proposed number of units from 27 to 24. We have attempted to address the ques- tion of the resulting impervious surface coverage in the comments that follow. , Except as noted in our continents, we concur with and agree to abide by the 18 recommendations for approval as listed in the staff report. The comments are as follows: 1. We believe that the type of units proposed are compatible with the adjacent single - family home neighborhood. The proposed units, while not responding to the "affordable housing" market, do respond to a known market, that of the empty- nesters and young professionals. The units are not intended to attract families with children, thus it is likely that the average number of people per household will not ex- ceed two. To meet this market requires 1 level units with attached two -car garages which tends to increase the land coverage. We have calculated that multi- story, affordable housing meeting the land 1 requirements could be built on the site yielding 40 units at 35% coverage and 35 units at 31% coverage. Considering the proximity to the existing single - family neighborhood, we do not believe that "affordable" housing is compatible. 2. Our engineers have calculated the resulting run -off at the various percentages of land coverage. They are as follows: 31% coverage = 16.7 CFS 35% coverage = 17.5 CFS 40% coverage = 18.5 CFS 1 March 24, 1993 Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner Page 2 Our understanding of these figures is that the differential is not significant and has little impact on the ability to successfully control run -off. 3. As was stated at the March 17th meeting, the construction of the ' temporary detention pond will not adversely affect existing trees and its size will not significantly change with a higher surface coverage. The pond is to be located on park land that currently is not used for any other purpose. 4. In response to questions raised about the exterior appearance of the back side of the units, we have modified them to include some 11 additional window treatment. The suggested addition of trim boards, etc., is not consistent with the architectural style we are pro- posing. Additionally, we believe that the landscaping will signif- icantly soften the simple lines of the units. The units adjacent to the single - family lots (specifically units 1 -4) have been re- positioned to increase the distance from the rear property line. 5. The amount of landscaping proposed for this project exceeds the re- quired amount by approximately 100 %. It is our understanding that the landscape designer has satisfactorily clarified the amount of landscaping to be done on the proposed berms. 6. In lieu of standard street lighting within the project, we are pro- posing to provide a residential type post light, controlled by photocell, for each unit. Experience with other projects has proven that this type of lighting is ample and eliminates the objectionable intense light from standard street lighting. Further, we believe that the proposed lighting makes identification of the units easier. 7. We have added the recommended visitor parking to the revised site plan. As a final comment, it appears that the reasons for the density and imper- il vious surface standards in the 1987 PUD agreement are unclear. Perhaps they cannot be reasonably applied to this proposed project which may be quite different from what was envisioned at that time. Since the devel- opment of the adjacent single - family land in now complete, it is in this context that the appropriateness of this project should be considered. Sincerely, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF WACONIA i Pe James E. Jas r President 11 JEJ /prr 04/01/93 11:29 12612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN. CITY HALL X002%003 11 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT (St. FUCHS, P.A. Attorneys ut Lnw Ti Ir.s.; I C:arni;h.li (612) 452 - 5000 Royer N. h'nur.on FIN ((I2) 457..-5550 Thr:tvos M. 5cotr t �aii I:unr; Ii W,il,r,;n F111,,rl r. April 1, 1993 h,; Ila 1) St el BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lake Susan Hills West PUD Dear Jo Ann: In 1987 the City Council rezoned the Lake Susan Hills West property PUD in accordance with a Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 16, 1987. Preliminary plat approval is now being sought for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, single family, and the Prairie Circle Townhome Addition. You asked me to comment on the effect of paragraph 7 of the PUD agreement which provides: Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For Five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. Since five years has passed since PUD approval was granted, this provision is applicable. It means, for example, that if the City has new design standards for streets the City can impose the new standards on the PUD. The City could also rezone the property from PUD to some other classification. The provision does not mean that the design elements in the j PUD as approved in 1987 are superseded by the new PUD design criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 179 adopted on November 23, Suite 317 • Eagandak Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55171 1 04/01/93 11:30 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 444 CHAN, CITY HALL 2003.003 11 Ms. J0 Ann Olsen April 1, 1953 Page 2 1992. Lake Susan Hills is zoned PUD in accordance with the PUD Agreement. That agreement continues to be the basic zoning regulation for the property as to the issues addressed in that ' agreement. The City has the authority to change the agreement by a rezoning action. Unless this occurs, both the City and developer are bound by that agreement. Although the City is bound by the PUD agreement, as to issues not expressly addressed in the PUD, new regulations generally ' applicable throughout the City are applicable to Lake Susan Hills. Amendments to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20 -1179, and subdivision ordinance, City Code Section 18 -61, concerning tree preservation adopted in 1991 are applicable to Lake Susan Hills. These Code provisions require development "to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands." The phrase "as far as practical" is not defined. Because the PUD only granted concept ' approval, the City has some discretion to require modification to take the new tree regulations into consideration. _ly yours, ' PBELL, 40 SON, SCOTT -, P.A. 1 = - B. 1 Roge N. Knutson RNK:srn 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 26 Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that give time to come back with what you want. If the reports have to go out next week, you won't get it. Krauss: That's a fairly short turn around. We also should contact the, II speak to the developer. Why don't we agree that we will re- notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know. Batzli: Okay. So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in II April? Krauss: Which is the 21st. ' Olsen: It most likely will be. Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don't know what I would get the answers that you want. As far as like the tree inventory. Wayne Tauer: We'd like to comment on that. We would like to have it don in 2 weeks. You know we're on a, we're in Minnesota. We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring t get it done. 5o I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in this thing, we'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be back on the April 7th, or whatever the date was to get back and go. Batzli: Okay, what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we'll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting. Okay, thank you very much everyone for coming in. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 2711 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES. JASPER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address ' James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development Greg Holling Jasper Development Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape Don Patton RCI Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 27 Thomas A. Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court 1 Name Address Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive ' Gary & Mary Nussbaum Don Wisdorf 8391 West Lake Drive 8639 Chan Hills Drive No. David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive 1 Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Greg Holling: I'm Greg Holling, representing the applicant, Jasper Development. James Jasper and Jay Jasper are also here if there's other questions that come up. As far as this plan, what's been done is there's ' two units that were dropped out. If you look here, there was a 4 unit building in the center of Powers Boulevard. Close to Powers Boulevard we took one unit out there and spread these apart. And then we also took one unit off from the 4 unit building which was closest to Lake Susan Hills 1 Drive and Powers Boulevard. And in doing that then we pulled the drive over approximately 20 feet to give more green space between the units that were tight between units 22 and 3 is what's shown on this plan. As Jo Ann ' mentioned, that reduces our coverage down to actually we figured 42.9% or approximately 43 %. When we first submitted these plans we had somehow gotten our information twisted as far as how much coverage we could ' actually have and thought we were meeting the Code when we submitted our initial plan. And when Jo Ann notified us after we had submitted them, well then it ended up being just too tight as far as the timing to get revised plans. Get all these plans revised. I think the report covers ' pretty much most of the other things fairly well. It is very important for us to get these number of units to make the project feasible and essentially what's being proposed I think makes a much nicer development than trying to get a larger number of units and having to stack them up. This is a typical, this is a 75 foot berm...from 1 to 3 feet high and as you can see it's planted very heavily. I also have a list of plants that will go on this berm. Would you like to see the list of those plans? ' Batzli: Sure. ' Greg Holling: So if you have this, this is a deciduous tree on the berm right here that rolls into these 3 evergreen trees. And this is somewhat typical of berms around the project as is this one. Even though they're ' all a little bit uniquely different, I think it gives you a pretty good picture of what...project. So there will be substantial screening all the way around this project_...and we need some sight lines into the project obviously but most of these berms are very close. Sometimes...deciduous 1 trees we'll be able to see under to see the project and other times the sight lines will be pretty much restricted by the berming and the planting. The plants generally on the berm are large, ranging from 3 to 4 1 feet to as high as 15 feet at maturity. Batzli: What do you think about salt spray? Greg Holling: From roads? 1 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 28 II Batzli: Yeah. II Greg Holling: Well that's always something that can happen to plants... Batzli: So the Amber Maples and those kind of things are hardy enough toll withstand that? Greg Holling: I don't know how close we are to the road. How close are we to the road? This is kind of arbitrary as to where that path is going II to be so all we have to work with was putting that path inside the property line and there's a fairly small area inbetween buildings and the path to get it landscaped so. We're taking all this into consideration.. II probably works the best. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions in the staff report? Greg Holling: Yes. II Batzli: And do you have any disagreement with any of those conditions? Greg Holling: I guess as part of the original report, the main objection!! we would have would be the losing of the 3 or 4 units and I think...did address that. Staff felt comfortable dropping out 2 units. Otherwise I believe...that was a real problem. I guess the one thing would just be , tabling the project. If that's a consideration, when we had originally been talking with Jo Ann, we were led to believe there would be another Planning Commission meeting in 2 weeks. And from what I understand, ther isn't going to be now so we'd certainly appreciate it if it would be possible for you to consider the project. Batzli: Would you prefer a negative recommendation to table? II Greg Holling: I guess it depends. I guess we're really in a sense expecting a negative one on how the plans were originally submitted. As ' far as if you would consider a recommendation on going down to 25, would that be what you're referring to? Batzli: Well I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel but I'm just J1 saying, if you need us to act on it tonight, would you prefer that we giv you a negative recommendation than to table it to study it? Greg Holling: As far as the 27 units, I guess we would probably prefer tcl be tabled. I guess either one of them we'd prefer to be tabled rather than turned down because we do feel that we have a project we can work with and that the staff supports the project and that we can work that II out. Batzli: Okay, thank you. II Greg Holling: Thank you very much. Conrad: Before he sits down, can I ask him a question? II II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 29 Batzli: Sure. Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chair. Really our district standard for R -8 is 35% impervious surface and you really haven't made a compelling argument to change it other than it's not financially feasible but I think in the PUD you should. So I think why don't you take a few seconds here and tell us why we should change it from the 35. Even though the contract says 31, I ' think we could all rationalize a 35 because that is our standard. You're coming in at 45. I think you should be telling us why we should consider that. Greg Holling: Essentially what we are doing is building a project that we feel is a very high quality type project. The types of units that we'll be building are in the range of 1,200 square feet per floor and we're ' looking at 2 floors but not 2 stories so we're still looking at a lower type building. The basic units that are being proposed are in the $150,000.00 type range for the sale price and these are units that are to be lived in. They're not rental type units. They will be, I'm sorry not lived in. Of course they're all going to be lived in but owner occupied. And I think perhaps history would show that these types of projects, townhome type projects are better maintained when they're owner occupied ' than a rental unit. So we are looking at building very nice units that are we think fit in quite well with the neighborhood. Each unit will be individually designed. They'll have different textures on the front of the buildings. Stucco, brick and some cedar. We are...I don't know how much more landscaping. Do you know how much we're exceeding the minimum standards? Mark Jeffries: It would be at least 2 1/2 %... Olsen: That's commercial /industrial. ' Greg Holling: A big reason that we're exceeding the minimum percentage of coverage is because of the size of the units. Each individual unit that ' we're building. And so in order to build a nice, larger unit that's very attractive for the type of people that are being marketed, it takes on more coverage. And as was mentioned by Jo Ann, it was allowed to go up to 9.3 units per acre but with a lesser coverage essentially the only way you ' can do that is by having 2 story above the normal grade in order to get that and try to get your square footage stacked on top of each other. And so that's why we're at the percentage that we're at. I would say that's basically the compelling reason that we exceed that percentage. Conrad: Thanks. Jay Jasper: Excuse me, I'm Jay Jasper with Jasper Development. Could I just make a clarification of that? Batzli: Sure. Why don't you come up to the microphone. Jay Jasper: When we were looking at this piece of land initially, it has ' a very unique shape and we were looking for a piece of land not to do starter family or entry level townhomes, because there are a lot of builders doing that out there and obviously you could stack them in there Meetin II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 30 11 and do that. We've done this project before in other communities and there's a strong demand for professional people and empty nesters. I II think the trade -off between higher coverage is lower number of units and the higher selling price. The overall value of that project. You're not going to see rental units. You're not going to see lots of cars outside. You're going to see well maintained improved projects and you'll see over ' a period of about 3 to 5 years that these projects typically improve upon themselves. They'll be adding landscaping. They'll be keeping up the painting. They'll be doing all those sorts of things. I think you'll II find that in the long run the trade -off for coverage or number of units, lesser number of units will be well worth while. Mancino: Jay, I have a question. You said that they won't be, you won't" be able to rent these units? Jay Jasper: We can't prohibit someone from doing that but because of the' market price, we've not seen any of them that we've built previously rented out. I suppose if someone's living here 6 months out of the year, they could rent it out to somebody for 6 months out of the year. We're not targeting investors. We're not keeping any of them as rentals and th past sales history on the other projects we've done has been professional people and empty nesters. II Mancino: Okay, but your covenants do let the owners know that they can rent? Jay Jasper: They can rent. The rent would be awfully high on a II $150,000.00 townhouse. Scott: Jay, have you developed properties similar to, not the land but II built townhomes similar to this in this area that we could take a? Jay Jasper: Actually with the neighborhood meeting I went through this, II we could all maybe get a bus and go out there. We did a small 10 unit version identical to this in Waconia. Scott: Oh where? II Jay Jasper: Where in Waconia? I Scott: Yeah. Jay Jasper: It's on East 2nd Street. If you come up from Main Street, II you go over 1 block and you go as far east, it deadends at this project. And it's a combination of single family and multi - family. We had both these types of units. We have the small and the large and it was a mix oll them. We sold just as many small as large. And it's virtually, they're all sold out. Half are completed. You could see color schemes and all those sorts of things. We're going to be duplicating that identically as" far as exterior, floorplans. There will be more landscaping because Waconia's ordinances doesn't have as much requirements as Chanhassen's does and the market's a little bit different. But we're going to be using those actually as, after the project is approved to help us with pre -sale because most of those people will let us in. We do have a model left II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 31 that's sold, or on contingent that we can use and so that would be a good ' project to go look at. I don't know if anyone in the audience went to look but that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting that I'd be happy to meet anyone out there to take a look at it. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else? Greg Holling: No. Thank you. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there someone in the audience that would like to address the Commission? I ask that you come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Pat VanAsh: Are we allowed to do this as a team? 1 Batzli: Sure, you can tag team. Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh. This is my wife Pat. We reside at 8320 West Lake Court, and if I can show the map here. We're one of the more affected homeowners in that this is our property right here. So you can see that the back side of our property lines up with 3 townhomes. Well 3 complete townhomes and a fourth one right behind it. One of the proposals that was set forth at the neighborhood meeting was that this was going to be done in two phases. With the initial phase being done out ' there towards Powers Boulevard and the second phase to be completed in approximately 2 to 2 1/2 years, and that being the phase that adjoins our property. We would ask that that proposal be reversed to allow the homeowners, especially along here to see a more gradual change and not ' such an abrupt change in the landscaping. And that we would be under total construction for 2 1/2 years. With that proposal reversed and this would be completed right away, which by the way we were told the townhomes would begin at about $110,000.00 and go up to $150,000.00 to $155,000.00. We're assuming that those, all those in the back here that are walkouts. Which are right at the 25 foot setback, so they're very close to our home. But with these to be completed originally at the outset, we feel it would give anybody becoming a potential homeowner, a townhome, a better idea of what the flow will be between neighborhoods. So that is one of the things that we are concerned with. Overall I'm very comfortable with the ' developer and the builder from what I've seen in Waconia. I do think they did do a nice job over there. We do have some cosmetic ideas that we'd like to suggest by some of the other neighbors. Jay Jasper: Just a clarification on two points he made. The ones in Waconia were $110,000.00 to $150,000.00. Not a representation that the Chanhassen ones would be $110,000.00 to $150,000.00. And the other ones, ' the 2 1/2 years represented the other outlot that is available across the road in Lake Susan Hills and that is a future possible development...two phases but that would be 2 to 2 1/2 years down the road. Just a clarification. Batzli: So you envision constructing this all this summer, if it was passed? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 32 Jay Jasper: We didn't...doing it in two phases because by the time we ge roads and grading and all that stuff done, we're going to be, to start work our goal would be to have a unit ready for the Parade of Homes. I mean that's pretty optimistic but we're not going to get it all done in a year. So we would probably try to split our construction... 1 Batzli: You'd be splitting it right now with the one that isn't approved yet that you haven't brought in front of us? Jay Jasper: No. This, we would just split into two kind of phases of construction. Batzli: Oh, okay. Pat VanAsh: Okay, so then...how long expect for this particular development that's before us tonight from beginning to finish? How long II do you expect it to take? Jay Jasper: Probably one year would be realistic. It could take a iittil longer and then it could take a little less than that. It depends on how long it takes to put the improvements in and what the...conditions are. But the comment was 2 1/2 years for the parcel across the street. 1 Pat VanAsh: Okay. So then what you're saying is that at this point you would expect to have this entire development finished by the end of the construction season this year? Jay Jasper: No. Next year. Because we're not going to be able to barel start construction...until probably July. Pat VanAsh: So basically what you're saying then is if you start this spring and go through until the fall, or whenever, that next spring you'll begin again. Batzli: Well I think what he's saying, if you can try to address me a little bit so that we don't get into an argument back and forth here. I II think I'll paraphrase what I think he's saying and then I'll give him an opportunity later to clear it up if I'm saying it wrong. By the time the get done grading and putting in the improvements, they're towards the fal of this year. They would expect then to in 1994 to build the units. The majority of the units and then be completed by the end of 1994. Tom VanAsh: Excuse me. The original model home that he talked about was II to be out towards the front of Powers Boulevard... We're asking that they reverse that and build that back in here instead of this area, and develo between the existing homes. Batzli: You want them to build in your area first? Is that your major concern there? ' Tom VanAsh: ...two phases that he was talking about. The first phase was this portion and the second phase would be this portion. We're just asking them to reverse that since the streets and the grading all have toll be completed prior to the first units going in. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 33 ' Pat VanAsh: Basically that will allow us to have the property, their property that adjoins our's, that area would be finished first so that from our point of view we wouldn't have to look into the entire ' development and see the entire construction process starting in the outlying areas and working towards us. Instead it would be reversed and that would provide somewhat of a buffer between us and the construction zone if it were reversed. If they started on our property line and... Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yeah. As far as landscaping, that was somewhat addressed and that was another concern that we felt the landscaping between their property and our's on the lot line wasn't heavy enough. That it didn't provide or because if the 2 story walkout...are right across the back of ' our house, that we felt the landscaping wasn't heavy enough there to provide a buffer. I also was concerned that the type of landscaping because it isn't, they are 2 story, that the type landscaping that they do in there would provide for some, instead of the smaller evergreens and what not, to provide taller trees that eventually would provide a nice deep umbrella. You know further than 15 feet off the ground. That was another thing. As far as the number of units. Our initial reaction was the number of units was too high. And they have proposed to lower that but at the same time, you know it may be something for whatever is down in here but it doesn't help us out any. We've got a solid wall... Farmakes: Excuse me. Could you place that. We've got too much of a berm here. We can't see that. ' Pat VanAsh: There's a solid wall of units right across our back yard here and if the number of units is to be lowered, which I personally would like to see that happen, that one be taken out of here. Originally my suggestion was to take one off of here and one off of here or something. Or somewhere, somehow or in other words they did rearrange a little bit but if did that, it may have allowed these units also to be moved in further because they are...back yards, which I thought was awfully close. ..awfully close to the back yard. I mean not only for us but for the people who are going to live in there. ' Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yes. I had another question concerning the exteriors. With the stucco exterior. The solid, and he addressed the front of the units, which we personally did go and view them. Everything always looks great on paper, which your initial sketches did, but when you see them in person, you know like reality check. They were attractive from the front. They were, I felt they were not attractive from the back. The back is solid stucco with no detail. They basically on the four units that are connected that I saw, they all had basically the same decks. And then I also had a question concerning the stucco material itself. That it requires higher maintenance. My experience with any stucco that I've ever seen is that it looks great when it's freshly painted. After it's weathered for a year or two, it ends up looking dingy and dirty if it isn't maintained. To me it seems to be a high maintenance type thing and I guess I'm also questioning does the stucco and what not fit in 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 34 1 aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood. That's another concern. We also have a question concerning the drainage pond. It seems that it was unresolved exactly where that was going to be...and I think that needs to be determined before the plan goes any further. We need to know exactly where that's going to be placed. Whether it's down further in thil swampland or whether it's going to be done on the... Olsen: It's definitely in the parkland, not on their land but Dave can II give you more details on that. Hempel: Staff is recommending that with this development that a temporar sedimentation pond be constructed just to the north of this development within the city parkland on a temporary basis until the permanent regional pond is developed further on downstream in the Lake Susan Hills Park, which is further on to the north in an area that is yet to be designated II. exactly. We've got to go out and look at the areas so we're not destroying any wetlands or removing any trees. So our overall comprehensive storm sewer guide has shown a regional pond in that area to the north of this development in Lake Susan Hills Park. Timeframe is unknown at this time though. But there will be a small sedimentation pon at the end of the storm sewer that they're extending to the north propert line of this development. Pat VanAsh: And then a point that was brought up in the previous meeting was that... 1 Hempel: All the retention ponds in the city are maintained by city maintenance, public works crews so they do take periodic cleaning and there are easements for access for ponding areas for city crews to provide the maintenance. Batzli: Is there anything else? 1 Pat VanAsh: I think that's it. Tom VanAsh: Thank you. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. I'll let you comment after everyone' had their say. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pleas come up to the microphone. Give us your name and address for the record. Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson, 8298 West Lake Court. I live 3 doors down from VanAsh's and I'm the one that took the pictures of the Waconia II townhomes. They look nice from the front. I don't like the back and the back side is what we'll be seeing from Powers Boulevard, from Lake Susan ' Hills Drive and from our homes along that West Lake Court. I would like to see something changed for color or material or something in the back sides because then it's not as attractive as they might be from the rear. It's just a solid wall of stucco with a few colors in for deck. If something can be done. And then I would also favor that less density. III don't like the 27. I don't like the 25. I would favor 23 or 24. Just for that little more greenspace to get that greenery in there and a buffet between existing townhomes and trails and whatever in there. And the pon is also an issue for me. I don't want to have a temporary pond there and Planning Commission Meeting 9 March 17, 1993 - Page 35 then find out that there's no way to get that water to a permanent pond someplace because of the creek going through there and I don't know how you can legally change the course of a creek or how would you get water downhill and over that creek to another pond without a culvert system or something. That creek is in the way. So getting it to a regional pond is something I'd like to see covered here before any permanent approval is given. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I'm almost afraid to ask Dave but, we've had a couple comments about pond and I know you responded to that. Do we have, can you put a map up. Can you explain to us where the temporary pond... sedimentation basin is going to go? Hempel: As a part of this development, or I should point out first. There's an existing storm sewer line that discharges approximately 75 feet north of Lake Susan Hills Drive. It...runoff from the wetlands across the street. That pipe would be extended as a part of this project to outlet to the north end of this development. The developer would be extending a line off of that proposed storm sewer to serve the internal development, the storm runoff from the interior streets and housepads, and that would be conveyed then through the pipe system down to the north end. And we felt that some sort of treatment needed to be done to try and collect some of the heavy sediments that would be collected throughout the year from the sand on the roads and so forth, instead of just discharging them into the grass meadowland. It's much easier for us from a maintenance I standpoint to clean out sediment traps than try and collect sediment as it is washed further downstream. On top of that, without sediment traps there, it could also lead to future erosion problems like...washout condition all the way down to the stream that was spoke of earlier. As far as the regional pond, the permanent regional pond in the area, again we do not have the specific location of it. I have a feeling that the existing stream area and some particular area may be modified and widened to adapt for the additional ponding. We also want to treat the stream and water coming from the upstream into this regional ponding before discharging into Lake Susan. Again, once our comprehensive storm water plan is developed...will be taken care of but in the interim measures, we felt that a sediment trap would be very useful for collecting sediments from the street. Batzli: Who owns the property that we're dumping the water on? Hempel: That is city land, it's the park property. Batzli: And will it affect the neighbors' land? Have you taken a look at the impact? 11 Hempel: It is somewhat treed and wooded up in this area...sediment trap is a dry pond system. Within a few days after a rain it becomes dry. Batzli: But you're going to be taking whatever the size of this development is and right currently it has over 40% impervious, if I'm not mistaken. You'll be dumping a lot more water over there. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 36 1 Hempel: That's correct. That's another reason for the sediment trap. To ' also disperse the energy generated in the storm sewer so you don't have the washout and erosion problems. Batzli: What's the impact of going from 43% to 35% coverage on the amount of water being dumped over there? Hempel: I've not seen the overall drainage calculations yet but it would reduce it somewhat in the rooftop area and in the driveways so it would b� a small percentage of the overall impervious... Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Before you start talking, can you take that down? Thank you. Tom Rasmussen: Again, my name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganse, Court. The reason why I'm interested in this property is because kitty corner from this lot is another strip of property that's zoned exactly th same way. And I guess what I don't want to see come happening 2 -3 years from now is someone saying, well gee you allowed them 43% impervious. What are the current standards? Gee, are you going to let me do that? So on and so forth so I guess my main point is, I would like you to be consistent from setbacks, percent impervious or whatever because otherwis if you allow this development to do it, what's to stop another developer from coming in and saying hey, they did it. I want to do it too. On the!' other hand, I did live in a townhouse for 5 years and I agree with what they said concerning the market value. The market value of our homes were about $100,000.00 to $110,000.00. My next door neighbor to us, it was rental. It turned into a HUD. It was a disaster so I came out to Chanhassen to buy a single family home. So I agree with what they said and they are going after the proper market for that and stay away from the $100,000.00 townhomes. You're asking for trouble. Thank you. ' Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Oh, I'm sorry. One more. Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and I just wanted to expand a little bit on the temporary holding pond. There are several trees in the area and I'd like to see a little bit more information on how many of those trees we lose and the size of the holdin pond... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That was staff's ' recommendation for the developer to incorporate the sediment trap pond. We did give him an approximately size of the pond that we would need and it's based on the amount of contributing drainage area. That pond size i between .3 and .5 acre feet. The sediment pond that we intended, we don' foresee removal of any of the existing trees. The Park Department won't I'm sure let us do that. So it will be an area that's pretty much void oil significant trees. There may be some underbrush of course that would be removed in those areas outside the major tree areas. Gary Kassen: How long is this temporary pond going to be there? 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 17, 1993 - Page 37 Hempel: I knew he was going to ask that. ' Batzli: You danced around it very nicely up til now. ' Hempel: Well, part of it would dictate on the development pressure around the areas as it becomes developed as it slowly but surely is. That would be a priority area to look at. Part of our surface water task force, or ' course we've prioritized some areas in town to construct storm water improvements. We are limited, very limited in funding. I don't know where this area plays in the order of storm water improvements however. As this area develops, the developer will be providing the city a cash contribution to put towards this regional ponding area. So this developer and the developer across the street and upstream will also, if they cannot provide on site a necessary retention pond from both the quality and ' quantity standpoint, will be required to pay a cash contribution into the surface water utility fund to help pay for the downstream ponding. Batzli: But that money that they donate is not earmarked for this particular problem. It goes to the overall surface water quality fund. Hempel: That is correct. Batzli: So the time is indeterminate. ' Gary Kassen: Alright. I guess the second issue I wanted to talk about a little bit more is the appearance. I guess I do like the front of the townhomes. I think they look very nice. What I'd personally like to see is maybe some of the cedar or maybe even some of the brick be added to the back side because that's the side most of us will see driving by on County Road 17 and driving on Lake Susan Hills Drive and also from the homes... Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I promised you a moment of rebuttal. Did you have something in response to some of these comments? ' Jay Jasper: More clarifications than anything. To address the concerns, one of the evils of having people look at a project to see what units are going to look like. The project in Waconia is very new. The landscaping in the backyards hasn't been developed yet. Some of it isn't in and so to take a look at 5 or 10 units and say gee, that looks stacks. Well yeah, we don't have any landscaping in there. It's in a totally different setting than this is and so I don't think that's really a fair analysis of that project. When you look at single family back, the backs of single family houses, we don't talk about brick and extra cedar and those sorts of things. I don't see why this project's any different than that. If anything, we've got a consistent, well maintained, uniform, color coordinated backyard as opposed to 10 or 15 different colors in various states of repair and if anything, that's going to be an improvement. The other thing is stucco is very maintenance free and it isn't painted. It's just more a point of clarification. ' Batzli: Let me ask you two questions though, because I think they may be fair criticisms and you can maybe convince me otherwise. But you have a self contained development here so that the entire, and it looks nice from 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 38 1 the internal side but the people driving along Lake Susan Hills and the county road there, they're looking at the backs of every unit. They don't' see a single front of a unit. Jay Jasper: If that were single family, you wouldn't either. You ' wouldn't put fronts along Powers Boulevard because I'm sure you can't put driveways there. You wouldn't put fronts on Lake Susan Hills Boulevard because that's I gather a collector street. I don't think there's driveways allowed on there. 5o what you would see with single family would be all different backyards. Batzli: But you don't see the mass. 1 Jay Jasper: But these are broken up into small groups. I mean we could do 2 story manor homes, vinyl siding, crank the density. Don't worry about the impervious surface. Batzli: I don't think you could crank the density anymore but, okay. Bu so you're reply is really that you're no different than single family. We're not worried about it. We're going to sell these babies. Jay Jasper: No, it's no different than single family and you've got a controlled maintained backyard and back of the units. Color schemes all II coordinate. Not house x, house y, house z where it's pink, orange and blue. You've got something that all blends. I think we're going to be 11 very attractive. Plus we've got a lot of landscaping. Batzli: Thanks. Okay. Pete Kurth: My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive. This addition doesn't come as a surprise and I'm not opposed to townhouses being put there. I guess I would like to go on record as beinll opposed to the density and I've got a question as far as, we've talked about runoff water. That's a real wet area out there. I know that we have got a drainage problem in our back yard. Of about 4 or 5 properties" there on Lake Susan Hills and on West Lake Court there's also a water problem there. I notice that they did some cordingly out there in this area that's going to be developed. Is there something subterrean there as far as a higher than average water table or an underground stream or, is there something in that area? I mean it's between two lakes and there's lot of water problems that we seem to be addressing per addition. We talked about it in the other addition earlier and now we're talking about" it again. Is there something there that is affecting the entire area? Hempel: Mr. Chairman. Chanhassen in general has very wet conditions sporatically all over. There's a lot of draintile systems. This particular site did have some soil borings taken on it. There was 3 borings that did show a very high water table and whether they're seasonal or not, I think that's part of the reason why the low area to the north ull there is why they're filling 5 to 8 feet of material. Also to build walkout type houses but also to build the house pad up above the water table enough so they avoid any kind of future water problems. Yes, that is a low lying area. There's a natural drainageway. The ag fields used to drain that way forever. There is a drainage system on the west side o 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 39 1 Powers Boulevard that conveys drainage via a culvert underneath Powers through the site which they'll be addressing with the site grading. Further to the north is the major I believe Bluff Creek tributary. Or excuse me, it's a tributary stream anyway that goes into Lake Susan so it is, the surrounding neighborhoods all drain to this way so it just was that characteristic will give you the wet soil conditions. Pete Kurth: My concern would be that we address maybe the worst case scenario for drainage. Maybe put in some kind of drain tile or mandate some type of drain tile to handle let's say the worst case scenario. I know we had a lot of problems in our back yard after it was landscaped and everything else. Bringing it to the attention of the developer was kind of like well, too bad. Batzli: One of the conditions in the staff report currently, and you're at a disadvantage is that these things need to be addressed and run by our engineering department. I don't know that we can do anything else right now because we don't have the data. We have to do that but that type of information will need to be given to them and they'll take a look at that. Pete Kurth: Okay. Again, my concern was I guess is that, are we looking at this as an individual project or are we looking at it globally for the whole area? It seems to be, and again I was a resident out there for 3 years, the whole area has got a drainage problem and so the water table is very high and maybe we need to take a look at something other than just ' surface drainage for the area. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. Do you have something new that hasn't been ' discussed? Jim Domholt: I do. Batzli: Okay. Jim Domholt: Jim Domholt, 8251 West Lake Court. Just a comment. The comment was made that the reduction as far as the units, part of it was going to be at this end and shift everything. It was just a comment that ...look at in the placement of this road in terms of where it empties ' right onto the...so it doesn't empty right on a curve and might become a hazardous entrance out there onto Lake Susan Hills. It sounds like it's going to move closer towards the crown of the curve. I don't know, I'm not an expert on road designs but I'm concerned of moving that outlet 11 right on the curve. Batzli: Okay, thank you. And that would be looked at as well. These 1 plans are so new, I'm not sure that our engineering department has had a chance to look at that. But that would be one of the factors looked at. Does anyone else have any comments for the Planning Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in ' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 40 II Batzli: Ladd, you've had a long history of looking at development of this particular PUD. 1 Conrad: I can't remember any of it. Batzli: What do you think about the late breaking developments and what 1 do you think about the overall density and the water problems here, in no particular order. Conrad: In no particular order. Jo Ann, the 31% density. Why was that II there? Olsen: I don't know. I went back through the whole file and we've got 1 different percentages for all the other outlots. They're unusual. Conrad: Impervious surface. 1 Olsen: There's 29% and some, to be honest where the 9.3% came from, I can't answer that. That's one of the few things I went to look at. II Conrad: The higher density on this parcel, was that based on a comprehensive plan that began and the developer incorporated it into thei overall PUD? Or was that based on the developer coming in here many year ago and saying here's our PUD and we want some higher density areas? Olsen: You mean the 9.? 1 Conrad: Yeah, when we put in the three outlots. We knew they were going to be higher. 1 Olsen: Well we knew that these were going to be medium density and we had another one higher density but yes, because it was part of the PUD, they II were also looking at it having higher than the normal density within that R -8 district. Conrad: But was it our initiative? Was it our lead or was it the I developers? Olsen: I'm sure it wasn't our lead. 1 Don Patton: Jo Ann, can I address that? ...me to give the background? Olsen: Sure. 1 Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I worked, I remember Ladd was on the Planning Commission when we brought this thing through in 1987. The plan"' was done incorporating a comprehensive plan with, the comprehensive plan usually uses some common sense. You don't want single family up against a road if you can help it. You want higher density. That was R - in this il case, which is the case really of both sides of the road. The single family, again you've looked at the comprehensive plan. It's really a very abstract guideline. The plan that we took on that, there were several things. As a part of the plan we could have had lake lots. We could have" taken the lots down to the lake. There wouldn't have been lakeshore. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 41 There wouldn't have been a city path along there. We chose to go with the PUD to accommodate the city. When I went through the numbers, again I realize tonight we're looking at two projects. This was 300 acres that was planned in conjunction with city park and the people that were here at the time. As a part of that we gave over 50 acres of the 300 to the city ' for parkland, which is certainly a lot more generous than is normally requested. We thought that we had worked out issues to give the city pathways along the park, to get densities. As a part of this particular project we, at the time of that, one of the, you've got to build what's going to sell. At that time manor homes were very popular. We were looking at stacking. If you look at the other outlots, as we've called them on the PUD, they're 2 and 3 story units that were planned with a lot higher densities. Lot lower coverages. The thing that's happening today, and if you'll look at your market, the society is aging. People are going back, rather than two story units, multi -story units they want one level ' living. I think we've got to live with the time. I think the proposal that's been made tonight with 25 is reasonable with the market and the intent of the PUD that we worked out with the city and the staff back in '87 and I think it's reasonable that you approve it. Conrad: So Don, was it your lead on the high density or was it the City's lead on the high density? Don Patton: The City's. Conrad: Basically we've always been trying to find, and when I say high density, it may mean medium density or high density. It's just greater density than single family. We're always looking for a place to put it. This area seemed to be a likely place to put it and we were, I really ' don't have a problem with higher density as getting, it's closer to the city. Downtown area and I think we were probably leading the way in terms of finding some places to put medium and high density housing. But always ' thinking it was to satisfy needs for affordable housing. Affordable is a real key word. Always under pressure from Met Council to do that. And I think we all feel in Chanhassen to some degree that it's good to have affordable housing for the mix of people that we want in our city. This, I'm looking at, I see some contradictions of the 31% obviously versus what they came in at with what our standard is. And I also know that we don't want to set a precedent unless we're willing to set that precedent. Whatever we do here will be done on the other outlots. There's no doubt about it and I think what Mr. Patton is saying is they're responding to market conditions here. It's probably not achieving what we originally thought would be achieved on this parcel. So anyway, who cares? Well, I guess we've got to, I have some reactions to it. I like the design of the units. I think the stucco is just fine but I do have a problem with the density and I do have a problem with the impervious surface ratio. I'm looking, I would really like the developer to persuade me, they didn't come in and really do a very good job tonight in persuading me. Not at all. If I wanted to go beyond a standard that was in a development contract, which was 31, which everybody knows you've got to come in and tell me why, and I didn't hear that. We kind of said we're going to upgrade the units. It wasn't a compelling case so until I hear that real compelling case, other than profit, I really have to, I can slip a Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 42 development contract but I can't really at this time slip our zoning standard that we have. I don't have any comments on the drainage. 1 Batzli: So what would you like? Conrad: Well I guess, I look at this and it just looks like there is no I open space. It looks like we've got a lot of pavement and that bothers me. That's not what we're trying to do. And again, I'm guessing and I'm not looking at numbers and sometimes little sketches are deceiving but 11 it's just, again I think the density is, it seems like a contradiction. wanted higher density but I guess I want higher density with open space or where we're not really cramming people on top of, you know I'm looking foll areas that people can go and be and I don't see that in this. So again, think the developer to me didn't make that case tonight and maybe they'd like the opportunity to make a better case for it but I guess the only thing I see right now is to reduce the density. ' Farmakes: In 1987 was there an issue made with the, the claim is that higher density is what was being asked for that was adjacent to single family homes. Conrad: And we were thinking stacking. We were thinking of putting, we II were thinking affordable housing. We're thinking put more units up but we're thinking, make sure there's some green space around. Now I can't. Farmakes: ...affordable housing at $150,000.00 a unit. Conrad: Well it's not. $150,000.00 a unit. Farmakes: That's what the developer just said. 1 Conrad: Right. Farmakes: But in 1987 that wasn't part of the presentation, is what you're saying? Conrad: I don't know what the presentation was. All I can tell you is 1 that back in that time we were concerned with where can we put some higher density housing and how can we make housing more affordable. Batzli: So you don't like the fact that there's a totiot going in down the street at Dove Court here, that doesn't count for open space? You want open space on this site, not as part of the overall PUD concept? Yo know what I'm saying? We're looking at this under a microscope as oppose to the larger overall PUD which is what this gentleman suggested that we're not really doing here. We're focusing in on the tree rather than the forest here. Conrad: And it's a real valid, yeah. Absolutely. We've got to look at it in context of the overall thing but then if we are doing that, then well hold to the 31% impervious surface that we had in the development contract. 1 I Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 43 1 Mancino: Well also across the street from it's going to be high density I so it will even be more dense plus you have industrial on the north side of the high density. So we've got park, medium, single family and a lot of high density there too. I Batzli: See I guess I've long possibly been the strongest advocate of open space in the most nebulous use of the term on this commission for the last several years and yet I didn't get that feeling looking at this that I that's what I wanted more of. It doesn't help me to put 3 units on there with 3 stories and having a little bit of grass around there. You're going to end up looking at a parking lot or something. 1 Conrad: Back 5 years ago we negotiated a development agreement and the developer has the right to go up to 9 units per acre here but also has to stay in at that 31% impervious surface. 1 Batzli: But do you want to see, you know assuming there's a market for a 3 story townhome deal, if there is such a thing or 2 stories and you cram 1 them close together and get some grass growing around the edges. Is that what you'd rather see? Conrad: Brian I don't know but I do know that when you want to change the agreement, I think a key. All of a sudden, when you do want to change what the agreement is, I think you should make a compelling case and all of a sudden we're focused right on this parcel. So again, if we want to I change it from a 31% impervious surface ratio, then I think the developers have to persuade me that this is a much better plan and that we're getting something for going up to a 45 %. So in other words, I think I don't have 1 to look at the rest of the parcel right now because that was already negotiated and they have their rights to do a high density. Batzli: So you would kind of make this equivalent to Lundgren Bros coming I in and saying we don't want condos up on the Summit area. We're going to put in single family and make a compelling case to change the development agreement, because they're changing it on this particular lot. 1 Conrad: And I think in Lundgren's case they did and we listened and we changed it. But here it, I didn't hear a good case. 1 Batzli: Would you like to address the Commission? Don Patton: Well if I could just, Don Patton again. If I could just ask. I I think the homeowners, ask them. Would they rather have a 3 story unit with 31% coverage in their back yard or what's being proposed like this, which is one story. Which, most of these I think they could probably see I over because of the change in elevation. Pat VanAsh: I'll respond to that. When we were talking about this earlier and we said, if I understood you correctly. To start with, that I you were proposing to lower the number of units or that you were agreeing with the fact that the number of units should be lowered. I Conrad: Because, to open up the space. To get the impervious surface ratio that we agreed on. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 44 Pat VanAsh: However, lowering the number of units, I guess somewhere along the line you lost me. When you were talking about lowering the number of units yet you're increasing the density. Conrad: You increase density by going up. You increase density by eithe making houses smaller or putting them on top of each other. So this land absolutely when this was thought, when you say this is zoned for up to 9 units an acre, that means they go up because only 31% of the land could be covered by impervious surface. So the intent 5 years ago was to go up. I That was the agreement. You know there's a mix. When you put in a PUD there's just a mix. As Mr. Patton said, they gave up some rights to put some things on the lake and the city gave them rights to go into smaller lot sizes so it's a whole combination of stuff. But now they're asking u to change that. And then it gets kind of. Pat VanAsh: So what was good 5 years ago, good today? That's the I question...as far as Brian saying that he felt that they should...become more aggressive as far as saving those trees and more aggressive on whatever pushing the law or whatever it takes to do that. Okay, that sail point to me would hold true in this case. Just because it was good 5 years ago...5 years ago we decided this. It's too much work to change it or whatever, and just streamroll ahead with it regardless of whether it's i good for us or who it's good for. That doesn't make sense. Conrad: I don't know that we've changed our impervious ratio. In Chanhassen we kind of like open spaces and we sort of strive for that so III that's a standard that we have set for the entire city. So that one kind of is something that I don't like to give up a great deal. Yeah, there's a negative out there and you're obviously approaching it. Instead of having 27 families as neighbors, you could end up with 45 families as neighbors, you're right. Pat VanAsh: Right, and that's what I'm saying. ' Conrad: And you don't want that. Pat VanAsh: Exactly. No. 1 Conrad: And I'm not willing to set a precedent to change a zone. I gues that's the other thing. There's a potential to set a precedent here, especially within the PUD. It would be hard to tell the next developer no. Pat VanAsh: And there's also another point to make here as far as if you go higher you know and less land coverage or whatever the term was that you use the 31 %, whatever that was and start going up. Okay, that's goini to reduce the price of each individual unit or whatever. That is not in keeping with the property values in that surrounding neighborhood. In our neighborhood. ' Batzli: Okay. Your point is well taken. You need to keep in mind also, and think about this, in case we table it, that your comments earlier were directed towards forcing them to do what you're now saying you don't want' That's something you've got to keep in mind too. Planning Commission Meeting 11 March 17, 1993 - Page 45 Pat VanAsh: No, I understand. I understand what you're saying. However my comment was, that we would like to see less density. I did not say that I wanted to see it go up. ' Batzli: But by reducing units you're going to end up increasing density, reducing impervious. Pat VanAsh: However that part of the point was not being discussed in my previous comments. As far as the units going up. You understand what I'm saying? Batzli: Yeah, I know. Farmakes: Is there a height limitation in medium density? Batzli: I don't know. I'm sure there is. Mancino: Do you know what it is? ' Batzli: We've closed the public hearing. These were all Ladd's comments. Ladd, are you done with your comments? Conrad: I'm done. Batzli: Okay, Diane. ' Harberts: I'll give it a shot. Self contained is a very good word for this development. You know I guess as long as the developer feels he ' knows his market, he's going to bear the risk in terms of if he's going to sell this. My former residence, I came from a zero lot line. I didn't care for it and I'll never live in there again. In a zero lot line. I ' guess my comments are going to be directed towards, in looking at the landscape, it looks like there's trees on each one of the front yards. Is that correct? ' Olsen: With the individual ones? Harberts: Yeah. That's how I'm interpretting that. Olsen: Yeah. Harberts: We've got signage going in. We've got evidentally some lighting will go in. It's quite a bit of stuff for this area. I guess I question, you know trees are nice in the front yard but are we getting too much? I have a concern with some of the site. Sitings you know with the 2 way traffic. If you're putting trees all over. You've got your light poles. You're going to put your signage. Are we getting too much in something like this? Olsen: Within the park and drive area...? Harberts: Yeah, for the internal traffic control. I have a little concern. Evidentally Safety must have looked at it. This one driveway. Let's see over by unit number 25. I'm trying to envision how a car will 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 46 back out trying to maneuver itself if at the same time we've got a car coming in. Making sure again the sighting so I guess I'm really concerne� with the amount of landscaping, our signage, our lighting. All of that that's going to be put into this contained area. My other concerns again with the internal traffic flow. If you look at units number 7 and number" 18, from the fire safety and I guess I'm looking at it from the transit perspective...goes down the wrong way, how does it turn around? I'm guessing they're going to have to back it up around. Olsen: They designed that so the trucks don't even have to go down it. They can back around in there but also that's why they have the loop II street now...so all are within 150 feet where the truck can be 150 feet away and still service that. Harberts: Okay, so there's not the concern about the... I guess it's just really directed towards everything that's going to go into this areall with landscaping, signage, lights, of that nature. This is getting, are we going to start affecting some of the siting for the internal traffic. Some of the safety things. Trees are nice but maybe a bed of flowers is just as good considering how tight this is. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. With regard to item number 15. They talked about the revised sit plan shall include one visitor parking space per 6 units. Boy I'd like t know where you're going to put that 1 parking spot per 6 units. Olsen: Their revised plan has shown 4. , Harberts: Is it on there? Olsen: Yeah. ' Harberts: Oh okay. Okay, I missed that one. Sorry. Olsen: Well you obviously haven't seen it since we just got it this ' afternoon. Harberts: Well I can tell you that the coloring of the, I guess the open' space provided me a little bit more comfort level. You know I came to Chanhassen and I live just off of Frontier and I have 3/4 of an acre and t as far as I'm concerned it's not enough space for me. But I guess it helped me with the comfort level but if this is zoned for medium density, that's what it says and I guess I like the plan from that perspective. But again, my issues are really run along the internal circulation and safety with everything that has to go in there from the city perspective. Batzli: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I'm going to be brief here. I agree with Ladd's assessment and I would support this proposal if we reduce the impervious surface to 35%. is We could move it along if we changed condition number 2 on the recommendations to read that. And the other thing, as far as the conditions are concerned would be number 3. I think that is really not the developer's issue as it relates to our interaction with Carver County', and I would suggest that we handle that on a separate basis. 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 47 Batzli: Has anything been done about that? Olsen: Well we're hopefully going to meet with them next week. The reason we added that as a condition was just so as this goes through the process we could see if the Council and Planning Commission is in support of petitioning that. We're going to meet with Carver County again hopefully next week. They're going to discuss whether or not even just the trail can be located in the right -of -way. How much right -of -way is ' necessary and if the unnecessary right -of -way can be vacated. So nothing's been done at this time. The City has the ability to petition such a request. Batzli: What does it do to their impervious coverage if they either vacate some of it or remove the trail? Olsen: Oh it helps. Batzli: How big of a percentage? Are we talking 1 %? 5%? Olsen: Well you'd have to measure it by the length. I think I asked you to look at that didn't I? You were going to work that out. The trail has already been removed from the impervious coverage percentage. It began at 49% so we're not including that. Batzli: Okay, so they're not going to gain anything? Olsen: As far as the trail, no. But if they vacate right-of-way, then that land that's vacated becomes, they have the potential of up to 15 feet time, whatever it is. The distance on Powers Boulevard. Batzli: Is there a likelihood that that's going to happen? r Olsen: I don't know. You know nobody's ever very anxious to give up right -of -way that they might use. ' Batzli: Okay. Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina: That's it. Batzli: Joe. Scott: I think the points are well taken and I would concur with the other commissioners. One thing, just to comment for city staff is that, I don't particularly like to see the negotiation situation where it's, a developer says this many units and the city staff says no, this is what ' we're looking at and then they come in here. I mean you're in a situation where you say hey, this is the deal. If you want the deal, this is the number. And if you can't get the number, it's no deal. Okay. And I'm ' seeing this over here, over here. I mean but anyway, no more comments. Olsen: So you're saying 35% max or 31% max? ' Scott: What I'm saying your recommendation which was not 40 but 35. Actually it was stated at 32 in the original PUD but 35 I think is, I 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 48 1 think 35 will work. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. 1 Farmakes: First question I have is, this is part of the 5 year agreement" like on the previous development? Olsen: Yes. Farmakes: The major question I would have again is, it would seem to me 1 that we certainly should be consistent on how we treat that. If we get a legal opinion whether or not we're dealing with 1987, which I am very II uncomfortable with, versus 1993 which we're all here and now. I do not understand why we would enter a development agreement of that length. If we look at the city, 50% of our population has increased in that amount of time. Certainly the world is a different place in half a decade and our standards have changed. We've held elections. Several elections since then. I'm sure half of our commissions have changed since then. We have a difficult time remembering the history of these projects and what the motivation at the time was. And certainly from the aspect of real estate I think the applicant himself said that what sold then isn't what sells now. Times change and so do governments and so do applicants. I would certainly recommend that we get that sorted out as a first block and unti we do that I would recommend tabling this. It seems to me that we would not want to soften our position on that until we know what that is. By selectively approving a part of the PUD on '87's terms versus '93's and vice versa on another part of that development. I am going to continue o the basis that we're going on '87 on my comments, just to give you my opinion. The level of density that I'm looking at here, whether it's fitting or not, seems to me to be more high than medium. At least from ail appearance of an overhead... I would certainly expect at least if we go ahead with this to follow Ladd's comments in regards to the impervious surface. I also am uncomfortable looking at these plans with a couple of 1 units scribbled off on my plans that I'm looking at and so on. It's difficult to assess that. I'm also very concerned about what the thinkin was on the part of the property units, I believe they're listed as 4, 3, and 1. Possibly 5 that are adjacent to the single family homes. It seem to me that very little thought there in softening the connection there was given to the adjacent property owners and they have legitimate concerns II there. It seems to me that if you're looking at softening that type of thing, the detail on the back of these homes, flower boxes, shutters, awnings, da, da, da, anything would at least conform to help these homes in the rear which there's a lot of in these type of developments. Would help them conform better to the front of the home. And I don't think it' our place here to start specifying what that is but I think that if you can soften those issues where it looks like the front of your building is 1 well developed, well thought out, and you get to the back of it. Well, that's supposed to be where nobody's supposed to see it or that's next to the trash dumpster and not a penny goes into that. Certainly the II consideration against the properties that face the single family homes and I believe actually following all the way around, the properties that would face to the rear along the walkway of Powers Boulevard, certainly would be a visual impact of the development. And coming back again to thil philosophical question here. I was not sitting here in 1987 and when I 1 II Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 49 II look at PUD's and I ask myself, what are we gaining here. And it seems to 11 me that I'm having a hard time buying the argument, although it may very well be true, in 1987 that we wanted more higher density homes. That hasn't been my experience sitting here. I can't recall ever sitting here 1 and hearing the Commission saying, we really want more density. Give it to us. It's always been the opposite. And in looking back at that, I'm asking myself what are we gaining here from a PUD? We aren't saving any trees. We're not, we're perhaps offering an alternative form of housing I which is being brought forth. The older population, although the average age is going up into the 40's I believe which is certainly not immobile yet. At least that I know of. And the other issue of course is II addressing the price of the home. Now we're looking at the price of $150,000.00 for these houses so I don't see us serving, that's above the medium price home I believe in Chanhassen. So I don't see that we're serving any range there. So I'm asking myself over and over again, what II are we getting here and although it may be frustrating for the applicant that in 1987 he heard something else, the world changes. I'm looking at this in 1993 and I think that's the way that I should be looking at it. II Batzli: If it comes back, what do you want to see? What do you want to see addressed? 1 Farmakes: The issues that I listed. I believe I categorized which ones that if this does go ahead, which ones we'd be looking at. I think there should be less density. Less impervious surface but in the end result I'd II have to say that I have a real problem seeing the need for this as a PUD. As part of that PUD and that commitment and I go back again, is this a commitment that the city has still made because I think if it hasn't, we 1 should take a long hard look at this in 1993. Conrad: Excuse me Jeff, but just remember when this is part of a big I project. Farmakes: No, I understand that. II Conrad: And we negotiated other stuff that the city got, including parkland and things like that. II Farmakes: I understand that but it had a finite commitment as I understand it. I'm awaiting a legal opinion on that. Certainly in real estate you do have finite contracts and the issue of performance, we have a lawyer here and I'm not going to get into that with my standpoint but I the question is, how open ended is that commitment? 20 years from now do they come forward and haven't developed a chunk of land and are we still going to be developing by '87 standards? I'm not suggesting that we be II unreasonable here but it seems to me that that requires a legal opinion here before we start doing that. And how this affects the other development. II Mancino: Mr. Chair I have nothing new to add. Batzli: Okay. II Tom Reese: Mr. Chairman? II 1 Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 50 Batzli: Yes sir. Tom Reese: I appreciate the house and I'd just like to make a comment. II My name is Tom Reese and I'm with Lake Susan Hills Partnership. I've been at this since 1972 and I've seen a lot of different faces. I recognize 1 Ladd. I appreciate all your volunteer work. Believe me. I think I can add something of credibility that might help some of you with your thinking at the moment and that is very basically, this could have been a single, total single family development. That's what the mode was in the 70's. I could go back and give you history, which I won't for time but at one time U.S. Homes had a contract on all this for single family homes. And part of developing, Al Kiingelhutz, and I can go back but for the sake of conclusion, the PUD was put together with the city in concert and they insisted on high density. I underscore insisted high density. You probably remember some of that. 5o this land was planned accordingly so the City of Chanhassen would have high density. They were emphatic about 11 it. There was no two ways about it so this planned unit development has been progressing for a good number of years. Revised again in 1987 and as each addition to the Planned Unit Development continues you see what happens. We're tonight talking about a unit that has a density requirement far greater, as you know than what's being proposed tonight. Now once the single family's put together and you're trying to bring together something that would form continuity as best you can. You've talked about what could be zoned. If someone were to bring a project here that would be 36 unit density with the proper space and stacking and so 1 on, you would approve it correct? Given it met all the rest of the requirements. Is that a correct observation? Batzli: We're not going to say yes for fear that we might see it next week. Tom Reese: ...with threatening discussion, it's hopefully enlighting some' of the folks that are asking for what happened in the past. Is that understood? Batzli: Yeah. 1 Tom Reese: Okay. I don't think that that has in continuity with what the neighborhood as it was developed. When it was developed and while we're trying to put it together so I'd like to consider some of the history. I'd be happy to talk in detail at another time if anybody would wish. But it's difficult to work in a partly cloudy scenario and I think that's what' some of what we're hearing tonight is bringing up all those partly cloudy's when it was really emphatically demanded by the city. The concessions given to the city to go along with it to make the PUD as it is today. I hope, I've tried to enlighten a bit about it and then you. , Batzli: Okay, thank you. Farmakes: Could I make a quick comment to that? 1 Batzli: No. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 17, 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: Real quick? Two seconds. I think that the issue that I was talking about was with several points that weren't relevant to what you just talked about. Although I agree with what you said. I think that the points that I was making went beyond that. If you want me to clarify it further I will, otherwise I'll withdraw it. Batzli: No. I think we need to move on here. I have several comments but I'll agree with what Ladd said and that was, they're changing what's ' in the contract currently. We can argue whether we should look at that contract or not. I personally believe that we need to take a look at what was done in the overall scheme of things and not focus so intently perhaps ' on one density. But the fact of the matter is, they are changing the density here. I don't believe they've made a compelling case to change that and the fact that they're changing it means, that's why we've focused ' in on this particular piece of property. So what I would like to see done is bring this back and give the applicant a second whack at it to tell us why they should increase the impervious from what was agreed originally. And they may be lowering the density down, whatever, but the impervious is really I think what kind of bothers me. Going from the 32 or whatever it was agreed, up to I don't know where, somewhere in the 40's. 35's our current standard. We've not really heard a compelling reason other than profit motive and this is what's going to sell. Well, you know, we're concerned here about setting precedence in other parts of this PUD or perhaps in other parts of the city and we're trying to do what the residents want around us want. We're trying to get a good development. We're trying to do something that will sell because it doesn't help us to build two units and then it just stops right there. But the problem is that we're faced with a couple of different issues and one of those things is in fact setting a precedent that we're, the next guy comes in, we can't stop him or her from doing the same thing. So what I would like to see is potentially a motion to table this. I know that we just spent an hour and ' a half and it seems like we're putting off the decision but I think we need a couple of things. One is, for Jeff I think we need a definitive answer from the attorney regarding whether we can just start from scratch and use '93 standards. I think probably a majority of the people on the commission maybe don't feel like they need to impose the brand new standards but they would at least like to hear a more compelling case as to why this development makes sense and it's not in compliance with the agreement from '87. So is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission table Case No. 87 -3 PUD 11 until a later date. Mancino: I second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the ' Preliminary Plat #87 - PUD for Prairie Creek Townhomes, Jasper Development for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. r C ITY 0 F PC DATE: 3/17/93 I `•\ . A s CC DATE: 4/12/93 ...1.,- CASE #: 87 -3 PUD By: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat and site plan to create 27 townhome units on 4.5 acres of property zoned PUD -R Z 4 V LOCATION: Northeast corner of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and Lake Susan Hills Drive J 0. — APPLICANT: Jasper Development Q 235 W. 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 PRESENT ZONING: PUD -R, Planned Unit Development Residential ACREAGE: 4.6 acres DENSITY: 5.9 units /acre ADJACENT ZONING 4 AND LAND USE: N - IOP; Lake Susan Park S - PUD -R; outlot for medium density, Lake Susan Hills PUD F.," E - PUD -R; single family lots, Lake Susan Hills PUD W - PUD -R; outlot for high density, Lake Susan Hills PUD W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer are available to the site. 1- {� PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has sparse vegetation and topography which goes down to the north. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density BOUL EVARD ` !AU__ „..,....,,.. L..._:[..:._ .: I - —__ ,,.,, „,.., ___ ,ip W �L le, - i c.'':,:.C.V-3:24 1 Al C (7 ‘ i 410 ' - - ,-< 1 � aog0. k � �e� =``. CIF I�, � 7,4 ' - 1 ♦ VIA PA ' • - tekS DRIVE 1 ) >\''2 5 Q lit§* tE _. ���'I i - SUS • l �� PARK �\ IL ,e-) .= o Mm i , itaillExaair., ,1111641%.4 -. - 1. f 4 uvi4a ,� , L A /rE SUSAN �,= J -- • ��:� '' m E � _ , ',- l N. GS it is: tag A 6 �� a lp °C Hill , ii V: H . 1142 PUD - ' T K ‹,.... • - * i t i9 v. mi. .. ; 1 - . 4 I �� _ 6 , Alp : . � ��,7' � ., - No R RSF • '' + J + '� �b �. � �; ��i � �lt Zvi 11 » it „/ H -p 2�z ~ „-- r a T II / -- �YMAN /� ' ( l O F :OUR / • YM • T .._. EVARC" t r il ' r .:1: c )7 11111 1 ke i O� - P1U0 ID � 0 • BANDIMERE 1 HEl6HTS ' ilia BAND /ME" =�" 1 COMMUNITY . f _ -T: - /. f 1 � l PARK 4, _ n I ' i !4! ow ". t• ,. 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes J asper Development March 17, 1993 Page 2 BACKGROUND 1 In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment #1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions continuously since PUD approval. The medium and high density outlots have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and their proposed 1 uses. Outlots B (11.3 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.9 acres) were designated for medium density development . The PUD contract stated that the development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed 1 medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units /acre. Except as modified by the PUD contract, the development shall be in accordance with the used, standards and requirements of the R -8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium 1 density modified by the PUD contract was that the impervious surface coverage could not exceed certain amounts; Outlot B - 30 %, Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27% and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units /acre. The R -8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units /acre density. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant, Jasper Development, is proposing to subdivide Outlot C into 27 townhome units. Outlot C was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 27 zero lot line parcels. The townhomes will be serviced by a private drive and the community property will be designated as an outlot and owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Outlot C contains 4.6 acres and is serviced by Lake Susan Hills Drive. The property abuts Powers Boulevard (CR 17), but will not receive direct access from this street. The proposed townhomes are attractive and high quality units. The townhomes will be single story with walkouts to the rear. The architecture of the townhomes will be traditional with exterior siding materials of stucco and brick. Each townhome will have its own facade with different colors of muted, earth tones. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. 1 There are two regulations which influence the development of this site - -a PUD contract and R -8 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract was recorded as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval (Attachment #1). The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject is, must meet the regulations of the R -8 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD contract there appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot 1 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development 1 March 17, 1993 Page 3 ' exceed 9.3 units /acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot C cannot exceed 31%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units /acre with an impervious surface coverage of not more than 31 %. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City ' Council minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density that the applicant was not guaranteed this density. ' The proposed 27 units result in a density of 5.9 units /acre. The impervious surface coverage is just over 45% (this does not include the city trail which is going through the property). Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage greatly exceeds the PUD contract and even the R -8 zoning district standards (35 %). Staff has explained this situation to the applicant's engineer, but we have not heard back from the applicant. When staff spoke with the engineer we requested that he calculate the following densities, 45 %, 40 %, 35% ' and 31% and determine the number of units which could be developed with these density parameters. The following are the results of those calculations: 45% - 27 units 40% - 23 -24 units 35% - 20 -21 units 1 31% - 17 -18 units When staff first reviewed the submittal with the 27 townhome units, we felt that it was too dense 1 with too little open space. The townhome units that are being proposed are large upscale units which are single level that take up a lot of open space. The 31% maximum impervious surface coverage results in the loss of too many units and this could also be argued for the 35% 1 maximum. Staff feels the removal of three to four units, bringing the impervious coverage up to 40 %, is reasonable. The applicant has not adjusted their plans and has chosen to keep their original submittal to receive comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff will be recommending continuing action on the original plan with 27 units until that three or four units are removed from the site plan, whichever is necessary, to maintain a maximum 40% impervious surface coverage. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide on -site retention ponds. Some of the residents adjacent to the subject site are concerned about the use of city park land for ponding areas and the potential removal of trees. The city will take existing features into consideration when locating the ponding area. Staff is working with Carver County on the required right -of -way for Powers Boulevard (CR17). Currently, there is 150' of dedicated right -of -way. Depending upon the final design of the road improvements, 150' may not be necessary. If the desired 4 lane undivided urban section is 1 1 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 4 chosen, than the right -of -way could possibly be reduced to 120'. This highly impacts the subject site in terms of additional land being converted back to the applicant, thereby reducing the impervious coverage and allowing more room for the required 20' trail easement and 8' wide bituminous trail. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council formally request that unnecessary right -of -way be vacated by the County. Similar to the Windmill and Lake Susan Hills 9th subdivisions, it is very tight for the placement of the 20' trail easement and the 8' bituminous trail. The trail and trail easement can be accommodated on the subject site, but if there is excess right -of -way (which may not be vacated), it makes sense to locate the trail within the right -of -way where grading and landscaping of the site makes it difficult to fit in the trail. The proposed landscaping needs to be improved. Staff requested that the applicant provide extensive landscaping and berms to screen the development from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the single family residents east of the site. There should also be increased internal landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan does not meet these requirements. 1 The proposed townhomes will result in a very attractive medium density development. The townhomes appear to be well designed and of high quality. Staff is very much in support of the 1 proposed townhome development, but cannot support such a high lot coverage. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table action on the proposal until the applicant submits a revised plan which removes three (3) to four (4) townhome units and does not exceed 1 40% impervious surface coverage on the basis that the current proposal results in too high of an impervious surface coverage. Should the applicant wish to continue the review process in front of the City Council with the present plan, staff recommends that the Planning Commission pass the application on to the City Council with the recommendation of denial. PRELIMINARY PLAT /SITE PLAN APPROVAL 1 Lots/Den sity The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.6 acres of property zoned PUD -R into 27 zero lot line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density (4 -8 Units /Acre). The subject site is Outlot C from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan Hills PUD stated that the mixed medium density sites (there are three such outlots, B, C and D) could overall not exceed a density of 9.3 units /acre, and specifically, Outlot C (subject site) could not exceed 31% impervious surface coverage. The proposed 27 lots are located in clusters of three and four. The lot sizes are as follows: 1 1 1 ' Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development 1 March 17, 1993 Page 5 ' Lots 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27 - 3,010 square feet. Lots 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 26 - 2,940 square feet. The gross floor area of each unit is 3,200 square feet. The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Lot 28 on the preliminary plat. Lot 28 contains the private drive and open space. Staff is recommending that Lot 28 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 developed. The density of the site is 5.9 units /acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private drives 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 45 %, not including the public 8' bituminous trail. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units /acre and that the impervious surface coverage could not exceed 31 %. As stated previously, a compromise should be made to allow increased density over the 31% and under 45 %. The proposal with 27 units is too dense. The site plan contains very little open space after the area for the townhome units, private drive and trail are removed. The site is so tight that there is not enough area to locate the type and amount of berming/landscaping which is required. The applicant has stated that they would have to lose up to 10 units to meet the 31% impervious surface coverage. Staff has stated that we would support increasing the impervious surface coverage to 40% with the 1 removal of 3 -4 townhome units, but that we would recommend denial of the current plan with 27 townhome units and 45% impervious surface coverage. Removing 3 -4 townhome units will result in a density of 5.2 - 5 units /acre. If the percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be increased, the PUD contract shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage of Outlot C to be 40 %. The townhouse units are maintaining a 25' setback from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the east (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD). The 25' setback is from the R -8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private drive. Architecture The townhomes are proposed to be single story at the front elevation with walkouts to the rear. The townhomes are expected to house 2 -3 persons. Each unit will have a 2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The architecture of the townhomes will be traditional with exterior siding materials of stucco and brick. They are attractive and high quality units. Exterior trim will be cedar. The applicant has stated that each townhome is given its own distinctive facade by the use of bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 6 1 treatments, etc. Color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. A homeowners association will be established and a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions will be adopted (attached). Grading and Drainage 1 The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and is pretty much devoid of trees. The site drains northeasterly towards Lake Susan Hills Park through overland drainageways. The grading 1 plan proposes, for the most part, to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Based on proposed contours, the majority of the site will be filled except for the southwesterly corner. The easterly portion of the site (Lots 1 through 10) is proposed to be filled with 5 to 8 feet of material to facilitate walkout -type buildings and avoid the high water table in the area. The existing storm sewer system which runs along the east side of the property is proposed to be extended into the City park property (Outlot C) north of the subdivision. In addition, the applicant proposes to extend storm sewer from this existing system into the development to convey surface runoff from the proposed service drive and building pads. The proposed roadway system throughout this development is considered to be private and therefore will not be maintained by the City. The proposed storm sewer extension on the easterly side of the development, however, will be considered a public improvement since it conveys storm water runoff from the upper part of the Watershed south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, detailed construction plans along with storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event should be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval. An existing drainage system underneath Powers Boulevard also drains through the parcel. The grading plans propose on realigning the existing drainageway outside the development into a ditch along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to convey runoff from the culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. The applicant should be aware that all work within Powers Boulevard right - of -way will require approval and a permit by the Carver County Highway Department. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The 1 City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond north of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide on -site retention ponds. In lieu of the on -site ponding requirement, it is , recommended the applicant pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management plan. The City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution based on contributing drainage areas and land use. Even though staff is not recommending on- site retention ponds, we do feel it is necessary to provide for an interim sedimentation pond at the downstream discharge point of the storm sewer. According to Bonestroo & Associates, a 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet sediment pond should be constructed until permanent ponding facilities are 1 1 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 1 Page 7 constructed downstream. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, is open to the idea of 1 using the park property on an interim basis. Erosion control (silt fence) is proposed around the perimeter of the site. The plans also propose 1 a temporary rock construction entrance to minimize tracking material off site. Staff also recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. Utilities 1 Municipal sanitary sewer service and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive located near the easterly entrance to the site. Both sanitary sewer and water service appears to ' be adequately sized to service this development. The applicant is proposing to loop the watermain system and reconnect to Lake Susan Hills Drive near Powers Boulevard. In an effort to limit disruption to Lake Susan Hills Drive, it is recommended that the applicant connect on to the existing fire hydrant lead and the hydrant relocated to eliminate cutting into Lake Susan Hills Drive. Specific design modifications such as this will be addressed during the plan and specification review process. Utilities throughout the development will be considered private utilities and not maintained by the City. Since the utility improvements are directly related to the City's overall infrastructure, ' detailed construction plans of the utility improvements should be submitted to the City for review and approval. All utility construction should be in accordance with the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since a majority of the utilities will be private, the City's Building Department will be overseeing the inspection responsibilities. As -built construction plans will be required upon completion of the utility installation. 1 Streets The proposed street system is fairly well laid out. The site plan proposes a 24 -foot wide two - 1 lane service drive with concrete curb and gutter to serve as access to the individual townhome sites. The road proposes two access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The street system is not being dedicated as a public street and therefore will not be maintained by the City. A cross- 1 access easement should be granted to all of the lot to guarantee access through the private street. Both access points on Lake Susan Hills Drive will intersect an existing concrete sidewalk. It is recommended that pedestrian ramps be installed at both access points to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic across the curb cuts. The site plan also proposes an 8 -foot wide walkway within a proposed 20 -foot wide walkway easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The walkway should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8 -foot wide bituminous trail section. Staff is recommending that the city petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right -of -way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 1 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 8 Street lighting and parking in and around this development may be of concern. Since the streets I are only 24 feet wide, most likely the Fire Marshal will impose "No Parking - Fire Lane" on the interior streets. Thus, staff foresees potential parking problems along Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, parking should be restricted along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The plans do not indicate provisions for street lighting. A street lighting plan should be prepared for staff review and approval. Since the site will include public improvements such as driveway aprons, bituminous trail and 1 storm sewers, it is recommended that the applicant enter into a development contract and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. The applicant is providing 2 enclosed and 2 exterior parking spaces /unit. This exceeds what is required by the City Code. The City Code requires two parking stalls, 11/2 which shall be enclosed. Since the units are serviced by a 24' wide private drive, there will be signage for no parking over most of the private drive(see Fire Marshall memo). Therefore, on street parking I will not be possible. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide visitor parking in the amount of 1 visitor parking space /6 units. Landscaping 1 The applicant has provided a landscape plan which proposes landscaping on all exterior sides of 1 the outlot and for each townhouse unit. In reviewing the grading plan, no berming is being provided along the exteriors. The applicant has used the suggested trees from the city's landscaping list (white oaks, sugar maple and american linden). The proposed landscaping is a 1 good start, but definitely needs to be increased. Staff understands the area is tight between the townhouses and Powers Boulevard with the trail and trail easement, but berming must be added where possible and additional landscaping must be added. The landscaping along Lake Susan r Hills Drive should be clustered more with berming and smaller landscaping. Also, all of the overstory trees along Lake Susan Hills Drive are American Linden, which is a preferred tree, but I the applicant may want to replace some of these or add to the plan with the Sugar Maple/White Oak. The landscaping along the existing single family lots to the east needs to be increased. The topography is such that berming will not do too much in the form of screening. The I applicant has stated that they could work with the residents to the east with the possibility of providing landscaping on their property. In either case, the landscaping needs to be expanded PARK AND RECREATION 1 As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to 111 the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees. The applicant shall have to provide a 20' trail easement and 1 1 I Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 1 Page 9 construct an 8' wide bituminous trail, and the park fees will have to be paid at time of building 1 permit. No park land will be required with this proposal. RECOMMENDATION I Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table action on the current proposal of 27 townhome units, until the applicant submits a revised plat reducing the number of townhome 1 units from 27 to either 24 or 23, whichever is necessary to reduce the impervious surface to 40 %. The following conditions will be made part of approval with the revised plans: I 1. Change Lot 28, Block 1 to Outlot A. 1 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 40 %. 1 3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right -of -way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 1 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. 1 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance 1 with the conditions of approval. 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed in accordance to the 1 City's typical 8 -foot wide bituminous trail standards. 7. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event for 1 the City Engineer to review and approve. 8. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, street 1 access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. I 9. The applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, I approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 10 1 retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. , 10. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County , Highway Department. 11. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. ' The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 12. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. PP g g P PP 13. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site , restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 14. A cross - access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 1 15. The revised site plan shall provide 1 visitor parking space /6 units. 16. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping which provides the following: a. Additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), Lake Susan , Hills and the easterly lot lines. b. Sugar Maple and/or White Oak shall be added to the landscaping along Lake ' Susan Hills. 17. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w). See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted site plan. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. 1 1 1 1 Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development I March 17, 1993 Page 11 Id. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre -Fire Plan ". Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #07 -1991 (copy enclosed). I e. Add and /or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3. I f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specs. Pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(0. I g. Premise identification Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 1 18. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on 1 the grading plan prior to final plat approval. b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pads and 1 elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three J P P Y g I to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval. d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final 1 plat approval. e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval. 1 ATTACHMENTS I 1. 2. Concept PUD. PUD Contract. 3. Narrative from the Applicant. I 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 2, 1993. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 4, 1993. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 3, 1993. I 7. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated March 11, 1993. 8. Letter from Carver County dated March 4, 1993. 9. Covenants and Restrictions. 1 10. Development Review Application. 11. Reduced Copies of Plans. 1 t..:. i , 1-t t e ! T A 1 1 \r ...+P...., pa J / CITY Pn.QIc It Lr G � , �, . s a ������, 0 3rd A / OPau 3 J � - ° (Sac i — , � //} 4 �� �, �a a � o�L � o on—u011 ,� / 4 1 , ....ma Nil Mtn ipPVILav ,,.., 4B6CL. '• Wi . 41111 10/0 yip • e e f � v or , . .__ jailor oats so. MR O K e► � 41111 . ,� � ���� ©a��s • , �� II »C 7.„ , J mim igt, -, ? // . , .. I iliv ps - iielry■TO &40 v "if I r k to mil 16 lik arAttl W.... "VP, ...&00 -. ilt 1• 0 u . • tm ..tio a-4,6 EN Wxy '''' 7 asp ® m a e l l ,7 1 -/ \ - 1 Ittp4f r ' ,;, / , ; ' 1111 0 y vp■--,. : 1 ■ #4011. 41g NEW - _____ a � J . / 1 6.1 .•.G ` \` \ 0 Wirg .` Al .�• / fi rm a` 0 1 P u0l.1G OC S MO 7 V TOM @•s• •CSd 100 \ \ O i '��wr� r+A j SOUL 1.... 1.01 tall /r 1 1 11111 •11r ITO q � \ —` v d PH N•IITIi 1.11 •.I./ 1 -'Il E1 CLLIf 111414,1 0114 .Q \ \ O .1- \ U 11. •11. CC. I\ C....• •1 . « L.•.. r. ..... ..... . 411 • :.:..•w Ilw «1 n. ....w«u ..w«w , ,/t ".....I P111 11 1 aC. • .II • 1 ` �O\ 11 1..... IONIC •tlt sr1C1 41. ,C. •11.1 • •..1•..•a Iw.• `� ` .1: S SIB. 1.1.1 S111.0 •C. 1. I , /cell •1 Argo 1.•« «1 11•.• 1«•1 «.1.1. I14.04, 1• Y ` , . 1.•T N .1111 11, t •I ::1::.:.:: ••• «• �� ,` • \, 1.1. IA., COT WWI On 3)( . a.1 . 1 _ I ` 1 “100•"t1:1. .1.. •r .Orr IOr 1 w • 1••'••.•1 I.•.. •r •/ I I , ` fI 1..0•I I... L.II .. 1 • ,..se • c.. 0.4 •.. ! J _ �\ 11.11.0 1.r LOTS nnu 1r• v wrL. w. .. . ».... •. «. 1.....V ...A 0N.1 6LV —mil • q Mt. DINGS I! *MAN uruu 1134+1..1 . ». •. •1 ,G• ••»w•• •..« •• 1 11 1 y L2 $ .. I••1 CUNT • • 1.1 . 1.1 • I 1 J1 •-..... 4.... w• •11•• I1. •11 la M• • M' •.•...JS!• • r• I A • M N1. 1N ---� ATTActfinENT -I- r 1 , . - __ James R. Hill i nc. �.�.A 1 ' • 'itm! • 1o•w Lax, suasive POLLS PAIITME11fMIP LAKE SUSAN Milli _____ PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS �•••'• " ■�•�■ •.•. �,__ • t' ATTACAPIA.G7 4 ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16 1987, between the CITY OF ' CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "), and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and 1 BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer "). 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The ' Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development ") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A ". 2. Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit "B ". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage g approval, a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this 11 Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential). The development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwelliniIac ts-3f NOV 1 9 i?8; r11/16/87 CM' OF - ' � CHANNA�SE,y /4, 5 77,4c i.ncA!r 1 1 • high density multiple family residential Y property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential II shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R -12 Zoning District. ' C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential). The development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the , development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R -8 Zoning II District. 4. Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18.1 acres), Outlot G (9.8 acres), Outlot H (3.9 acres), and Outlot E. II A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land ' shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the I/ City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable 1 le and plans to be furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of ' the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City II ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. pp owed. 1 -2- 1 /`3 5 , .• • t ;s 5. Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall 11 dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the trails and sidewalks or ortions thereof ereof are located. The Developer 1 shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1). Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2). Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off - street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off - street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3). Five (5) foot wide concrete off - street trail - sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul- de -sacs when the streets are constructed. (4). Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off - street trail easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council. 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or 9 remove any trees 11 except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from 11 destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. 1 aS 1 1 C. Wetlands Nos. 14 -10 and 23 -01 as shown in Exhibit "C" shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32 %, Outlot B 30%, o o, Outlot C 31 a, and Outlot D 27 %. 1 E. The Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150.00 per single family unit. 1 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the 1 use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in 1 writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted I/ by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the II City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, lattin or P g dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 1 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth 1 moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 11 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer 1 represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and 1 regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. -4- /3. J?s .. • . 1 10. variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, 1 employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder t if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12. Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including access, as required to serve the plat. r 13. Responsibility for Costs. ' A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages 11 sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and ' from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all - / ? 1 1 bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may 11 halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not 1 paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8 %) percent per annum interest charge. 1 14. Miscellaneous. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the 1 Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. 1 C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement II after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. 1 D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. II -6- , 1 : . F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in 1 writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. 1 1 1 1 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands II the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS (. BY: A partner 1 JANES A. CURRY 1 ,tx/1�F2!/Lft. BARBARA CURRY , STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal II corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) / - ( ss. COUNTY OFV: , V, -(.. ) / ,The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i 11 day of, .zly.�LL , 1987, by :_, ,'.;7 -<:, , �; . ! � � i �< < : �z % a partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership on , its behalf. � - • 1 BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PU3LI; — MINNESOTA HETV,` EP /T4 r:CUNITY my Comms.,on EApuos J-/ry 10 1:02 —8— 1 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) %. " ss. COUNTY OF "v'•:: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of D€et ,�ty , husband and wife. 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, /NOTARY PUBLIC 1 DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell ' & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455 - 1661 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. � • 1 OWNER /DEVELOPER Jasper Development 235 West 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 , 442 -5611 SURVEYOR /ENGINEER REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Narrative for Prairie Creek Prairie Creek will be a 27 lot single family downtime development. Standard Family sizes of 2 to 3 people are expected. Each unit will have a 2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The outside parking areas will have a gentle slope flatter than 1:20 and acceptable for use by the handicap. The architecture of Prairie Creek will be traditional with a decidedly European Country character. Exterior siding materials will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Every effort is made to give each townhouse its own distinctive facade by the use of appropriate architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door treatments, etc. To further individualize each unit, color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. The Sanitary Sewer serves the site from an existing 8" stub in Lake Susan Hills Drive near unit # 25 at an elevation of 897.1. Location of the stub requires that the majority of the sewer must be installed to serve the southerly units which are expected to be the first ones built. Each unit will be sewered separately with a 4" P.V.C. service. 1 Water service is provided by an 8" stub in Lake Susan Hills Drive near the unit # 25. 6" watermain will be looped through the site tying into the 10" watermain in Lake Susan Hills Drive near the intersection of Powers Blvd. Lake Susan Hills drive will have to be opened up to tie in. 1" copper water services will serve each unit. Hydrants are spaced approximately 300' apart. Storm Sewers will be used on the site to collect the runoff from the street and the front half of the units. The 18" city storm sewer on the northwest corner of the site will be extended down to the northeast corner of the site and be connected to the site. All storm sewer will be RCP. 1 Minor grading will be required within Powers Boulevard. Right -of- Way to direct drainage through this ditch rather than across the site. This must be the first grading done after a sedimentation pond is in place. Additional design work must be done by the City's Consultant on the overall drainage plan to determine if the use of this ditch is temporary or if a storm sewer line is required along Powers Blvd. Permanent Sedimentation ponding is anticipated to be combined with the city's water quality ponding a short distance downstream from this site. The City's consultant has preliminarily recommended that this ponding be combined with the city's but the drainage study is still incomplete. If AT7"H' GHme -A-rr 1 this ponding is not in place when this project starts temporary ponding can be located at units 5,6,and 7 in the northeast portion of this site. These details will be worked out with staff prior to final plat. Details on costs and if the developer can construct this off site permanent ponding must be addressed. Grading must take place over the entire site at this time to better balance the excavating and dispose or make use of existing materials due to the relief. The site varies from 892 on the north to 922 on the south. All silt fence and ponding must be in place prior to starting grading operations. Topsoil varies from l'to 4' in depth with poorer soils being encountered in the lower part of the site. Soil correction is required 7' below existing grade the worst boring location. Soils cut from the upper part of the site and lower levels of the units will be used as engineered fill in other areas of the development. It is estimated that 11,000 +/- cubic yards of soil will have to be hauled on to this site. Actual quantities will vary depending on soil moisture, working conditions and how much poor soil will be encountered. 11 Grading is expected to start as soon as City & Government approvals can be obtained. Building construction would begin after grading, utility, and Class 5 placement is completed. Buildings will be built one at a time as sales are made. Buildings are expected to be built in a one to two year span. 11 Temporary seeding and mulching will be placed within two weeks after the Moss grading is complete. Sodding around building will take place as each building is completed. Silt fence will stay in place until final sodding is complete. MPCA Health Dept. County and Watershed applications are expected to be submitted within two weeks of preliminary plat approval. Permits are expected within three to five weeks after submittal. 1 11 1 1 1 1 i rV CITYOF CHANHASSEN 1 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 iw MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer kifil■ DATE: March 2, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Prairie Creek Townhomes Located in the Northeast Corner of 1 Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive File No. 93 -2 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plan for Prairie Creek prepared by Rehder & Associates, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE 1 The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and is pretty much devoid of trees. The site drains northeasterly towards Lake Susan Hills Park through overland drainageways. The grading plan proposes, for the most part, to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Based on proposed contours, the majority of the site will be filled except for the southwesterly corner. The easterly portion of the site (Lots 1 through 10) is proposed to be filled with 5 1 to 8 feet of material to facilitate walkout -type buildings and avoid the high water table in the area. The existing storm sewer system which runs along the east side of the property is proposed g Y g P perty P P to be extended into the City park property (Outlot C) north of the subdivision. In addition, the applicant proposes to extend storm sewer from this existing system into the development I to convey surface runoff from the proposed service drive and building pads. The proposed roadway system throughout this development is considered to be private and therefore will I not be maintained by the City. The proposed storm sewer extension on the easterly side of the development, however, will be considered a public improvement since it conveys storm water runoff from the upper part of the Watershed south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, detail construction plans along with storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event should be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval. 1 es t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ATriiC-HmENT it y 1 Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 2 An existing drainage system underneath Powers Boulevard also drains through the parcel. The grading plans propose on realigning the existing drainageway outside the development into a ditch along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to convey runoff from the culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. The applicant should be aware that all work within Powers Boulevard right -of -way will require approval and a permit by the Carver County Highway Department. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The g PP !� Po g City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond north of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide on -site retention ponds. In lieu of the on -site ponding requirement, it is recommended the applicant pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management plan. The City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution based on contributing drainage areas and land use. Even though staff is not recommending on -site retention ponds, we do feel it is necessary to provide for an interim sedimentation pond at the downstream discharge point of the storm sewer. According to Bonestroo & Associates, a 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet sediment pond should be constructed until permanent ponding facilities are constructed downstream. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, is open to the idea of using the park property on an interim basis. Erosion control (silt fence) is proposed around the perimeter of the site. The plans also propose a temporary rock construction entrance to minimize tracking material off site. Staff also recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 1 UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive t located near the easterly entrance to the site. Both sanitary sewer and water service appears to be adequately sized to service this development. The applicant is proposing to loop the watermain system and reconnect to Lake Susan Hills Drive near Powers Boulevard. In an effort to limit disruption to Lake Susan Hills Drive, it is recommended that the applicant connect on to the existing fire hydrant lead and the hydrant relocated to eliminate cutting into Lake Susan Hills Drive. Specific design modifications such as this will be addressed during the plan and specification review process. Utilities throughout the development will be considered private utilities and not maintained by the City. Since the utility improvements are directly related to the City's overall infrastructure, detailed construction plans of the utility improvements should be submitted to the City for review and approval. All utility construction should be in accordance with 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 3 the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since a majority of the 1 utilities will be private, the City's Building Department will be overseeing the inspection responsibilities. As -built construction plans will be required upon completion of the utility installation. STREETS i The proposed street system is fairly well laid out. The site plan proposes a 24 -foot wide two -lane service drive with concrete curb and gutter to serve as access to the individual townhome sites. The road proposes two access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The street system is not being dedicated as a public street and therefore will not be maintained by the City. A cross - access easement should be granted to all of the lot to guarantee access through the private street. Both access points on Lake Susan Hills Drive will intersect an existing concrete sidewalk. It is recommended that pedestrian ramps be installed at both access points to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic across the curb cuts. The site plan also proposes an 8 -foot wide walkway within a proposed 20 -foot wide walkway easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The walkway should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8 -foot wide bituminous trail section. T Street lighting and parking in and around this development may be of concern. Since the streets are only 24 feet wide, most likely the Fire Marshal will impose "No Parking - Fire Lane" on the interior streets. Thus, staff foresees potential parking problems along Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, parking should be restricted along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The plans do not indicate provisions for street lighting. A street lighting plan should be prepared for staff review and approval. Since the site will include public improvements such as driveway aprons, bituminous trail and storm sewers, it is recommended that the applicant enter into a development contract and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and 111 compliance with the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8 -foot wide bituminous trail standards. ■ 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 4 ' 3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. 4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 5. The applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre /feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 7. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 8. The applicant should submit r pp h sou b t a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 9. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 10. A cross - access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1 1 1 . 1 CITYOF , ' 00 ,,, 0 CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 4, 1993 I SUBJ: 87 -3 PUD, Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed Prairie Creek development and have the I following requirements: 1. The marking of fire lane on private and public roe shall be designated g P P property �Y g and approved by the Fire Chief. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w). See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. 1 2. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted 1 site plan. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06 -1991 (copy enclosed). 3. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. 4. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre Fire Plan". Pursuant to Chanhassen 1 City Policy #07 -1991 (copy enclosed). 5. Add and /or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site. Pursuant 1 to 1988 UFC Division 3. 6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specs. Pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(0. 1 7. Premise identification Policy #29 -1992 (copy enclosed). 1 t0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ATTAci -t ( 't - S I , Ii-::. C ITYOF ii ,� r, I .. . CIIANIIAEN ii,‘ ,,, ,..... ,..07 CHANHASSEN :.,,,\- i,-, .- =-.: t � 690 COULT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • H .. � ; L C ANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I - . , : (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General II Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing s in such a buildings position as to be plainly visible and legible I from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, II Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. * Other Requirements - General '" ry 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script I 3. If a structure is not visible from the street, additionaFiiumbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway fi entrance may be a minimum of 4 . However, r be met Y requirement *3 must still 1 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit) 1 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. 1 Commerdal Requirements ; "J� .1y 1. Minimum height shall be 12 ". 1 2. Strip Malls a. Mutt, tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. I ins. 3. If address numbers are located on a dir tory entry sign, additional numbers wtH be required on the buildings main entrance. II Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 I - Date: 06/15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 II t om: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF t -k _. I f _ r . Ni 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �``';�s (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 11 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REOUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE BIGNAGE 1 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ". NO 2. Red on white is preferred. 11 PARKING FIRE 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum II is preferred. " 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING II • FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end 1 of the fire lane and at least at 7'0" 75 foot intervals along the -fire lane. 1 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. II 7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. 1 - V - 8. A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and II along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. II ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department II Fire Prevention -> 4: - /> 7 7f Policy #06 -1991 Date: 1/15/91 II Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 I If t 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I I . CITYOF r. '', ` / 't CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE PLAN Prior to issuing the C.O., a pre -plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17 t' (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 11 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or deadend 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut -off), NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable ' 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior Doors 13) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz. Mat. storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls /roof 19) Standpipes 1 1 Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07 -1991 Date: 01/16/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 If' t4i, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . f., 111 i :2 --,- )<■ I ,---• ; ' ' ' I % ,, "i 1 r : F. - 1 t .:'• - z , •:: ! ' — 4 ; - •"' • .1 ‘'. : I I ' •- i . .4 - ° , . ,....,_,..-1,,, _ -- ,:. 0 ,.. 0 , I '-t.•J••'..,. •i• .■ ---"- ----- .. — •, ...,■.......- .--,.. - _______ ..- L Itii.:11.1`g!!!IllgiliTi 1-' ••... ,, S!IIIIIII_Ii ..-----. „ ......... ... i GI i!", •• • "A •q yi 111111;14'. / ' -- -- • (.; 4 . __.-•,__ - • . R , W ' 2t 1 . ..- F. / / /./ , -- . k I : I. ig • = I I 1 • r s f V ; I i; I , 1 1.7-, t, • R,t zi . 1 : • , i. '00; l •, I o • II- .z 1 1 %, , v„ , i I • : . 1 ..,...),,. u / •. ,, / .>, : ;:iii ' . _ ..i.,, *"•• tt , i 1 , 11 x 1 at ,— ! -: '‘. i / ' ' .. it • .... hh ' f i 1 1 i 1 I I ! 1 I „! -• / ! '-: • /0 •- .. i: I 1 1 , \: ' , // i ‘,./ nt e, •. Y .. / ,- 1: 1 II Ili . • tE 'ay / /1 . / : ' 1'111 1— • N 11 1 1 / I I 1-1'111r1111.17t11 ii •V I , i 1 . 1 011 11 )i .111 1 t . 41: 1 1 • 11 / • 1 11 1 1 1 1 I , k; ,/ . = '' - I -' "-- ; / . 1 III i ill , . .0 1 iiiii I ! d-t I ' / Z1 . / 'IT 1 I .//. • Ili 1 ' • ';' /1/74. i I el / I / 1 / • ,- '--1 i ..„, . 7 __ _. .... • • 7 ___ ..___ ...:,.. „..1..1 i i • 4 ..c.... , .,., • , ,.,./; ,,,‘. _ __ / i,,, .. .-- .„ ,/, /..• _I la a - /a / i r t . .._.. , ...., - , . /,' 1 , / ,,,,.---. . -- , ,,,,...°;‘,. c / / , ., ..„-, - / .......•" -_ ..„,-.,.,,,, .-... , ---, _--- - _,; -, A - - ., • i.g , f ,. , , i'' ,',. i / - •• 1 : , ‘. .. .z....A. \ -_. ••\‘. \, ..„ \\ .....' 7 11 / .: - t;' ,/ • 7 . , / :(.\\ \''-•-■ C -- - - - A 't\j,-( / i • /,..: ,/,' t .",'. ' ' • / I .1'1 \ _...,-------- \I, k -- -.0- ..,,,, •',"/ ...., .,- ..cr . \••---- -: 1 \'... 15 .... - /,,, , „ .,. A ‘,1,\ -,,'• , \:■;,,,',.. .---,,,-.",,,, : . ___ , . • \ ii • - r `f•;:k gi , 1. .n % - - ' %.7 • , i --_ in •-''', % .it ' ' / ' - - - •: ; \ - ' .- .... - - ---- . s'11:1- —cc . . " j4 ' ,' ::: , ' ' i / - - , ' ' ,f • en/ • •,._ ,,,„..:-..,•„;. . , ,, ,,, , ,.. . , . .,..7. ,,,/... .. ,r c.„ • , I..; , 277 \ ,,, •,\•• _ 9 - • , , , . , •- \ i 0 - 0. i' • , --., °,0, -g ? ' \ • ' • t . ‘ 4 4/ ' ' • / ,' / ,... ; / 1 \ ' . • ..- -/->,/ '; / 1 , 7 t , ' ,./ ' . ''' "*.f •-•s. . . % '........ ,/ / / .• *- °. ' / / I / / / „ . , / ; t / - / / 1 "t Zt „ , , , „ ' / „ ” I - : - - : , 1 , •- /- -: .., .., ,, , ,5 / , •'", = / • \ t , ,, ' ? , ... . 1 • .., .%, I • ":.' p :7 6 / b / 1. - L / I / I I . 1 R ; < 6 . ;,. • 4 . / i I re * / . • > i: 1 ■ j .7.- Z 1 / / I i i .," II II' n s .1 , 1 ' -,, z 1 / • , / ",..' V ' 1 / ,...a .., „,...,.. „-; 7 :7 511! . ' p .. ± - V. FI = i f ',1 'r / _,(„? "„,\'' ,,s„:7 cll./ I i =7,`•,;:::”. \ , 1 --, /,' '' E ., Ln e '4 A / , ,/ ° ''q$". 1 fl 4 C• :.• 4 1, / / rt e ,,,,, \t1 / I. -.-. / , / 4-:;' \ \ s , / / 4 44All ihk .0 c.s0 & 13.1,• ril.,.. t. 1 / / 11 /"....\: 1 - Oil \ \ \ • / / 0 V 4 . .t • ' ....". 1 .. Zak` ' ,,a zz.i• 1,1, . , \ , i, / / / / C • / , / / — e ''' i -, N 0 \ I • ' I / ( . 43. / I I I I / ' ' . '''' '''',.. on: I II ••• .. ___ -- `::::, / .i • , \ ,. , ' :•',' i .7.: I.! . ' 4 .,.._, ; / ) 3 „.,. •"'--- ' • .7 /..... ' rK '...*'‘ 1 1 _.r. ,,..,„, ,-, ,, , , / ,.... , /,/ „, / /,, / ri ,,,,.. ' . 1 Y ' • 0, 1z. r 7 i $.•',.° / / ,.._ / i 1 ' 1 i 7 • I ".' ' ' - I t ' ''• L/ s. ' %fr ' / ■:',:r ... f i P ' / ig M !I ' ig: t zw • ‘ / 1e. AE F i , % 41 id 1 z tx 1 T: _ 4 i 7 ■ ! I i'''' 1 ^--<'■ / A\ r , I'S - ) \ / t / ' ) / W L : , • , , k i • - ,' i 1,::::,-,4 \ / I / I ,-: ',.'M '-- i ii ! ! , :;."-- \ rz . (5 / 1 I \ .1,4 ,,,,, / / ; 1 , .8 , ..:!, k % ''''8 s / r;, / I 1 ; ---;,/ / / 111 I i I 1 0 ..., ..,c .--------- / / -o c-2 : r... .± ..........._............ ... ,' , .... 1 ••1:, ...---- ..---. € 1 . c o v. ..,... 0 : k ' - -_-_ s K ..' ✓ — — -----. 0. `-\,,,,,\ 6 1 0 ...1. 6 r: . ^ i i., 1,. -4‹ 1 .,,. .• • Z h- A • 7 os . .,, 1 1 CITYOF 1 1111101 CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .0e•1ce DATE: 03/03/93 SUBJECT: 87 -3 PUD (Prairie Creek Townhouses, Jasper Development) 1 Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for 1 the pad or missing the pad. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected at the time the streets are" installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected may be submitted before the certificate of occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction tests, the limits of I the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the , drainage plan to insure an adequate plan review by the City. The sides and fronts of the buildings appear to be on the property lines. 1 Table 5 - of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls that are within 3' of a property line. Projections (decks, overhangs, etc.) must comply with UBC 504 (b) which generally permits projections to extend a ' maximum of 1/3 the distance to the property line. This provision would prohibit projections on walls that are on the property lines. Access to a public way must be provided from each dwelling in order to comply I with the building code (UBC 504 (a)). Private easements for driveways and private roads would meet code requirements. t 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER /1 - r - 7 - ' • M C n . h 1 1 1 Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 03/03/93 Page 2 No street names are shown on any of the submissions. Streets names need to be reviewed to avoid conflicts with existing streets. I ecommedations: "Staff recommends the following be included in the conditions of approval: 1. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each 1 house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval. 2. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be 1 submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. 3. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building codeprior to fianl plat approval. 4. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way 1 prior to final plat approval. 5. Submit proposed streets name(s) for review prior to final plat approval. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF . CHANHASSEN 0,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director 1 DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJ: Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 The Park and Recreation Commission will not review this land development proposal until March 1 23, 1993. The following comments are being forwarded to you to enable your report to be submitted to the Planning Commission. 1 The development of Prairie Creek Townhomes is subject to the following conditions in regard to parks and trails as listed in the Lake Susan Hills West PUD Agreement. 1 Parkland 1 Dedication of land for park purposes is not required of this development, in lieu of land dedication. Park fees will be assessed at one -half of the rate in force upon building permit application. At present, this fee is one -half of $600.00, or $300.00 per unit. 1 Trails 1 As specified in the PUD Contract, the dedication of a 20 -ft. wide trail easement parallel to Powers Boulevard, and extending the entire length of the property, is to be dedicated to the city. Further, that the applicant shall construct an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail per the attached city standard within this easement. The placement of the trail may fluctuate within this easement. Landscaping may be installed within the easement, but only on the east side of the trail and not within 10 -ft. of the trail surface. Final alignment of the trail must be field staked for inspection 1 by the city prior to construction. 1 1 I■• 1 �� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Al FRC/MI1QT �+ 7 1 N, ; CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT t • J. CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 r I (612) 448 -1213 ■ COUNTY OF CAI VEI Mt \} F 1 -QTY OF C' March 4, 1993 1 To: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner I From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Site Plan Prairie Creek Townhomes 1 Comments regarding the subdivision and site plan for Prairie Creek Townhomes transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated February 19, 1993. 1 1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: I Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway I Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided I 4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' I County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. A 150 foot corridor has I been established for a potential 4 lane divided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed I subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. From the information provided by the developer, it appears that Tots abutting the right of 1 way will have townhomes constructed as close as 25 feet from the right of way line. It appears that it is again necessary to determine a proposed future road cross - section I through this area to determine the allowable or necessary excavation through the proposed subdivision to complete the future road construction. The County would recommend meeting with the City to determine the future cross - section of CSAH 17 before final approval of the proposed site plan. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. AJirmatizr Actron /Equal Oppornn ni Employer 1 Printed on Renrlyd Pape A TT A( -14/11 10 ' • 1 1 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. I 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right - 1 of -way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision I in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the 1 city. 6. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will 1 generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary, to be the responsibility of the City or developer. I 7. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right -of -way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1_ let Draft 2 -10 -93 U /trish /prairie DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS , OF PRAIRIE CREEK THIS DECLARATION, made this day of February, 1993, by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called "Declarant "), and Bank, a Minnesota corporation, , WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property described ' in Article II, Section 1, of this Declaration and desires to create thereon a residential neighborhood with permanent open spaces and other common amenities for the benefit of said neighborhood; and 1 WHEREAS, Declarant has caused the incorporation of Prairie Creek Townhouse Association of Chanhassen under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a non - profit corporation, which shall own the Common Area and to which shall be assigned the powers and duties of maintaining the Common Area and certain other portions of the property, administering and enforcing the covenants and restrictions herein, and collecting and disbursing the assessments and charges herein created. WHEREAS, Bank holds a mortgage on the subject property and for the purpose of passing clear title does hereby join in this Declaration. ' NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the real property described in Article II, Section 1, hereof and such additions thereto as may hereafter be made pursuant to Article II, Section 2, hereof, shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the following covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens, which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and shall run with, the real property, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof. 1 1 1 ATTINC14 m cs ter 7 1 1 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following words when used in this Declaration or any Supplementary Declaration shall have the following meanings: Section 1. "Association" shall mean Prairie Creek Townhouse Association of Chanhassen. Section 2. "Common Area" shall mean all of Lot — , Block 1 of Prairie Creek, according to the recorded plat thereof. Section 3. "Common Expenses" shall mean expenses of the Association for maintenance, repair, operation, management and enforcement; expenses declared common expenses by the provisions of this Declaration; and all sums lawfully assessed against the Lots by the Board of Directors of the Association. 11 Section 4. "Declarant" shall mean Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, a Minnesota corporation, and its successors ' and assigns if such successors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot for the purpose of development. ' Section 5. "First Mortgagee" shall mean any person owning a mortgage on any Lot, which mortgage is first in priority upon foreclosure to all other mortgages which may affect such Lot. 1 Section 6. "Home" shall mean a residential dwelling constructed on a Lot subject to this Declaration. Section 7. "Unit" shall mean a Home and its corresponding Garage. Section 8. "Member" shall mean a Member of the Association as provided in Article III hereof. Section 9. "Owner" shall mean the record Owner, whether one ' or more persons, or entities of title to any Lot subject to this Declaration, including contract for deed vendors and vendees, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. ' Section 10. "Property" shall mean the real property described in Article II, Section 1, hereof, and such additions thereto described in Article II, Section 2, as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. I Section 11. "Lot" shall mean each numbered lot of Block 1, Prairie Creek, according to the plat thereof, excluding Lot . 1 2 1 ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION ' Section 1. Existing Property. The real property which is and shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: Lots 1 through _ , Block 1, Prairie Creek, according to the plat thereof on record in the office of the Carver County Recorder. Section 2. Additional Property. The Declarant reserves the ' right for a five (5) year period from and after the date of the execution of this Declaration to add additional property to the Countryside Townhouse Association and make such property subject ' to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which property is located in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows: [Legal Description to be determined.] ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS ' IN THE ASSOCIATION Section 1. Members. All Owners of Units shall automatically ' by virtue of such interest be Members of the Association. When more than one person is an Owner of a Unit, all such persons shall be Members. It shall be the duty of each Owner to register his name and the nature of his interest with the Secretary of the Association. If an Owner fails to register his name or interest, the Association shall be under no duty to recognize his ownership. 1 Section 2. Voting. The Association shall have two classes of voting membership: Class A. Class A Member(s) shall be all Owners, with the exception of the Declarant, who shall be entitled to one vote ' for each Unit owned. When more than one person holds an 3 ' interest in any Unit, all such persons shall be Members. The vote for such Unit shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to ' any Unit. Class B. The Class B Member(s) shall be the Declarant ' who shall be entitled to three (3) votes for each Unit owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following ' events, whichever occurs earlier: (a) when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equals or exceeds the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership, or (b) on the expiration of three (3) years from and after the date of execution of this Declaration. Section 3. Transfer of Membership. Membership shall be ' appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of a Unit. The share of a Member in the funds and assets of the Association cannot be assigned, pledged, encumbered or transferred in any manner, except as an appurtenance to his Unit. ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE COMMON AREA Section 1. Members' Easements of Enjoyment. Every Member shall have the following rights and nonexclusive appurtenant easements over and across the Common Area for the following purposes: ' (a) Ingress and egress. (b) Utilities, water and sewer. ' (c) Enjoyment for recreational purposes. Every Member shall also have an exclusive appurtenant easement over the Common Area for the use and enjoyment of the sidewalk, steps and entry way adjacent to his Lot. ' Section 2. Title and Improvements to the Common Area. The Declarant shall convey and record marketable title to the Common Area to the Association prior to the conveyance of fee title to any Unit. The Declarant covenants and agrees with the Association 4 i that it will make and pay for all improvements on the Common Area , as set forth in the plans and specifications on file with the Association, and delivery of the deed to the Common Area shall not constitute a release of Declarant from the obligation to perform such work. Upon the Declarant having fulfilled its obligation to improve the Common Area, the Association shall file in the office of the County Recorder a release of the Declarant. Until the Declarant has completed the work as set forth in said plans and specifications, the Declarant shall have the right to enter and to store materials and equipment upon the Common Area for the purpose of completing such work. , Section 3. Extent of Members' Easements. The rights and easements of enjoyment described herein and the title of the Association to the Common Area shall be subject to the following: (a) The right of the Association, in accordance with ' its Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws, to borrow money for capital improvements on the Common Area, and in aid thereof to mortgage the Common Area. The rights of any such mortgagees in the Common Area shall be subordinate to the rights of the Members hereunder. No indebtedness authorized by this paragraph shall exceed twice the sum of the annual assessment levied against all Units. No such mortgage shall be given or other encumbrance of the Common Area permitted unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees representing seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Lots. (b) The right of the Association to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect the Common Area against foreclosure. (c) The right of the Association to suspend the enjoyment rights of any Member for any period not to exceed sixty (60) days and to impose a fine not to exceed Ten Dollars ($10.00) for each infraction of its published rules and regulations. Nothing contained in this paragraph, however, shall be deemed to deny an Owner easements for access and utility purposes. Furthermore, any such fine may not exceed $50.00 for all consecutive infractions arising out of the same violation of published rules and regulations of this Declaration. (d) The right of the Association to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use of the Common Area. (e) The right of the Owner of each Unit to an exclusive ' appurtenant easement over the Common Area for areas occupied by bay windows, roof overhangs, air conditioning compressors, 11 flower boxes and other appurtenances which are part of the 5 1 ' original construction of any Unit or which are added pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Article VI hereof. (f) The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such ' conditions as may be agreed to by the Members. No such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees of one hundred percent (100 %) of the Units. Nothing herein shall ' preclude the Board of Directors of the Association from granting access to the Common Area on a temporary, non- exclusive basis to any public agency, authority, utility or cable television company for construction, maintenance or repair of any utility delivery system. Section 4. Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate, in ' accordance with the By -Laws, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area to his tenants who reside on the Property and to Members of his family and his guests. Section 5. Taxes and Special Assessments on the Common Area. The Association shall have the right, power and authority to collect taxes and special assessments levied against the Common ' Area as part of the annual assessment, if such taxes and special assessments are not collected by the governmental body from the Owners or paid by the Owners to the governmental body when the same 1 are due and payable. Section 6. Use of the Common Area. The Common Area shall be used strictly in accordance with the easements granted thereon. Except as herein provided, no Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the rights and privileges of other Owners in the Common Area, and nothing shall be planted, altered, constructed upon or removed ' by an Owner from the Common Area except by prior written consent of the Association. If an Owner shall violate this Section, the Association shall have the right to restore the Common Area to its ' prior condition and assess the cost thereof against the Owner who violates this Section, and such cost shall become a lien upon the Unit of such Owner which is due and payable upon demand. The Association shall have the same right and powers to collect the cost of such restoration as provided in Article VII hereof for the collection of delinquent annual assessments. If any Owner interferes with the right and privileges of another Owner in the use of the Common Area, except as provided herein, the Association or the Owner may commence an action to enjoin such interference, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover such reasonable attorneys' fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. 1 6 1 1= 1 ARTICLE V RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION 1 Section 1. Common Area Maintenance. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair and for the exclusive management and control of the Common Area and the Lots and all exterior improvements thereon, and shall keep the same in good, clean, attractive and sanitary condition. The Common Area and lot 111 improvements shall be deemed to include such things as driveways, sidewalks, trees, flowers and shrubs, patios and decks, and docks; together with all lines, pipes, wires, conduits, systems or other utilities which are installed on or across the Common Area or the Lots. The Association, or its contractor, shall have the right to enter upon the Lots to perform the maintenance and repair outlined herein. Section 2. Exterior Maintenance. The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the exterior surfaces of each Home and Garage, including painting, repair, replacement and care for roofs, gutters and downspouts, exterior building surfaces, overhangs and other exterior improvements. Such responsibility for exterior maintenance shall not extend to glass surfaces or doors, screens or screen doors, or exterior door or window fixtures. Section 3. Incidental Damage. The Association shall be responsible for the repair of all incidental damage caused to a Home or Lot by any maintenance, repair, alteration or improvements of the Common Area or the exterior surfaces of the homes performed by or with the authority of the Association. Section 4. Services. To the extent it deems advisable, the Association may obtain and pay for the services of any person or entity to manage its affairs, to fulfill its obligations hereunder, or to enforce this Declaration or the By -Laws. The Association may arrange with others to furnish water, trash collection, sewer service, and other common services to each Lot. Section 5. Personal Property for Common Use. The Association may acquire and hold for the use of all of the Members tangible and intangible personal property and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise. Every Member may use such property in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other Members. Section 6. Rules and Regulations. The Association may make reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Lots and the Common Area, which rules and regulations shall be consistent with the rights and duties established in this Declaration. 1 7 1 ' Section 7. Access at Reasonable Hours. For the purpose of performing the Common Area and exterior maintenance authorized by this Article, the Association, acting through its duly authorized ' agents or employees, shall have the right after reasonable notice to the Owner to enter upon any Lot at reasonable hours of the day. ' ARTICLE VI OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS Section 1. Architectural Control. From and after the completion of construction and sale of any Lot, no building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained ' upon the Property, nor shall any modification to the exterior of any Unit, whether to the structure or appearance thereof, be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been ' submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Association or by an architectural committee ' composed of three or more representatives appointed by the Association. The Association or the architectural committee shall not approve any alterations or structural modifications which would jeopardize or impair the soundness, safety or appearance of the Property. In the event the Association fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty (30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval ' will not be required and this Article shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. The prevailing party in an action brought by the Association pursuant to this Section shall be entitled to ' recover from the other party reasonable attorneys' fees together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. ' Section 2. Use of Lots. Each Lot shall be used for residential Unit purposes only, except that the Declarant shall be entitled to maintain model townhouses on the Property. No ' structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent, shack, or other building shall be used on any Lot or the Common Area at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. No improvement or structure whatsoever, other than single - family dwellings or ' garages or other structure appurtenant to a Home and approved as provided in Section 1 of this Article may be erected, placed or maintained. No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or a nuisance to the neighborhood. Section 3. Use of the Unit. The Units shall not be rented 11 by the Owners thereof for transient or hotel purposes, which shall be defined as rental for any period of less than thirty (30) days. Each Owner shall otherwise have the absolute right to lease his Unit, provided that any lease is made subject to this Declaration 8 1; and the By -Laws of the Association. No Owner shall subdivide any Unit or sell or lease only a part of a Unit. Section 4. Interior Maintenance. Every Owner shall maintain and keep in repair the interior of his Unit. Every Owner shall perform promptly all maintenance and repair work within his Unit which, if omitted, would adversely affect the Property in its entirety or in part belonging to other Owners or to the Association, being expressly responsible for any damage or liability that his failure to do so may cause. Every Owner shall be deemed to own and shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of all lines, pipes, wires, conduits, systems or other utilities, together with the fixtures and equipment served or supplied thereby, which are installed within his Unit or upon his Lot, commencing at the point where such utilities enter upon his Lot. Section 5. Responsibility for Misuse and Negligence. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair of the Common Area and improvements thereon or the exterior surfaces of any Unit is caused by the misuse or negligence of an Owner, his family, guests, tenants or invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be assessed against such Owner. Such cost shall become a lien upon the Lot of such Owner which is due and payable on demand, and the Association shall have the same right and powers to collect the amount so assessed as provided in Article VII for the collection of delinquent annual assessments. ARTICLE VII ASSESSMENTS , Section 1. Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments. The Declarant for each Lot owned hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association (1) annual assessments or charges and (2) special assessments for capital improvements, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. , Section 2. Use of Assessments. The assessments shall be used exclusively for the benefit of the Owners, to promote the health, safety and welfare of the Owners, to preserve, protect and enhance 9 1 the value of the Property, and to ensure the enjoyment of rights, privileges and easements with respect to the Common Area. ' Section 3. Method of Levying Annual Assessments. Annual assessments against the Lots for Common Expenses shall be levied by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the Association. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual assessment period and send written notice thereof to every Owner. All Units shall be assessed equally. The annual assessments shall be due and payable in monthly installments on such dates as are established by the Board of Directors. If an annual assessment is not timely made, there shall be an assessment ' in the amount, installments, and on the due dates of the last prior annual assessment. The Board of Directors may require each Owner to deposit and maintain with the Board of Directors an amount equal to one quarterly estimated annual assessment for use as working capital. Section 4. Commencement and Maximum Amount of Annual ' Assessments. The annual assessments herein authorized shall commence as to all Lots on the first day of the third month following conveyance of the Common Area to the Association. Until January 1 of the year following the conveyance of the first Unit ' to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment shall be $ per Lot on which there is a completed Unit. (a) At the time each Unit on which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy is sold by Declarant the Purchaser (Owner) shall pay a capitalization fee to the Association of (b) The Declarant shall, after the commencement of the obligation to pay assessments, pay to the Association for each Unit which has not been awarded a certificate of occupancy reduced monthly assessment payments in the amount of 25% of ' full monthly assessment payments. No assessments are due for vacant Lots. (c) The Declarant shall pay full monthly assessment payments as to each Unit which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy but has not been conveyed to a purchaser. (d) From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased each year not more than 5% or a percentage equal to the increase for the immediately preceding year in the Consumer Price Index established by the United States Department of Labor for the Minneapolis area, whichever of said percentages is greater, ' above the maximum assessment for the previous year without an 10 1 I affirmative vote of a majority of the membership approving 1 such an increase. Section 5. Reserves and Surplus. Annual assessments for Common Expenses shall include an allocation to maintain an adequate Replacement Reserve Fund for maintenance, repair and replacement of those elements of the Common Area and the exterior surfaces of the Units that must be repaired or replaced on a periodic basis. Such elements include, by way of example and without limitation, roadways and driveways, sidewalks, roofs, common utility lines, decks and outdoor lighting systems. In addition, the Board of Directors may establish and fund as part of the annual assessments a General Operating Reserve to provide a measure of financial stability during periods of special stress and to be used to meet deficiencies as a result of delinquent payments and other contingencies. The Association shall not be obligated to apply any such surplus to the reduction of the annual assessments in the succeeding year, but may carry forward such surplus from year to year as the Board of Directors may determine to be desirable for the greater financial security and the effectuation of the purposes of the Association. Section 6. Special Assessments. In addition to annual assessments, the Board of Directors may levy special assessments for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconstruction, unexpected repair or replacement of capital improvements on the Common Area, exterior surfaces of Units, or utility lines serving more than one Lot. Any such assessment, however, shall first be approved by a vote of Owners representing seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Units at a meeting duly called for such purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all Owners at least thirty (30) days in advance. Section 7. Uniform Rate of Assessments. Both annual and special assessments shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Units. Section 8. Record of Assessments. The assessments against all Units shall be set forth on a roll of the Units kept by the Secretary of the Association and available for inspection at reasonable times by any Owner or his authorized representative. Such roll shall indicate for each Unit the name and address of the Owners, the assessments levied for all purposes, and the amounts of all assessments paid and unpaid. Section 9. Delinquent Assessments: Interest and Liens. Any ' assessment or installment thereof not paid within ten (10) days after becoming due shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8 %) per annum from the date when due until paid. All sums assessed by the Association but unpaid for the share of Common Expenses chargeable to any Unit shall constitute a lien on such Unit commencing on the due date of the assessment and prior to all ' 11 1 ' other liens except only tax liens and liens for special assessments on the Unit in favor of any taxing and assessing unit of government and all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record. The sale or ' transfer of any Unit shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Unit pursuant to foreclosure of any first mortgage shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which become due prior to the foreclosure sale and ' transfer. Any such unpaid assessments shall thereupon be spread over and become a lien on all Units in equal shares. No foreclosure sale or transfer shall relieve any Unit from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. A lien for assessments may be foreclosed by suit by the Board of Directors of the Association in like manner as foreclosure 1 by action of a mortgage on real property. The Board of Directors shall have the power to convey the Unit so acquired. In addition, the Association shall have the right to pursue any other remedy at law or in equity against any Owner who fails to pay any assessment or charges against his Unit. Section 10. Ineffectiveness of Waiver or Abandonment. No 1 Owner may exempt himself from liability for his contribution toward the Common Expenses by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the Common Area, by waiver or protest of the need for maintenance or repair of exterior surfaces of any Home, or by abandonment of his 1 Unit. ARTICLE VIII 1 • INSURANCE Section 1. Casualty Insurance on Insurable Common Area. The Association shall keep all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured against loss or damage by fire for the full insurance replacement cost thereof, and may obtain insurance ' against such other hazards and casualties as the Association may deem desirable. The Association may also insure any other property whether real or personal, owned by the Association, against loss 1 or damage by fire and such other hazards as the Association may deem desirable, with the Association as the owner and beneficiary of such insurance. The insurance coverage with respect to the Common Area shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds ' thereof shall be payable to the Association. Insurance proceeds shall be used by the Association for the repair or replacement of the property for which the insurance was carried. Premiums for all ' insurance carried by the Association are Common Expenses included in the assessments made by the Association. In addition to casualty insurance on the Common Area, the ' Association, through the Board of Directors, may elect to obtain and continue in effect, on behalf of all Owners, adequate blanket casualty and fire insurance in such form as the Board of Directors 1 deem appropriate in an amount equal to the full replacement value, 12 1 1= without deduction for depreciation or coinsurance, of all of the ' Dwelling Units, including the structural portions and fixtures thereof, owned by such Owners. Insurance premiums from any such blanket insurance coverage, and any other insurance premiums paid by the Association shall be a Common Expense of the Association to be included in the regular assessments of the Owners, as levied by the Association, but such assessments for insurance premiums shall not be subject to the limits on percentage increases recited in Article VII hereof. The insurance coverage with respect to the Dwelling Units shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association as Trustee for the Homeowners. Section 2. Replacement or Repair of Property. In the event of damage to or destruction of any part of the Common Area Improvements, the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. If such insurance proceeds are insufficient to cover the costs of repairs or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed, the Association may make a reconstruction assessment against all Lot Owners to cover the additional cost of repair or replacement not covered by the insurance proceeds, in addition to any other Common Assessments made against such Unit Owner. In the event that the Association is maintaining blanket casualty and fire insurance on the Units on the Lots in the Properties, the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. , Section 3. Annual Review of Policies. All insurance policies shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Directors in order to ascertain whether the coverage contained in the policies is sufficient to make any necessary repairs or replacement of the property which may have been damaged or destroyed. Section 4. Waivers of Subrogation. All policies of physical damage insurance shall contain waivers of subrogation and waivers of any reduction of the pro -rata liability of the insurer as a result of any insurance carried by Owners or of invalidity arising from any acts of the insured or any Owners. Provisions shall be made for issuance of certificates of physical damage insurance to mortgagees. Section 5. Notices to FNMA and FHLMC. All policies of physical damage, fidelity and comprehensive liability insurance , maintained by the Association shall provide that the policies shall not be cancelled or substantially modified without at least thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Federal National Mortgage Association ( "FNMA ") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( "FHLMC "), all of the insureds and all First Mortgagees of record. The Association agrees to notify FNMA and FHLMC in writing whenever damage to the Common Area exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) 13 1 1 from a single occurrence, or whenever damage with respect to any Unit covered by a mortgage purchased in whole or in part by FNMA or FHLMC exceeds One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). ' Section 6. Individual Owner's Insurance. Insurance coverage on the furnishings and other personal property belonging to an ' Owner and casualty and public liability insurance coverage within each Unit shall be the responsibility of the Owner thereof. Each Owner may obtain insurance at his own expense providing coverage on his personal property and for his personal liability, provided that any such policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation comparable to that referred to in Section 4 of this Article. Each Owner may obtain additional fire and extended coverage insurance at his own expense on his Unit, provided that any such policy shall provide that it shall be without contribution as against the fire and extended coverage insurance maintained by the Association. If a casualty loss is sustained and there is a reduction in the amount ' of the proceeds which would otherwise be payable on the insurance maintained by the Association due to proration of insurance purchased by any Owner, such Owner agrees to assign the proceeds ' of this latter insurance, to the extent of the amount of such reduction, to the Association to be distributed as hereinafter provided, and such Owner shall be liable to the Association to the extent of any such diminution or loss of proceeds. ' ARTICLE IX ' RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR Section 1. Casualty. In the event of damage or destruction ' by casualty to any part of the Property subject to this Declaration, the determination of whether or not to reconstruct or repair the same shall be made as follows: ' (a) Any portion of the Common Area which is damaged or destroyed by a casualty otherwise not affecting the Units shall be restored to substantially the same condition which ' existed prior to such casualty. If insurance proceeds are insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment as provided in Section 6 of Article VII hereof to meet the costs thereof ' which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots. ' (b) If a Unit is damaged or destroyed by a casualty it shall be restored by the Owner to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If insurance ' proceeds are insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration or reconstruction, then the Owner shall be responsible for the difference needed to complete such restoration or reconstruction, except that in the event such loss is covered 11 by blanket casualty insurance carried by the Association as 14 provided in Section 1 and 2 of Article VIII, then the Board , of Directors shall levy a special assessment to meet such deficiency in costs, which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots. ' (c) Partial destruction, which shall mean damage or destruction which renders less than sixty percent (60 %) of the Units, collectively, unfit for occupancy, shall be reconstructed or repaired unless this Declaration is revoked within ninety (90) days after the date of such casualty. (d) Total destruction, which shall mean destruction which renders sixty percent (60 %) or more of the Homes and Garages, collectively, unfit for occupancy, shall not be reconstructed or repaired unless at a special meeting of the Members which shall be called within ninety (90) days after the date of such casualty or if by such date the insurance loss has not been fully adjusted, then within thirty (30) days thereafter, Owners representing eighty percent (80 %) or more of the Units vote in favor of such reconstruction or repair. Immediately after a casualty causing damage to the Property, the Board of Directors shall obtain reliable and detailed estimates of the cost to restore the damaged property to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If the proceeds of insurance are insufficient to pay the estimated cost of restoration of the Property, or, if at any time during reconstruction or repair or upon the completion thereof, the funds for payment of the cost of restoration are insufficient, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment against all Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the Common Area and against individual Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the particular Unit constructed thereon. If the cost of the restoration of the Property is less than the insurance proceeds received by the Association, the Board of Directors shall pay the balance remaining to the Owners and their First Mortgagees, as their interest may appear. The Association and any contractors or other persons engaged on its behalf in reconstruction or repair shall have temporary easements in and over the Lots, Units and Common Area to allow such work to be completed. In the event of reconstruction or repair of damage to any part of the Property, all Owners agree that minor encroachments on parts of the Common Area or on adjacent Lots shall be permitted and that a valid easement for said encroachment and the maintenance thereof shall exist. 1 Section 2. Condemnation. In the event of taking by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or by an action or deed in lieu thereof, of all or part of the Property, the monies awarded shall be used and the obligation to rebuild shall be determined in a manner substantially similar to a case involving damage or destruction by casualty. 1 15 1 ARTICLE x PARTY WALLS Section 1. General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall which is built as a part of the original construction of the Units upon the Property and placed on the dividing line between the Lots shall constitute a party wall, and to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, the general rules of law regarding party walls and liability for property damage due to negligent or ' willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto. Section 2. Sharing of Repair and Maintenance. The cost of reasonable repair and maintenance of a party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the wall in proportion to such use. Section 3. Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a party wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, either Owner who has used the wall may restore it, and if the other Owner thereafter makes use of the wall, he shall contribute to the cost ' of restoration thereof in proportion to such use, without prejudice, however, to the right of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from the other under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions. Section 4. Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, an Owner who by his negligent or willful act causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements. Section 5. Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Article shall be appurtenant to the land and shall pass to such Owner's successors in title. Section 6. Arbitration. In the event of any dispute arising ' concerning a party wall or under the provisions of this Article, each party shall choose one arbitrator, and such arbitrators shall choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision of a majority of all arbitrators shall be final and conclusive on the question involved. ARTICLE XI MUTUAL EASEMENTS I The title to each Lot shall include an exclusive appurtenant easement over and across the adjoining Lot or Common Area for encroachments created by construction, settling and overhangs for all Units originally constructed by the Declarant or improvements 16 1 1 which are added pursuant to Section 1 of Article VI hereof. A valid easement for said encroachments and for the maintenance thereof, so long as such encroachments stand, shall and does exist upon each Lot in favor of the adjoining Lot or Lots. ' ARTICLE XII RIGHTS OF FIRST MORTGAGEES 1 For the protection of First Mortgagees and their assigns, the following provisions shall take precedence over any other conflicting provisions of this Declaration: Section 1. Notification of Default. A First Mortgagee, upon request, shall be entitled to written notification from the Association of any default in the performance by an Owner of any obligation under the Declaration or the By -Laws which is not cured within sixty (60) days. Section 2. Exemption from Right of First Refusal. Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit by foreclosure of the mortgage, by deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage, shall be exempt from any right of first refusal contained in the Declaration or By -Laws. Section 3. Liability for Assessments. Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage or by foreclosure of the mortgage will not be liable for such Unit's unpaid assessments or charges which accrue prior to the acquisition of title to such Lot by the First Mortgagee. Section 4. Books and Records. First Mortgagees shall have 1 the right to examine the books and records of the Association. Section 5. Approval of Certain Acts. Unless at least , seventy -five percent (75 %) of the First Mortgagees of Units, based upon one vote for each first mortgage owned, or 75% of Owners other than the Declarant have given their prior written approval, the Association shall not be entitled to: (a) By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell or transfer the Common Area. (The granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Area by the Owners shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause.) (b) Change the method of determining the obligations, assessments, dues or other charges which may be levied against an Owner. 17 1 1 1 (c) By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of regulations, or enforcement thereof, pertaining to the architectural design or the exterior appearance of the ' Units, the exterior maintenance of Units, the maintenance of party walls or common fences and driveways, or the upkeep of lawns and plantings on the Property. i (d) Fail to maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on insurable common property on a current replacement cost basis in an amount not less than one hundred 1 percent (100 %) of the insurable value (based on current replacement cost). (e) use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to the ' Property for other than repair, replacement or reconstruction of such Property. ' Section 6. Liens. All taxes, assessments and charges which may become liens prior to the first mortgage under Minnesota law shall relate only to the individual Units and not to the Property as a whole. Section 7. Reserves. Assessments for Common Expenses shall include an adequate reserve fund for maintenance, repairs, and 11 replacement of those common elements that must be replaced on a periodic basis. Such routine and foreseeable assessments shall be payable in regular installments rather than by special assessment. Section 8. No Priority Over First Mortgagees. No provision of the Declaration or By -Laws shall be construed as giving to any Owner or to any other party priority over any rights of First 11 Mortgagees of Units pursuant to their mortgages in the case of a distribution to Owners of insurance proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or a taking of Units or the Common Area, or both. Section 9. Contract Terms. The term of any agreement for professional management of the Property, or any other contract providing for services of the Declarant, may not exceed two (2) years. Any such agreement shall provide for termination by either party without cause and without payment of a termination fee upon ninety (90) days' prior written notice. ARTICLE %III ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS Section 1. Declarant Rights. Notwithstanding any provision of the Declaration or By -Laws to the contrary, the Declarant may 11 operate and maintain upon the Property during the period of construction and sale of the Units such facilities as may be reasonably required or convenient to the construction and sale of the Units, including without limitation a business office, storage 18 1 II -- area, construction yards, signs, model units and sales office, and shall have easements for access to and enjoyment and use of such facilities for itself, its employees, agent and prospective purchasers. Section 2. Keeping of Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot or in 1 any Unit, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. The Association may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the keeping of pets. Section 3. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot or in the Common Area, except that the Declarant shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Property such signs as it deems appropriate to advertise the development until the Declarant conveys the last Unit. 1 Section 5. Miscellaneous. All sporting equipment, toys, and other equipment and supplies necessary or convenient to residential 11 living shall be enclosed or shall be screened from view. No boats or recreational vehicles shall be stored by an Owner unless stored inside a Garage. In addition, no television or radio antenna shall be erected or placed on the exterior of any Home. , ARTICLE XIV GENERAL PROVISIONS , Section 1. Duration and Binding Effect. The easements created hereby shall be permanent and the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall run with and bind the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or any Owner, their respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a term of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years. Section 2. Amendment. This Declaration shall not be amended or revoked unless at least seventy -five percent (75 %) of the Owners agree to such amendment or revocation. Section 3. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain such violation or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants. Failure by the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 1 19 1 i 1 1 Section 4. Notices. Any notice required to be given to any Member or Owner under the provisions of this Declaration shall be 1 deemed to have been properly given when personally delivered or when mailed postpaid to the last known address of the person who appears as Member or Owner on the records of the Association at the time of such notice. 1 Section 5. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Declaration shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any 1 court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 6. Singular and Plural: Gender: Joint and Several ' Obligations. When required by the context of this Declaration, the singular shall include the plural, or vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neutral gender. Any 1 obligations of the Owners or Members shall be joint and several except where the context clearly requires otherwise. Section 7. Governing Law. This Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this D eclaration the day and year first above written. 1 JASPER DEVELOPXENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation By: James E. Jasper Its: President 1 [BANK] 1 a Minnesota Corporation 1 By: Its: Vice President 1 1 1 20 1 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February, 1993 by James E. Jasper, known to me to be the President of Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of February, 1993 by , , of [Bank] , a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. 1 Notary Public 1 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin & Willemssen 121 West Main Street PO Box 150 Waconia, Minnesota 55387 (rlh) (612) 442 -5155 1 1 1 1 21 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE ' • CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION APPUCANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia OWNER; Jasper Development Corp of Waconia 1 ADDRESS: 235 W 1st Street ADDRESS: 235 W 1st Street Waconia, IN 55387 Waconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612 - 442 -5611 TELEPHONE: 612 - 442 - 5611 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. XX Subdivision %/51 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Vacation of ROW /Easements 3. Grading /Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. X Notification Signs $50 ' : 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees /Attomey Cost - (Collected after 1 approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 1 10. XX Site Plan Review 1 TOTAL FEE $ 1 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. • Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. ' 8Y2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ATTAC4461Et)T - (U •• 1 ' PROJECT NAME Prairie Creek LOCATION NE Corner Lake Susan Hills Drive & Powers Blvd. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot C. Lake Susan Hills (Exact legal attached) 1 PRESENT ZONING R -8 1 REQUESTED ZONING no change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Median Density Residential 1 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION same REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Intended platting of townhouse Droiect 1 This application must be completed in full and be en or dear! printed and must be accompanied by all information PP P typewritten Y P pa y orma o n and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. I This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Tide or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. , I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best' of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's' Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records. 44t?l pre S' 2 -12 -93 1 Signature Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date / 1 Application Received on .-.2-/ Fee Paid 03 Receipt No. 4 3/ ) e This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on • 1 1 1 • That part of Government Lot 2 and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter ' of Section 14, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the most westerly corner of Outlot C, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County, thence on an assumed bearing of South 58 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds East, along the southerly line of said Outlot C, a distance of 141.50 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 3, Block 7, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County; thence South 14 degrees 58 minutes 37 seconds East, along the southwesterly line of said Block 7, a distance of 308.11 feet to the intersection with the northerly right of way of Lake Susan Hills Drive as delineated and dedicated on said LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST; thence southwesterly, a distance of • I 272.59 feet, along said northerly right of way line, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 52 degrees 03 minutes 42 seconds, a radius of 300.00 feet and a chord bearing of South 48 degrees 59 minutes 32 seconds West; thence South 22 degrees 57 minutes 41 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, tangent to said curve, a distance of 166.46 feet; thence south- westerly, a distance of 186.18 feet, along said northerly right of way line, along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 66 degrees 40 minutes 20 seconds and a radius of 160.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 01 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 71.38 feet to the intersection with the easterly right of way line of C.S.A.H. No. 17 per corrected highway easement per book no. 157 of deeds, page 6; thence North 0 degrees 21 minutes 59 seconds West, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 24.91 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 588.77 feet, along said easterly right of way line, along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 31 ' degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds and a radius of 1070.92 feet; thence North 31 degrees 08 minutes 01 seconds East, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 244.66 fee.* to the point of beginning. • r 1 `' 1 2 • j ���___J s L.J 1 1 1 ::: 14 1 i III 1 :. / ,.-.1 ., .,'1 i t / +! .!t co oS it siit if Iii / .0e■ cztt 1 i r L� / ". 40 otr f,,- • 1 .0 (f) ; 3 / kik P ' I IIV 1 Cilitiittiiiih ' ,/ ite . -, 4 .'"'' : I 11 ' , „...... fit , „.,, ea Q ; 1 ,, c., A / . , ,(1/ 1 te _.. ,- VI IP I / ‘ c,„ --4 . lit _... „a, 0.7. 4 / //$ ' . ** git „-- „4-1 t o * 4,,,,,/, i 1 t 4 . It, ; ; i , ' e ..*, * # °, 0 lo ig **17 , / — IffiNv . /,, o s k i -;;.7 / I 11 - 1 t ;': Qt0 0 - 04r ' / / / ,, / / - ,.. 4Vri • % 4 ' I `; 4 / ' � / v / -• ,� (9/ 1 gA o • ' ter. Q / &# "it 1 , .: 6."4 / TA 1 -4,16 / r ,.. v / / / ye r 1 ■ IPPI / Arr� y� m� /1 ---z- . -- . ■ 1 , iLL L 1 1 : z *w 1 ' 4 0 1 h i t P ! '. G pi: `• 1 1 1 4 w s P I • :74/ ' fi 1 Ir. I�V`1 , 41110 i 1 I _ _ 1 _i ) I III 1 0 , * , Y 1 1 li 111!iiiiiit q ylAl . . 1 1111 i g 1 ta G 11011 ;6 1 rmtii+ N-r~ MP s e �bb «Nb3 . f oN � g �1t1111 /1111 I .l I _i . . 1 1 1 1,-_-:,--, jJ1� -. _ 1 � � M �i 1 (---y i i0DD 1 i D D IL 1 I I,: II ____Ii-;::: 1 „ 1 :II f 1 r <III .1 1 71:1k.:.- Z 0 I II i = 'i 1 i W Aillt9Hi W 1 1 :oa o I � ��� 1 � ■ Dn Z ■ ! J DD O 1 DDD D . D'D D � I i _I i _ \ , u., 1 4 1 ICI �I .111 - 1 ' ( I 1 ►mil 4 wit - 1 I 1 1 1 n Ill Imo 1 1 1 11 1 1 II EMI 110. O a 1 - PAM > I - _ W -I ' W fl CZ 1 a 11 1 I W I 1 4 OL 1 1 A 1 1 DLGK 1 r o■•■ • j 001271 1 _ KITCHEN DINING • � t.%1 i 10-0:114 MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 11.610-0 10.0 : u -o �___�'� i 1 n V 1 s — LIVING ROOM j HALL M-0 It ~•, gI 1 1 BATH LAJNDRY OY • 1 1 GARAGE 21.4 :21 S 1 1 N f L immuw 1 1 1 CHERRYWOOD 1130 FINISHED SOUARE FEET 1 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 1 1 1 � � 1 I_ F 1 I , f . .s • . ... { 1 `.y .... FUTURE � FUTURE ;' FUTURE BEDROOM ; BEDROOM - -- RECREATION 1 ROOM . • 1 1 --_ - i / 1 l it 11 0 I1 - --- -- -- 1� L~ - - - - - -= F` ' II MECHANICAL F1 � i i FU TUR `, / T '- 1 I ` .7/4 � 11 • 1 ` —) !r Id.... --' . 1 1 1 • 1 1 UNEXCAVATED 3 1 1 i i 1 I 1 1 1 CHERRYWOOD 1130 UNFINISHED SOUARE FAT 1 LOw _ ova PLAN 1 + 22 s 1 i3ECJC -- 1 DINETTE I., • • \ 1 \ - --� / � DINING M BEDROOM KITCHE 1 B I :R �„ , ;, j •e•s s U.4 r pm_[— ]( —�_- w-e. w-e 1114 114-111 ii =__ \ ■ 1 T ` [ 411 — .■ . v oRSG - ' 'MASTER CLOSET . : T it. I 1 HALL 0 MAS TER 0 i LIVING ROOM 1 BATH LAUNDRY ' OYER 1e ` 1FO -. 0 I 1 1 GARAGE 1 21.4 1 WO 1 i I I 1 I I 1■•■ 1 1 ROSEWOOD 1 1313 FINISHED SOUARE FEET I MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 1 7 1 - Emil IIIIIIhMI � L_� 1 1 ii JJ FUTURE FUTURE BEDROOM I BEDROOM • L - - - ,1 FUTURE • r - � 11 RECREATION I \ �{ II 9 ^ 't 41 ROOM i • / I -- - - - - -- r� . - - - k' j FUTUi "r- 1 0 3M BATH) M ECHANICAL o r , = _ -__= 1 `� \ • 1 1 .. Ili 1 it 41 11 1 11 .. . . .. ... ...... . . • 1 • • • UN EXCAVATED 1 • • .= ---i 1 1 ROSEWOOD 1294 UNFINISHED SQUARE FEET 1 LOWER LEVEL PLAN — — i MI EN i MI ER E — MI MI UN — NM — r a}seyS 4 3 41es45 49'441 -1£6 ' 1130foid - ___ _ - _ -- - N3SSV+ 4YH3 JO A1ID ..-:-.--,•. ..1- Iws- LSl -u. «wV -__ _--- - - -_ _- N „ w «n.tl •0311 N33a� 31 lV id LL1p <W, 3 Nns o 2 a Y sa nNrx i , wu, «� e„ •010503 60 • 10 •N » w : R_• }a _ i - - -. 5.y .I.PI9 _ 1 10 1 11 K .61 50 D0 .12 n, 105o NVId A1nhf1 *DUI •so)ofoossy puo Jopyos - pes! G i, .• ^. - . 6 •,1 N . t ...w" AavNJwn — — — \ 931106 tEleld00 .3 S ■M3S 0001111v6 M01 Jr 1 63,10•36 12'%0101 } 4 \ Ate I:4 . -....:--.., .-...... • ' 100 wl MN s! ;! 2�, O \``\ S� \\ \ \ '01:12'.4': ..C.' S".'-.'`u ,,. f! \ \ \ CI \\ � . , \• 2 � . � ^0.x O ' \ . � ' ''4 oz 9'5 a.1. p! O \ �` \ \ \ .. • \ b V �IY00 , 'L06 nNi \ .4 • .99003•.1, -01 -563 �\ ' O , .0 J1 I .O 8 + �� .� NS �NB d` . .o. • 11 ���, ` , ...,.6.t ,„ 9 0J aa \ � ..\ � `~ O • O `L'Nb 0141.Z1 .. § , .: L : . • \ ~\������ '�• Isoe 1110 _CA MN ! \ 'd '''C \ \ \ b` w N N. om „® p ill r ,' , , ... a n B l c Iw 1 O \� ?,,, Y OU!0 X (R310N 351 113.1 5 ., fM [` �' , -x -, 0! - lrilt3001 a B 210 11.3x0120) ST. 21 MS.,. d �-� . / 2112011103 RfAdOtla OBa ,,* . , C �e of • • CI 1 •O 3JN31 IlSeIT w t1 .0 -0 ,9 1439.7— 1 0 IN q 31.11 1.0191.32E amunx —,u — B %3 \ y O - „ 31 MOW - -. — \ • \ .• l3tl f 2x11 3203.33 3211 3103333 039%!0 — 3 — ,•.'” ,p2 31.11 SV3 035150 — 9 — \ Q y 01 a2tl ax 1!3x35 Nt101S 511115563 - is MW 2 • - 6'198 AW 3'i 1131135 025/1110I2 MAWS) —0 — fl - 9 LC6011x1 CI xO M__ 5•005 TOS � \ f 00 0 00.6• s eze ol6 WYX•'''' B ��(( 1101311.03 ONUS. -0W— \ \ t :4 ry \ \ 0 • 3 MILS. KM . MCC M pK 3IYK 3� M L ' 011�'��) 1.5112•31 W1WY n.000 -- >W '9 i1MYS:V Y a no '3wiV✓1SAGINoM1 1510•1 111.1 SY 0q ~' }t5 xK SM KZ ,- • -1 3 � I 5.S. X3 I3Mx 5 L .., ul 31035 f0 3111211 3l VU IMO.. a A0 p 1 0 �R 1 J2� I 11.19021 01.5021.1 1 o. a v � - Iy NSW, 20193 MOW. • OJ . 4 __ _ .oe 1 TIM RISn.ged 0 WI ' I I q ON3031 I I) ,-'".s, 1 82 6 Z Z M m 1 q b;, § Y g ` N Z O Z 0 3 U Q M z § y 6 = 6 '� 'zg j d 3 I ' K - N 3 I p�SgRi/HARM,Iiigi / ce ,.// — � • Q I Ali ;; a• /. i / S ' i © ` , l C Z / /°,, ' I , / / 1 r s _ . ', 1 / / 1 9 1 1 N + /: 1i I I ili ,!!;,, 1 1 i I bier I I 1 / // ii \,,.. N , #/$ _,.. / a = r Vii ' Y/ / / y ?' it 'fr I I / r � ^ f r � g / / 5 /i �rr Oil, :. '. f J ; Fg3 a: r ` t 9` �3 APS a / p 9 a i / ' / o i I *;% / i fr. ':',. / : 1 4' ';'' j I i r ; 2iil i : _ ; —� �, h / ; '�e � ' . N , � r / ;' / / / '. i 1 �y�� J =aa l , / / 1 �� I ' 7_ ' .. ,-, / if /'--,.#,,, / r x , 0 ,:!' i 111‘. _,. / ,, �1 . o o� / / / .8- 7 — V ‘ .4 0 / ,,, -, gbre / / , • //// / / g!h I ,,*- • \ : /,.,-' \ (( (i!V Vie .' ;: i f.- /„/ /c/ gH O / c /1 / / / / • , . ,,‘"4/0 1 4 :\Tiallite / / , • / ///1 / F, P. Zic \ i ,4 './ /V / / / ---.- z 0 I I < -i. i � / (7f W / \ �\ I/ �� / / / m 18 .\ \ \ (1 �a , i / /` r 1 1 ` LEGEND J •`a z —®'i"S — I,ISIING W. IMAM I b N,. to - N — SNISnNG SNOT Mr Ell. ST r s I r y �� r�`y - EJ41PNG STOW SEND U(U I 1 S - -I E' `'` ate m Feet — BURIED CAS I.NE - _ E I j 1'I�'3� rrr — BONED EuIrPoC UHL ,NU \ ' ' 1 \ — r— BURIED TELEPHONE 11NE L � . �� - BUB. 70,11510N UNE MPS E /OMNfM ASPER difLryWp,I ' I.35 NESS EFSI TWIT \ �i- J- . -` ,/ N.uou.Nr. oJay 4 - i I © Q \ \ ocltrWSUWtttM¢ ZI R ANNAIES, WE __( P.w EEnrrtv -- - . I - / Q © \ EtGY( NN. b,JJ 31 /IR Ip / ;.,,,,, - . l ett a w v �, ,�, - • .-` / p .... TYPICAL BUILDING DIMENSIONS • ,R BUSH \ ,. O �... \ \\ caaa l ` r^ 4 ' \ \. \ 5 \ \\ \ ~• \ � :O tU �.. X25 6Jf ` , \\ \ . ,. .\\ \ ] 1.'C I . ,, ,,.. ‹ . 1 , 4 1 1 cr.' 1 ( ,i"E�:� ,e* •.\ \\ BR USH `\ ,- \_ \ -4_ ` N 1 Cv C 5 ions ru.n.EE Pglt \ \ � r �� © © . TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION \ •-..-`4-4-,-,...,,,,,,,,,-9 � � ;; — ` "— -- ".2 I 110 — 120'�y_] `` UN CUNlPo.R� - - .`, Ct. k GOT. - • - t -15 144041 Weor Iwo. 2331 rte. a \ •_ n r — roc, Cool 1447111 2557 - - - - -- 14eurn W. oor . 5551 7, n — ' — — -. — -- 1 PRELIMINARY r -- t' 14rrUUr J[Ir a 5 AVY.9o1. `, r n «uer . «I.l I11 rrn. - -_J (IMIt CrvNrnll �... 1n..n .r.• ..71.0,-1,-,._ evised «, r rw y TI .1P.r,� «1 ,1- R - Rehder and Associates. Inc. SITE PLAN r _. .. _ - . bM1vM .W t . (NtIWU ..t roll, run N1 MO IAMr .IPNf Woo, wa wn, Praa «uw) tiN��.rn,I ir.o�n.., ,,nn, io..unc_ .- --- ---- ,NLVWi. MIL (3,5305.A. PRAIRIE CREEK 1. «, ,«,«r. MM ,+r ,«, r n«,n. 551J5 1n -- _ Nn,,,.r N1. -- TYPICAL STREET SECTION _ _.- W. y r. . y,:- . .,., CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' — - Project No. 931- 144.84 Sheet 2 of 4 Sheets MI 111111 MN — i— MI OM MI NM i an — — — NM OM — r ), Ik'\ i 1 I i iii . W M I HII I IJ II IMi t — -- — — — I III; o er r 1 1. O /r :7717 � _ P "1J C g i c Li j ...-1.—... il / /_, , / , :zi /, , ,, .,,, , , . 1 i ,,,,,. ,,, 1 , fa. seaus ii / i! \ of A 1 , .., ,,,..,-, , \s, 1 0.. f . # d 1. / / /'% , '� , i 4 / ,; . � , / -------:/ . ; /: 7 �/ % j---' 4 / ' a a 0 .4 / '''' - -' ' Air /'' , A - , , .0 - r''' > --....,,,./...., . , i i : 1 � / / p a i ' 11 / ' i I e 1; : '' o �� 1 // / \ ,. a . i / / / / / / -_4 u - - - -- 01 ii /' ,71 / / 1 /41 '7,7 )( 3 .4 /',„ / , / / / , =� , 1 a / ,/ // / i ? ( ( / , - — ; i ( �� / ° / 0 4 "/ 1111111 , ,,, jil ,,/ / / . _ �' f ,w �/ d ' 14 018IIII/Ii!ligiii i ii 1- 1 1 i ' � --- -- ' i; ".C�gi , v t ' 4 'i h t ; fl* i It , ' a ` � // i 11 gig i Iiiiili ii t e p ! ° '!- ,' i 3 / /' v /,/ ( i j � � �Y i 3 � i „ f = i i i c == tt 0, "Ai, ;4 ( ` t ,:;4 . f �s. / x s 3 ; d �j •44 • 1 • 1 ' _ I li d;i1sI illia!,0alt=�rlif r= A. 1 L i r • • ,F:: r 4 L 40 ❑ ■ 'TT II DDD DDD r L Lt •'!!kid. .:y: . __i _ 1 ('--Y . f i J III I • iii j/,�� I- 1 1 . 0 -k 111011 z 1 i '1111 :: . N4 .1 • 0 1 ` -, 1 1 _ f O 1 • �i 1 W ,�l I� : / _. ' : , LLI I II ...• 1■11 1111 z "ill 1 0 1 L... . • Ce 1 • 1 "!!. I ",':(( liI I'rr ` ! ,I! 'III I ,iii!I i{: ' i '41'II • milli, 'I "!,.! I f, 1.1 __ (iii I 1 Ili 1 lis_ !I 4 I —'I —i1 iiI II' � I�iil i:al'ii HI. a I — iii I i i i l ,li, . il,.., II II `l H I . ' _ ! 1 I I i — i 1;:;11!„1 II: I : ; I: I III 11 ilIlI _ 1 - 1 1 1� 1 I ��_— i II I,1.1,I,I,'i II ,Ii ` _ � I ,I' I 'i 'I' it II 1 ,1 l I _ I� I I 1IY = = l -I l l i l, 11 111;11 'Ili ' I� ; =_ 1+-17-1 1 1_1_14—Ii l�II 111! t .II _ I_i_ 1 1li i l k II!I w 111i11IiI' �1Iliiilllll r ritilL---=-1- - gl'�'1 Ili 1 I II` °.1 i =- -'— 1 I _ . ppp — ,II Ili,.I11111 II I,1 i 1 1 I i I I = � I I == =- 1 .1:.:-1, f "' IIUli1 1'1 111' III i. 1 1 __ ' -'' 1 I , I l i 1 ,,., . ., ,, 11111111; , I i I ; ' llllllllllllir I Il; lir ;II roll I ' p I I i , . 7 1 ICI �. I I IMO I I, 1 1 1 ICI 1 ,, ' Lml 1 1 1 1 - H I -' r----1. in ICI i 1 A I 1 . z : I H p a 1 r � > 1 E . W J . ' W ce • I I 1 I a 11 , l ua 1 ce l 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' APRIL 7, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. , MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS II BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES, JASPER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: ' Name Address Jim Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Kirby & Susan Paulson 8410 West Lake Court Ritra Hailing Don Patton Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: One of our concerns last time was that we might be setting a precedent for another one of the medium to higher density outlots from till original PUD. Assume for a minute that we allow this one to go to 40% impervious and the other outlot is built with a higher density project. Do you think that they will also be able to go to 40% impervious with a higher density project based on what we do tonight? , Olsen: You mean if they'd be doing the 9 units per acre? If they'd be doing like the stacked units? Batzli: Yeah. Olsen: Yeah. I do believe that you are setting a precedent. But to be II honest, those impervious coverages are really low and for the size of those units or the lots, it's going to be really tough to meet that. Like the one, you have the long lot, outlot on the west side of Lake Susan or Powers Boulevard. I believe that they probably will be pushing the 29% oil whatever impervious is allowed on that site. They're all low. They're in the 20's or the low 30's. So yes. I believe that you will be setting a 11 precedent. But most likely I don't know that, it's hard for me to say what the situation is but we might be even recommending that you, even if a precedent hadn't been set, we might still be making a similar recommendation. 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 2 Farmakes: Does this wind up being a variance of a variance? 1 Olsen: What I recommend is that you amend the PUD contract to state that Outlot C, you know change that. 1 Farmakes: It just applies to that specific outlot? Olsen: Yeah. Or you could change it to all. ' Mancino: No. I think the recommendation is that we change it to all, according to the staff recommendations. It is to change all the outlots. 1 A, which is high density and B, C, and D which are medium, all to 40 %. That's in the staff recommendations. ' Farmakes: Then do we modify the original? Is that a modification then of the '87 agreement and a modification of the '93? Olsen: No, that would be a modification to the '87 PUD contract. But 1 then what are you saying, the '93? Farmakes: Well, I understood part of the question here was you were discussing that we're not gaining that much more by asking the applicant to conform to '93 PUD standards versus '87. I understand the contract has expired. But as a matter of practicality. Olsen: Well it hasn't expired but it allows you to bring in new regulations. Farmakes: Correct. But as I understand it, there was a 5 year grace period in there and what happens in the future. Does this just deal with this particular, this development? I mean if we start, being that that's ' expired. Or I'm saying it's expired. I don't know if that's the legal term. Olsen: Right, that's not the correct term but yeah. Farmakes: Are we cutting a new deal here? ' Olsen: Yes. As far as this site plan, yes you are. Farmakes: Okay, is this going to come back to haunt us? 1 Conrad: It shouldn't. But the rationale sort of escapes me right now. The standard for the R -8 district is 35% impervious surface. So let's just talk about R -8 districts. So what the staff is telling me is the standard should be 40 %. I don't care if this is part of this big PUD or not. I'm just curious about an R -8 district and that's really the issue here. What should the impervious surface ratio be. Farmakes: Is the motivation though of this particular unit on this particular piece of land, is that, should that be implied to other developments? Conrad: But if you like what you see, then we should. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 3 1 Batzli: Well we haven't been brought the rationale to adjust R -8's in general. Conrad: No. Olsen: No. 1 Conrad: But we certainly can address this as this particular property and I don't know that it sets a standard. Batzli: See but I don't know that it does. I'd like to come up with a rationale for why it doesn't but I'm still troubled by why we should amen" the density for the Outlot B and D until we see what's proposed on those areas. Olsen: Yeah, that's fine. I think one of the reasons that we put that i1 there was possibly so that if you were comfortable with it on this, that you wouldn't be setting precedent throughout the rest of the PUD itself. II We weren't you know dealing with the R -8 district at all but there's no problem to limit it just to amend that condition just for Outlot C. Batzli: What scares me is that if they need a certain number of units on!' this particular piece of land and they have to go 40% impervious, if you go with a lower priced medium density unit, of this style, you would need a lot more units apparently to cover than, and if we go to 40 %, then I ca just picture the next one coming and saying, well now we need 45% because these ones aren't as expensive as the last ones. And I have a tough time with that. Conrad: Me too. Batzli: And I'm willing I guess to go 40 on this provided that we can II demonstrate, at least to ourselves, that they've given us something that wasn't in the original PUD. I mean kind of a quit pro pro here that you know fine that there's a demand for this kind of housing. That's wonderful but if they're giving us additional landscaping and they're giving us things that weren't really in the original contract, I don't have a problem I guess saying okay, we'll relax a little bit on the impervious here because I don't know that 5% is going to matter. Provide that we have proper water drainage off of this site but, and I think we have enough open space here but I really have a problem, and I guess I'm relying on you to tell me that we have that and from the staff report it 1 looks like we have it but. Olsen: Well there's no question that over the PUD contract they're , greatly exceeding the architectural design that we possibly could have gotten and greatly exceeding the landscaping. They were only required to provide 500 per unit. I guess I know it's way beyond that. He could maybe even give you. 1 Mancino: Of course it was 6 years ago too. Olsen: Correct, but that's all, you know that's the same we have with thl Lake Susan Hills 9th. That's still, that's $150.00 and yeah we know that 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 4 that doesn't provide you anything now. So as far as those two issues, yes and I guess that's one of the reasons staff was in favor of this project was because they were, even to begin with, coming with those additional architecture and landscaping. ' Batzli: And the other side of the coin is that let's apply all of the new standards to this particular parcel and then they probably can't do this 1 kind of development at all. Olsen: No, not this one. Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: Then what would have to be done? You'd have to rezone the property then? Olsen: No. ' Batzli: You'd end up with a different kind of unit. Olsen: Right. Their project would not go. ' Farmakes: A 3 story type? ' Olsen: Yes. Because you really reduce, with the 50 and the 30 feet, you reduce the size. But then you'll be reducing the density. They'd only build 8 units per acre and 35% so it's just a different project. Mancino: Right now it's 5.2. The density is 5.2 units per acre. Olsen: Well it's lower than that now with the one removed. ' Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant wish to address the Commission? Larry Harris: My name is Larry Harris. I'm an attorney in Waconia. I represent the applicant and I want to address, I'll try to short circuit my presentation because it appears that the Commission and staff may have come to an understanding on some issues but I want to address some points. First of all in relation to Outlot D. I don't know that the Planning Commission is aware that my client holds an option on Outlot D and assuming this project goes, and my client anticipates it will, sometime ' approximately a year from now, my client will be back before this city's Planning Commission with a development plan for the same, I don't want to say they're exactly the same units because -there may be cosmetic differences. There may be slight floor plan modifications to accommodate ' conditions in the market, but I want to be real upfront and address Mr. Batzli's concerns about what type of precedence are being set. For this type of a project on Outlot D, you're going to be looking at approximately the same types of densities. I can't give you exact percentages, whether it will be 38% or 39% but I want to be up front with you that it won't be the 31% that's in the 1987 PUD agreement because this type of development cannot work at that. I cannot speak to the other outlots. That is not part of my client's concern, although I do know that Outlot A, at least according to the way I read the planned unit development agreement, is II Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 5 , anticipated for much higher density than that which is being sought here. I think it's important for the Planning Commission to understand that my client has attempted to work with, not only with staff but the adjoining property owners to come up with a development that works with what already exists in that neighborhood. This is not an economic issue. If economic" were the motivating force here, my client could meet all of the current P -8 requirements and get 39 units in that property. The problem is they're going to be, that there will be under a 35% density but they're all going to be stacked. They'll have a garage and a half and they'll probably sell in the $85,000.00 to $90,000.00 range as opposed to the $130,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. That's not the type of project that my client feels is appropriate for this site. But one of the things, I thin it's important for the Planning Commission to realize is it would generat more profit to build that type of a project. A couple other issues that I think it's important for the Planning Commission to realize. In relation" to the impervious coverage issue. There have been some changes. While one unit has been reduced in this area, additional impervious coverage has been added because in recognition of a suggestion by staff, parking spaces, four guest parking spaces have been added. Secondly, the city hail indicated they want flow thru traffic because of public safety concerns. They wanted an area such as this widened. It all makes it a better project. It makes the project look better but the problem is it generates" a higher impervious surface. Unfortunately everything is a trade off. Bu this project is considerably below what maximum density is according to the ordinance, the PUD agreement and your comprehensive plan. The proble is for this style and this configuration of a lot, it being long and narrow, the nature is you're going to have long looping streets and it generates a lot of impervious surface area. I think it's important to realize that the difference between 35% and 40% in impervious surface area here is less than 10,000 square feet in an 20,000 square foot development And the issue here really isn't necessarily open space. When the 1987 PUD agreement was entered into the developer, Dunn and Curry at that time, dedicated a considerable amount of property to the city for parks and opell spaces. I recognize, the impervious requirements is designed to accomplish two things typically in a city's ordinances. One, to guarante open spaces within the development. Two, to indicate that there's land available for dedication. That there will be parks and open spaces. The second requirement has already been complied with here because in 1987, at the time the original PUD agreement was entered into, there was an appropriate parkland dedication. One of other issues I think is important" for the Planning Commission to realize is that when the PUD agreement was entered into in 1987, no one knew exactly what type of developments were going to be proposed for the multiple unit outlot. The PUD agreement lef the nuts and bolts to be worked out when the actual development plans cam in. They suggest that if an actual development plan had been come forward in 1987 at the time the PUD agreement was negotiated, that the impervious surface density requirement probably would not have been the 31e they wer in the agreement. That's not to say it was a bad agreement. It's just to say that there wasn't a plan in front of city staff and the Planning Commission or the Council at that time where they could sit and layout anli see. Okay, this is how a development would lay out. This is how we need to sit these types of impervious surface requirements. I think there's II one other issue, at least as far as the developer is concerned. We are here tonight, Greg Hollings the engineer the developer has retained is Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 6 here. Mark Jeffries, the landscape architect who's put together the landscape plan is here and I'll have him make a brief presentation to the Planning Commission to show you how the project is landscaped. To show you that the project is landscaped in a manner that exceeds the requirements of your new ordinance and clearly exceeds what is required under the 1987 PUD agreement. We are prepared to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have tonight but because of time tables and development pressures that Jasper Development is under, we'd like the 1 Planning Commission to make a decision tonight. Thank you. First of all, are there any questions that I can answer for the Planning Commission? Batzli: We might have some for you later. Thank you. Mark Jeffries: My name's Mark Jeffries, Minnesota Landscape Products and I'm a landscape designer, not an architect... Some of the changes that ' we've made, Jo Ann eluded to. We added one boulevard tree to Lake Susan Hills Drive. Generally, have beefed up the landscape throughout because we were given a little bit more room to do that when they got rid of a couple units. Along Lake Susan Hills Drive you see 4 bermed areas that were added that were not there. Along the property line which adjoins the neighbors, there was these 3 trees were added and there were some Black ' Hills Spruce trees added this way and everything kind of slid that direction, which I think there was a concern about screening in that area. We did have a detail the last time we made the presentation on these typicals up here and down here which gives you a pretty good idea of, this ' is a typical, a bermed area which flows from some spruce trees into some deciduous trees which is different from a bermed area which kind of stands on it's own. One other change that we made, since we were kind of back to the drawing board on this, we decided, we kind of rethought the ornamental trees on the inside and I don't know how closely you go through the landscape plan but the quantities stayed the same but the number of ' species were decreased from 5 or 6 to 3. And that was just a design decision. Generally deciduous trees, evergreen trees were, numbers were added and then the berms along here. Those 4 berms were added that were not there. This is the typical that was a part of your last packet. Well 1 don't know if you had it. I think I showed it at the last meeting and this is the typical berm along Powers Boulevard and this is the one over on the adjoining lot line. Just to give you a look at what a profile of those typicals would look like...trees and lower growing shrubs underneath the deciduous trees and over here, Jo Ann talked about some of the plants that would be planted in this bermed area. Some of them are quite large. And that has not been a change but some of these plantings along here are shrubs that get anywhere from 5 to 15 feet high so some are really like small ornamental trees...That's about all I have to add unless you have any questions. ' Batzli: I'm having a mental block. We talked to the other, did we talk to the other applicant about salt spray or was it this one? Olsen: It was the other applicant. And we have sent, met with the DNR Forester to confirm what's good and what's not good as boulevard trees. Batzli: Did we decide that the Black Hills Spruce, there's a lot of them a long Powers Boulevard there, are there not? Are those good with salt 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 7 spray or are we so far away we don't care? Olsen: Well right now we're so far away we don't care. What we're doing" we're meeting with the County next week and we'll be finding out then exactly how close the street will be coming. You know there's still that alternative that we might get some land back. But I do have that list noll of what's good as boulevard and we're going to be comparing that. Batzli: Did the tree committee look at that? Olsen: No. Batzli: Is that something they want to look at? Looking at our list? Olsen: Oh the list, yeah. Batzli: Yeah. They're going to review that? Olsen: I thought you meant each specific plan. Batzli: Did anyone get that information from that seminar? Mancino: Yeah, I've got it. In fact I had some questions. Farmakes: Oh there were staff, city staff members at that seminar. Olsen: Yes. And then we also. Farmakes: I think Sharmin was at the seminar. Olsen: Yes, and we've had the DNR Forester go through the list that we've got to say what's good and what's not as boulevard versus interior. So yeah, we have that now and I'll cross check that with what's here. Mark Jeffries: It's still my understanding that there's a bike path between here. 1 Olsen: Yeah. I don't know that they salt those but. Mark Jeffries: ...mentioned that could be a problem. ' Mancino: Well I do have a question about the sugar maples on the interior. The landscaping. They are very close to the roadway and I ' think that when you plow that private street in the interior of the development, there may be. Do you see between I think 10 and 11? Mark Jeffries: Here? ' Mancino: Yes. There's a sugar maple and across the street from that there are two. And I see those land areas as being the places where snow will be plowed to and if that snow has salt in it, it will destroy the sugar maples because the sugar maples are very sensitive to salt in the soils. , Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 8 Mark Jeffries: Yeah. Those are all concerns I guess. You know, when you do a design you have to come up with all this criteria and maintenance is one of those things but as we looked at it, we felt there was adequate room for piling snow in other areas and in those areas to prevent that. Mancino: But there's still going to be snow there and there's still going to be salt in the snow and eventually, if you do that year after year, the salt will build up into the soil so that it will kill the tree because a ' sugar maple is listed as being very sensitive to salt in the soil. There are other trees like a black locust or a burr oak that will withstand the salt in the soil. So that's a recommendation and you can work with Jo Ann on that. Mark Jeffries: Right. Yeah. I think although city streets get quite a bit of salt and sand. Olsen: I don't know if private drives do. Mark Jeffries: ...for a private street. Usually contractors that use salt sand, just use enough salt to keep the sand from freezing. They don't use salt on their roads like the State or the City might to melt ice off the roads so it's probably not nearly the problem that it would be for instance out on Powers Boulevard or somewhere else. Mancino: I agree. I'm just concerned of the build -up and you don't want to plant this lovely tree and then have it die in 5 years. Mark Jeffries: I agree, absolutely. ' Batzli: Jo Ann, do we normally include a condition regarding a homeowners association type thing in a development like this? ' Olsen: You mean as far as maintaining the private drive? Batzli: Yeah. Olsen: Probably. Well yeah, because we're tying it with the outlot. So yeah, we probably should. Even just add it to number 1. Add that this be a homeowners association to maintain Outlot A. Outlot A will essentially be the private drive and all the landscaping within the open spaces. Yeah, that should have been added. I'm sorry. Batzli: Okay. Harberts: Mr. Chair, I just have a comment on landscaping. A comment to ' staff. Do with it what you want. With maple trees, again in the front, I've seen them run into problems with the utilities that service the individual units. Within 5 years the trees have to be removed because their roots are interferring with the utilities, water, sewer, whatever. I'll just throw that out. You might want to look at that. Olsen: You're talking about in front of the units? ' Harberts: Yeah, I'm talking front of units. Planning Commission Meeting 9 April 7, 1993 - Page 9 Batzli: Okay. Larry, is the applicant finished? Larry Harris: We are clearly here to respond to any questions the 1 Commission may have but...anything more in the way of a formal presentation. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone that would like to address the Commission, you may do so at this time. Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address. Is II there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Tom VanAsh: My name is Tom VanAsh. I live at 8320 West Lake Court. I ail one of the homeowners with the property just adjacent to the proposed development. I guess when we moved to Chanhassen 3 years ago we knew that there was going to be proposed townhomes developed and our concerns reall were of the idea in our mind that we would have exactly what it appears this Commission is more in favor of and that is of the 35% or 31% impervious coverage. And I guess my thought on that is that's exactly what I do not want here and that really concerns me because what we're seeing I think from this developer is a very valid concern for the homeowners in this area. Our concerns were expressed at the last commission meeting and I think he did address those concerns that we had , to a point that I guess I'm surprised. I would ask that this Commission do approve this developer for what he is proposing and I guess for right now that's all I have to say. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Just to respond to that a little bit. I don't" know that the Commission favors a 3 story development over this or not. Something we try to do in Chanhassen is to get a mix of housing for different types of incomes and different types of densities and different" styles of housing. And when this PUD was originally passed, it didn't envision that type of a unit and what they're proposing is changing it, I and that's why I think we're moving so cautiously. I don't think it's because we favor that but by looking at what's been done in the past, it appears that that's what was envisioned as a part of this larger development. And so I appreciate where you're coming from. That this looks better perhaps and may be favored by a lot of the people surroundin it, and that's one of the things obviously that's sitting here in the back of our minds as well. But we're kind of wrestling with some other things on it's changes to an agreement and we're trying to come up with rational and whether it makes sense. But I appreciate your comment. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Andrew Olson: My name is Andrew Olson. I'm at 8290 West Lake Court. My concern would be on their north end, on their park view and the landscaping they've made their improvements with the trees and stuff but there's still a big space they have left in there and that's a space, from my house I look down in that area. And when I went over and looked at the ones in Waconia, I took the pictures, the Polaroid pictures that you looked at last time, and I was concerned about the blandness. And the shutters and the window treatments they've done have improved that but it wouldn't hurt to add two more trees in that space in there just to break up the view for me and that would give those lots additional landscaping II for themselves, or spread something out. 1 Planning Commission Meeting g April 7, 1993 - Page 10 Batzli: Would you point on this map to where you're referring to? Are you referring to units, the back of units 5 and 6? Andrew Olson: This one. I'm up over here. I look down right in here. ' Batzli: Jo Ann, is the reason that we didn't put any, is that where. Andrew Olson: ...parking on here? ' Olsen: No, actually it's my understanding that the views and your views were still covered. Mark Jeffries: Jo Ann, that's the old plan. ' Olsen: Right, I know...They've added. This is the new one. The colored map... Mark Jeffries: Maybe we've got a little disagreement as far as what the ' sight lines are here. Our intent was to screen those. Olsen: Screen all the sight lines. Mark Jeffries: I thought that was done with this. And the way we had, we actually stood out on the property and tried to determine that and to the best that we could determine, those were the sight lines. I thought the ' sight lines were coming off this direction and we didn't want to completely close that area off. We wanted it to be open the sight lines up for the people who live here out towards Powers Boulevard. Or out I towards that parkland that's out there. So from my point of view, I would not be opposed to tweaking some of these to do that if they're not drawn exactly in the right spot. Batzli: Jo Ann, let me ask you something. I know that we were talking about having kind of a temporary pond in that area on the city property. By moving those trees, is that moving it within an area that's going to stay pretty soggy? Olsen: We don't have the detailed plans on the design of that pond so I can't answer that. But I don't believe it's going to be...yeah but as far where the soil will be saturated and the depth, I don't have those. Batzli: I'm just thinking white pine might be the exact kind of tree you 1 want there. Mark Jeffries: Well those are all you know, concerns when you get to the installation, there's also...design and quite likely, when the site is graded, you will make some adjustments with maybe species and where an island may sit or whatever...That's very true. ' Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else sir? Andrew Olson: No, that's it. 11 Batzli: Does anyone else? Okay. 11 1= Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 11 ' Gary Kassen: My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and I'd like to start off by complimenting the builder on how well he responded to our concerns at the last meeting. I'm really pleased to see' the changes that he's made and I think they're very nice townhomes. If we're going to put townhomes in there, I think they're nice townhomes. The concern that I had was, or maybe it's a question, is the type of tree" that you're going to have along Powers Boulevard and the plan that I picked up from Jo Ann last week listed, correct me if I'm wrong, Black Hills spruce, Austrian pine, white oak and sugar maple. Is that correct?" Mark Jeffries: That's correct. Gary Kassen: Okay. I contacted the Forestry Department at the Universit1 of Minnesota and 3 of those 4 are very tolerant to salt. The sugar maple, like was mentioned earlier, is not very tolerant. And they recommend II within 60 feet of a highway that you do not use sugar maple. So I would assume that would be within 60 feet. Olsen: We now know that too and we will be working with that. Adjusting" that. Gary Kassen: As a possible alternative you may want to consider a Norway ' maple. They look about the same and they're very tolerant to salt. That's all I have. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission? II Thank you very much sir for your comments. I was feeling sorry for the landscape designer here. We're all trying to redo his design. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close II the public hearing? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Jeff, do you want to start? Farmakes: Why not. I'll be over with first then. I too feel that the II developer has responded well to all the points that we talked about last meeting. I'm not as concerned with the 5 %. Looking at that as a problem" But I am concerned about it as a precedent. And I'm not, I have to admit I do not understand the legality commitment that the city made in '87 as well as I should. I read the history and so on but it didn't leave me with a good confidence level that I understand the philosophical commitment that the city made. I understand the practical commitment and so on. I am a little nervous though about how long term the city commits. How long do we commit when we change these ordinances over years? Where II we start to become more practical to solve the problem. The problem of developing a large expanse of land and that takes a certain amount of time to develop hundreds of homes upon. Where we leave with the old ordinance" and where we begin with the new. And what our attitude is towards that once it's expired. Do we pick and choose or, that leaves me a little uncomfortable. I would prefer that when that type of event happens, that there's a better sequence of what we go to, maybe we should be looking at ' that farther down the line here. But getting back to this project, 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 12 obviously up in c family y p the corner there against the single zone, the developer has responded well to those concerns. I'm not going to get into picking and choosing trees. I think that the staff can work that out between the Arboretum and the stuff that was brought back and so on. Obviously in the long run it would save us a lot of time if we would ' develop a list of trees that are in restrictive areas. Restrictions in weather and salt and leave that up, like we did with the primary list and let them choose from that. And I'm glad that the homeowners are pleased 1 with this. We sort of had a series I think of a couple of developments here in a row where the builder has worked to his neighbors concerns and it seems to have worked out well. And it gives me hope and optimism so that's the end of my comments. Batzli: Thank you. Nancy. 1 Mancino: I just have a couple of questions and a few concerns and I also would like to branch off a little bit about the...of this proposal because I think that there are some good strengths in it. The questions I have. Jo Ann, I'm concerned about the limited number of visitor parking spaces. I mean if I lived here and I'm going to have people over for, my husband's family over for Christmas, one day occasionally, and the family reunion, where do people park? I mean I can see the 4 spaces and I see the 2 in front of our garage. And let's say I have 10 cars and Lake Susan Hills Drive is now going to be restricted parking. So do people end up going to the West Lake Court and parking their cars? Olsen: Well it's wherever they can park. I mean a lot of the private drive itself in here is going to be signed no parking also and, I mean ' that's always a concern. Actually we don't have anything that requires even the 4 visitor parking. That's something that we just kind of threw in. They're meeting all the parking requirements just with their garage. 1 Harberts: It's called public bus. Olsen: So it's a good concern. I don't know, it was an issue where we decided yes we do need some visitor parking but we don't have any equation that says how much per unit. Yes, there's going to be always times when there's not going to be parking that's acommodated. Also, just the fact that the impervious coverage was already so tight, we didnt' want to add 10. It's just we wanted the more green space there so, you know what we've done to address that is to mark the places where we don't want people to park. I think we realize that there are going to be cases where there will be parking along the streets and so we're being proactive and saying okay, if that happens, this is where we absolutely don't want it. We don't want parking, on street parking. And that's as far as we've 1 gone. Mancino: Is this a reason to amend the R -8 and some of the multi density to that standard for visitor parking? 1 Olsen: Yes. 1 Mancino: Because you know I can see at Christmastime, you have your whole family and have a family reunion over, and they're trapsing from West Lake 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 13 II i Court to your particular unit here. Olsen: Especially when it's a private drive. Yeah, and they're narrow. II Yes. But again, you have to understand that that's going to demand more for you to amend the impervious coverage possibly. I don't know. II Underground parking lots. Mancino: Thank you. My other issue is, I'm still having a hard time moving from 35 to 40 impervious coverage. I like open space. There are II only 3 reasons to me to justify to move and I'm still not sold and one of those is the low density of the, I had thought it was 5.2 units per acre. Is that still? II Olsen: Well now it's, I don't have my calculator but now it's 24 units. Mancino: And that's the gross density? II Olsen: Yes. We do gross density here because it's all, you really can't take out the, otherwise you just have the townhome units itself. It's noll like they have a lot and a public street to take out and wetlands. So itll was gross acreage. So it'd be 24 units divided by the gross acreage. So I did not recalculate that for the 24 units so I'm sure it's less than 5,, if it was 5 with the. Mancino: Well no. According to the last staff report, which is from the 17th, you had calculated it. ' Olsen: 5.9. Oh okay. So 5.2 is the new one. Mancino: Now when the original agreement was written in '87 and it had II 9.33, was that also gross density? So are these comparable? Olsen: Yeah, that was gross density. And what that was doing is that II they had mentioned, during the concept plan review was say like Outlot C was going to have 42 units and Outlot D was going to have you know 56 units so what we did was go back and 4.5 acres with the 46 units and that's where we came up with the densities for each one. Again I'm not II sure where the 310, 29% impervious coverage came from. Mancino: But for the going to 40% we get the lower density. We're also II getting one level units and you know the other thing about this Outlot C is that it does abut Lake Susan Park so that there is open space abutting it. There is a parklike space. So you know, that's still an issue for m' and I haven't really decided. But I do know that if we change this particular outlot to 40 %, I don't agree with the recommendation to change the others. I think that each outlot developer should come before us and ll give a direction. Olsen: And prove his case, yeah. Mancino: Some of the strengths that I think this development brings to u is that it's targeting a very important housing market and housing alternative, and that is the need for empty nester housing. And I did sell that in the comprehensive plan that it is one of the segments that the II 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 14 comprehensive plan said that we have a current need for. And that is that 55 to 64 year old empty nesters and I think it does a good job of targeting them. I think the architectural design is of high quality. I think with the changes that were made. I think the landscaping is excellent. Very good. A few changes but I like the landscaping. And I also think that it's compatible with adjacent single family home neighborhoods. I think that the owner /occupied townhomes are of high quality design which fits with the single family homes in the area. And I think it will be creating a good mix of homeowners as far as there's going to be families. There's going to be singles. There's going to be couples. It's just a nice mix. And the...is another strength is just the densities. The low density of 5.2 acres. So that would be a good reason for the development. And that's all. Batzli: You initially said you weren't sold on the 40% but you've got a lot of strengths here that made it sound like you're leaning a different way. Are you not sold enough on the 40% that you would vote against the project the way it currently stands? Do the strengths not outweigh the 40% for you? Mancino: I would like to hear some other viewpoints. At this point they 1 outweigh. Batzli: Okay. Fair enough. Joe. Scott: Without repeating anybody. I'm kind of coming at this looking at how this particular development would fit into the housing continuum that I see in Chanhassen and we do a really good job of getting poeple into town who can afford $130,000.00 and up and that doesn't leave a lot of room for new residents. And where I live, right across the street there are twin homes and judging by how long they're on the market when they sell, there seems to be a pretty strong demand for, and I think these are probably under $100,000.00. So I guess where I'm coming at this is something that, this is a piece of property that could be utilized for a more affordable housing and I'm kind of, I think Ladd and I may be hung up on the same thing. When we take a look at the impervious surface number and then say well, for those of us who are concerned with that, looking for compelling reasons to move off of that very easy to understand issue and have the development proceed as proposed. So I still haven't, in my mind I still haven't seen what are we getting that's unique. What's interesting. How does this enhance what I call the housing continuum. So I mean that's what's getting in my way. So I would say based upon what I've heard right now, I still see the 35% is the stumbling block. Ledvina: Generally I would, I also feel that the other outlots, Outlot A and D...I don't think they should be included with this at this time. This is a difficult issue to wrestle with in terms of affordable housing and all that. I think we have other opportunities in this area with Outlot A being designated as even a higher density with R -12 so, and I look at the overall development so far and I think this arrangement with Outlot C is going to blend in very nice. And I do think the developer has added value to this plan beyond what would normally be expected so I'm going to support it as it's proposed and as staff has recommended. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: Thank you. Ladd. 1 Conrad: I think the developer's done a good job of responding to some of the neighbors comments and it's good to see the neighborhood supporting. think I would too if I had an option of 8 units or 9 units per acre versull what is being proposed. I think I'd be lobbying for what the developer is asking for. I'm struggling, there are a lot of pros and cons. There are more pros than cons in this one. I think the units are nice. Obviously when you increase the price by $40,000.00 or $30,000.00 over what it migh have been, you're going to get better units. I think the landscaping is good. The city may make some money on the taxes. I think the support is" good. The housing type is maybe new for Chanhassen. Negatives is the impervious surface and the setbacks and what we may call affordable housing. You set out a zone or a district and you kind of say hey neighbors, so when people move in you understand there may be some higher" density there and that's what we try to do in some areas. So people can plan on higher density. And then when the market's not there you sort of II wonder well, if the market's not there for the higher density, should we let it go. I guess I don't have a problem letting the higher density go. Sooner or later we'll have that problem. Sooner or later we're going to have to find a place because the market's going to be there and then we'r going to surprise a lot of people by changing the zoning. They'll be real irritated because they bought it before we changed the zoning. Here's a case where we kind of said hey, it might be higher density. The developers saying market's not there. As I look at this, it does meet a need for empty nesters. I can't allow it to set a precedent unless staff comes back and tells me that 35% impervious surface is wrong. They're telling me that it's wrong right now. 1 Olsen: For this site plan. For this style of homes. Conrad: You know philosophically, I guess the bottom line is I need staf 1 to, I need you and Paul, Jo Ann to come back in and tell me why we like 35%. Why 40 isn't right. The logic is, I thought, to have some space for people to be outside their home. No matter how high we stack them or whatever, you can go outside and there's a place for you to sit down, hav a lawnchair and a picnic table. That's why Chanhassen sticks pretty much to the 15,000 square foot lot sizes. We don't particularly don't try to 1 1 go under that, even in the development in the PUD. We really have a toug time going under 15. We're trying to create open spaces where nobody is and people can enjoy it in common and we're also trying to create space II for residents. Residential use in your own yard. I look at this and I say, well when people go outside their house, and this is what I'm struggling with. When people go outside their house, where do they go? Maybe they don't care. But with roads and the footprints of the housing," there's not a lot of space to be in. And that's really what bothers, but then I'll play the flip side. Will the other 5% really make a difference? 10,000 feet. 1 Batzli: Divide that by 24 units. Conrad: It wouldn't. If it was in one spot... ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 16 j Batzli: But you know where they're going to be. They're going to be in their backyard if they've got a deck. They're not going to be in the frontyard where all the driveways and stuff is and is there enough room in the backyard to put a picnic table? Conrad: That's the issue in my mind. What do we think? Batzli: There's as much room in their backyard as there is in mine, and I live in a PUD. Conrad: And what do you think about your backyard? Batzli: That's where we spend all our time. I don't know. If you wanted a bigger backyard, you'd live somewhere else, and I had that option. Olsen: And there's no children here either. Not that that should matter but. Conrad: Why do you say that? Farmakes: Are you putting that in the ordinance? Mancino: Well there may be. By the time that they, if they added on the bottom level, 2 more bedrooms and you've got 4 bedrooms. Olsen: It's my understanding that children won't be in here but. ' Conrad: So the recreation space is on the outside of the property towards the road. Batzli: They have as much backyard as I do. Except that they're sharing it with somebody right next door, to some extent. But that makes it bigger and smaller I suppose at the same time. Ledvina: I think the access to the public facilities here is pretty good so that counteracts that situation too. Conrad: To a degree, yeah. And that's a positive. Farmakes: I also think with this type of design, it's kind of ambiguous 11 where front and back is. Batzli: If there are kids, they'll be in the street anyway. They're in the street in our neighborhood. Olsen: Or the driveway. They don't like the grass. ' Batzli: If you've got to bounce a ball or ride a bike, they're not going to be in the grass anyway. 1 Farmakes: But the agreement does allow for a park close -by. Conrad: So why are we so concerned in Chanhassen about 15,000 square foot lots? 1 1 - Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 17 Olsen: We just discussed that tonight. 1 Conrad: What is it that compells us to provide every resident with that kind of space, which Brian I know you're committed to. 1 Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: And wanting space for people to be and if we're saying with this'll one we don't need it. Mancino: Well no, the majority of people may, I mean I wouldn't buy in here because it doesn't have enough space for me. I'm a gardener. I wan land, more land around me. So I wouldn't buy it but I think that there are some people, and I'm willing to say there are some people that don't care about that. I don't know what the percentage is. Batzli: I view it as a visual thing. I view it in this case as I'm getting enough in trade with increased landscaping and berms and sight lines that I don't need that additional 50 feet per unit or whatever I ge if I demanded that 5 %. I view it as a safety issue. As enough space for people and a visual thing and in this case I just, I don't know, it doesn't bother me. What I would like to do, and I agree with you is, we've set certain limits somewhat arbitrarily in order to have a limit and to give guidance to developers. And if we think 35 is the right number, we should know why we think it's the right number as opposed to 40. And it shouldn't change based upon what kind of unit you can build based on 3 or 40 %. Conrad: Right. Absolutely. 1 Batzli: That's the only thing the troubles me here except that I look at the other side of the coin and I say, well in this case it doesn't bother me. They're giving me enough that I can justify it in my own mind and I don't think I'm setting a precedent unless they're willing to give me the exactly same things on another lot where they want 40 %. And they're II going to have to give me a lot of landscaping. They're going to have to give me enough sense of openness that you're getting at least as much if you were buying a single family house in a PUD. Which is what they're doing here so. Conrad: Okay. Why are they giving, how are they giving you enough openness? Batzli: Well I'm just saying in these backyards it's as much as I have and I'm saying. 1 Conrad: All your lot is in the front yard. Batzli: Well I know but it's around the street so I don't go there so 1 maybe that's a problem with this design being along Powers Boulevard. But that's why I don't go in the front yard. Because you feel like you're in a fishbowl. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 18 Conrad: The only absolute is in our recommendation, whether it's pro or con is that, and I think the Commissioners have said it already in point number 2 here. I'm not willing to talk about the 40% for the other outlots. And I guess I thought we asked legal counsel to tell us whether we set a precedent doing that for the rest, and Jo Ann said we did. Now I don't know if that. Olsen: Well within this PUD I think you. Conrad: No, we can do anything we want within the PUD so 40% here and 35% in another parcel in a PUD should not set a precedent. Should not in my mind but again I'm not a lawyer. Olsen: With other R -8 districts, simple R -8 districts, no you're not ' setting a precedent. Conrad: Right, right. But I would make that real clear if we did decide to go along with that. That our intent is not to set a precedent for the other outlots. The only other question Jo Ann, on point number 7 under recommendations. We had storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event. Why is that 10 years? I thought we always used 100 years. Olsen: It's with a whole new surface water management and I know that we, at all those meetings that we have, the SWMP meetings, with the new design, I'm really not the person to be answering this but the 10 year is now preferred over the 100 year and exactly why I can't. Batzli: Ladd, that must have been the meeting you and I missed. ' Ledvina: If you sized for the 100 year storm, you'd be making 5 foot culverts all over the place. And when you're talking about just physical ' structures, even if they wash out once in a hundred years, the cost of building that additional sizing is just not worth it. Conrad: That got by us didn't it? Batzli: Yeah, I don't remember that. Conrad: Yeah, well it's understandable. Batzli: We could just build these houses on stilts. 1 Conrad: We've had a couple hundred storms in the last couple years and that can screw up everything you've done for the previous 9 years or whatever. Batzli: Don't know how that got in. 1 Olsen: The 10 year now is what Bonestroo is recommending. Batzli: This isn't our Best Practices Handbook kind of stuff now? Okay. Olsen: The 10 year, I can't tell you...but they now come up with the design and 10 year is what they're proposing. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 19 1 Batzli: Did you want to address this? II Greg Halling: I could answer that question a little bit because I'm an engineer. The 10 year, like he said, is the pipe design. If you look at 100 year storm and design like swales between buildings and that sort of thing so it can go over the curb, so it will be deeper in the street, tha type of thing, on your big storm. On your ponds normally there's some, the ponds are sized for 100 year storms but the structures, which is the II pipe leading out is a 10 year. That's what they're referring to. Batzli: Yeah, and that makes sense then with this condition because what it's talking about is the storm sewer. Did you have anything else Ladd? Conrad: That's all. Batzli: Okay, Diane. II Harberts: I'm going to be supporting staff's recommendation with the exception of number 2 as was discussed by the other commissioners. 1 guess just a general question is, what is affordable housing? There's current legislation right now down at the State Capitol that will basically penalize cities if they don't have a certain percentage or II whatever of affordable housing. It could also dictate what roads will be built and what roads will not be built and 212 is one of those that may not be built depending on, I guess it's really a question to the city or whatever in terms of some guidance here. What's affordable housing? Conrad: This is not it. II Harberts: No, this isn't it. Scott: The Met Council will define that. That's the unfortunate thing. II Farmakes: Maybe we can ask the legislators in St. Paul. II Scott: Well it's already to the House. Harberts: It's on the Senate floor. 1 Mancino: Where do we have affordable housing? Medium density. Olsen: Well we're getting some now with the Oaks. Were you involved wit" that? " Mancino: Is that the one's across the street from Target, up on the hill Olsen: Right. And then the apartment units downtown are affordable. Batzli: But we can't, other than setting aside some zoned areas, what doll we do? Do we have to build it if we don't have enough? Olsen: Usually you have to subsidize. That's what's happening with thos1 two cases. It's being subsidized. II 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: Does the City though become involved in that? Olsen: The City does get involved. 1 Farmakes: Should we be involved in specifying market prices of homes? I don't think so. I don't see where we're. 1 Conrad: We just have to make sure there are some forecasts to new residents who are moving in so they can understand where we might be tempted to put it so they can make a calculated because when they build, that there's a chance that affordable housing might be next to them. That's our obligation. Ledvina: Just so the Commission is aware, the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority has contacted our city staff and asked to work with our HRA in seeking out projects for high density and subsidized. So there are some joint efforts that are being initiated. ' Farmakes: I don't think Chanhassen has been anti high density as far as apartment buildings. We have some large apartment complexes that are quite old in the community. The question then becomes though, do we build a building and there's no market for it. And it won't be the first time the government has specified that something be built and there's no one to ' fill it up. Conrad: You really want the market demand to be there first. Or at least I'd like that to be. Yeah, if you took a vote of Chanhassen residents, ' not many people are going to ask for high density. Scott: No but if you look at the reverse commute issue and you see how many people are working in that part of town or that kind of housing and coming here to work. So is there a market? I don't know. Farmakes: There's also, is there precedent though? We get into, we're getting off the issue here but. Batzli: Diane, did you have anything else? Harberts: No. Batzli: I, on a kind of more technical basis here, I would like to see our first condition changed to talk about requiring some sort of homeowners associations in order to take care of the common drive and outlots to the extent there are any on this property. And condition number 2, I would like to see Outlots A, B, C and D kind of deleted and say instead something like, this site cannot exceed 40%. I'd also like to see a 15th condition which talks about sight lines to the north and to review the species of trees for salt tolerance, etc but I'm willing to, you know I'd like to see their landscape designer work with staff just to make sure that those issues are covered and not need to get into so much of a requiring what they do. Our knowledge is that we're at the formative ' stages I think of our knowledge and that's dangerous. I think the professionals should be looking at that. You've been to one seminar I mean. 1 I Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 21 Mancino: I mean I've got my list here. I'm all prepared. 1 Batzli: Anyway, so we're working on that but I appreciate your patience with us and we have a concern which should at least, I think that demonstrates our heart's in the right place anyway. On a more big picturi level, I believe that this doesn't set a precedent. I think there's been kind of a give and take here that at least that would be required in the other areas, like Outlot D for example where apparently this developer hail an option. That we would have to see something at least as good as this before we relax it as we did in this case. I think in the PUD we're safe that way and since the PUD doesn't generally apply to an R -8, we're not setting a precedent outside of the PUD. So I don't see that as a problem I think that this development, you know Ladd and I kind of bounced it back and forth there. What is different about this that makes it okay for me and I don't know what it is. I can't really put my finger on it other than I feel that we're getting enough in berming and landscaping and ther is enough area in the back that for people that want to live in this type of a unit, I think we're giving them enough space. And only time will II tell. If they sell and they're successful and they're well kept for, we did a good job you know. This is not an exact science. But I think, looking at this, that it is, they did a pretty good job on this design an I think they've met a lot of the neighbors concerns and so I'm going to g with the staff recommendation to go to 40 %, although I would like us to take a look at that in a bigger picture. Not just focusing in on the microcosm of this development and see if 35% is too low and if we're I trying to hold them to too tough of a standard. Or, did we come up with 35% based on the 3 story kind of thing and if we want R -8 and the 3 story kind of units to both fit into an R -8, what is the right percentage that I we talk about then? So, having said that, is there a motion? Farmakes: ...why don't you make the motion? Batzli: I can't make the motion. I would certainly entertain a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on revised plans with the conditions 1 thru 14 amended" by number 1 reading, change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and homeowners association By -laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site. Number 2 would be amended to read, after the word coverage of this site cannot exceed 40 %. And a new condition 15 would read, the applicant shall submit sight line detail for the northern portion of the development and work with staff to agree on species of I trees along Powers Boulevard and internally to the project. I'd love to entertain a motion that said something like that. Ledvina: So moved. Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? , Conrad: Can you do what you just did? Batzli: I didn't make the motion? Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1993 - Page 22 Ledvina: 1 made the motion. Harberts: Is this normal precedence that the Chair makes the motion, he can if that's what's usually been followed? Batzli: No, the By -laws say I can't. Conrad: Sure can't. Olsen: But there's no reason they say that. I mean we can change that. There's no reason. Next meeting we'll change that. Batzli: Well, did I make the motion Ladd? Do you think I made the motion? Conrad: Yes. 1 Batzli: I can't withdraw it because I really didn't make it. Ledvina: Do you want a friendly amendment? Conrad: No. Batzli: Is there any other discussion? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25, 1993 with the following conditions: I 1. Change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A and Homeowners Association By -laws shall be submitted to staff for approval and filing against the subject site. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious coverage of this site cannot exceed 40 %. 3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary 1 right -of -way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as I proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24, 1993. • 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City I and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. I 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed within the development in accordance to the City's typical 8 foot wide bituminous trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within the County right -of -way by Carver County and City. I 7. The applicant shall supply detailed sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. The 1