1c-1 Oak Ponds Final Plat 1 /e,-/
CITY OF
1 �
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-~ (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager men by cry AdmintsffettR
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Endo ✓75wi
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Mod it ier1
I ejct
Re
DATE: June 7 1993 R e e - / D- 93
Date Submitted to Commission
1 SUBJ: Oak Ponds Final Plat
Dete Submitted to comet
6- 1y -%.3
1 BACKGROUND
The City Council gave preliminary PUD and Site Plan approval to the "Oaks" development and
1 on December 14, 1992. The final plat includes 7 outlots and the entire right -of -way for the
extension of Santa Vera Drive and Powers Boulevard. Outlot A will be the first phase of this
development. It is a subdivision that includes 6 buildings. Each of these buildings has 8 units.
1 Residents to the north of this development were very concerned about the landscaping plan.
They wanted to see more conifers north of the rental units. The landscaping plan has been
1 revised to add additional landscaping. This particular phase of this plan does not include the area
where landscaping is a concern.
1 STREETS and UTILITIES
1 This phase of the plan proposes extension of a 36 -foot wide urban street (Santa Vera Drive) from
Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to approximately 645 feet to the east. A temporary cul -de-
sac is proposed at the end of the .street. A temporary easement will be necessary for portions of
the temporary cul -de -sac on the outside of the dedicated right -of -way.
The street and utility construction for this development will have to be coordinated with the
1 City's West 78th Street Detachment/Powers Boulevard improvement project. The City's project
will involve road closures on Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street, thus eliminating access
to the site. Some days may require an alternative access by the developer. It is the developer's
1 request that the City work with him to maintain access to a sales trailer located on Powers
Boulevard. Staff is sympathetic to the applicant and will do our best to maintain periodic access
to the sales trailer as well as the site.
1
4P's
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1'
II Don Ashworth
June 7, 1993
Page 2
I Street and utility construction plans and specifications for the public improvements in this phase
have been submitted to staff for review and City Council approval. Staff has reviewed the
I construction plans and specifications and find the specifications in general accordance to City
standards; however, the construction plans need some additional modifications. Staff is
comfortable working with the developer's engineer in modifying the plans accordingly. Staff
1 requests that the City Council grant staff flexibility to administratively approve the construction
plans within the City's standards.
1 Auxiliary turn lanes will be necessary along Powers Boulevard in conjunction with this
development. In addition, the Park and Recreation Department recommended a trail be connected
from the existing trail in Saddlebrook to the proposed trail from Trunk Highway 5 along Powers
I Boulevard. Staff and the developer came to an agreement that it would be more economical and,
from a construction standpoint, more feasible to have the City's improvement project (West 78th
I - Street detachment) construct these improvements and the developer be responsible for the cost.
The turn lanes have been estimated by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch at $12,500. In lieu of the applicant
paying for the construction of the trail up front, it was agreed that the developer shall pay the
I park dedication as building permits are issued for the townhome units. The cost for the turn
lanes will be billed directly back to the applicant upon completion of Powers Boulevard.
Security to guarantee payment of the turn lanes will be included in the development contract.
1 As denoted previously, the applicant is dedicating the entire right -of -way for the extension of
Santa Vera Drive between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. As you will note, the fmal
I plat does not protect the complete extension to Kerber Boulevard; however, the applicant has
supplied staff with an existing street and utility easement that exists over this triangular parcel
adjacent to Kerber Boulevard. This will give the City /developer rights in the future to extend
1 Santa Vera Drive to Kerber Boulevard with the next phase of development.
The project proposes 5 foot wide concrete sidewalks along both sides of Santa Vera Drive.
1 Preliminary plat approval recommended a 6 foot wide sidewalk. The 6 foot sidewalk creates
conflict between the sidewalk and fire hydrant locations along the street. From a maintenance
standpoint (snow plowing), the city typically requires 6 foot wide walks in order to minimize
1 boulevard damage. If a 5 foot wide sidewalk is permitted, the applicant should be responsible
for snow plowing the sidewalks. If a 6 foot wide sidewalk is required, an additional 4 foot
easement for sidewalk purposes should be dedicated to the city to provide sufficient room
1 between the fire hydrants and sidewalk. Either one of these options are acceptable to staff.
I GRADING and DRAINAGE
This phase of the developer proposes modification to the two existing storm retention ponds to
I the north between Saddlebrook and this site. In addition, a sediment basin and outlet control
structure will be constructed adjacent to the wetlands along Powers Boulevard. A wetland
alteration permit (No. 92 -11) was approved in December of 1992, for construction of a sediment
1
1
'
Don Ashworth
June 7, 1993
Page 3
basin within 200 feet of a wetland. One of the conditions of approval was for the sediment basin
to limit disruption to the 944 contour adjacent to the wetland. However, based on a recent
survey of the wetland by the City's consultant, Frank Svoboda, the actual wetland delineation
1
begins at the 939 contour; therefore, the previous condition should be modified accordingly.
Site grading of this phase will be limited over the southwest portion of the site (Outlot A, Blocks
1
1 through 6 and Santa Vera Drive). The site will be generating an excessive amount of fill
material to be exported from the site. The applicant should coordinate with City staff on the haul
route and times of the day hauling activities will be tolerated in an effort to minimize disruption
to residents and traffic.
The majority of the site runoff will be collected by catch basins and conveyed to the sediment '
basin for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetlands. Since the sediment basin does not
fulfill the City's water quality standards, the applicant will be required to provide a cash
contribution into the City's storm water management fund in the amount of $18,600.
The preliminary plat was approved with the following conditions:
1
1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side of Oak Pond
Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall be placed on the private service
drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Road. A "No Parking" resolution should be
adopted by the City Council restricting parking along the entire north side of Santa Vera
Drive. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall also be placed on the private
service drives.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practices handbook.
FINDING This condition has been met.
1
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat for all
utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement shall be dedicated to the
City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final plat shall indicate all wetlands located
on the site.
FINDING This condition has been partially met. Still need conservation easement
and all wetlands shall be denoted on the final plat.
4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard
shall be constructed with Phase I of the development.
1
Don Ashworth
June 7, 1993
' Page 4
FINDING This condition has been met (road easement). Staff feels that this condition
1 should be modified to require that the entire road be dedicated with this phase and that
the road be constructed through Phase I.
5 A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall be conducted
by the developed prior to requesting final approval.
' FINDING This condition has been met. Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch has included the
improvements along Powers Boulevard as part of West 78th detachment project.
Improvements along Powers include land widening to allow for a southbound turn lane
' and a northbound right turn and the construction of a recreational trail from West 78th
to the Saddlebrook Subdivision.
' 6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails and possible location
of sedimentation pond before final plat approval.
FINDING This condition is being met.
7. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication, to be paid at
1 the time of building application.
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking standards as
1 required by the zoning ordinance.
FINDING This condition has been met and the revised site plan reflects the required
number of parking stalls.
' 9. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction.
Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in
accordance with a plan approved by staff.
1 FINDING This condition is not applicable with this phase (no oak trees being
impacted).
1 10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20 foot manicured
area shall be maintained along the north, east and west property limits, anything beyond
shall be left in natural (non - maintenance) state.
FINDING A lighting plan has been submitted and meets the concerns of the residents.
11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated
October 19, 1992.
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 7, 1993
Page 5
1
FINDING This condition does not apply to the owner occupied building. 1
12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated
October 21, 1992.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and submit the
necessary financial securities.
14. Compliance with conditions of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit #92 -11.
1
FINAL PLAT
Staff has reviewed the final plat submitted by Hedlund printed June 2, 1993 and finds the plat
in general conformance with the following modifications:
1. On Sheet 1 of 2, the utility drainage draina a easement dedicated over the entire Outlot A
should be deleted. Specific 10 -foot permanent drainage and utility easements parallel to
the lot line of Outlot A should be dedicated in lieu of. In addition, a 10 -foot wide
drainage and utility easement should also be dedicated with the final plat along Santa
Vera Drive parallel to the right -of -way lines. The City does not wish to accept the
drainage and utility easements in Outlot A since the applicant is also providing sewer and
water and storm sewer improvements which technically would be under the responsibility
of the City to maintain if an easement is dedicated.
2. On Sheet 2 of 2, again Outlot A denotes the common areas of drainage and utility
easement. This should be deleted and replaced with a l0 -foot perimeter drainage and
utility easement along the lot lines of Outlot A as well as Santa Vera Drive.
FINAL PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves rezoning to PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on
the plans dated April 7, and June 2, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side of Oak Pond
Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall be placed on the private service
drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Road. A "No Parking" resolution should be
adopted by the City Council restricting parking along the entire north side of Santa Vera
1
Don Ashworth
June 7, 1993
Page 6
' Drive. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall also be placed on the private
service drives.
2. The adin and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures in
�' g g
accordance with the City's Best Management Practices handbook.
' 3. A maximum of a 20 foot manicured area shall be maintained alon g the north, east and
' west property limits. Anything beyond shall be left in a natural (non - maintenance) state.
Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication, to be paid at
the time of building application.
1 4. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during construction.
Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in
' accordance with a plan approved by staff.
5. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum dated
October 21, 1992.
6. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and submit the
1 necessary financial securities.
7. The color of brick and vinyl siding shall be grays and browns.
' 8. Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit #92 -11."
1 FINAL PLAT RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approves the preliminary plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated April
1 7 and June 2, 1993, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City
with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper installation of the public
improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e.
Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver County.
1 3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements within the right -
of -ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon completion and acceptance to
the City for permanent ownership and maintenance responsibilities. The remaining
utilities outside the easement and right -of -way shall be privately owned and maintained
1
1
f
Don Ashworth 1
June 7, 1993
Page 7
by a homeowners association. Final site plans and construction plans specifications
and s ifications
Y P P P
for the public improvements shall be modified in accordance to staff recommendations.
4. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for construction of the
auxiliary turn lanes along Powers Boulevard at Santa Vera Drive. The estimated cost of
the turn lanes is $12,500.
5. Compliance with conditions of site plan, rezoning and wetland alteration permit #92 -11.
6. The applicant shall grant a conservation easement to the City over the wetlands on the
parcel. '
7. Construction of the sedimentation basin shall limit disruption above to the 939 contour
adjacent to the wetlands.
1
8. The applicant shall provide the city's storm water management fund with a cash
contribution in the amount of $18,600 in lieu of providing on -site water quality
improvements.
9. The applicant shall provide the city with a temporary easement for the portion of the cul-
de-sac
which extends outside the dedicated right -of -way for Santa Vera Drive.
10. The applicant shall submit to the city for review and approval haul routes for the
1
exporting of material from the site.
11. The applicant shall post a 2' x 3' sign on the barricade at the end of the cul -de -sac 1
indicating "This street will be extended in the future."
12. If a 5 foot wide sidewalk is constructed along Santa Vera, the applicant shall be
responsible for snow plowing. If a 6 foot wide sidewalk is constructed, an additional 4
foot wide sidewalk/trail easement shall be dedicated to the city.
13. The final plat shall be revised as follows:
a. Delete blanket drainage and utility easement over Outlot A and replace with a 10 1
foot wide drainage and utility easement around and parallel the perimeter lot lines
of Outlot A.
1
b. Provide a drainage and utility easement 10 feet wide lying northerly and southerly
parallel to Santa Vera Drive.
1
1
I Don Ashworth
June 7, 1993
Page 8
I c. On Sheet 2 of the plat, change "see detail Sheet 2 of 2" to "see detail Sheet 1 of
2."
I d. All wetlands shall be denoted on final plat mylars.
14. The applicant shall reimburse the city for storm water reviews performed by Bonestroo
and Associates on this project. The unpaid balance at this time is $3,916.16.
I 15. The applicant shall pay subdivision fees of $1,120 before the plat is recorded."
I ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated December 14, 1992.
I 2. Landscaping plan dated April 7, 1993 and final plat dated June 2, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C.ity Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 1
•
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion? Anyone wishing to address this at this time?
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: And a second? '
Councilman Mason: Sure. If he moved, I'll second. Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Any discussion?
Councilwoman Dimier: I think it's well thought out.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Mason seconded that the City Council
authorize entering into an agreement with the City of Shorewood and the
developer to provide utilities and access in a manner consistent with the
guidelines outlined in the staff report and directing the City Attorney to draft
the agreement for the appropriate signatures. The developer will be required to
enter into a development contract with the City of Chanhassen concerning public
II
improvements. Resolution of matters dealing with storm drainage shall be
resolved to the satisfaction of the City of Chanhassen prior to issuance of any
building permits in the proposed subdivision. Also, that the City Manager go
before the Shorewood City Council with an appeal to acquire just one lot of the
5 to qualify for CBDG funds. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET BETWEEN KERBER BOULEVARD
AND POWERS BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY:
A. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 112 RENTAL UNITS AND
105 TOWNHOMES AND A CLUB HOUSE /OFFICE ON 27.04 ACRES OF PROPERTY.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR A SEDIMENTATION BASIN ADJACENT TO A CLASS B
WETLAND; AND MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SEDIMENTATION POND.
Public Present:
Name Address '
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty
Arvid Ellness Arvid Ellness and Associates
Kirk Willette Arvid Ellness and Associates
Kay Halla Halla Nursery & Landscaping
Bill Dolan Engineer
Dave Callister 7540 Canyon Curve
Tim Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve
Bob Bohara 7510 Canyon Curve
Kate Aanenson: On November 4th the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the preliminary plat and the site plan as well as the PUD approval. This item
went before the Planning Commission. Took a couple hours of lengthy discussion
with the neighbors and they certainly have a lot of concerns. I handed out to
you a letter addressed with today's date that identified their four areas of
concern I would still like to see addressed. Just to go back and revisit this,
when this project first came before the City, it is zoned R -12. The staff
worked with the applicant to proceed with the PUD zone because we felt with the
24 '
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
development contract and the PUD agreement there were certain things that we
II could assure to make sure it got put in the project. I'm going to go through
those specifically but what I'd like to do at this time is just revisit the
original concept plan so I can show you where we moved as this project has moved
II along. If you'll recall back in July when it went through conceptual approval,
this was the original project. It had three 16 unit buildings and I think the
staff would concur and you certainly did and the Planning Commission did and
I know the residents did, that the 16 unit buildings were too big in their
II massing and their view from the residents. So the developer did eliminate
those. In addition, some of the other things that were taken out of the
original proposal was the trail along the backs of the oak trees. The neighbors
I felt that this was an intrusion into their privacy. There is deer in the area
and they wanted that left in a natural vegetative state and that's again one of
the things that we could put into the PUD agreement. And we agree with too that
that area below the line of the oak trees should be left in a natural area.
' Again some of the other issues was the orientation of the buildings here and
those have been reoriented. And then the other major issue was the buildings up
in here. The most northerly ones. Again, too large and too close to the
I neighbors and then the fact that they were rental. Having said that, the plan
that we're putting forward today has been revised to reflect a different
configuration. Those 16 units were revised and are now a series of 8 unit
II buildings and this area up in here was revised to be single family and again the
face of those have been broken so they have a singular townhouse look to them.
What I'd like to do is just go through. Again, the total number of units has
been decreased. It originally had 240 units. It's now been decreased to the
I single family, I mean the rental units were 72. Excuse me. The owner occupied
was 72 and 168 rentals. That was in the original proposal. It has now been
reduced to 217. A total of 23 units have been eliminated since the original
II proposal. The owner occupied has been increased from 72 to a total of 105 so 33
more units are now owner occupied. Again this directly reflects a concern that
the residents have. Again, that also reduced as this project went along the
total units per acre. The net, which is 9.6 which is significantly less than
I what she could get under the development proposal. So the staff feels that the
massing of the buildings, the smaller type units, plus the fact that he's way
under the density is all positive as far as the changes that have been made.
I Again some of the concerns that the neighbors have is the proximity to, this is
really the critical area now. The orientation and I know that the developer has
to try to reconfigure those but again that's a concern and I'm certain he will
II address that specifically but again that's a factor of the grading. And one of
the concerns that the staff had when this first came forward is to look at
preservation of the topography and the trees itself. One of the things that the
II residents asked for was concern about lighting in the rears of the buildings.
Certainly that's something that will be put into the development contract and
that lighting plan has been shown on the site plan. Staff feels comfortable
that meets the neighbors concerns. In addition, the residents were concerned
I with the roofline and these two buildings in here and then 1/3 portion of this
will have a different roofline look to it trying to reduce the massing of the
building and give it a more residential, or similar look to the homes in their
I neighborhood. Again as I mentioned before, the neighbors were concerned about
maintaining that natural look around the wetlands and that's certainly something
we would put into the PUD contract that that be preserved and that a minimal
area behind the units be maintained and the rest would be left in a natural
II area. The other concern was screening and the timing with the landscaping plan.
II 25
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Behind the buildings, again what would be ideal was to leave the existing trees.
In addition there was concern that they wanted some high growing, deciduous
trees. Some fast growing deciduous trees to do some blocking but in addition
those would loose their leaves so there was additional conifers put in. In one
of our meetings with the residents, the idea was put forward that some trees
should be left out and then when the buildings went in, let me back up. The
landscaping should go in first, even before the buildings go in so they have a
chance to grow. Because that would be in Phase 2, we would recommend that the
landscaping go in with the first building in Phase 1. But then some trees be
left out and at the time that the buildings are put in, the neighbors would have
the opportunity to look at the sitings and see where the trees would be put in
specifically to do them the most benefit as far as blocking views so they can
enjoy the privacy of their backyards and that's something again we would put
into the PUD contract. In the most recent...reflected changes since the last
Planning Commission meeting. We met and we looked at how these could be pulled
forward. They were both pulled forward approximately 5 -6 feet to try to get
them further away and save some existing trees. One of the conditions that
the Planning Commission had that has been met was a traffic study, and I put the
recommendations of the traffic study and those certainly can be met by the
developer. One of the things that the staff has requested that the residents
give consideration to put in the PUD agreement is the color of the buildings and
we'd like to hear their comments on that. And I mentioned the trail being taken
out. Again that was a concern of the residents. I'm not going to go back
through the whole of the PUD zoning but I would just like to say, reiterate the
fact that the staff feels that under the PUD agreement we feel that this is the
best way for this project to go forward and we would recommend approval, as did
the Planning Commission, of the preliminary plat, the PUD and the site plan
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Is there anyone at this time wishing to
address Council? Brad.
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I
live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm the developer. I'd like to introduce the
other members of the team that are here tonight. Kay Halla, who is the
Landscape Architect. Bill Dolan who is the engineer for the project. Arvid
Ellness of Arvid Ellness and Associates who is doing the planning of both the
units along with Kirk Willette and Kirk will be speaking for the architectural
group. What I'd like to do is just briefly summarize for you where I think we
are on this project but go back a little further to 1986 when this was
originally zoned to R -12. I don't know why it was but as part of both the then
existing comprehensive plan that the city had and also as part of the zoning
ordinance, it was zoned to be a R -12 unit. I think as all part of the James
acquisition, for those of you who remember. when he bought all the property he
decided that the back portion of it should be R -12 which is the old Kerber Farm.
And then later on when Saddlewood was done, or Saddlebrook, Rick Murray had one,
about 5 or 6 acre parcel that was remaining that was north of what is now, south
of what is now is the ponds and so at that time that also was zoned R -12. The
property to the west is zoned R -12. The property directly east of this is zoned
R -12 and the property south of this is our highest density, commercial property.
So at that time I believe they felt that that was the proper way to go about it.
I believe at the time, in talking to Rick, why he did it the way he did. He
felt that at the time the ponds that are now there but the previous fields and
26 ,
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
things like that, and the wetlands would be the buffer which is probably
anywhere from 150 to 200 feet between this particular project and the land
there. In 1989, or 1988 and '89 a previous project was presented. I had the
priviledge of following that each time at one of these meetings. It was not
really accepted very well by the then Council and basically I believe it was
tabled and sort of died. That particular project was a for sale townhouse
project. I believe most people when they looked at that project assumed that
' this would be a high density rental project and didn't know how to grasp it. At
least I did. I remember I was kind of surprised when somebody came in with a
low density, for sale project on what was perceived to be a high density rental
project at the time. So I think everybody was a little bit surprised and
weren't quite ready for what they saw. It was turned down primarily, as I
listened, was because it pretty much destroyed the site. It just flatten
everything out and we had townhouses and really very little remaining of the
' existing trees and of the existing terrain on the north side of the property.
In 1989, as part of that possibly, and also as part of the Joe Miller project
over here, the zoning ordinances were revisited and this property was identified
' as one of those that could be done as an R -16 by a conditional use permit
through PUD if you provided the proper amount of parking. So all I'm really
saying here is that historically it's been focused on as a for rent project with
high density and that's been sort of the trend in this. I'd like now to quote
' to you out of your comprehensive plan, which this Council adopted in 1991 with
the guidance of this particular group here. And these are things you probably
are aware that are in this particular document but the first one is that the
' goal of the comprehensive plan is to achieve a mixture of development which will
assure a high quality of life and a reliable tax base. Now this is a plan that
you adopted. The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide for a
full range of housing opportunities. These opportunities require adequate land
be designated for medium and high density land uses. The City, that's you, will
seek to discourage the conversion of these areas to lower density uses to insure
that the goal of housing diversity can be met regardless of various market
' fluctuations. Later on you have also got in here that, and this is probably why
we're using the PUD. Housing development methods such as the PUD, cluster
development and innovative site plans and building types should be encouraged to
' help conserve energy and the physical resources of the site. Then we talk about
what is high density. The high density category, which includes units with a
maximum net density of 16 units per acre accommodates apartments and higher
density condominiums. Within this category an average gross density of 8 units
per acre has been used as a recommendation for projects. This particular
project by the way, at this point, has exactly an average gross density of 8
units. And then for those of you that are concerned about us aging seniors.
' Individuals in the empty nester segment represent 6% of Chanhassen's population
in 1980. Typically empty nesters desire higher quality, smaller housing units
once they decide to leave the single family homes which they raise their
children. It is not unusual for empty nesters to consider attached forms of
housing which eliminate the need for continuous exterior maintenance. At the
present time there is a need, this is 1991, for housing to accommodate this
group. At the present time there is a need for housing to accommodate this
' group high quality, high amenity townhouse type, condominium type, or one form
of housing which may help satisfy the empty nester demand. I guess I'm just
reading this to remind you that this Council wrote this book encouraging this
' type of development as recently as one year ago. With regard both to this and
the fact that the last project probably did not take into consideration the
' 27
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
environmental aspects of this particular project, we have basically said well,
whatever happened last time we don't want to do it again. So we decided that
we'd try to preserve the oak trees that are on the site. Presently I believe
we're eliminating 2, at the most. And at the last Planning Commission they said
we could eliminate 1 or 2 more if it helped the neighbors. You know to try to
move some units around. So far we're trying not to do that because I think much
of the, and I'm just trying to balance it out. Much of the discussion so far
has been done based upon what people will see when they look at this. And we
also have to remember from the architect's point of view, what will you see when
you're in there because this is where the people will live. So we have to kind
of maintain some of the trees and things that are there. Another thing that
we've tried to do is not to disturb the hills to the north. And in doing that,
we have come up with three types of units. One type is the standard townhouse
unit that's being developed successfully throughout the community, and that fits
nicely on flat property. We have a row townhouse which is now on the northeast
corner which is designed to fit on a hilly slope. The reason we haven't -had a
lot of those types of units in there, as we get up and try to build a townhouse
on a hilly slope, it gets pricey. It gets kind of expensive to develop and we
don't know if the market's here for that and that's our risk. And then finally
we've designed a shared entry dwelling which fits nicely on the hills to the
northwest. And we think we've tried to accommodate the site and the unit type
in order to achieve that. We also feel that at the present time in today's
market that this site is marketable and it's possible for us to predict that
we'll be done with the project within the next 3 to 4 years. And that's what
we're really comfortable with. Combining in our case the units to the north
and the units to the south. Each one is different. Each one we feel will fit a
particular market. That there's a need at the present time. I would like now
to ask our three, three of the people just quickly review where we're coming
from at least on the site plan and the landscaping, just to bring you up to
date. 5o Kirk Willette will review briefly, the architectural plans and if you
have any questions of him while he's going through that, Kirk.
Kirk Willette: The overall plan is very similar to what we started with as far '
as the buildings themselves, although we have, as Brad mentioned, created a new
type of unit to the northeast corner in order to provide some for sale units up
in this corner as the neighbors were concerned about the rental units. The open
area. The changes to the site plan have occurred as we've downsized from 260
units in the original plan to 217 units that we have currently. As Brad
mentioned, the shared entry units that go along this ridge are a size that are
much smaller than these row homes and also the townhomes. One, in that they
have a single car garage which does have less space. And the units themselves
are a little bit smaller than what these respective unit is. The reason that
they are located on this side is because this side has the most...on the site
and we wanted to work the buildings so they would sit and work with the natural
topography of the site as much as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just interrupt you for just a quick instance. You '
mentioned something about single car garage.
Kirk Willette: For these units. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Accommodating one vehicle? One car garage?
28
II City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kirk Willette: Yes. For each unit. And then additional surface parking across
the street from that... As I mentioned, we were trying to maintain the
topography and follow the natural hillside because these buildings sit high. At
the peak of the hill and then step down the site as the hill steps down. And
that whole tree line follows very close to that same hillside and buildings as
they've been placed. The buildings, there are three. Three types of buildings.
This would be the shared entry buildings. They are 8 and 12 unit buildings. On
the street side, they have garages and a unit above them. On the backside they
have three units. The units that are closest to the neighbors to the north are
this type of building where it's mostly a 2 story building with a third story
' dormer in order to lower that roof line and be more compatible with the
neighbors. These are the townhomes that step along the south side of the site.
They are an 8 -plex type building. Four units on each side. Each unit is
approximately 1,400 square feet. They have each one has their own two car
' garage. They also have a basement area. And then this building, these are the
row houses that are occurring on the northeast corner and they are about the
same size. 1,400 square feet. They each have a two car garage. Most of the
work that's been done just recently has been in this area as we've worked with
the neighbors and tried to pull these buildings down so we get more distance
from their units as well as preserving the trees that have been surveyed in this
' area to save those trees.
Mayor Chmiel: How much further down did you bring that?
' Kirk Willette: These two buildings actually came down. This building came down
about 10 feet. 10 to 15 feet. This one came, we tipped the corner end probably
about 5 to 7 feet and by doing that we did, we were able to save another
existing tree.
Councilman Mason: So the stakes that are there now don't reflect that change,
' is that right?
Kirk Willette: Right. The building has moved away from the trees... Any
questions?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The single car garages with additional parking facilities.
What total number of units is that going to consist of? How many units totally
with single car garages?
Kirk Willette: With the single car garages? That's going to be 112 units. And
then there's 1 1/4. The total parking is 2 1/4 cars per unit...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, were you going to say something?
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, I'm sure you recall that we amended this ordinance
specifically because of concerns that were raised the first time this came up on
this site. What we have here is kind of an amalgam of a couple of different.
' The ordinance was developed specifically to deal with zoning, you know R -4, R -8,
R -12, R -16 districts. And what it says is efficiency units must have 2 stalls,
1 of which must be enclosed in a garage. One bedroom and larger, 2 stalls, 1
1/2 of which must be enclosed in a garage. And what we've actually got is an
' amalgam where you have all the owner occupied ones with 2 car garages.
' 29
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kate Aanenson: Plus some visitor parking.
Paul Krauss: Plus, well yeah. Plus exterior visitor parking and rental ones II
have.
Kate Aanenson: 2.25. I just double checked. II
Paul Krauss: So the ratio with enclosed? In the rental.
II Kirk Willette: Is 1.
Paul Krauss: 1 to 1, which is pretty much what we've had. If you look at the
II
typical, you know a more typical apartment building, they've only got the one in
the basement. Remember we went through the analysis that showed there was no
way to get more than 1 on a footprint of a typical 3 story building. So in
II
essence it meets the intent, which if you distribute it across the board, I
think we pretty much met the intent of the ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: My concern is total number of units. Those are going to be 1
rental. You may have maybe 3 people within each of those rental units. You
could conceiveably have sharing those costs. Therefore you're going to wind up
with three vehicles. Automatically. What does that do with the congestion
I
within that area? And I don't know if parking is going to be allowed on the
street for the emergency vehicles coming in.
Kate Aanenson: The average is, including the single car garage and the visitor
II
parking, would be 2.25. I think that's what Kirk just said and so there are, 1
bedroom units and a number of 2 bedroom and 3 bedrooms so I think the
distribution works out that with the 2.25.
II
Mayor Chmiel: Looking at the worse scenario, you'd wind up with 117 more needed
parking spaces and you'd only have 2 and a 1/2 you said?
II
Kate Aanenson: 2.25 average.
Mayor Chmiel: 2 1/4. And how does the rest of that fit in looking at a worse
II
scenario, if it were to happen?
Kate Aanenson: I think the distribution works out because you've got 1 bedroom
II
units too.
Mayor Chmiel: Davenports that fold down and make into daybeds and I say this
I
because I know it's happening with some kids that I know that are in apartments.
Where they have a 1 bedroom apartment and there are 3 people living in it.
Kate Aanenson: Well frankly the ordinance doesn't address, and the owner
II
occupied doesn't address having even visitor parking. I think that's why we
felt it was important to put additional parking in.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'm just concerned about parking within the area. II
Kate Aanenson: Right, so we did make them put additional parking in the owner II occupied area too.
30
II
11
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Kirk Willette: In the apartments that we've done, and we've done thousands of
units in the metro area, typically we've been 1 1/2 to 2 cars per unit for
rental and there's not been problems with parking and that has been...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's always the statement that comes forth but once it's
put in, we have to live with it and that's my concern.
' Brad Johnson: Mayor, as you'll recall, we did the Heritage Park Apartments...
we're running at about 1 1/2 cars...you can go over there anytime during the
evening and you'll find...
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, except you're talking 82 units with the Heritage, is that
correct? Total numbers? And we're talking totally on this 112 units.
' Brad Johnson: Right. So we've got, we've increased the numbers. We're way
over the standard. Right Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I think so. But Mr. Mayor, additionally.
Mayor Chmiel: Assure me.
' Paul Krauss: You can trust me. What we have is each rental unit here will be
given a garage. I mean it's not optional like it is in many buildings where you
decide I'm not going to rent this so everybody parks outside. So we have a
' pretty good comfort level that we will have excess parking. Surplus parking.
That ratio also only applies to the rental units. The owner occupied have a
greater perponderance of stalls because they have two car garages. You can park
out in front of them and then there's visitor parking as well. So there is a
lot of flexibility in this plan.
Councilman Mason: I'm not sure if this is the time for this question, so if
it's not.
Mayor Chmiel: Try it.
' Councilman Mason: And I understand there's some grading constraints but as I
look at this plan and as I see where the owner occupied units are and what their
' view will be of downtown and I see where the rental units are going and what
their view will be, I think if I was going to buy something, I'd rather buy
where the rental units are going to be. If that makes any sense. With that in
mind, why can't some of those units be flipped around?
' Kirk Willette: The reason is the land is such, the topography is such, the hill
starts right in this area...and it basically is having to flatten this site out
' in order to get the type...to be built on that area. Because these buildings
need a much larger, flat pad than what this type of building needs. And this
worked on this side because of a gentle slope, fairly even slope that goes...
Brad Johnson: We've been asked this question about a thousand times.
Councilman Mason: I'm sure you have Brad. I haven't been privy yet to that so
go for 1001.
31
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 II
Brad Johnson: Originally we would have liked to have done what you've suggested
okay. But we did not plan...in order to live by your comp plan, the city's, and
not reduce the density, we have to, in addition to making the site financially
...we have to keep, the type of plan that the townhouse plan is a one floor and
it's not stacked...live up and down. In the total plan for the shared entry
units, they're stacked units. We can go 3 units and they...and we've tried to
work it out and maintain some type of density on the site, which is what people
have asked for and it just doesn't work. Because the type of unit that sells
needs a flat surface. We haven't been able to figure out...and by putting any
of those types of units over here, I think that's...get back to where we were in
1988 or '89. Took all the oak trees on the hill.
Mayor Chmiel: How many oak trees are there really? Two? Three?
Kirk Willette: There's a cluster here of...which are on a high point of the
site. There's several, 5 or 6 that are in this area...and then there's one, a
couple...
Mayor Chmiel: How about the major area that we're concerned with? The upper 1
portion?
Kirk Willette: There are not oak trees along this side. There's some scattered
down here. These are large trees.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm just to ride a little bit on your...your discussion.
I see those rental units to me would make more sense abutting to the residential
development with the 8 unit sales and 10 or 12 that we have being proposed in
that particular area. The other aspect I look at it from having the rental
units down below which will be facing some of Charlie James' property. We're 1
going to be getting the same kind of discussion coming back again to Council at
a later time whereby what's going to be going in, in front of them, towards 78th
Street. I can see us in the discussionary thing. Maybe we won't be here but
it's going to come up. But it's going to come up, no question in my mind. Be
it abutting something to residential that's there would have been more logical
in my position, even though the topography, you're saying doesn't allow it.
Brad Johnson: What I'm saying is the topography and financially, it won't work.
We can't put enough units over in here to sell them. This unit is probably a
$90,000.00 to $110,000.00 unit, which is higher than the current standard in the
marketplace. The ones that are selling are in the under $90,000.00 range for
this type of unit. Now all I'm saying is last time this project was presented,
this type of unit was on this side and you turned it down. Flat.
Councilman Workman: One car.
Mayor Chmiel: No, that was not the issue at that time, and I remember that. '
Brad Johnson: The topography.
Mayor Chmiel: It was some of the trees but it was the single car garages '
without the additional parking that was there.
32 ,
1
. City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
Brad Johnson: But it turns out that we have tried, and I don't know how else to
I explain this, to try to put this here and here to here. We dropped another 50
units in the process. I think that the risk that we're taking is, first of all
the developer takes the risk. Not the City. And the developer feels that this
I type of unit is equally sellable in here with trepidation. He's going to build
some up, or we're going to build some up in here. We're not sure they'll sell
because of the price and we don't want to be stuck with a bunch of them all the
way through here. We want to complete the project.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. One of the other things in selling those units, contained
in the sales clause, they indicate to the south of those proposals that
I commercial is going to be developed.
Brad Johnson: We went over that this morning with the attorney and he indicated
yes, and that we should have full disclosure, we probably would do it, put full
II disclosure much as what was done with Saddlebrook. You know you give them a
plat. You show them a plan and you show them the use there. You don't know
what's going to happen here but yeah, after going through...have happen is that .
I later on there are people who discover that this is what it will be. What will
really happen if we don't have these units here, we probably wouldn't shift.
You still have for sale over here but I don't think you'd solve the problem.
II Mayor Chmiel: How can we resolve that corner up there Brad? Can we eliminate
one of those 8 units?
I Brad Johnson: Yeah, I think so. As a matter of fact we have a plan for that.
Remember we've been working with the neighbors and this is sort of like a, first
of all we eliminated all the for sale and for rent that we had here. Then we
I eliminated the for rental that we had here, and that was decided at a previous
meeting. You guys don't remember that we negotiated that. We did that...and we
met with the staff here and we're concerned. So we can plan around it. The
1 only thing we don't foresee that we can do is shift, so simpily shift. I really
question in the zoning process, and Roger can address that, that you address for
sale or for rent. I don't think there's anything in your zoning code that
allows that.
I Mayor Chmiel: Unless it's going to present a problem for a later time for the
Council.
II Brad Johnson: Yeah. I agree with your comments. I would be more than happy to
assure you that a full disclosure would be made to every owner exactly what's
1 going to happen down there, if we knew. You know, and we can say, it could be
like, we've got how many plans? We've got quite a few plans for this area,
right?
II Mayor Chmiel: None yet.
Brad Johnson: Oh no, we've got the conceptual plans that we did as a part of
I the Target presentation... What we can show you, Kirk why don't you just show
them. This particular area seems to be the sensitive area. We would prefer
that this site...into obilivion. We know, and I think Arvid will verify this,
II very little activity happens out in the back of a rental unit. Just go walk
around Heritage and see how many people... They just aren't there and we have
II 33
II
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
' /I
all those houses in my neighborhood and Ursula 's neighborhood for years. I
don't see any activity anywhere, in those areas. So I don't think you get the
rental activity, but go ahead and show what we can do now. What we're trying to
do is manage the process and do what the...
Mayor Chmiel: I've got another question, I think Tom has. Tom.
Councilman Workman: Well I want to be home before 8:00 a.m. I think we're
spending a lot of time focusing on what is the south side of this project. That
isn't going to change. I have my own conceptual of the south side and down
below is Chicken Friendly, Taco Bowl and your Pizza and Lube place and those
people are going to have that problem no matter what. And it's going to smell
and it's not going to look pretty and I don't think we're going to be able to
worry about that tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: But that should be thought about is all I'm saying.
Councilman Workman: Right. And you and I have different perspectives this
evening. But it's going to happen. I'll tell you what, the people in Chan
Estates fought and fought and couldn't believe that somebody would build a
McDonald's on the corner of Highway 5 and of course they knew that something
commercial was going to be built there and these people, there's no way that
Brad's going to be able to convince us that he's going to tell everybody that '
buy those units that there's going to be a Pizza /Lube joint down below. It
doesn't matter anyway. I don't think it matters. In the context of a PUD,
which I think this is a PUD, we can ask a lot of those questions. If you guys
want a PUD. I think what we should do is spend our time, what we should do is
be focusing on this grassy knoll, as we'll call it. That is the focus of the
neighborhood that's really here tonight. And so not to rush anybody along
prematurely, I just think that's where the problem is. The rest of the project
slopes away and faces Eckankar and Highway 17. And so what I think, we met on
Friday, good heavens. A meeting at 5:30 on a Friday afternoon. I mean we're
working overtime with the neighborhood and Brad to try to figure out that piece
and I think we should focus on that. Maybe the neighbors can start to input on
that.
Brad Johnson: Why don't me just show you what we've...implement certain things.
And I went into that meeting saying the only thing I can't do is switch the end
unit type. This could be a condominium. This can't... If we put these kind of
units, they would go downhill...so what we did is change it and basically from
their point of view...
Kirk Willette: We've eliminated one building. We've eliminated 4 units in a 12
unit building through here and then changing this 8 unit building, which pulls
the building back from this corner which is the closest to the north property
line, approximately 30 feet at least from the property itself. And it also
provides more open space on the site...
Councilman Mason: Put that up again will you?
Councilman Workman: You're pulling one out and it goes from how many units?
Mayor Chmiel: So you're eliminating 4 units.
34
1
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
' Councilman Mason: Eliminating 4 units by making one a 12, okay. And that pulls
that 30 feet back from those stakes then is what you're saying?
Kirk Willette: Right. Well actually this is pulling it back even more because
' what's underneath here is what we've already pulled down.
Councilman Mason: Okay.
' Kirk Willette: From this corner, or it's 25 feet down...30 feet from where this
building stuck out here.
' Councilman Mason: Where does that put that in relationship to the top of the
hill?
Kirk Willette: Are you talking in this area? -
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Kirk Willette: This is the flat area of the hill right here. Right now right
here. And these buildings, the first floor would be located just about on that.
What is the...
II
Brad Johnson: And in addition to that...shield it so Kay, if you want to talk
about landscaping. Because that seems to be the concern. A lot of things that
have gone by and we're trying to address. The only way we can sort of soften
this landscape so Kay, you can talk a little bit about what we're doing and
then...
Kay Halla: Generally that...make it quick. When I first started the project,
so the oaks were...and also that Highway 5 corridor, that view. And the north
view with the neighbors I think came... Anyway...saw the site what I tried to
do is keep the species that grow with the oaks and the lindens. Use generally
species that are found...that are found in the same areas...and also to get a
good mix of evergreen and shade trees. And not use too many ornamentals because
' you get more for your buck with shade trees. More screening and more shade.
Also, with all the parking lot, our priority was to use deciduous trees in the
parking lot areas and try to use the evergreen trees to screen within the site.
' To screen buildings and with the...screening on the north end so that they...
And on the Highway 5 corridor...use sumac to form a natural...and then also to
make sure the deciduous and evergreen trees along the south end of these units.
A concern was snow removal and so I tried to keep deciduous more toward the
' parking lot area so that snow can be dumped underneath them and the evergreens
more in front of the units themselves. And then again around the north end
where the homeowners are concerned, it kind of progressed. Originally I had a
' lot of evergreens back here and then after the last meeting they were concerned
that the evergreens, they grow slower and they're shorter to begin with. A 2
1/2 inch deciduous tree will be 14 feet or so...so they asked to get a mixture
so I tried to provide that. And also in this area, these are existing linden
' and elms and the ones that look like little flowers, those are the oaks. So
where there were deciduous, I tried to go ahead and try to put some evergreens
inbetween so that in the winter you have some screening. I didn't want to do
' too many areas where the shade was real heavy just because I was concerned how
the plantings would take over and if they would survive. There have been some
35
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
concern even after this plan from the neighborhood to get more, maybe some more
deciduous in behind these evergreens and possibly go with some larger trees...
With the, I suppose we could propose that but there's...I don't know what ,'
exactly those...can do. I know there are certain residents... I think we need
to get a machine operator and maybe see if that would be possible...these trees
are a lot more defensive so that is something for that developer to consider, if IF
it's in the budget. Basically that's about it. Are there any questions?
Brad Johnson: I think our proposal for landscaping is, this is the preliminary
plat and prior to...prior to the final plat we would move the, you know change
this corner around and bring it back up another 35 feet. Switch the unit, and
secondly come in with a new landscape plan for not only this area but relook at
the knoll. In talking to the neighbors tonight, they're not even quite sure
what should go in there so it would be for Kay to focus on that and come up with
a plan that does what you can...throw in trees but they may all die when they
plant them so...and that type of thing. We are willing to try to figure out how
to put in some larger planting trees when the pad probably is built...and get in
there at that time. The question is when can you get in there with a tree
spade. We're willing to say yeah, we'll do that. Kay says they have access to
a 12 and 14 foot pines, you know everyone wants to throw pine trees in there but
there is access...within reason we're willing to try to do that...but we can't
have a tree every foot...The only concern that we have is if we plant them too
prematurely down here, they have to be watered and until somebody's here to
caretake on the site...
Kay Halla: ...you have to do it at different times of the year. Not when
they're...at this point Brad expressed to me at the last meeting if I could try
to get faster growing deciduous trees behind these units so these are mostly the
red maple which is faster growing than sugar maple and the oaks... '
Brad Johnson: And the other one was...lindens and whatever are down here. The
big trees that you see. We could come back with another row farther down the
hill...so I think we're willing to come with sort of a forest back there if we
can figure out what is necessary. In addition to that...Are you interested in
learning about the storm water end of it? I would guess you are, since that's a
major topic. If so, Bill Dolan...
Councilman Mason: Is the City comfortable with the storm water issue?
Kate Aanenson: Well we have the WAP on as the next item. We were prepared to
do that secondly. We're certainly comfortable with the way it's been handled.
We hired, they contacted Bonestroo to.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it's being taken care of.
Mayor Chmiel: Being addressed?
Paul Krauss: It's being addressed and I know early on the residents raised
concerns of introduction. Well, altering the ponds substantially in front of
their homes and I think we've basically avoided all that and are taking the
water a different way.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we can just.
36 1
,11• . City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
11 Councilman Mason: Yeah. I mean just from my experience from the surface water.
Mayor Chmiel: Comfortable with that.
' Bill Dolan: Unless you have additional questions why. We've read all the
reports and worked with all the engineers. As a matter of fact, we were meeting
right up until last Friday to iron out all the details.
' Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you.
' Brad Johnson: So with that we'd be glad to answer any questions as this goes
on. I'm sure there will be some concerns from the neighborhood but our point is
that we're trying to address as much as we can. We have reduced a lot of units.
We have changed a lot "for sale ". From rental to for sale. I don't know how to
handle the political problem on the south side but I think we can do that
through disclosure. But that's going to be for sale anyway. I don't really see
ourselves.
' Mayor Chmiel: Get something down.
Brad Johnson: And I think you're right. I mean I think the neighbors here
would like to have had better disclosure at the time. It's up to us to do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that, is there anyone wishing to represent the
group?
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve.
Since everybody seems to be referring to the comprehensive plan, I guess I'd
just like to point out one of the key words that Brad Johnson pointed out in the
comprehensive plan was quality of life. That's why my wife and I moved here.
That's why probably, that's probably the number one reason why people move to
' Chanhassen is because of the quality of life. It's certainly a nice place to
live. The reason that we're here tonight is to, because we all want to maintain
that quality of life that we have currently and also we want, or we'd like to
' think that we are stakeholders, not only in our own properties but in our
neighborhood and our community. And we all realize and we've said this numerous
times before, we realize what the property is zoned for. We know it's high
' density residential but the reason that we are here is we want to see the best
possible project come out of this so that the City can live with it. So that
the neighborhood can live with it and so that each one of us individuals can
live with it. Our objective is to minimize the impact of such a large scale
' project on our neighborhood and our own properties and the city as well. With
that said, I'd like to refer to a letter that you received, you should have had
passed out to you this evening from the neighborhood. We did have a chance to
' have most of the neighborhood get together last evening and to kind of come to
some sort of a consensus as to what we felt were the major issues with this
proposed development. And the result of that meeting is in front of you this
' evening. First of all the first concern would be an effective and orderly
transition between high density residential and low density residential. Given
that this is a unique situation where there is no gradual transition from R -12,
R -8, R -4, this is a unique situation and we would still like to encourage the
' developer and the City Council to explore the possibility of switching all or a
portion of the units as proposed. I know you've had a lot of discussion on that
' 37
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
' f'
this evening and I'm sure you'll have, you may have a little bit more of that
tonight. The area of most concern is the 4 apartment buildings that directly
face the single family homes or the knoll, as has been referred to earlier.
II
That's the first concern. The second concern is to reduce the density on the
north side of the development. Neighbors are concerned with the clustering of
buildings. In some cases it almost looks like a train. They're so close
II
together and they weave in and out. It's a concern of the neighborhood that the
density is so high with those buildings in that particular area. If we would
lose, or if losing one of the buildings would be a problem, we would suggest I
that the developer most that loss of units or transport it to another less
sensitive portion or less sensitive area of the project. I realize we've had a
change proposed tonight. I think that's a good step. I don't know, I can only
speak for myself as to whether that's a solution to that problem or not. Third
I
concern is to increase the distance between the single family homes and the
buildings. As you probably know, if you've been out to the site or been by the
site, both the proposed buildings and homes are both located on facing slopes.
II
And being on facing slopes, there's an inherent problem because you don't have
the natural visual and sound buffers. With a flat surface you have trees and
buildings that tend to soak up the noise and that sort of thing but when you're II on a facing slope, you're looking straight across and that distance seems much,
much smaller. The last issue or fourth issue here would be with screening. The
neighborhood is extremely concerned with the number, size and location of the
trees located on the proposed landscaping plan. In fact, just for an example on
• one of the buildings, one of the 8 unit buildings that's facing the single
family residential area, there were three 6 foot spruce trees and two 2 1/2 inch
diameter American Lindens. Screening that building from the neighborhood. The II neighborhood feels that that is inadequate and we've had some discussion on that
this evening. But another thing to keep in mind is when you put a 6 foot spruce
tree on a slope below a building, you're really only screening probably 3 feet
of the building itself. So you're putting a 35 foot high structure up and
II
you're screening about 3 feet of it. So you know, that's very limited screening
as I see it. Another point that I don't know if everybody's aware of it. If
you've been out to the site, you're probably aware of it is that the trees are
II
much more dense on the western or northwestern area of the property. In the
north central area they are much more sparse and there are not a lot of trees.
In fact there's a bald spot when you go right up, you could see all the way II through to the top of the hill without any existing trees. These are the major
concerns that we came up with and that we would like to have the Council and the
developer focusing on. Many of the other concerns are outlined in the staff
report, which you have in front of you. The neighborhood only wants what's best
II
for the neighborhood, the city and each of us. Not only now but I think it's
important to keep in mind that we want what's best for us in the future and we
need to take a look at that. One point I wanted to make, and when we were
II
talking about single car garages on the rental buildings. I used to live in
apartments like that and I can tell you, a lot of people who move into a one
bedroom home or a two bedroom home for a 6 month period of time, they don't use II their garage for a vehicle. They use it for storage. And so that could be a
problem with the number of parked cars up there as well so I think that needs to
be taken into consideration. Is that people do use those for storage,
especially when they're moving from one place to another. Or such as we did
II
when we moved to town. We moved to an apartment for 6 months before we built
our house and I think a lot of people do that and they use those areas for
II
38
II
II
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
storage. So with that I'd like to thank you for taking my comments, and I don't
know if anyone else has anything to say but thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I know what you say when you say storage because I
' have two of my sons with their davenports and snowmobiles and it leaves very
little room for my car. It can be a 3 car garage but I doubt it. Is there
anyone else wishing to say anything more?
' Tim Anderson: Hi. My name is Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve and I
am standing up here just to reiterate what Dave said about our concerns.
Especially about setbacks and buffers and the effect that the facing slopes have
' on the distance or our, what seems like maybe a 300 foot buffer on a flat map
seems much less when you're looking out your dining room or living room window
and I hope that's considered in further discussions tonight. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Bob Bohara: I'd just say a couple words, concentrating on that eastern knoll.
' I'm from the western part of it. Maybe I should be Saddlebrook West or
something. Not all concerns have to do with that knoll. Some of them have to
do with the wetlands that are below my property and how they're handling the
runoff. Some of the things that the city are requiring like a bith path on the
side of Powers there, which is going to have to be built up very heavily there
close to the wetland and the sedimentation pond on the property, which the last
' time I saw it was also real close to the wetland and kind of cut into the back.
Once again you've got to remember that this is not flat land and there's a lot
of hillside there. I think sometimes we just look at these top views and say
everything is alright. We can put an extra pond here or build a bike path here
and it's not true right along CR 17 or right along Powers I mean. It's quite
steep. You're going to have to do a lot of digging and a lot of building up.
The same would being cut for any sedimentation pond near that wetlands. So I'm
concerned about those areas too. And in general, we are always going to be at
cross purposes because we have an amenity there. I'm probably the oldest
homeowner in the neighborhood, being there about 3 years and seeing all the rest
' of it build up around me. But in those 3 years we had the amenity of that open
area and it's a very good amenity. One of the reasons, quality of life to live
there is we bought the house because of the way it looked. It's a large lot and
it has that on the back. Naively we didn't ask what could be built there.
' Perhaps naively we thought that such a nice site would be protected and left in
the condition it was in. It's next to a school. It's next to downtown. Next
to other parks. In fact, if you look at Eckankar, it's pretty much open too and
' we lived through that part too. Next time we'll ask. Last time we didn't.
That's on our burden but it is a nice site. We want to make sure that the best
possible is done with it. We will never see exactly eye to eye but I think that
for the good of the community we'll have to come up with what's the best we can.
I'm Bob Bohara from 7510 Canyon Curve.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
' Kirk Willette: Could I just, I just wanted to say one thing. I understand the
concern, especially about the concern of the buildings and looking over what is
' a valley created with the ponds and I think one thing that we've tried to do to
help that is that the building's closest to the north property line, dropping
' 39
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
those down to the two story buildings and trying to make those buildings set
lower as they're viewed from the neighbors to the north.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Arvid Ellness: I'm Arvid Ellness and I've been listening tonight to see if
there's any gaps that we could fill in our presentation and I think most of the
things have been argued and positioned from previous meetings and in some of
those presentations I made them myself. I don't know in looking at the plan,
and I guess we've all struggled in the course of the last 6 months as we worked
on this development, what to do about some of the issues that have surfaced. I
don't know that we can place the buildings and configure them in any way that
will lose the impact of their presence to the neighborhood. I think that large
open space and the land down there maybe should be defined as, in conceptual
thinking, as an outlot because that would be the buffer. I think that we always
thought that space represented the change that was appropriate. I think that in
placing in the consideration and I defended it in one of the earlier meetings
with the Planning Commission, the idea of keeping the ownership on one side
versus the other. It was primary because of the building types and I think that
it would be much more objectionable architecturally to place those larger
buildings with a configuration of the flat plan that they have to have in the
large space over on the other side. And if we did, they wouldn't be any farther
away from the neighbors and I think they would represent a lot larger space of
building in terms of mass and shape and size. They are a bulkier building. So
I think from the standpoint of all our considerations that we've heard and the
arguments that we made, that open space, preserving the trees is about as good a
development as we can perceive for that site. The only other alternative that I
can think of would be to fall back into some plans that were done back in the
80's where we develop apartment buildings. Where we develop a much more dense
development than what's been characterized here. So in defense of what's been
done to date, I think there's issues raised by the owner and I think we've tried
to respond to them as best we could. But I think we've come up with what I
think is one of the best plans for that particular development that seems to
work not only for the city. The best it can for the neighbors, but it's also a
project that can sell, be marketed well in the lines of the developer and the
contractors that are going to be involved in the project. So I think we've done
what we can and I hope that you'll look on it on a favorable way. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: With that I'd like to bring it back to Council for discussion. '
Michael.
Councilman Mason: I met with some of the residents on Saturday and had, I
thought a very pleasant discussion. I understand their concerns and I shared
with what happened to my neighborhood in Carver Beach when I was gone on
vacation and came back and found 4 lots with trees on their sides. It seems to
me that most of the issues, with the exception of perhaps number 1 on this sheet
that we got today, it sounds to me like these issues are being addressed. And
for my feeling with this explanation here about what would have to happen to
move the owned units to the other side, just doesn't seem workable to me. Just
as I think it would totally destroy that hill and then you folks would end up in
a lot worst place than you have the potential to be in right now. My personal
feeling is I wouldn't be happy looking at that. Certainly I kind of wish we
would have seen this new plan right away and I think I would have saved some of
40 ,
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
my questions. Certainly things have been moved back. I think that's a real
positive thing. The distance has been increased. I am concerned about the
screening. I think the point that was brought up over here, if you're on a
hill, a 6 foot tree doesn't cover up 6 foot of home and I, with the problems
' with the spade truck and what not, I think the screening needs to be pursued but
I don't think that that in itself is enough to hold up a preliminary approval.
But I'm by no means done with the landscaping yet and I guess in a way I know if
Councilman Wing were here, he'd be talking about that too so I'll try to fill in
his shoes a little bit. This may not be the time or the place but I'm going to
do it anyway. This issue of density and diversity I think is something that we
as a Council need to look at and need to address. We don't have diverse housing
in this city. And somebody making $7.00 an hour working at some of the
businesses in town, I don't even think could be able to live in these rental
units and I think that's something we do need to address down the road. So I
' guess I'm throwing that out for now. I think we're moving in the right
direction with this. And it becomes, sitting on Council it becomes increasingly
difficult for me to balance people's concerns that already live there to
concerns about a building that's going to be going up because 3 years down the
road, they're going to be in the same position as the position I'm in living
here for 8 years as a position that somebody lived here for 20 years. I mean
II
_ that's an ongoing battle and it's a real tough one sitting up here. It's that
old balancing act thing. I feel like this is moving in the right direction.
Mayor Chmiel; Okay, Thomas.
' Councilman Workman: So let's table it. Second on that? You know I mentioned
when I was accepting my award this evening for whatever it is I did for 4 years,
' that I was a young lad when I ran for Council and now I'm still young but old.
And the faces in the audience of the residents kind of match my face and my
family and they have new homes and not, some of them aren't all so young but
people who do have and want to have a vested interest. If I lived there and I
put myself in their place, if I lived there, would I want to look at this?
Would I have any control? Probably not. I want to thank Arvid for his not so
subtle threat that, we'll build all apartment buildings on the top of this hill
' if you push us too far. Not that long ago when I was a very young person and I
ran around the hills of Chaska up on 17, they ran into the same thing. One of
what I would call the most beautiful hills in Chaska, bluffs, full of oak trees
' is now a mobil home park because a Planning Commission didn't want to do what
they wanted to do so the developer said, well we're going to do what we want to
do under certain rights and that's what they have now. Albeit, it's a fancier
mobile home park than most but it's a regret that the city has had ever since.
' So the bottom line comes down to dollars and who needs them now and who can
wait. What can sell on that hill doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the
city. And so you try to give and take and you try to move and you try to get
' what you can. Do we want this hill full of all apartment buildings? I don't
think our public safety department can afford it. I don't think the developer
would do it. I don't know if I'm willing to push him but, I think they have
' Swede's working for them. So that's why I kind of said, let's try to work on
this knoll. It sounds to me like, from a meeting that I had, the conversations
that we had in a small group on Friday afternoon, it sounds like we're kind of
coming in to focus with that. I think somebody's going to make an awful lot of
' money off this hill. If they can't afford, well and I'm not ignoring that
they're removing some buildings and moving some things back. But we'll have to
41
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 • II'
screen these buildings. I think that's without question and I think it has to
be done properly and it has to be shown in the plan very accurately in how it's
going to be done. I don't think these people care if it's done 6 or 9 or 12
months after the building's in there, just so it's done and it lives and it
stays there. It will be a refreshing relief to not see the building but as long
as it lives. Our city is lacking, you know I thought as I leave the Council
about all the things that I wish could be and should have been and maybe I'll
still provide that list to the City and then they can throw it away and do what
they want with it. But we do, and I've seen on the Planning Commission docket
blending and mixing and those kinds of issues for 4 years and I don't blame
them. I know we're busy and there's a lot of things going on. What with us
promoting and ramrodding growth, right Ursula?
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Workman: So it does come down to what I call the smaller things and
not on a grander scale. There's going to be future Council worries with the
south end but very difficult to work on those tonight. I'm not getting a II
feeling from the neighborhood whether or not what the developers have proposed
is what they're willing to accept or not. At risk is throw the plan out. No
planned unit development. Let's develop it the way we want to. Cut down all
the trees. Level the hills and put all apartment buildings up, right? So how
far do you push the goodwill of developers who are only trying to do the best
for the city and hopefully shield the people who already live there. I know
that these people, the developers, as professional as they are, know exactly
that this is always going to be their biggest problem. Dealing with the people
who are already there and that's what Chicken Friendly and Pizza and Lube are
going to have a problem with down the road too. And they're going to be
required to build a big fence on the bottom of a hill that doesn't make any
sense either. So if the neighborhood is in any way acceptant of removing one of
the units, or in aggregate removing or reducing it on the knoll, 4 units, I
don't know how much further we can go. It sounds to me like in Mr. Callister's
comments he's proposing of the two 8 unit rentals out front, to remove one
completely and move the one back. I guess it's down to that. I think it goes
without question that we're going to ask for screening. And so it comes down to
whether or not they lose 4 or 8. I don't know how that sits with the Council.
As a side note, it would appear Paul that the ponds are utilized ponds?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes they are. '
Councilman Workman: So the neighbors could mow down to them, build a dock?
Paul Krauss: Well, there's an interesting history to this.
Kate Aanenson: Actually when that Saddlebrook subdivision went in, the wetland
in the most, was actually caused by one big wetland except for the pond that's
adjacent to Kerber. That was not classified as part of the wetland but when
they went in and did the mitigation, somehow it got converted to storm ponding.
It was classified and the neighbors were always treated, when they came in for
variances and the like, that as a storm retention pond. So we considered it as
an ag urban to maintain those setbacks. And when we viewed this proposal, we
treated it also as an ag urban and maintain certain setbacks. But technically '
under the NWI maps way, way back when Saddlebrook went in and prior to that, it
42 1
' City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 .
il was not technically the most, the one, the most easterly one adjacent to Kerber
was not a protected wetland. It was treated as such when Saddlebrook went in.
But the other two, yeah.
I Councilman Workman: So if one of the neighbors wanted to build a deck, they
aren't going to have a problem with the 75 foot setback?
I Paul Krauss: Except that the new ordinance decreases the setback.
Councilwoman Dimler: If you count it as urban.
II Kate Aanenson: Right. So it does.
Councilman Workman: 20 feet?
II Kate Aanenson: 40 feet isn't it?
I Paul Krauss: It's 40 feet if you...
Councilman Workman: Nobody's going to have a problem?
II Kate Aanenson: No.
Paul Krauss: It gives them move flexibility in essence.
' Mayor Chmiel: Any other comments?
I Councilman Workman: Well I guess we're leaning towards which plan, as I laid
out, I guess I would lean towards taking the density out of that knoll and
making it the...
I Councilwoman Dimler: Can you make that part of a motion? It's really tough to
say anymore than what has already been said by either Mike or Tom. I guess I
share the concerns as well with the screening and I think we can deal with that
I at a later time and taller trees, or whatever. I think because this is a
preliminary site plan and plat approval, that there will be many more
opportunities to amend it and therefore at this point I'd be willing to go with
I it. I support the PUD because I think that gives the city more control. I
think staying with R -12 could yield ever worst problems for everybody concerned
so at this time I think that a lot of the bugs have been taken out. I see the
II two sides coming closer together and I know there will be further negotiations
in meetings to come but I think at this point we're at a good point to go ahead
and approve this.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I have three things. Landscaping, landscaping, and
landscaping. Within that specific sensitive area. I think that's going to have
to be done. I don't want to take a position now of saying landscaping be done
II when we can lean back on a machine operator and say no, we can't get one in
there to put it in. I want a definite. No maybe's. No guesses. Somehow with
the single car garages, that still bothers me some, even though we're meeting
all these things.
II Kate Aanenson: Can I interrupt for a clarification on that?
II 43
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 11.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. 1
Kate Aanenson: That came up at the Planning Commission meeting and I think what
they had recommended, and we certainly can put that in the PUD agreement is
that, and this is included in the owner occupied units, is that there be a
statement that said no storage could be allowed in the garage facilities.
Mayor Chmiel: That was going to be my point. I'm glad you brought it up. '
Thank you. And I'd like to see that contained within that as well. How do we
police it? It's going to be a problem. Policing would be a real concern. I
don't think you can do it and I don't think we're going to do it, even though we
could have a police person around. But anyway, rather than reiterate all the
other things that everyone else has said, I think that some of the things are
getting closer. And yet I see some of the concerns of the neighbors and I too
net with them last Saturday and looked at this from their decks and there is
some of those concerns there. So with that I would bring it back to Council for
any other discussion. If no other discussion.
Kate Aanenson: Can I make two clarifications? Todd Hoffman pointed out to me
that on the conditions for preliminary plat approval. Number 7. It says park
. and trail dedication fees. Trail dedication fees should be struck because
they'll be constructing a trail so it should just be park fees will be paid.
Mayor Chmiel: Item, which was that again?
Kate Aanenson: Page 14, number 7.
Councilman Mason: So it's just the park? ,
Kate Aanenson: It would just be park. And then to follow through with that.
On page 15, number 4. It says a 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated.
And you'd want to add, and construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Can I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: Before we get that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have two things to go on with the motions. One is for that
preliminary review of the planned unit development. For those numbers now. If
those numbers are going to be changed, then that has to also be changed. And
then with the wetland alteration, I don't see any problem with that other than
what staff has contained within the condition.
Roger Knutson: This is also approval of the preliminary plat.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right, yes. And preliminary plat.
Councilman Workman: I'll make a motion. Preliminary review of a Planned Unit
Development for 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a clubhouse /office on
27.04 acres of property with staff recommendations. I'm not sure how we want to
address.
44 ,
'City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 •
Mayor Chmiel: Well each of those changes. With additional screening required
in the northeasterly portion of the development in the Phase 2 rental area.
Would that clarify? Now we're not saying total numbers either because we don't
know total numbers. And I would say that under those conditions, leave that up
11 to staff determination of making sure aesthetically it's going to resolve the
problem.
Councilman Workman: I'll make that my motion. Just as a sideline, the
townhouse development that abuts my property was asked to put evergreens in and
they did. I was on the Council when we asked them to double the number of
trees. This was before I had an interest in my property. And if that was
' doubled, I'm amazed.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe you want to put total heights of trees to be contained in
' that area. I don't know if you want to get specific and name species.
Councilman Workman: It's hard when you get to caliper inch and height and type.
I guess I would want to leave it so that Council could still review it.
' Mayor Chmiel: They'll have that opportunity as it continues.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, maybe I could suggest that if you wanted to say bring
back before the final plat or with the final plat, a landscaping plan that will
be subject to your approval and that will leave it open.
' Councilman Workman: And as a final note to the motion, the reduction in rental
units to be...
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Have we covered that in the entirety now? Do
you understand what he's saying?
I Kate Aanenson: You reduced it to 4?
Paul Krauss: By 4.
Mayor Chmiel: By 8. He's saying 104 rental units and 105 townhomes and a club
house. Is there a second?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, discussion? Mike, do you have some discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'm curious as to the from 4 to 8 reduction. Councilman
Workman.
' Councilman Workman: Well because of the building on the east is enlarged and
I just don't think you're really gaining what you want here to break it up by
doing that. If you're looking for some relief, I don't think you're getting it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion on the floor, as so stated previously with
the, that's with also the bituminous trail to be added into that one. The 8
' foot wide as an additional condition. And the elimination of what was the other
item you mentioned?
45
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 IF
Kate Aanenson: The trail fees be eliminated. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Is that acceptable to the motion and second? The additions. Any
other discussion?
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Rezoning to
PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated December 2,
1992 and December 7, 1992, and subject to the following conditions: '
1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the entire north side
of Oak Pond Road. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions /signs shall be
placed on the private service drives and northerly side of Oak Pond Park.
2. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control
measures in accordance with the City's construction site handbook. -
3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final
plat for all utility and drainage improvements. A conservation easement
shall be dedicated to the City over the wetlands on the parcel. The final
plat shall indicate all wetlands located on the site.
4. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber -
Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development.
5. A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall ,
be conducted by the developer prior to requesting final approval.
6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for th elocation of the trails and
possible location of sedimentation pond before final plat approval.
7. Park fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking
standards as required by the zoning ordinance.
9. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on
a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff.
10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20
foot manicured area shall be maintained along the north, east and west
property limits, anything beyond shall be left in natural (non- maintenance)
state.
11. Compliance with the Building Official's conditions as shown in his
memorandum dated October 19, 1992.
12. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's conditions as shown in his memorandum
dated October 21, 1992.
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and
submit the necessary financial securities. '
46 ,
City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992
14. Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration
permit.
15. Additional landscaping will be required in the northeast corner of the
' property to be submitted and approved with the final plat approval.
•
16. Removal of an 8 unit building with the Phase 2 construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the
' Preliminary Plat PUD $92 -3 as shown on the plans dated December 2, 1992 and
December 7, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:
' 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee proper
installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions
' of approval for final plat.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC and Carver
County.
3. The developer shall construct the public utility and street improvements
within the right -of -ways or easements to City standards and dedicate upon
completion and acceptance to the City for permanent ownership and
maintenance responsibilities. The remaining utilities outside the easement
' and right -of -way shall be privately owned and maintained by a homeowners
association. Detailed constructin plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing of the utility improvements shall be submitted for
formal approval by the City prior to final plat approval.
' 4. A 20 foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City, and
construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail, along the westerly portion
' of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate to
the City the necessary easements to provide for the extension of Oak Pond
road to Kerber Boulevard.
5. Construct CSAH 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both
CSAH 17 turn lanes should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order to meet
' MnDot design standards.
6. Compliance with conditions of site plan, rezoning, and wetland alteration
' permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval for wetland alteration permit for
sedimentation basin adjacent to a Class A wetland and modification of an
existing sedimentation pond.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
' 47
1
• City Council Meeting - December 14, 1992 Ils
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to approve Wetland 1
Alteratin Permit 192 -11 with the following conditions:
1. The limits of the sedimentation trap shall be limited to the 944.0 contour
adjacent to the Class 6 wetland.
2. The existing two storm water ponds shall be limited to modification as
proposed including the weir and outlet structures.
3. Type III erosion control be in place around the construction boundaries of
the wetland. ,
4. A cash contribution to the Surface Water Management Program Fund, as
determined by the city.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVE THE 1993 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. ,
Todd Hoffman: Park and Recreation Commission developed the attached proposed
1993 Park Acqusition and Development CIP over 2 meetings in August of this year.
On it's completion the Commission unanimously approved a motion made by the
Commissioners mentioned to recommend the City Council approve that park
acquisition and development fund totaling a $150,000.00 as itemized on the
attached sheet. I am comfortable with the improvements proposed in the CIP and
the expenditures they represent. One caveat to that statement however is that I
I will not hesitate to recommend a reduction in expenditures if I see that we at
all fall behind in revenue forecasted for 1993. Upon saying this, it is staff's
recommendation that the City Council approve the 1993 park acquisition and
development capital improvement program presented by the Park and Recreation
Commission. If Council has any questions on any specific improvements or on
park development in the city in general, I'm prepared to answer those. One
additional note is that as you know, we are now charged sales tax on these type
of purchases so we're losing purchasing power in this fund of about $10,000.00
on that $150,000.00 which essentially means we do not buy one neighborhood
playground in 1993, unfortunately.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only questions that I have is, on the $65,000.00 that
we're looking at for Lake Susan. Is that a fairly accurate cost?
Todd Hoffman: I hate to say it's a ballpark cost. It is fairly accurate. The
lights at Lake Ann Park, the baseball field lights which were constructed there
were in that $60,000.00 range. Although they've been existing for some time.
The standards which we have at Lake Ann are top of the line and we can reduce
those somewhat to try to cut some costs.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a concern because I think it seems like a low figure. And
in order to get the proper amount of lighting, I think there can be some
standards cut too still to provide the proper amount of lighting for that field.
Todd Hoffman: Certainly. We don't want to get down to telephone poles but
something adequate.
48 1
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
1 DATE: RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
' A RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON PROPOSED
SANTA VERA DRIVE BETWEEN POWERS BOULEVARD AND KERBER
BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City has approved the plat of Oak Ponds and street improvements
on Santa Vera Drive between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard.
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on
both sides of the street and must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restrictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
' Chanhassen Minnesota, shall ban the parking of motor vehicles along the north side of Santa
Vera Drive between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard for that portion of Santa Vera
Drive constructed within Oak Ponds Project #93 -9.
' Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of June, 1993.
1 ATTEST:
1
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
1
1
1