8a. Oak ponds/Oak hill Dev 'R
et,
C ITYOF ---
i
\` r
1
'r 690 COULTER DRIVE • • P.O. BOX 147 • • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • • FAX (612) 937 -5739
,i„,
Action by C?y Administrator
I MEMORANDUM Ertd°R,c ___Z �k1-8_.
ti,a:,;; ._ _� _
Pei;
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
De', .�1.2- ,:-.../0
kir S:... A ;scei
FROM: Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner Dec J 't._Lu.raJ
• _i_2. -��.
DATE: December 10, 1992
I SUBJ: Update on Oak Hill /Oak Ponds Development
I On November 4, 1992, the Planning Commission recommended preliminary plat and site plan
approval, as well as recommending approval of the rezoning to PUD for the Oak Hill/Oak Ponds
project. This plan has gone through extensive revisions since it was first submitted in July.
1 There have been several meetings with the neighbors to review their concerns. At the November
4, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, neighbors still voiced concerns about the project
although almost all of the issues raised have been addressed and reflected in the revised site plan.
I Staff had recommended, when first approached by the applicant about development of the this
PP Y PP
property, to rezone it to PUD. Staff felt that the PUD provided an opportunity to ensure the
I project was developed to a high quality and natural features would be preserved. Previous plans
proposed on this property included extensive grading and removal of vegetation. Staff felt that
I the PUD not only provided preservation of these natural features but it also through a PUD
agreement, the desired design features could be ensured.
I The PUD Agreement can afford controls that the R12 District cannot. Staff is certain that the
city is getting a project that has tight controls and feels that under the PUD zoning it is the best
way to ensure that this project gets built as represented. If this project does not go forward,
I certainly the applicant or someone else may try to come back under the R12 standards. Staff
feels that the PUD affords much better use and control of the property.
I The following is a list of changes that have been made to the plan since the original submittal
in July of 1992:
1 1. The original proposal was for 240 units. This included 72 units for sale and 168 rental
units. The rental units included three 16 -unit buildings. The 16 -unit buildings have been
eliminated and the largest unit per building is 12. The total number of units have been
I
os
5 4 .
1. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1 Don Ashworth
December 10, 1992
1 Page 2
reduced to 217, thus 23 units have been eliminated. In addition, the number of
' owner /occupied units has increased from 72 to 105 for a total of 33 more owner occupied
units. Again, this project is well under the net unit per acre which is 9.6. The R12
zoning allows for 12 units per acre. The applicant has made changes to the owner
occupied units in response to the neighborhood concerns. If the proposal was to be
handled as an R12 project, the city would have had almost no leverage to obtain these
changes.
2. One of the neighbors' primary concerns was the proximity of rental units within 300 feet
of their homes while owner occupied units are located elsewhere. The applicant and
architect maintain that this is essential if site graidng is to be reduced and tree protection
maximized. However, the rental buildings nearest to the single family homes have been
eliminated and replaced by owner occupied buildings. The building foot prints of north
1 facing structures were realigned to reduce visual impacts as requested by the residents.
3. Some of the other changes asked for by the residents include no lighting in the rear of
1 the buildings and this has been reflected on the site plan. The roof lines on the two most
northerly rental units have been modified to show a more residential type of look with
a longer slope to the roof line. This is accommodated by the fact that these will be one
1 bedroom units. The applicant has proposed that the 12 -unit rental building have
approximately one -third of the roof line will be modified. This building is located in
phase II immediately to the west of the 8 -unit buildings.
4. Some of the concerns that the neighbors would like to see addressed in the PUD
agreement would be that a minimal area be manicured behind the buildings. Staff is
' recommending 20 feet be maintained and the rest be left in its natural state. The
applicant has agreed.
1 5. The landscaping plan has been modified to include coniferous and deciduous trees to help
buffer that area and the landscaping will be installed immediately prior to beginning of
phase I. Staff is also recommending that some of the trees be held out and be placed
after the buildings have been located to provide optimal screening from the residences.
This will be determined after the buildings are completed.
1 6. The two 8 -unit rental buildings in the most northerly portion of phase II were also pulled
forward (moved to the south) approximately 5 feet. This will preserve trees located
1 between the buildings and single family homes.
7. One of the conditions of approval to the Planning Commission was that applicant prepare
a traffic study which was requested by the Carver County Traffic Engineer. Strgar,
Roscoe and Fausch conducted a study and made the following recommendations:
1
}
1
Don Ashworth
December 10, 1992
Page 3 1
•
a. A two lane approach on Oak Pond Road as it approaches County Road 17
(Powers Boulevard) be provided to provide safer and more effective traffic 1
operations at this intersection and will allow for right turns to be made
without being delayed.
b. Construct C.S.A.H. 17 to P rovide for a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both
C.S.A.H. 17 turn lanes should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order 1
to meet MnDOT design standards.
c. These recommended intersection geometrics should be included with the
reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 17 which will be included with the
reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 17 in conjunction with the proposed West 78th 1
Street project
8. Staff has requested that the residents give some consideration to the color of the
proposed vinyl siding for the project. This could be a condition in the PUD
agreement. -
9. A trail was originally proposed to the north of the buildings. The residents 1
requested at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting that this trail be
eliminated. The trail has been eliminated from the plan. 1
Again, staff feels that being that this property is guided for multi- family residential and has
undergone numerous revisions to try and meet the neighborhood concerns, while trying to
minimize impacts to the existing topography and vegetation. In addition, with the city is afforded
the opportunity to attach conditions to accomplish an overall of city's and neighborhood
concerns. Staff is recommending preliminary plat and site plan approval of this project, as did
the Planning Commission at there November 4, 1992, meeting.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 C I TY 0 F PC DATE: Nov. 4, 1992
1 OBANHAssEN � CC DATE: Nov. 23, 1992
# 92-3 PUD 92-4
CASE 9, 3 UD & PR S
n n n•
1 STAFF REPORT
1 PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of Property from R -12, Residential Multifamily to PUD, Planned
Unit Development
1 2) Preliminary Site Plan Approval for 217 Unit Owner Occupied and Rental
E' Multifamily Development
I Z 3) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide the site
Q
1 V LOCATION: Outlot B of Saddlebrook Subdivision and Lot 5, Block 1 of West Village
is ..„j Heights Subdivision
0.
I 0 APPLICANT: Brad Johnson
4 Lotus Realty
P.O. Box 235
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I PRESENT ZONING: R -12, Residential Multifamily
1 ACREAGE: 27.04 acres (gross) 22.49 acres (net)
DENSITY: 8.0 u/a (gross) 9.6 u/a (net)
ADJACENT ZONING AND
I LAND USE: N - RSF; Saddlebrook
S - BG; General Business
E - R12; Multifamily and RSF; Residential Single Family
I W - R12; Multifamily
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
ll I!!
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the north and west side of the
property. It contains a Class B wetland and has heavily
vegetated areas, with a significant stand of oak trees.
1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density Residential
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 2 1
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting rezoning to PUD, preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct 1
PP r �1
a 217 unit multifamily housing project. One hundred twelve units will be available for rent,
while the remaining 105 units will be owner occupied and offered for sale. The housing style
and density generally falls somewhere between townhome development and apartment type
buildings. The 27 acre site is located between Powers Boulevard and Kerber Boulevard. The
gross density is 8 units per acre and the net density is 9.6 units per acre. Access will be
1
provided by a public street running between the two boulevards with an internal network of
private drives. The site is currently zoned R12, Multifamily Residential and utilities are available 1
for the area.
This item received conceptual approval by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1992, and by
the City Council on August 10, 1992. At the time of conceptual review, this proposal had 240
total units with 168 units for rent and 72 units for sale. The total number of units has been
reduced by 23. In addition, the number of rental units has decreased by 48 and the number of
owner occupied has increased by 33. The owner to rental split is 48% to 52 %, respectively.
The development proposal has been modified based on neighborhood meetings, the City Council
and Planning Commission meetings. The major concerns raised at these meetings were:
• Several residents were under the misunderstanding that a portion of property was
to be a park. Staff noted that the park had been proposed under one of the earlier
Cenvesco proposals but this was never approved by the city. In addition, it was
noted that the park was incorporated into a much poorer quality residential
development. The question was raised as to what the park requirements were for
the Saddlebrook Subdivision. Outlot A and park fees were required as well as
trails along Powers and Kerber Boulevards. Outlot B was never discussed as park
requirements for Saddlebrook.
• Residents asked whether or not this project was needed in the city. The question
of project need is not addressed by city codes; however, Brad Johnson indicated
that vacancy rates in other developments in the city are very low.
• Concern was possible expressed about the ossible elimination of wildlife found in the
P
area. The main wildlife area around the wetlands as well as the wooded hillside
will remain untouched and protected under the proposal. However, it must also
be realized that the site is essentially 1 or 2 blocks from the city's major
commercial street. Staff is recommending that a maximum manicured area around 1
the buildings to the north the rest should be left in a natural state.
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
' Page 3
• Concern was expressed about the potential decrease in property values due to
rental units. This concern has not been demonstrated however, the number of
' rental units has been reduced and the have been moved away from the adjoining
single family neighborhood.
1 • Height of the structures, because of the hill they will look even larger. It was
noted that the height of the building is not greater than the walkout homes in
' Saddlebrook. However, the applicant has indicated a willingness to adjust the roof
lines and building alignments to respond to the concern.
' • There was concern about the potential increase in traffic to the Chanhassen
Elementary School through an existing neighborhood. A possible crosswalk is
being reviewed by the staff.
' • There was concern raised about the construction noise and hours of operation.
Staff believes these concerns can largely be addressed by conditions imposed on
1 the project to regulate hours of construction.
• Residents asked how will storm water issues be handled, preservation of the
1 wetland and impact to the existing ponds. It appears all storm water can be
handled on site with minimal disturbance of the existing ponds. This is discussed
in further detail in the grading and drainage section of this report.
' • There was concern with the proximity of the buildings to the oak trees and will
they live. Staff is recommending that snow fencing be placed around the tree line
1 in addition to trees that can be saved by using some retaining walls.
• Residents asked that the rental units be switched and be located where the owner
' occupied units are closer to homes in Saddlebrook. This plan has been modified
to reflect 3 owner occupied units in the northwest corner of the site.
1
•
Neighbors to the north do not want exterior flood lighting on the units facing
north. The street lighting on the public wall be corten steel similar to the street
' lighting on Kerber Boulevard. Lighting on the interior of the streets needs to be
shown on the site plan.
• The residents to the north would like the rear setback to be not more than 20 feet.
This would be an area that could be maintained (manicured) anything beyond that
should be left natural. This would provide for the growth of the landscaping the
developer is providing as well as the continued enjoyment by the adjacent
residents of this natural area. The residents to the north would also like no
trespassing signs placed on the property limits.
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 4 1
The applicant has redesigned this project taking into consideration the concerns raised during the
conceptual review. The largest building is now 12- units, the three 16 -unit rental buildings have
been eliminated. The rental units located on the northeastern portion of the site have been
eliminated and now include 3 for sale buildings, one 3 -unit and two 6 -unit row style townhomes. 1
These lower profile buildings should help reduce the visual impact to the property to the north.
The total number of rental units has been reduced from 168 to 112 and the owner occupied units
have increased from 72 to 105 units. 1
The current site plan was designed from the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and
existing mature oaks on the site must be preserved. The plan also recognizes that a high quality
design must be offered since this is a prominent site having visibility over large areas of the
community, including from the Highway 5 corridor in Chanhassen's CBD. Building styles were
carefully chosen so that grading would be held to a bare minimum. It appears that trees in the
center of the project will be lost due to grading and staff would like the applicant to reconsider
this plan. A revised grading plan may require the use of a retaining wall to save more of the
existing trees. This proposal offers high quality architectural design with interesting building
facades and relatively small building footprints. The building footprints allow for a great deal
of flexibility in terms of grading and building orientation.
The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the applicant pay park and trail fees
in lieu of park land dedication. The cost of the trail along Powers Boulevard would be deducted
from the amount required for trail fees. Plans call for provision of a tot lot, outdoor swimming
pool and a clubhouse facility that will be made available to all residents of the project. Thus,
on -site recreational demands should be reasonably well accommodated. The Park and Recreation
Commission is recommending that no park fee credit be given for these facilities..
The preliminary plan appears to be reasonably well conceived and this design has implemented
many of the changes requested by the Planning Commission, City Council and the residents.
The plan appears to be of high quality and has taken into consideration the existing natural
features. Additional parking still needs to be provided as well as the recreation trail along
Powers Blvd. The project is consistent with the underlying zoning, as well as with the
Comprehensive Plan. Utilization of the PUD zoning offers two benefits to the city. The first
is improved quality of design. The second is that it will give the city more control over what 1
is to be built on this site, particularly if for some reason, the Oak Ponds /Oak Hill project is not
completed as proposed. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission and City Council grant preliminary PUD and site plan approval for the project. 1
1
1
1
1
1 Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 5
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
1 The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 25.29 acres from R12, High Density
Residential to PUD -12, Planned Unit Development High Density Residential. The following
review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent
section of the PUD Ordinance.
' Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the
' relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for
a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for
lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation
that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal
than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the
applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to realized as evaluated
1 against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
' 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
1 scenic views.
Finding. In this proposed development, the applicant intends to save the existing stand
1 of mature oak trees along the northern portion of the site. Modifications to the grading
plan and the use of retaining wall should allow most trees to be saved. There is also a
Class B wetland located in the northwestern portion of the site. The wetland and all
property located north of it will not be altered. The project also offers enhanced
architectural design. These elements are extremely important given the high visibility this
site has over a large area.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding. The subject property will be developed working with the existing topography
of the site. The rental units, which are three story walkouts, are located on the northern
portion of the site where the land has a greater slope. The buildings have been set against
the existing stand of mature oak trees preserving all but a few of them. The development
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 6 1
•
of a single, comprehensive drainage system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient
removal efforts while reducing the city's long term maintenance costs. 1
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect 1
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Finding. The applicant is proposing to develop high quality, low maintenance buildings. 1
The exterior of the rental buildings will be maintenance -free vinyl lapped siding and
gabled, asphalt shingle roofs. The owner occupied units are also maintenance -free with
shingled roofs, vinyl lapped siding.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding. This site is bounded on the east by Kerber Boulevard (minor collector) and on
the west by Powers Boulevard (a major collector). The apartment buildings located on
the northern portion of the site are at least 200 feet from the nearest lot line of the single
family homes to the north and the nearest home is 300 feet away. Concept plans call for
establishing an acceptable landscape buffer in the appropriate areas. All but one of the
buildings have been oriented so that they do not directly face the homes to the north.
Staff has held discussions with the applicant and we believe this building has a potential
to be reoriented.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
1
Finding. The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the subject area as the potential
land use of High Density Residential. The property is currently zoned R12, High Density
Residential. The proposal is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Higher
quality housing in this location is also fully consistent with the underlying R12 zoning
and with a desire to cluster density around the Chanhassen CBD. 1
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall trail plan.
Finding. The site plan proposes an 8' bituminous trail across the northern portion of the
1
site, just north of the stand of oak trees. The trail will connect Powers Boulevard with
Kerber Boulevard. A trail is also being proposed along Powers Boulevard as a segment
of the city's trail plan. The plan proposes a community common area including a
clubhouse, swimming pool and playground. A final review by the Park and Recreation
Commission is required. At this time, city staff believes that there is no need for land
1
•
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 7
' dedication given the site's proximity to City Center Park and Lake Ann Park. The cash
park dedication could be put to good use elsewhere.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
g g P
1 Finding. The project has a mix of owner occupied and rental units. As currently
proposed, there will be 112 rental units including a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom
apartments. The applicant is proposing 105 owner occupied units including a mix of 2
and 3 bedrooms.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Finding. The dwellings are all being situated to make use of the existing topography,
reducing the grading on the site. The rental units are tucked into slopes allowing for a
walkout level. The owner occupied units will be split so that there is a break in the roof
1 line. The units will be slab on grade and are taking advantage of the existing topography.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
1 conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Finding. Access to the site is off of Powers Boulevard which is designated as a major
collector street by the City Comprehensive Plan. The site also has access to Kerber
Boulevard. There will be one public street connecting the streets. The majority of the
site will be served by private driveways. This area was included in the tay on Powers
1 Boulevard, shall be conducted by the developer prior to requesting final approval.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The
1 reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of
the site. In return for reducing the standards, the city is receiving:
1 • Improved pretreatment of storm water
• Increased landscaping
• Protection of vegetation (oak trees)
• Improved architectural standards
• Sensitivity to maintaining existing topography
1
1
i
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD 1'
November 4, 1992
Page 8
1
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
General Site Plan /Architecture 1
The site is 27.04 acres, with a gross density of 8.0 units per acre. The net density, excluding the
wetland, two storm water ponds, and the public street, is 22.49 acres, with a net density of 9.6
units per acre. These numbers have been reduced from the 9.5 units per acre gross density and
10 units an acre net density from the original concept submittal. The 9.6 units per acre is under
the allowed 12 units /acre in the zoning ordinance.
The applicant is proposing to develop this site with 217 units including, rental and owner
occupied units. The rental units will vary from 1 bedroom, plus a den, to up to 3 bedroom units.
The buildings will include five 8 -unit buildings and six 12 -unit buildings. The rental units will
be three stories in height, with walkout dwelling units and garages at grade level. The exterior
will be maintenance free vinyl lapped siding. They are attractively designed and will have gabled
roofs and asphalt shingles. The height of these rental units will be approximately 35 feet average
grade.
1
The development proposes 105 "for sale" units, including 75 two - bedroom and 30 three- bedroom
units. These would be comprised of seven 8 -unit, one 10 -unit, two 12 -unit, two 6 -unit row and
1
one 3 -unit row buildings. These owner occupied buildings would be located on the southern
portion of the site. The northwest portion of this site plan has been revised and now has a 3 -unit
row townhouse and two 6 -unit row townhouses. The owner occupied units will also be a
maintenance free material with shingled roof, vinyl lapped siding, and with balconies at the front
of the entries. These units will have double car garages for each unit, additional visitor parking 1
has been provided.
The proposal calls for a playground, clubhouse and pool facility to be located on the site.
Because these facilities will be used by the residents of the development, the Park and Recreation
Commission is recommending that no credit be given for these facilities. Full park dedication
fees will be required.
1
The parking shown for the rental units is inadequate. State law requires that for each 8 units,
one handicapped stall must be provided. The ordinance requires that for each unit there be one
garage (enclosed) parking space, plus one additional (outdoor) parking space per dwelling unit.
In addition, one parking space for every 4 units is required for visitor parking. Each rental unit
will have one enclosed garage and one exterior stall, while each for sale unit has a two car
garage. Staff has informed the applicant that there is insufficient visitor parking for the rental
units. This proposal has provided visitor parking with the owner occupied units. Staff had raised
the issue of owner occupied visitor parking during the conceptual review process and the
applicants have provided 54 parking spaces.
1
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 9
The PUD zoning allows a maximum of 50% impervious surface for high density development.
The proposed site plan has an impervious surface of 27.4 %. The structure setback in the PUD
' district is 25 feet and all of the buildings meet this standard. The PUD district does not have a
minimum setback for parking on interior public streets and private streets. Staff approves of the
parking setback as proposed in the development.
' COMPLIANCE TABLE
1 Ordinance Project Proposal
Hard Surface Coverage 50% 27.4%
Setback from Collector 50 feet 50 feet
1 Internal Public Streets To be determined 30 feet
External Property Lines 30 feet 30 feet
Density 12 u/a 9.6 u/a gross
1
Landscaping and Tree Preservation
The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed saving the
majority of the existing stand of oaks along the northern portion of the site. Based on the
grading plan, it appears that many of the trees will be lost due to grading. According to the
applicant's engineer, the grading plan which was done on a Computer Aided Design, has a
margin of error on the proposed contours. It is staff's intent and the developer's intent to save
the trees on this site. The applicant's engineer is doing a site specific review of the grading plan
to ensure tree preservation.
1 One of the concerns coming out of the previous meetings was that additional conifers should be
placed along the oak trees to provide a better screen from the residents to the north. Conifer
trees including, Balsam Firs, Black Hills Spruce, Douglas Fir and Austrian Pines have been
located along the northern edge of the buildings. In addition, more deciduous trees should be
placed along the building in the northeast comer.
The streetscape along Powers and Kerber Boulevards include deciduous, coniferous and
ornamental trees. There is a mix of coniferous, ornamental and deciduous trees throughout the
project. The majority of the deciduous trees are Sugar Maples, Hackberry, American Linden,
White Oak and White Ash. The deciduous trees are located near the parking areas and will help
create a canopy over the parking surfaces.
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD 1
November 4, 1992
Page 10
Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is
recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be
prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along
Oak Pond Road.
Streets 1
The applicant has reduced the street grades to fall within the City's ordinance of 7% maximum
street grade. The preliminary plat proposes a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a 36 -foot wide
street pursuant to staff's recommendation. In addition, two sidewalks are being proposed parallel
to the street. The sidewalk along the south side of Oak Pond Road deviates from the normal
location within the right -of -way on the community recreation lot. It appears that the sidewalk
is meandering around some existing oak trees. If the grading plan is altered to save the oak
trees, staff would be comfortable in the proposed sidewalk alignment with the appropriate
trail/walkway easements dedicated to the city.
The preliminary plat shows this development ending just short of Kerber Boulevard, yet the plans
proposed extending utilities and the street out to Kerber Boulevard across from Santa Vera Drive.
The appropriate easement agreements will have to be dedicated to the City for ownership and
perpetual maintenance of the street and utilities in this area unless it is dedicated with the final 1
plat.
Access to the site from Powers Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 17) is subject to the access permit 1
requirements of Carver County. Carver County had previously indicated they will not consider
approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its impact
on the Powers Boulevard corridor, north of Trunk Highway 5, has been prepared by the
developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the County for review. According to the staff's
knowledge, this study has not been prepared and therefore should be a condition of the approval
process. Anticipated roadway improvements at the intersection would include a right turn lane
and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Powers Boulevard. The preliminary plat proposes
dedication of one -half of the necessary 100 -foot wide right -of -way along Powers Boulevard. An
additional 20-foot wide trail easement should be conveyed along Powers Boulevard for Park and
Recreation Commission's desire to extend the existing trail from Saddlebrook through this
development. 1
This type of development will most likely generate the need /desire to park along Oak Park Road.
Due to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and roadway geometrics, staff recommends the north side
of Oak Park Road be signed "No Parking ".
The staff is recommending that the applicant reimburse the city for the cost of using Strgar,
Roscoe, Fausch traffic engineers to do the traffic study in the area. This firm has already done
extensive work in this area, most recently on the West 78th Street Detachment project.
1
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 11
Private Drives
The applicant is proposing 12 private service drives to access onto the east/west collector street
(Oak Park Road). Although the number of accesses are much less than previously proposed on
this site, staff recommends that access points be reduced where applicable. One such case would
' be on the rental units proposed along the north side of the road. Attached is a sketch with the
proposed change in the parking area (see Attachment No. 1). The street grades of the private
drives appear acceptable with the exception of the second access point east of Powers Boulevard
' on the north side of Oak Pond Road. This driveway grade is approximately 20% which is twice
the normal driveway slope the City allows. It is recommended that the applicant redesign the
' parking lot layout and /or building pad to reduce the slope on this driveway access to a maximum
of 10 %.
1 Grading and Drainage
Upon review of the revised grading plan stamped October 22, 1992, the majority of the site will
still experience grading to create the streets, parking lots and building pads. A refined grading
plan will be submitted by the applicant. It is the goal of staff and the applicant to preserve the
trees on the site. Proposed slopes within the site will not exceed 3:1. Based on the applicant's
narrative, it appears the overall site will be graded and public streets and utility improvements
will be constructed with the first phase of development.
' The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey runoff to three different drainage areas, the
retention ponds north of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook, the existing culvert underneath
Powers Boulevard and the existing storm sewers in Kerber Boulevard. Staff has reviewed this
plan and feels that changes are warranted. Staff recommends that the storm sewer outlet near
Powers Boulevard should be redesigned to include a nutrient/sedimentation basin prior to
discharging into the existing culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. This sedimentation basin
1 should be sized to accommodate storage from a 100 -year storm event (24 -hour duration) and
maintain the predeveloped runoff rate through the existing 30 -inch culvert underneath Powers
Boulevard. Staff and the applicant have been working with Bonestroo in developing a retention
1 pond in this area to provide and maintain water quality standards. Construction of the
sedimentation/nutrient basin on the westerly portion of the site may or may not require a wetland
alteration permit, depending on location of the pond. Revised grading and drainage plans will
be required along with detailed drainage and ponding calculations upon the plan and
specifications submittal and prior to final platting.
The northeasterly portion of the site is proposed to drain via two storm sewers into the existing
sediment basins /ponds along the north side of the project adjacent to Saddlebrook. Staff
1 recommends that the applicant modify the storm sewer system by combining systems to achieve
one discharge point into the existing pond. Staff will work with the applicant in modifying the
storm sewer /grading plan during the time of final plans and specifications review process. The
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD 1
November 4, 1992
Page 12 1
most easterly portion of the site is proposed to drain to existing catch basins on Kerber
Boulevard. Staff recommends that the proposed catch basins incorporate a sump manhole design
which will collect sediments prior to discharging into the existing storm sewer line on Kerber
Boulevard. The storm sewer line in Kerber Boulevard eventually discharges into a retention
basin/wetland. 1
This development will also require some modification to the existing storm ponds lying between
this development and Saddlebrook. The most easterly pond will require additional excavation
along the south side to provide the necessary storage requirements. Modifications to the berms
between the ponds as well as the outlet control structure will be necessary to adequately handle
additional storm runoff. Staff is proposing the berms be left in a natural state with the only
modification an emergency overflow which consists of lowering the berm in the middle by
approximately 1 feet and gently tapering out approximately 10 feet in each direction. This area
will be riprapped, a top soil layer applied and reseeded. 1
The existing storm water ponds were part of a the Class B wetland to the west. Modifications
to these ponds will require a wetland alteration permit. Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik 1
Engineers are designing the retention ponds. Because these ponds will not be built to NURP
(National Urban Run -off Program) Standards, the applicant may be required to pay into the city's
storm water management fee. 1
The overall plans have not incorporated erosion control measures. It is recommended that the
applicant follow the City's recently adopted construction site handbook. A revised grading and
drainage plan, including erosion control measures and detailed drainage and ponding calculations,
should be resubmitted for review and approval by the City prior to final platting.
Utilities
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing sanitary sewer 1
mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The applicant is proposing
to extend sanitary sewer mains throughout the development of which some lines will fall outside
of the public right -of -way. Due to the size of this development and the direct impact it has on
the rest of the City's sewer and water mains, it is recommended that the proposed sewer and
water improvements be dedicated to the City for ownership and perpetual maintenance. The
appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat. Fire hydrant location
and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Fire Marshal. All utility and street
improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing of the
watermain to provide adequate fire flow protection during peak demands. Detailed calculations
should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. Since this development
involves both public utilities and street improvements, the applicant shall enter into a
1
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 13
development contract and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of
the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval of the development.
Park and Recreation
The Park and Recreation Commission met on July 28, 1992, to review this proposal. The
Commission's specific recommendations were that the trail on Powers Boulevard, as identified
in the City's Comprehensive Plan, be installed by the developer. The developer would be
required to dedicate a 20 -foot easement along Powers Boulevard and construct an 8 -foot wide
bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of the property limits. Trail dedication fees
would be used to off -set the expenditure for the trail construction. Additionally, the Commission
1 recommended that the City Council accept full park dedication of fees $440.00 per unit in lieu
of land dedication. The Commission noted that the inclusion of the private swimming pool and
playground area do not diminish the need for community supplied recreational facilities, and
1 therefore no park credit will be given for the provision of these items.
RECOMMENDATION
PRELIMINARY 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 December 2 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 Road.
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
1 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.
1 5. A traffic study on Powers Boulevard, as requested by Carver County, shall be conducted
by the developed prior to requesting final approval.
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 14
FINDING This condition has been meet. Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch completed has com leted a traffic ,
study for this project and is making the following recommendations:
1. Providing a two lane approach on the Oak Pond Road approach to
g PP PP
C.S.A.H. 17 in order to provide safer and more effective traffic operations
at this intersection. This will allow right turns to be made without being
unduly delayed by left turning vehicles.
2. Construct C.S.A.H. 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both
C.S.A.H. 17 turn lanes should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order
to meet Mn/DOT design standards.
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 and has been recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission.
7. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication.
1
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must meet the parking standards as
required by the zoning ordinance. 1
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.
10. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private roads. A 20 foot manicured
1
area shall be maintained along the north, east and west property limits, anything beyond
shall be left in natural (non - maintenance) state.
FINDIN A lighting lan h s n submitted meets the concerns of residents.
plan a bee su ed and eet a co ce s o the res de nts.
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 1
October 21, 1992.
1
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD
November 4, 1992
Page 15
13. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement and development contract and submit the
necessary financial securities.
14. Compliance with conditions of preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit."
1 PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approves the preliminary plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated
1 December 2 and December 7, 1992, and subject to the following conditions:
1 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
by a homeowners association. Detailed construction 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 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 C.S.A.H. 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a northbound right
turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both C.S.A.H. 17 turn lanes should
1 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."
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Application.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated October 27 , 1992.
3. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated July 30, 1992.
4. Letter from Roger Gustafson dated June 30, 1992.
1
1
1
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill PUD 1
November 4, 1992
Page 16
5. Letter From Riley Purgatory Watershed dated July 6, 1992.
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 19, 1992.
7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated October 21, 1992. 1
8. Planning Commission minutes dated November 4, 1992.
9. Site Plans dated December 2 and December 7, 1992.
1 10. Traffic report from SRF dated December 8, 1992.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
THE OAKS DEVELOPMENT
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill
Oak Ponds and Oak Hill are residential developments designed to
provide affordable housing while maintaining the natural features
of this unique site. To this end the development has been
designed using the existing hills and valleys as much as possible
and preserving the stands of large oaks. In fact, only two
surveyed oak trees have been lost to create this community of 217
homes.
Oak Ponds is a rental community of 112 homes located in 8 and 12
' unit buildings. Each of the 1, 2 and 3 bedroom dwellings has a
single garage within each of the 2 and 3 story buildings. The
units will range from 750 to 1100 square feet. The exteriors of
' the buildings will be maintenance -free with vinyl lap siding and
gabled, asphalt shingle roofs.
Oak Hill is a "For Sale" development of 105 homes located in
several building types. Ninety townhomes are in 8, 10 and 12
unit buildings along the south and east property borders.
Fifteen row style townhomes are located in 3 and 6 unit buildings
' in the northeast section of the site. Each 1400+ square foot
dwelling has a 2 car attached garage, 2 or 3 bedrooms, and
private deck. These buildings are also maintenance -free with
shingled roofs, vinyl lap siding and brick accent walls at the
front entries.
The buildings step up the site following the natural terrain to a
' high point where the community "clubhouse" is located adjacent to
the existing oak grove. A pool and playground are planned as
part of this community commons.
The development is planned around a central, city- dedicated
street, but with the majority of dwellings being located on
' smaller, private streets and drives. The shape of the streets
and adjacent building sites all derive from preservation of
hills and trees.
1
1
1
I/
-2- 1
1
GRADING
The site is 27 acres consisting of a high hill, a meadow,
scattered large oak trees and wetlands in the northwest corner.
The wetlands are surrounded by a steep slope with woodlands of
oak and elm.
The design must incorporate the following:
1. No g rades over 7 %.
•
2. Save scattered oak trees. 1
3. Tuck buildings into the hillside to avoid excavation
of sleep slopes.
4. Save wetlands from any encroachment.
These objectives are met by the design. 1
UTILITIES
There is City water on County Road 17 and Kerber Rd. so the water 1
has been looped with an 8" main line for free flow. The sanitary
sewer flows east through the townhouses and west to County Rd.
17.
STORM WATER AND WETLANDS:
The very eastern and southern edges of the property drain away
and the remainder is collected by storm sewer and drained to the
ponds on the north or the wetlands on the west. We have proposed
to drain directly, bypassing the wetlands to the west side of
County Road 17, and there establish a settlement area.before
continuing westerly. The wetland can be raised to increase its
storage capacity., The wetlands will not be graded or disturbed
in any other way.._
The City's consulting engineer is reviewing the storm water
system proposed and will make recommendations which will be
incorporated into our design.
1
1
1
1
11
-3-
Development Timetable.
Oak Hill - Final City approval is anticipated by January 1,
1993. The developer will grade the site in the
spring; install public improvements, including
' Oak Drive, and construct the first building
starting in April, 1993. Sales efforts will
start in January, 1993, with completion of the
project scheduled for fall, 1994.
Oaks Community Recreation Center /Offices - Construction start is
anticipated in the summer of 1993, with completion
1 in the fall of 1993.
Oak Ponds - Final city approval is anticipated by January 1,
' 1993; public improvements to be constructed
simultaneously with the Oak Hill development.
Development will consist of 112 units built in 2
phases. The starting date of construction will
depend upon financing approval and existing
market conditions.
Phase I Construction Start: Spring, 1993; completion:
Fall, 1993 (60 units)
Phase II Construction start: Spring, 1994; completion:
summer, 1994 (52 units)
The Community Recreation Center will be available to the Oak
Ponds residents.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
t • r i
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 '
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: October 27, 1992 '
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat and Site Plan for Oak Ponds
dated October 6, 1992
File No. 92 -13 LUR
STREETS
The applicant has reduced the street grades to fall within the City's ordinance of 7%
PF �' tY'
maximum street grade. The preliminary plat proposes a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a
36 -foot wide street pursuant to staff's recommendation. In addition, two sidewalks are being
proposed parallel to the street. The sidewalk along the south side of Oak Pond Road
deviates from the normal location within the right -of -way on the community recreation lot.
It appears that the sidewalk is meandering around some existing oak trees. However, based
on the grading plan, it appears the grading in this area will actually require removal of these
trees; therefore, the sidewalk could be placed in its typical location. If the grading plan is
altered to save the oak trees, staff would be comfortable in the proposed sidewalk alignment
with the appropriate trail /walkway easements dedicated to the City.
The preliminary plat shows this development ending just short of Kerber Boulevard, yet the '
plans proposed extending utilities and the street out to Kerber Boulevard across from Santa
Vera Drive. The appropriate easement agreements will have to be dedicated to the City
for ownership and perpetual maintenance of the street and utilities in this area unless it is
dedicated with the final plat.
Access to the site from Powers Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 17) is subject to the access permit
requirements of Carver County. Carver County had previously indicated they will not
consider approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis
of its impact on the Powers Boulevard corridor north of Trunk Highway 5 has been
prepared by the developer's traffic engineer and submitted to the County for review. To my
4rs
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Kate Aanenson
October 27, 1992
i Page 2
' knowledge, this study has not been prepared and therefore should be a condition of the
approval process. Anticipated roadway improvements at the intersection would include a
right turn lane and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Powers Boulevard. The
' preliminary plat proposes dedication of one -half of the necessary 100 -foot wide right -of -way
along Powers Boulevard. An additional 20 -foot wide trail easement should be conveyed
along Powers Boulevard for Park and Recreation's desire to extend the existing trail from
' Saddlebrook through this development.
This type of development will most likely generate the need /desire to park along Oak Park
' Road. Due to pedestrian and vehicle traffic and roadway geometrics, staff recommends the
north side of Oak Park Road be signed "No Parking ".
1 Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along Oak Pond Road.
PRIVATE DRIVES
1 The applicant is proposing 12 private service drives to access onto the east /west collector
street (Oak Park Road). Although the number of accesses are much less than previously
proposed on this site, staff recommends that access points be reduced where applicable.
One such case would be on the rental units proposed along the north side of the road. I
have attached a sketch with the proposed change in the parking area (see Attachment No.
1). The street grades of the private drives appear acceptable with the exception of the
second access point east of Powers Boulevard on the north side of Oak Pond Road. This
driveway grade is approximately 20% which is twice the normal driveway slope the City
allows. It is recommended that the applicant redesign the parking lot layout and /or building
pad to reduce the slope on this driveway access to a maximum of 10 %.
1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Upon review of the revised grading plan stamped October 22, 1992, the majority of the site
will still experience grading to create the streets, parking lots and building pads. Contrary
to the narrative provided by the applicant, most of the oak trees will be lost due to grading
' measures with the exception of the oak trees located below the rental units along the north
slope of the development. Proposed slopes within the site will not exceed 3:1. Based on
the applicant's narrative, it appears the overall site will be graded and public streets and
1 utility improvements will be constructed with the first phase of development.
The plans propose a series of storm sewer to convey runoff to three different drainage areas,
' the retention ponds north of the development adjacent to Saddlebrook, the existing culvert
underneath Powers Boulevard and the existing storm sewers in Kerber Boulevard. Staff has
reviewed this plan and feels that changes are warranted. Staff recommends that the storm
1
1
i
Kate Aanenson 1
October 27, 1992
Page 3 1
sewer outlet near Powers Boulevard should be redesigned to include a '
- nutrient /sedimentation basin prior to discharging into the existing culvert underneath
Powers Boulevard. This sedimentation basin should be sized to accommodate storage from
a 100 -year storm event (24 -hour duration) and maintain the predeveloped runoff rate
through the existing 30 -inch culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. Staff and the applicant
have been working with Bonestroo in developing a retention pond in this area to provide
and maintain water quality standards. Construction of the sedimentation /nutrient basin on I
the westerly portion of the site may or may not require a wetland alteration permit,
depending on location of the pond. Revised grading and drainage plans will be required
along with detailed drainage and ponding calculations upon the plan and specifications I
submittal and prior to final platting.
The northeasterly portion of the site is proposed to drain via two storm sewers into the '
existing sediment basins /ponds along the north side of the project adjacent to Saddlebrook.
Staff recommends that the applicant modify the storm sewer system by combining systems
to achieve one discharge point into the existing pond. Staff will work with the applicant in
I
modifying the storm sewer /grading plan during the time of final plans and specifications
review process. The most easterly portion of the site is proposed to drain to existing catch
basins on Kerber Boulevard. Staff recommends that the proposed catch basins incorporate
a sump manhole design which will collect sediments prior to discharging into the existing
storm sewer line on Kerber Boulevard. The storm sewer line in Kerber Boulevard
eventually discharges into a retention basin /wetland. 1
This development will also require some modification to the existing storm ponds lying
between this development and Saddlebrook. The most easterly pond will require additional
1
excavation along the south side to provide the necessary storage requirements.
Modifications to the berms between the ponds as well as the outlet control structure will be
necessary to adequately handle additional storm runoff. Staff is proposing the berms be left
in a natural state with the only modification an emergency overflow which consists of
lowering the berm in the middle by approximately 1 feet and gently tapering out
approximately 10 feet in each direction. This area will be riprapped, retopsoiled and
reseeded. This ponding design will not require any modification or enlargement of the
storm pond along the Saddlebrook side of the ponds.
I
The overall plans have not incorporated erosion control measures. It is recommended that
the applicant follow the City's recently adopted construction site handbook. A revised ,
grading and drainage plan including erosion control measures and detailed drainage and
ponding calculations should be resubmitted for review and approval by the City prior to final
platting.
I
1
Kate Aanenson
October 27, 1992
Page 4
•
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing sanitary
' sewer mains are adequately sized to handle the anticipated development. The applicant is
proposing to extend sanitary sewer mains throughout the development of which some lines
will fall outside of the public right -of -way. Due to the size of this development and the
direct impact it has on the rest of the City's sewer and watermains, it is recommended that
the proposed sewer and water improvements be dedicated to the City for ownership and
perpetual maintenance. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on
' the final plat. Fire hydrant location and spacing shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Fire Marshal. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will
' need to verify and document sizing of the watermain to provide adequate fire flow
protection during peak demands. Detailed calculations should be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. Since this development involves both public utilities and
1 street improvements, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements in
compliance with the conditions of approval of the development.
' RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
' 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.
4. Detailed construction 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.
5. 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.
1
1
Kate Aanenson I
October 27, 1992
Page 5 1
6. The grading and drainage plan shall be modified to include erosion control measures
in accordance with the City's construction site handbook. 1
7. A 20 -foot wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City along the westerly
portion of the site adjacent to Powers Boulevard.
8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be shown on the final plat for
III
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. 1
9. The applicant shall dedicate to the City the necessary easements to provide for the
extension of Oak Pond Road to Kerber Boulevard. 1
10. The entire public street (Oak Pond Road) from Powers Boulevard to Kerber
Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase I of the development. 1
ktm
Attachments: 1. Parking Lot Design. I
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
d� 0 I
t
a
4,4'iv OA
w
"•s
IT
AL '
r •
<,,z, 0
1V-------) - it
r�r
o
......a..--------.14‘
No 13 r w I� 1
oo � N _ 1.T
t11 .0 x 9 el. ,�oJ f .
% 0
0
s 4 •v t,s
1 III i2
• \ R E� T` �L T <
1 7 ) ? , tD \ 4
2.,„e, ./,e W o RF L jr �4,�,41'..r�
it
0 • e ,,
� v "mop 1 ,,
0 4 : 11111111 044444041444 o ..
0 .0, . ;
pfd �
co q •
I 0 -........,,.. -
0
0 17 ' -q eir, .
r•y
•
7 4
0, C1 y
. 11.°11111 0
y
r : PI co
H y o 'o ' yt ( � 1 9
.11141 - \ \ \: IV , T1
CITYOF 1
1 . •
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM r
TO: - Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator ,
DATE: July 30, 1992 r
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Review of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Land
Development Proposal r
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the above mentioned proposed development on
July 28, 1992. The Commission's discussion centered on the impact this high density residential
development will have on existing parks, as well as the need for the construction of an 8 ft.
bituminous trail section along Powers Boulevard. This trail is identified in the Recreation Section r
of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and represents a vital link in the city's expanding trail system.
The conclusion that the residents of this proposal community will utilize existing parks in the
area and, as such, the applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of park land dedication was reaffirmed. r
After hearing from the residents present in the audience that evening and upon concluding their
discussion, Commissioner Andrews moved to recommend the City Council accept full park
dedication fees in the amount of $105,600, $440 per unit, in lieu of land dedication. Secondly, r
that the developer of Oak Ponds/Oak Hill supply a 20 ft. easement along Powers Boulevard and
construct an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this property with trail
dedication fees being reduced to off-set the expenditure for this trail construction. Lastly, that
the inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need for
community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given for the
provision of these items. Chairman Schroers seconded the motion and all commissioners voted
in favor.
As detailed in my staff report, the developer will be responsible for estimating the cost of this
r
trail segment and for its construction. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill has a trail dedication requirement of
$35,280 or $147.00 per unit. Upon submitting a cost estimate for trail construction, it will be
verified and a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council to reduce this trail dedication
fee accordingly.
r
1
vs ST PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
I Kate Aanenson
Oak Ponds /Oak Hill Development
July 30, 1992
1 Page 2
1 RECOMMENDATION
The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
I 1. Accept full park dedication fees in the amount of $105,600 in lieu of land dedication at
the rate of $440 per unit.
I 2. The developer of Oak Ponds /Oak Hill supply 1 a 20 ft. easement along Powers Boulevard
and construct an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail along the entire westerly border of this
I property with trail dedication fees being reduced to off -set the expenditure for this trail
construction.
1 3. The inclusion of the private swimming pool and playground area do not diminish the need
for community supplied recreational facilities, and therefore no park credit will be given
I for the provision of these items.
pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
12. e0
7- 4
1
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
(612)448.1213 �! 1
n'NESO
COUNTY OF CAI VEQ
June 30, 1992
1
•
1
To: Kathryn Aanenson, Chanhassen Senior Planner
From: Roger Gustafson, County Engineer 1
Subject: Concept Plan
Oak Ponds and Oak Hill
Comments regarding the concept plan for the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill development dated June
15, 1992, and transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated June 23, 1992, are:
1. Right -of -way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways 1
functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 1
2 -lane Roadway 2 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 120' 150'
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
4 -lane Roadway 4 -lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 120' 140' 170'
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class
II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. Preservation of an
adequate corridor for the future upgrading of CSAH 17 is an important consideration. The
111
Year 2010 projected average daily traffic volume for CSAH 17 is approximately 17,000
vehicles adjacent to the proposed development site as documented in the Eastern Carver
County Transportation Study. This volume of traffic does not represent full development
1
within the general service area of this county highway. Ultimate traffic volumes on CSAH
17 very probably will be in excess of the Year 2010 projections. Therefore, I recommend
no less than the minimum width of 100 feet be preserved for CSAH 17 to accommodate
the construction of either a 2 -lane or 4 -lane urban undivided highway.
The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed
subdivision If a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway.
Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
RECEIVED
1
JUL O 1 1992 ,
Affirmative Actlunn /Equal Oppainitl Employer
Printer! on Re Paper CITY Of �t1HIvt1 %iSSE��
•
1
1 Page 2
•
Oak Ponds and Oak Hill Concept Plan
June 30, 1992
2. Desirable access control along CSAH 17 is to have Collector" intersection spacing 011/4
to 1/2 mile with no "Local" intersections. Has the proposed "new dedicated street" been
functionally classified by the city? Also, the spacing between the proposed new
dedicated street" and proposed "new 78th Street' intersections with CSAH 17 is less than
500 feet (1/10 mile). Discussion with the city and the developer about the proposed "new
dedicated street' intersection is requested.
3. Construction of the proposed street intersection with CSAH 17 is subject to the access
permit requirements of Carver County. The county highway department will not consider
approving the location of the proposed intersection until a detailed traffic analysis of its
impact on the CSAH 17 corridor south to TH 5 has been prepared by the developer's
traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review.
The city is advised that the county highway department is of the initial opinion that the
I city's project to reconstruct a portion of CSAH 17 north of TH 5 will have to be revised • to accommodate the proposed intersection. Project revisions appear needed to safely
and adequately accommodate traffic on CSAH 17 in the area of the intersection. These
1 revisions may require the developer and /or the city to invest additional dollars in the
CSAH 17 project.
tf the new street is proposed to be constructed prior to the reconstruction of CSAH 17 by
the city, a detailed sight distance analyses will have to be prepared by the developer's
traffic engineer and submitted to the county for review. The engineer is directed to
Section 5.2 of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Road Design Manual. Interim
improvements to CSAH 17 may be required. These improvements may include a right
turn lane, reconstructing a portion of CSAH 17 to improve sight distances, and adding a
south bound bypass lane.
4. tt is not known if any public utility lines are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right -of -way.
Any such installations are subject to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
5. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right - of-way of
CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department.
6. Development activities (including the installation of both public and P rivate utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
!' of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right -of -way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction, It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right -of -way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will, in my opinion, result in fewer project oversight problems for both the
county and the city.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the concept-plan for the proposed development.
1
1
DEE>„nvEN
VNNE IDN•n
=ND «E D._ Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
o \ Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
E_E„ vAn «,E 8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 300
f Minneapolis, MN 55437
832 -2600
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333 -4800
July 6, 1992
1
Mrs. Joanne Olson
Senior City Planner 1
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mrs. Olson:
The engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley- Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District have reviewed the preliminary plans as submitted
to the District for the Oak Ponds /Oak Hill development in Chanhassen. The
following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project:
1. In accordance with Section E (2) of the District's revised Rules and
Regulations, a grading and land alteration permit will be required
from the District for this project. Accompanying the permit
application, a grading plan showing both existing and proposed
contours must be submitted to the District for review.
Because of the size of the development, the District encourages that
the grading operations be staged to minimize the area disturbed at
any given time.
2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval.
3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval. The management plan must include provisions for
the treatment of stormwater runoff, from the development site, prior
to reaching Protected Waters. The water quality facilities must be
designed at a minimum to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program 11 (NURP) standards.
RECEIVE[
JUL •. ! 1992 1
(Al/ t.+r Vr!:.Evi'tr, 6)-
I/ Mrs. Joanne Olson July 6, 1992 Page 2
Structures to be constructed adjacent to the wetland /stormwater
detention basins must have basement floor elevations constructed a
minimum of two feet above the calculated 100 year frequency flood
elevation of these facilities.
4. The wetland areas on the north side of the site may meet the criteria
for regulations of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Filling below
1 the wetland elevation of each wetland area on the site must be
replaced or mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the
Wetland Act.
1 Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this project at an early date.
If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at
832 -2600.
Sincerely,
- obert C. Obermeyer
Barr Engineering Company
Engineers for the District
c: Mr. Ray Haik
Mr. Fritz Rahr
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN 11
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
1
MEMORANDUM ,
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4C1`V
i
DATE: 07/07/92
SUBJECT: 92 -3 PUD (Oak Pond /Oak Hill)
I have reviewed the plans dated June 15, 1992 and have the following comments. II
1. State Building Code (SBC 1340.9100) requires one handicap equipped
unit in each building in Oak Ponds. City Code (CCC 20 -1124) requires"
2 stalls per unit, one of which may be exterior. The plans should be
revised to show one 12' wide exterior parking stall as near as
possible to each handicap equipped unit. These stalls should meet
all handicap requirements except for signage; reserve each 12' stall
for the individual apartments rather than signing for handicapped
parking.
2. An additional four handicapped spaces must be provided for visitors II
in Oak Ponds . These should be signed per SBC 1340. Revise plans
accordingly.
3. Oak Hill must be provided with handicapped stalls at a ratio of one
handicap stall per fifty parking spaces. Revise plans to show these
stalls. These spaces should be equally distributed throughout Oak
Hill.
4. The designer is responsible for meeting all requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the buildings and on the
grounds.
5. Street names are subject to review by the Public Safety Department. II
Revise plans to include streets names.
6. All buildings in Oak Ponds must be fire sprinklered.
1
1
ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 •
CITYOF
1 �
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: October 21, 1992
SUBJ: #92 -3 PUD, Oak Pond - Oak Hill
Preliminary Site Plan Review
After reviewing the site plans for the Oak Ponds, Oak Hill project,
the Fire Department has the following requirements:
1. Add additional fire hydrants as shown on utility plan.
2. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed. Signs
shall read "No Parking Fire Lane, by order of Fire
' Chief ". Location of "No Parking" areas are indicated on
site plan. Placement of signs must meet Chanhassen Fire
Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991. All curbing
in fire lanes must be painted yellow. Pursuant to
Sec. 10.207 (L). (Enclosed)
3. Post indicator valves (P.I.V.$) must be installed and
e shown on utility plans. Pursuant to NFPA 13.
4. The private driveway servicing the rented units north of
Oak Pond Road and the private driveways to the south of
Oak Pond Road must have Fire Department approved street
names. The Fire Marshal requires that the private drives
have street names so as to expedite emergency services
11 and equipment. (See map for specific drives in
question). Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Code 1988
Edition, Sec. 10.208 (b) - Premises Identification -
II Street or Road Signs.
5. Rental buildings will be required to be fire sprinklered.
Sec. 1305 -6905 Appendix Chapter 38.
1
11 to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Kate Aanenson
October 21, 1992
Page 2
6. Premise identification shall comply with Chanhassen Fire
Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. (Enclosed)
7. Turning radius must be indicated on plans and approved by
the Chanhassen Fire Department. Pursuant to Sec. 10.207
(G) '88 UFC.
8. 10'(foot) clear space around fire hydrants. Pursuant to
City Ordinance.
9. Policy #04 -1991. Chanhassen Fire Department notes to be
included on all site plans. (Enclosed)
10. Policy #07 -1991. Policy regarding Pre Fire Plan.
(Enclosed)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I A
CITYOF
,,, OM
PiOti, CHANHASSEN
I ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1111 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
11 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
II All the following required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours
in advance with the Fire Marshal:
II 1. Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service
line, per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1.
2. Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test
11 for dry systems.
3. Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and
fire suppression systems.
II 4. Installation of fire ex _inguishers 2A -40BC rated minimum.
Install one by each ex t door and as designated by Fire
Inspector.
E'
5. Extinguishers shall be provided before final approval.
11 6. A final inspection' by ''a Fire Inspector before a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
w
11 Fire Department access roads 'shall be provided on site during all
phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads
will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for
II temporary access roads t "
at construcon sites. Details are
available.'
Onsite fire hydrants =`shall be provided a in operating condition
I I during all phasWof construction.
The use of I ef e = e t r
qu a� txm "wa °>sfia be in conformance with
NFPA Standarci-58„,:andAhe5MiuMesotasUniform$Fire ,. Code: A list of
E these requirements is available. -?
mow .
II All fire detection and dire - suppression systems' be monitored
by an approved UL central station ith ar `71 Certificate issued
on these systems before final occupancy is issued.
V
II Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
1 Policy #04 -1991
Date: 11/22/91
Revised:
II Page 1 of 2
11 ti 4.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
C ITYOF
CHANHASSEN
1
k
4 -, � ` Y
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,
MINNESOTA 55317
.� (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
CHANHASSEN FIRE. DEPARTMENT POLICY
II
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS
All the followin g P required inspections shall be scheduled 24 hours II
in advance with the Fire Marshal:
1. Witnessing the flushing of underground sprinkler service II
line, per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1.
2. Hydrostatic test of sprinkler system and 24 hour air test
il
for dry systems.
3. Testing of all smoke detection, manual pull stations, and
fire suppression systems.
4. Installation of fire extinguishers 2A -4OBC rated minimum.
Ns
Install one by each eit-door and as designated by Fire
Inspector.--
5. Extinguishers shall provided before final approval.
II
6. A final inspection by i t# Fire Inspector before a
Certificate of Occu ancy is issued.
Fire Department access road ° shall beprovided on site during all
II
phases of construction. T e` construction of these temporary roads
will conform with the Chanhassen Fire bepartment requirements for
temporary access roads _ "at construc on sites. Details are
available.
'
Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided a in operating condition
during all phasesf construction. _ II
The use of - as$ ishin 1- be in conformance with
NFPA Standard 58 nd he- t nne"sota Uniform. e , °tie x ,. A list of
III
• 1 these requirements is available.
All fire detection and - �3re� -- suppression systems "Mall be monitored
by an approved UL central stat `bn tIC4 "°VL Certificate issued II
on these systems before final dcmf.ancy is issued.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #04 -1991
II
Date: 11/22/91
Revised:
Page 1 of 2 1
OW
till: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
r
i
,„
CITYOF
1 A
\ :---,,,..t , -4 4 ..,....„e
CHANILASSEN
1 -,*,,,,, t or
A- up i
\ ,„, -it 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX(612)937-5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
11 FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS
II 1) Plans shall be submitted to Fire Department for approval.
They must include a floor plan, showing device locations and
specifications on all equipment.
il 2) Wiring must be a Class A Four Wire System.
3) All components of the system must be U.L. listed for their
II application, compatible and installed per NFPA 72E, National
Electric Code and manufacturer's requirements.
II 4) Alarm verification is required for all systems using smoke
detectors.
5) When Central Station noti #cation is required or otherwise
II provided, it must be through a.U.L. listed communicator, or
NFPA Listed Control Panel:. Allentral Stations must be U.L.
listed.'
4
6) The alarm systems shall be audile above the ambient noise
level in all areas buildinq
ofthe building.. Alarm horns in each unit
<
and all public areas, i.e. party oom, pool, laundry rooms.
Horns shall be directly connected to the building alarm
systems and super4 ised.
7) The system ,sh be zoned per Ch hassen Fire Department
r equirements
I 8) A U.L. 73 „Certi£_ cam tl. ui s »Qr., „y-st n,f-,,,,The U. L. 71
Certificate shall be current and requires dt - th= .ife of the
alarm system .:. and the life of the building. -'
II tzi£, to N �. f
.
9) A fully- function annunc or �� = .- , gprovided if the control
panel is remotely located;-
1 Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
11 Policy #01 -1990
Date: 04/19/90
Revised:
Page 1 of 2
II
II tot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
CITYOF
I
";,.. t ittil I 1
kl CHANHASSEN
„:„,,,,„:,,,„, 1
,.. , ,t, 4,-
•
�,�- "., 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
EXTERIOR LIGHT AND HORN OVER FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER CONNECTION II
1) Exterior Light and Horn -for indicating Fire Department
II
Sprinkler Connection shall be:
a. Simplex model number
Horn - 31T -115 -R
Light - WH3T- 115 -FR
or 1
b. Wheelock 7004 -T
c. Notifier 5542862 '
or , P
equivalent per Fire Department approval. 1
r
e
1
-- y `
a
Vi y , .'N+* ---,,,,t, a
1
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy: #02 -1990
:5>fy:1?" Date: 09/04/90
Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
II
z0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
t
I
1
CITYOF
1 41-
---.4 ‘,.. 1"."4" CHANHASSEN
I _, -- At ''. -19- Arr
''''' (kk.
1'y, • 47 • ANHA EN MINNESOTA 1 ,�,�- ,;ti;,'� _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 1 CH SS 553 7
1 '' (612)937-1900* FAX (612) 937 -5739
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
I FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMATIC SMOKE DETECTORS WHEN
REOUIRED BY THE 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, SEC. 3305G, EXC. #5
1 1) Plans for the system shall be submitted to the Fire Department
for approval prior to installation.
I 2) All components of the system shall be UL listed for their
application. Smoke detectors shall be UL listed for
commercial /industrial application.
I ' 3) The entire system shall be installed and designed per NFPA
72A, 72E, National Electric Code, and manufacturer's
I requirements. --
4) The system shall be audible above the ambient noise level in
all areas of the tenant s
5) Smoke detectors shall" be hard wired, interconnected,
supervised. :. ;;}
6) Power supply for the s ,stem shall include battery back up with
Y P
a UL listed fire alarm panel. _,.
I I= e
7) If the smoke detection system insta pled in the tenant space is
directly connected 'to the building ire alarm panel, a zone on
the alarm paneLL' must identify the enant space or zone of
I building where the smoke detection k stem is located, i.e.,
2nd floor "''
pry Ai
I 8) The s ystemsshali ± ,. ssted - the reser.4c- e�, the _ Chanhassen
Fire Department prior . r to final. approval
:
3 �
II 9) A letter from th nsta .lation company. „. shah b e submitted to
the Chanhassen Fire ,. , Depar ment revention Bureau prior to
final approval of the sys T e u; stating that items number #1
through #7 listed above fla been complied with.
II
Chanhassen Fire Department
II Fire Prevention 7 lam Policy #05 -1991
Date: 01/16/91
Approved - Public Safety Director- Page 1 of 1
II ts, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
CITYOF
,,,, i
\ t
_. � L w ti.
:.z _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
J a.
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
REOUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE
II
1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ".
NO 2. Red on white is preferred. II
PARKING
FIRE 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade
II
LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum
is preferred.
4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING 1
4 _ ; . FIRE LANE
v« 1 5. igns shall be posted at each end
o f the fire lane and at least at
7'0" 5 foot intervals along the
ireane .
6.
All sgns shall be double sided
facing the direction of travel. 1
X 47 9 7. Post shall be set back a
i. `' minimum < f 12" but not more than II ° 3 ' 36" front' he curb.
8. A fire 1 ne shall be required in
(NOT TO � `�RADE front of � re dept. connections
SCALE) _ extending feet on each side and
V- " ° ` _- „- ` e. efiq l eas designated by the
ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL E,t' UBMITTED IN
WRITING, WITH A SITE APPROVA L BY HE- _„ RE CHIEF. IT IS
II
THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEP.- m ' O ENSURE CONTINUITY
THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDI ESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF
FIRE LANES.
D
II
epartment
Chanhassen Fire De
P
Fire Prevention
Policy #06 -1991
II
Date: 1/15/91
c Revised:
Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
I
•
%s,
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
I : -
CITYOF . CHANHASSEN
\4.: I n 5 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
,r * (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I I CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
POLICY REGARDING PRE -PLAN
II
Prior to issuing suing the C.O., a pre -plan, site plan shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be
II shown on the plan.
1) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) •
11 2) Building footprint and building dimensions
3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes
4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or deadend
II 5) Fire hydrant locations ,-
6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection
7) Gas meter (shut -off), NSPhut off)
8) Lock box location -
11 9) Fire walls, if applicable,.
10) Roof vents, if applicable`: `'
11) Interior walls ,k fi x,
II 12) Exterior doors °-. �_
13) Location of fire alarm
14) Sprinkler riser location
II 15) Exterior L.P. storage;' if applicable
16) Haz. Mat. storage, ' f applicable
17) Underground stora tanks locations, if applicable
18) Type of construction walls /roof
II 19) Standpipes:°
r*e ..,-7-4•:$=.1. vai,J.;- - •T---:
Via ; m
.4 y'Yl nFxfj."'
1
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #07 -1991
Date: 01/16/91
cfc(T) 4 Revised:
II Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1
to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4
1._.,
C 1TYOF 1
__.
� ,�fr .,.. , ,k,
. CHANIIASSEN i
-,,sz' ! AV (1/1
...,„,
_' , _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. B6X 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
, (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
II
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
II PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing II
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
II
be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
no address numbers are posted.
Other Requirements - General ;
1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from background.
2. Numbers shall not be In script : ` ,
3. If a structure Is not visible from the s .' t, addltionaumbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved.
4
II
. Numbers on mail box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement 63 must still
be met r_
'
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers if deemed necessary. 1
Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling urdt) - ."
Y
1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ".
2. Building permits will not be fi ated initess numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department.
_ Commercial Red . 4 :4 ' -fi. .. ;
1. Minimum height shalibe 12"..
2. Strip Malls `
a. Multi tenant building will have minimal he g requirements of 6 ".
b. Address numbers shall be on the ma enhance and on all back doors.
3. if address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the ,
buildings main entrance.
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention ..
(;!;;-:::;').: Policy #29-1992
Date: 06/15/92
II
Revised: _
Approved - Public Safity Director Page of.1
ti, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
S TRGAR- ROSCOE - FAUSCH, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
TR ANSPORTATION • CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • ENVIRONMENTAL • LAND SURVEYORS
SRF No. 0921766
December 8, 1992
DRAFT
1
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
Senior Planner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: PROPOSED OAK PONDS AND OAK HILL
1 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
1 Dear Kate:
As you requested, a traffic study and analysis has been completed for the above referenced
project, located in the northeast quadrant of C.S.A.H. 17 and West 78th Street in Chanhassen
(see Figure 1). Based on this study, the following comments and recommendations are offered
for your consideration:
Summary of Findings
1 • In order to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Oak Ponds and Oak Hill
development (see Figure 2), trip generation estimates were calculated using the ultimate
development land use assumptions which include 112 rental townhomes and 105 ownership
townhomes. The proposed residential development land use generally corresponds with the
existing land use Guide Plan for the 27 acre site.
• and the 1991 ITE average trip generation rates
Using the stated land use assumptions g p g see
Table 1), the average daily trips generated by the proposed Oak Ponds and Oak Hill
development would be over 1,800 vehicles. During the p.m. peak hour, the proposed Oak
Ponds and Oak Hill development would generate 135 trips.
• In order to analyze the capacity of the existing and proposed roadways to accommodate
traffic from the proposed development, a traffic analysis has been completed using 2010
future p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts (see Figure 2), the proposed residential development
plan, updated data on future background traffic and a micro- computer application of the
1 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Suite 150, One Carlson Parkway North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447
612/475 -0010 FAX 612/475 -2429
I/
TABLE ONE
OAK PONDS AND OAK HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
TRIP GENERATION RATES
TRIP GEN. RATE TRIP GEN. RATE
MEASURE FOR A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR
LAND USE S TRIP SEN. RATE IN OUT IN OUT
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
RESIDENTIAL - PUD t DWELLING UNITS 0.11 0.40 1 0.41 0.21
1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
NOTE: THESE RATES APPLY ONLY TO THE SPECIFIC NUMBER OF TOWNHOMES LISTED BELOW
r
1
TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES / OAK PONDS AND OAK HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
TRAFFIC GENERATED S TRAFFIC GENERATED
DAILY ; A.M. PEAK HOUR P.M. PEAK HOUR
LAND USE SIZE ! VOLUMES t IN OUT t IN OUT
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 i 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
RESIDENTIAL - PUD 1 217 units 4 1.872 1 24 87 89 46 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
NOTE: ALL TRIP GENERATION RATES ARE AVERAGE RATES FROM THE 1991 I.T.E.
TRIP GENERATION REPORT , 5TH EDITION.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson -5- December 8, 1992
• The directional trip distribution for the proposed residential development (see Figure 3) was
estimated based on the regional distribution of population and employment.
1 • Primary access to the Oak Ponds and Oak Hill development is proposed from Oak Pond
Road, east of C.S.A.H. 17. Year 2010 traffic forecasts for Oak Pond Road were developed
based on the proposed development land use plan. Based on these forecasts, a year 2010
unsignalized intersection capacity analysis indicated the westbound left turns from Oak
Pond Road would operate at a Level of Service E. However, based on reserve capacity the
�. subject intersection would operate at Level of Service B overall with one lane of approach
(see Appendix for capacity analysis worksheets and a description of Levels of Service).
1 • Based on the unsignalized capacity analysis it does not appear that traffic signal control
would be required at the C.S.A.H. 17 and Oak Pond Road intersection due to the low traffic
volume on Oak Pond Road. However, a two lane approach on the Oak Pond Road
approach to C.S.A.H. 17 and are needed on C.S.A.H. 17 a southbound left turn lane and a
northbound right turn lane. Both turn lanes on C.S.A.H. 17 should be of a minimum length
of 320 feet in order to accommodate peak hour traffic volumes and to meet Mn/DOT design
standards for a roadway such as C.S.A.H. 17 with a highway design speed of 45 mph.
These intersection geometries can be provided with the design for the proposed
reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 17.
Summary of Recommendations
• Based on these findings and analysis, it is concluded that land use proposed in the Oak
Ponds and Oak Hill development plan could be supported by the adjacent roadway system
if the following recommended roadway /intersection improvements are implemented as part
of the proposed development or as otherwise applicable:
1 1. Provide a two lane approach on the Oak Pond Road approach to C.S.A.H. 17 in order
to provide safer and more effective traffic operations at this intersection. This will
- allow right turns to be made without being unduly delayed by left turning vehicles.
1
1
1
•
4 wIl i ' CIR A .... . ROPHIt I.I. NL t RIAI 1R. > � vOti' ( � ll Li' • 7. •Na la LIN. 4. gy p.. • na ..
' i1� u _ H. t'0. 631e1 S ` J ��� � o a PAS
7. soaS1A CI S . te C a 3 � ' z 4.
.1 : o rl _ t 3. SI. •• A s 4 .OLnsI C C IR. r 4 4 t r �'
a St. • 1 § ` , ES L4 COJF. 4114 S. mitt RIOGi CT. All, 4 ? 6. S. 5
G V� l ot _w i�Er : 4. Cacti l RIM /y . AN " z • RD.
!S s ♦ s , j i
_ `;ltd PLELSaN ,� r i
!.65T0 ST �; - - *# 4 4i = d g 1. o � � : a 4 ` ~ IOI
25 1Rert tor . St at1 I c v r0= e i + .9 . : t E
REsTvIrw DR. CM. C o • d.N 4-04 L • �? 4j , ,e MK NO DR /
L
CRESt41ER ' *E Lucy .�- . ei v P, rh &1 � �! "
C. AA
CYL LA RA u W2 l t• rOKTAII till '
13. NAY&.10 DR. LIRE LLKT t i a a NtP � ! 7 J ,..∎ i
a 14. /ROKEN LRROR DR. RO . , 4 . t rOK
SIEIEN O OMR RESIER D R. 0 0 KT r R :14., o C
t 1S RED ONG CI. t 2 ° �l a i ^ t
IL CRAP/MN CI. .w CIR NIL4A TWA OR c. ' T. PLUSAKI cm.
LAKE et IT.IEI PERCE CT. E s cool, 'pi e(ACl1 R0. �� o PW....g• { y • 1. GLUE Resort CT.r. / •
IS. A BAT t ,1 Q CR0L ®0^ tit P 1- 004 31 UN
& HUNTERS CT. i" . O `
/
4. :14 . §' F Z, Z W �0, coca:
1..l. 7 J r! 4 0 CIR .
OR
'^ u. GLUE .7 olSM LA. RE '• ER Lotus /
t 2D. AUDI I e lk
R. w : i RDDD N1LL 0- RD • lol
Zr 21. TEAL OIL .. J.. a _ , 141‘ Lake �► NOdr 41EM
22. PARTRIDGE CIR. yq ,
23.RHInETAR RIDGE CT. 7 W 7 TK Fsy, 401 /
J� � PONT1AC �a' t
0 /R.
73 3 l 4* t Ir OR.
I TR. Q
/ i 'rICA Lk . 6 t C � , 4 =
' at P TR0N11Etp l �� '( E' CT. t '' 15 % 0 f , R.
• Labs /trot �s� Ta. PMC
21.SADDLEGRDOK PASS 507 s > u �p N O t dla"D OR. 101 /r
2S. CIOPPEIA M. to t) a OR. tLR� CD1L
1PPERA i -, ■ 0*1 CI '14 id 9 � SARK 0 •
C• d `o OE� '. w 7" CHANHASSFN Tim g tR id Zailt i
4. 1980 POP. 6359 . • s R. T740 ST. 101 /
5% (1 CoatER oIL C "L" �� _ ST, C"a" r E■ St. pi
ARGDRE Tlly s 1§113 R. t
/ \,
8 nth
i116 ma 15P1111r.,\ otClla 2 5 0 70 > \
1 11 f
IS 1t � � I .T
I iirj Rt
.6�5 ♦. s O C I
40% a as so o, :1. , . •
` P y f
v ∎4 �S y e T eGpD 10 % r >= CIR. " � � J 0
�.
��� .. • ,,AL-
u 4'
a ls>•' M LACE C1. C' u a►ROI, w •
so i s i tr ir .i i'' .9 flpigk - '',..-= I
. i ' ().k U V
+� r. etm sr.
f thus 4 ea a 1
TI MN MS OR. / 13 C4,1
O
1 0 �AItA T. . •_0 0' 1 0. Il
L i� ` i` `+s 'C� Z „,
U
' Ea Kvd. r t
o min, m
SRF
STRGAR- ROSCOE FAUSCH, INC CITY OF CHANHASSEN FIGURE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION 3 1
OAK PONDS AND OAK HILL DEVELOPMENT
SRF NO. 0921766 TRAFFIC STUDY
1
1
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson -7- December 8, 1992
2. Construct C.S.A.H. 17 to provide for a southbound left turn lane and a northbound
right turn lane at the intersection with Oak Pond Road. Both C.S.A.H. 17 turn lanes
should be a minimum length of 320 feet in order to meet Mn/DOT design standards.
3. These recommended intersection geometrics should be included with the
reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 17 which will be included with the reconstruction of
C.S.A.H. 17 in conjunction with the proposed West 78th Street project.
Should you have any questions or comments concerning this traffic study analysis, please
contact us.
1 Sincerely,
STRGAR - ROSCOE - FAUSCH, INC.
1
Dennis R. Eyler, P.E.
Principal
DRE:mdg
Attachments
1
1
1
1
1
1
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS
The operational characteristics of roadways can be expressed as
one of six levels of service (L.O.S.), described as A through F.
. Levels of Service "A" through "C" describe free to stable flow
conditions where there are few problems in using the roadways.
. Level of Service "D" describes conditions approaching unstable
flow where problems begin to occur on the roadway, especially
for turning traffic.
. Level of Service "E" describes unstable flow conditions where
traffic volumes on the roadway are at capacity levels and many
' problems develop, i.e., long delays, much congestion and long
queues (a queue is a waiting line of vehicles).
' Level of Service "F" describes forced flow and failure
conditions on the roadway, characterized by severe congestion
and extremely long delays. As an example, under L.O.S. "F"
• conditions, a motorist would experience a delay of at least
one full cycle length at a signalized intersection.
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 I
** *; Z**** *** * ****** *** *** * **** * * ** *** ** *** **** ** *** ** * *** * * ** * *** * ****
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1
AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 35 1
PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9
AREA POPULATION 1000000 II
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET OAK POND ROAD 1
NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET CSAH 17
NAME OF THE ANALYST SRF, INC. 1
DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 12 -1 -92
TIME PERIOD ANALYZED 2010 PM PEAK HR 1
OTHER INFORMATION....
II
INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL
INTERSECTION TYPE: T- INTERSECTION II
MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH 1
CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN
TRAFFIC VOLUMES I
EB WB NB SB I
- - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
LEFT -- 20 0 15
1
THRU -- 0 890 790
RIGHT -- 10 50 0 1
NUMBER OF LANES 1
EB WB NB SB
II
LANES -- 1 1 1
1
1
II
II ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2
I PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE
GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS
II EASTBOUND - -- - -- -
WESTBOUND 0.00 0 0 N
II NORTHBOUND 0.00 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0.00 0 0
1 VEHICLE COMPOSITION
I % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION
AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES
1 EASTBOUND - -- - -- - --
WESTBOUND 0 0 0
1 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0
SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0
I CRITICAL GAPS
II TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL
(Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP
1 MINOR RIGHTS
WB 5.70 4.70 0.00 4.70
I MAJOR LEFTS
SB 5.10 4.60 0.00 4.60
I MINOR LEFTS
WB 6.80 6.30 0.00 6.30
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
I NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET OAK POND ROAD
NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET CSAH 17
I DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS
OTHER INFORMATION.... 12 -1 -92 2010 PM PEAK HR
II
II
II
f
11
CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 II
POTEN- ACTUAL
FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE
II
RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY
MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS
p M SH R SH
II
MINOR STREET
WB LEFT 24 103 100 > 100 > 76 > E II
> 135 > 98 >E
RIGHT 12 436 436 > 436 > 423 > A 1
MAJOR STREET
SB LEFT 18 439 439 439 421 A 1
1
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION
NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET OAK POND ROAD 1
NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET CSAH 17
DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -1 -92 ; 2010 PM PEAK HR II OTHER INFORMATION....
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ii
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
I REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 4, 1992
I Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina,
Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens
I MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Emmings
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering
Technician
I PUBLIC HEARING:
..4"- PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 112 RENTAL UNITS AND
111 105 TOWNHOMES AND A CLUBHOUSE /OFFICE ON 27.04 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED
R -12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET
BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, OAK PONDS /OAK HILL, LOTUS REALTY.
1 Public Present:
Name Address
I Bob & K. Dianne 8ohara 7510 Canyon Curve
Mike & Mary Henke 7560 Canyon Curve
I Jack Thien
Tim Anderson 7570 Canyon Curve
7550 Canyon Curve
Randy Swatfager 7511 Canyon Curve
I Karen Branow 7490 Canyon Curve
Hans & Mavis Skalle 780 Santa Vera
Karl & Mary Rollar 7550 Chippewa Trail
Kevin Crystal 940 Saddlebrook Curve
I Greg & Cindy Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve
Mark & Cindy Schallock 7501 Canyon Curve
Dave Callister 7540 Canyon Curve
I Brad Johnson
Arvid Ellness 7425 Frontier Trail
5115 Knox Avenue So., Mpls
Kay Halia 770 Creekwood
Gordon Christenson MN Valley Surveyor
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
1 Batzli: Can you generally provide an overview as to what the developer's
gaining by this being rezoned a PUD and what the City is gaining?
II Aanenson: Well the intent was to hope is to try to preserve the trees.
Again, that's the question right now. It appears that as it's been staked
that the grading plan is not, it seems to be inconsistent with what's out
II there. There's some concern about that. Paul would like to address that.
Krauss: There's a couple reasons for it. One of the more fundamental
II ones too I think that goes beyond the usual trade - off...that's being
looked at, is we've got a site out there that's zoned R -12 and it's a real
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 2 1
wild card. I think there's a lot of concern. Most of the folks are here
tonight because there's been one plan after another proposed for this II
site. One of the good things about a PUD is for all intensive purposes jg
becomes contract zoning. If there's a plan that's approved for the site
under a PUD, that becomes the zoning district. It's no longer R -12. It
that PUD plan. And the City's control and the neighbors ability to input
if this project doesn't proceed from that point forward, is much greater.
They basically have to come through another rezoning action. You
eliminate a lot of that wild card status. In addition, under the PUD II we're talking about two different types of housing. Owner /occupied and
rental. We're talking about private recreational facilities. We're
talking about trying to manage a site in a comprehensive way. The PUD II
district provides the added controls that we need to do that. Under
straight zoning we don't have the right to commit a developer to enter
into a contractual agreement to protect what we'd like to protect and I
maintain what we think needs to be maintained and those kind of items.
But I think you have more focus on those kind of concerns than you do
specifically a trade -off.
Batzli: So what are we, maybe I wasn't focused intently enough on what 1
you just said. What are we gaining by making this a PUD in terms of
natural features of the land other than the trees? Anything?
Krauss: You've got the, well start with the topography. Earlier versions
of this.
Batzli: Graded it more significantly.
Krauss: Lopped it off and make it a plateau. You've got the trees that/
you're picking up. You've got communal private recreational space that
serves a good purpose but it needs to be maintained by a homeowners
association. I believe some of the, correct me if I'm wrong but we were
looking at some of the standards relative to street width and grades bei�
modified and some setback internally to be modified a little bit to make
the plan work under the PUD. We think in exchange we've got a better
quality product. You've got a great deal of flexibility from the
developer in terms of product...these things are going to look like. On
the owner /occupied we've gotten, we've managed to pick up preservation of
the trees, not only on the...hill itself but internally. A lot of those"
things are a lot less flexible under a straight R -16 zone.
Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to give a presentation at this in
time before I open the meeting to the public?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Brad
Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I'm the developer of the
project. I have with me this evening Arvid Ellness, who's the architectll
Gordon Christensen who's the Surveyor. Has done the surveys out there.
And Kay Halla who is the Landscape Architect for this particular project
so we can later on address any specific questions to them. Arvid would ,
like to come forward after I'm done and just do a brief presentation on
color drawings I guess. If you recall correctly, when we first presente
this, we were going through a three process process here. The first ste
is conceptual, which we've gone through and listened to the neighborhood
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 3
concerns about the original proposal that we had. We've been through the
' Planning Commission. Listened to your concerns and also the City Council.
So we're now going through for the preliminary approval and we're trying
to adjust somewhat to the input that we've had from everybody so far and I
would say most of it has been a very positive process. Initially our
major objective on this particular project, only because I saw through
this last time it came through here, which was about 3 or 4 years ago, was
to maintain as much as we could the stands of oaks that are there and
there are also scattered oaks on that site. So that was one of our goals.
The second goal we had, as far as the development was concerned, is to do
as minimum amount of grading as we could. So we actually went ahead and
adapted a new type of rental structure so that it would fit the lines of
the property. The third thing was to produce a project which would fit
into what we perceived to be the Highway 5 corridor plan as far as what
visually was planned for this area which was primarily to maintain the
trees and then when everything was all done, you'd have a nice looking
project on the hill. Because it will be visible from Highway 5. Those
are the major objectives we came. One of the things we did not address,
and probably because I, not because I forgot about it but this particular
site to the east is R -12. To the west is R -12. And to the south is our
highest density commercial property in the city. So it's basically a
' transitionary parcel. In talking to the developer of Saddlewood, when he
did this particular project years ago and he and James arranged for the
zoning. First it was zoned R -12 prior to, is it Saddlebrook. What is it,
Saddlebrook. Prior to Saddlebrook being zoned whatever it was, the
property on the hill was R -12. So he had to deal with how to buffer his
property to this particular property. And the buffer that he used was the
wetland area which is approximately 200 to 300 feet across. And he felt
that that would be the buffer. In talking to Rick Murray, that's how he
perceived it. Thus he had a little point in here, which was an outlot of
the parcel zoned R -12 also to coincide with the zoning that was there
' already. Later on, that's been purchased subject to that zoning so our
proposal assumes an R -12 zoning in that property and whatever goes along
with that. Since we've met with the neighbors, and all the Planning
Commission and talked to the staff, things that we have done is reduce the
' total number of units from 240 to 217, which is a net density drop of down
to about 10.4. I think we're actually at 9.6 or almost lower than that
and I think the report shows that as far as our total density in a zoning
' area that requires 12. We've gone from 168 rental units to 112. We've
increased the for sale. They were concerned that we had too many for rent
units in the propject and some of them that were directly visible to the
neighbors to the north so we have changed the for sale mix to from 72 to
105. Primarily the for sale unit increase was in the northeast corner
which was originally our Phase 3 rental. We've lowered the rear
elevations of all the buildings to appear to be 2 story instead of 3
1 stories that look directly onto the neighboring houses. As I said, we've
added a northeast for sale. We've added quite a bit of new landscaping.
And this again is probably an oversight on our part but we added quite a
' bit of landscaping in the original proposal to the north side. There is
one barren hill there so whatever was built there would be seen. But
we're putting in pine trees. One of the things that we did do, I've
jogged through there periodically and I always wanted, like we do on the
other side, job along the pond so we put in a trail system that went along
the wetland pond that's in that neighborhood. That met with quite a bit
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 4 1
of objection from the neighborhood. I think they just didn't want peopl
running through their rear yards, which is reasonable. And secondly,
there's quite a bit of wildlife in that area so we've taken that out.
There was no need for that. We have however been requested by the City,
and we've agreed to do that, is to add a trail and a trail easement as a
part of your trail plan along Powers. CR 17, whatever it is. That stye
so we complete the trail system connecting the downtown area to this. We
have worked with the city on the drainage. The storm water drainage pia
for that which I believe Kate reviewed with you and basically our positi�
is that we'll use the City's consultants to design that. Just assuming
that they'll come up with the best solution. And then finally we've
increased, I don't know most of your parking for rental units run around"
parking spaces per unit. In some communities it's a lot less. Our
parking is currently 2.25 parking stalls per unit which is quite higher
than average for most communities and higher than your requirements that
are here. With that I'd like to have Arvid just go over the plan. Thos
are the things that we have changed in the project. I think Arvid can
review the actual project with you.
Batzli: Brad, do you have any objections to the current conditions in t
report? Have you had a chance to look at the staff report?
Brad Johnson: The only one that I'm concerned about, and this is more ofll
a financing problem, is that one of the requirements is that we put the
road in all the way through right away and that really has to do with holl
we finance the project and whether the lender, whether we're putting the
road in. The City's putting the road in. We haven't dealt with that
issue as of yet but no, the rest of those conditions are things that we'
talked about. There's some issues about trees. I believe we published,
you have received a document that was sort of incorrectly drawn by a
computer as to where trees were located in one area. That's been
corrected and the surveyor is here to verify that was the case. We drew
in the wrong grading line. Our intent is to preserve as many of the oak
As far as I know at this point, we are only taking 2 oaks overtly I guess
that we have to take. And there's 5 to 8 elm trees and that type of trill
over 12 inches that are in the path of the development way over on the
west side. There's a lot of trees in that particular area but I think
we've been as sensitive as we can to the project. But no, I don't have
any problems with any of the staff concerns. Other than that one and well
haven't really talked about it. It just showed up in the discussion so
far, so Arvid. Would you like to go over the project itself?
Arvid Ellness: I'll just kind of recap some of the highlights of the
plan. We sort of presented the conceptual thinking on the project in the
earlier meeting which is basically an idea of where the rental units
should go and where the for sale units go based on the variable that we
wanted to preserve the natural topography of the land as much as possibl
Use the building type on the hillside that gave us the greatest deal of
flexibility and could be nestled into the ravines and the positioning of"
the trees. The unit that we had in mind for the for sale unit has a lot
less flexibility in that regard so those decisions were discussed and
debated and resolved in earlier discussions with the Planning Commission
at the earlier meetings. Now to highlight the things, and I don't know i1
you all can see. To highlight the things that Brad brought to your
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 5
attention. The area in the northeast corner here where we've made the
major change is that we've taken out the rental units up here and we've
gone to a for sale unit: That for sale unit is a staggered type. Third
type design for the project. It's designed specifically for that area. It
has a lower roof line on the north side and it's a staggered type design
so that it has a softer and creates more of a shadow effect. These units
are somewhat lower than the rest of the units and they fit down into the
hillside as a phase which was our Phase 3 development area. We then
planted some additional trees on the north side here. Conifer type trees
to give us additional screening and softening those facades as much as we
can. We'll have some elevations to show you. What we've done with the
' elevations is kept it very schematic in terms of bulk and size to
determine the height of the building. The scale of the back wall and
things of that nature and the refinements of design in terms of detailing
of the windows and how the building materials and colors will go together,
will be a phase of development that we're anxious to go into. But at this
point we're trying to get the parameters of the project established and
with respect to scale location and positioning on the site. The other two
buildings that were referred to by Brad that we've lowered the roof on.
On the north side which is the area closest to the neighbors to the north,
are these two buildings here. We've brought the roofline down to a 2
story effect on the backside rather than a 3 story expression that we've
been showing above on the project. Before on the project along the major
embankment area here. The area of the grading discrepancy, one of the
areas was in this central area here where we were showing some grading
that was inaccurate. That's all been corrected and the new plans have
been submitted and they have that on file here as well as documents
enclosed in the set here. We also have some retaining wall work that
' we're going to put in around these oak trees here to make sure that our
position that we're saving the trees is maintained. I think the other
components of the site that you're somewhat familiar with from earlier
discussions so I'll just go on to some of the other sheets. This is a
building type that you've seen before. It's a building in which the
garages are located on the street side into the community type area and
the back side of the project is where the unit face out into the oak trees
and overlook the wetland area. The configuration of that building is
pretty much as we had shown it originally. The exception to it is that in
some areas we've been able to take the roofline and actually lower it to a
' 2 story effect which we'd use on the buildings closest to the neighbors to
the north. So we would represent to everyone that this building, that's
been identified on the plan will have a 2 story facade on the backside as
it's predominant elevation rather than the 3 story facade on the backside
that we had shown earlier. Materials remain as we had proposed. Final
siding is a predominant maintenance free material. The colors and things
of that nature will be resolved in the course of development of this
design. The other building type which has been a pattern of refinement
over the periods. It's the one that's being marketed for sale very
successfully throughout the metro area. It's referred to as the back to
back for sale unit. Very popular unit. Very well selling unit and priced
in the moderate range so that it's retained that popularity. The
materials and the configuration of the building has been refined somewhat
from earlier sketches but it generally represents a building of this
scale. Of this height and with these widths. All have 2 car garages and
other features that we identified earlier.
i
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 6
Batzli: What is your targeted moderate range?
Arvid Ellness: What is what?
Batzli: What is your moderate range? 1
Brad Johnson: Price wise?
Batzli: Price, yeah. 1
Brad Johnson: Under $95,000.00.
Arvid Ellness: This unit here is the new entry into the design and it wIL
basically here is the unit that we're referring to on the northeast corner
of the project. It has a 2 story type expression on the back side. It'll
staggered in a sawtooth pattern so it will have a softer look. It's a f
sale model. It's a unit that we think fits into that particular segment
of the site and into the contours in that area. More appropriately than
the other for sale model that we had used on the south side of the
property. So this is a custom design unit that would be marketed and so
in the northeast quadrant. And it's been figured so that it still, the
bulk is much less than what we had planned to do on the south side. It II
also allows us to use this particular design is set up to be a single
loaded approach where you park on one side. The units face out the back
so it's a much narrower and carries a much smaller scale in terms of bul
on the site itself. The other drawings mostly go into the detail
development of the project as required by the ordinance. The actual
configuration, the hard shell lines of the streets and configuration of
the landscaping and all the grading contours and detail information that
supports these general conceptual plans. And I won't take the time to g
into that but we'll be able to answer questions I believe on those. So
with that, do you want to comment anything more on the landscape or
anything?
Brad Johnson: Why don't we just wait until, would you like to have us
comment on the landscaping plan at this time?
Conrad: Sure.
Brad Johnson: Why don't you pull out the landscaping plan. Kay Halle II
from Halle Nursery.
Kay Halle: Hi. I'm Kay Halla and basically what I tried to do, I walke1
through the site and looked at what existing trees were there and the
topography. And I found it very important to add more oaks. White oaks
in the upland areas. In through here and along in here. And some pine
oak and swamp white oaks when you get into some of the areas that may be
little more wet so that the species, once they were planted, they would
survive. Also, I tried to go with related species such as American
linden. Things that were found naturally with oaks in upland areas.
American linden, sugar maples. And then as far as the evergreen species,
Douglas fir, white pines, Austrian pines, flathill spruce and in some of il
the lower areas the balsam fir. They can handle more moisture. So I
tried to make it very natural because that's the feeling I got from the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 7
site. And also I think it's a very, the trees and things that are
existing are very rough looking and I think if you, by adding more oaks
and American lindens, things that are very rugged looking trees. Not
too many delicate looking trees, I think that would continue the feel of
' the site. And also I felt that there are quite a few trees added and I
think that will really make a difference in softening the buildings. And
again, adding more evergreens along the north to screen from the neighbors
and along the south for the corridor TH 5 views. Adding kind of a variety
of some evergreen and some of the shade trees. And then also some sumac
down below on that hillside so that when you're looking up there you'd
again get that natural kind of feeling. Any questions?
' Batzli: We'll take public comments later. Thank you. Does that conclude
your report Brad? We'll now take public comment. What I'd like to have
you do is go up to the microphone. Give us your name and address please
' for the record and if you can, keep your comments brief. We would
appreciate it. Thank you.
' Tim Anderson: We have at least one resident who was going to speak
tonight who's not here yet because of the move up on the agenda so, I
don't know what we can do about that.
' Batzli: Your name and address.
Tim Anderson: My name is Tim Anderson. I reside at 7550 Canyon Curve in
Chanhassen. We put together a video. Myself and two of my neighbors
showing the site and it was done a couple days ago in a snow storm so I
apologize for it's quality.
' Batzli: How long is this?
Tim Anderson: Oh, not very long.
Batzli: Is this a 6 hour tape or? •
' Tim Anderson: Is it possible to rotate that slightly so I can kind of
narrate it as we go. Okay, from what we wanted to do, first of all is
show how imposing a 30 to 35 foot building would be at this site. So what
we did is put together a 32 foot long pole and held it up to the site.
We're looking north. This is the hill where the row townhouses will be.
Looking south across the row townhouses...
Farmakes: Is it north on the other side of the wetlands?
Tim Anderson: Yes, this is looking over the farthest west, farthest east
pond. Now he's panning over through the wetland area. You can see the
trees. The oak trees and such. And as you can see that's, even the
smaller townhouses will be quite imposing on that hill. We really don't
have any arguments for the townhouses. Okay this is we went out, Mr.
Johnson had the surveyors put the stakes down and we discovered that one
set of stakes delineated one of the buildings as actually probably on top
of at least 3 trees and very close, within a drip line of two more. And
the statement saying they're only going to cut down 2 oak trees is rather
misleading. This is another building corner we went out and set the pole
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 8 1
on. We had bad weather conditions so I apologize for the quality of thill
This is looking south again from my next door neighbors backyard at the
wetland area and the detention ponds.
Farmakes: Your first pole staked to the east that you showed first, was"
the elevation at a stake?
Resident: Yes. 1
Farmakes: Okay.
Tim Anderson: Yeah, exactly at where the stake was. ,
Resident: ...I'm sorry to interrupt but how sparse it is on this side...
Tim Anderson: What we're concerned about too now is the location of thill
one building which was delineated with these stakes and essentially the
trees that would have to be cut down is the buffer between our houses an
these apartment buildings. Another thing I wanted to state is we
measured, if I can use the, when we get done here, I can use the overhea .
We measured the distance from the. Okay, here he's walking a line betwe
two of the stakes on one of the buildings. As you can see, he's going t
be walking right through some trees. Obviously you're not going to be
able to preserve those trees. I think you get the general idea. We can
probably cut it out. I want to talk about several issues tonight. I'll
try to keep this as brief as possible but I feel it's important to myselil
and my neighbors that these items be covered. First of all the site
configuration. Currently there's two types of, or three types of units
be built. One is the apartment units which are facing, directly facing
our houses. And then there are what Brad called the back to back units.
The villas which are, those face south towards the commercial area and
then there were the row townhouses up in the northeast corner. We are
concerned about having for rent units within 200 feet of our houses. 20
or 250 feet of our houses. I was a renter for several years. 7 -8 years
before I bought my house here in Chanhassen and as a renter I know, even'
though most renters are really good but one thing they really aren't
concerned about is what's going on in their community and they tend to
have large turnover. Every 6 months. Every year you get turnover in
these apartments and we are uncomfortable having that type of turnover s�
near our home. I'd like, for an example, how many people here are from
the Westwood Village Apartments which are also right next to this
development? Is anybody here from those apartments? See, not that I'm II
criticizing them as much as renters know that they will be moving on.
Going elsewhere. I'm also concerned about one of the buildings. I want
to put up the previous grading plan if I can. Okay up is north. This wit
the building that we have, it's essentially on top of 3 or 4 trees and i
you go down, one of the ponds facing our backyard is with an 85 feet. One
of the buildings. That is the same distance as our houses are to the II pond. Essentially it has the same setback as a single family unit and
it's facing a single family unit. This is a much larger building. Much
higher building. Much more imposing building. Neighbors that are going
to have a lot of turnover. There's going to be probably a lot more noisil
than you would expect from a single family homeowner. That...to me.
You've got to excuse my land use map. I'm not a planner. This is the for
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 9
sale units. The back to back for sale units...townhomes. This is the row
of townhomes. These are the apartments. These are our houses. This is
Saddlebrook up here. What I tried to show is, we would like to see the
for sale units be placed to the north adjacent to our homes and the
apartment units with higher turnover with the larger per family per acre
density than these would have, facing the north. Or excuse me, the south.
And one of the things the City should realize is that these for sale
units, currently this whole area down here is undeveloped. I went through
and grabbed an old set of plans for the Target. I understand it's changed
a bit the last couple weeks. This was the Target. These are some outiots
which could take fast food restaurants or other types of restaurants.
Restaurants with drive thrus and such. A lot of lighting. Parking lot
lighting. I kind of made up some buildings up here. It could look like
this. Strip mall, a K -Mart, a Taco Bell. Look how close potentially
these townhomes could be, owner /occupied townhomes could be to a Taco Bell
or any type of fast food restaurant. So obviously.
Batzli: Paul, I'd like you to leave that up when you're done and I'd like
Paul to clarify the record if anybody watching this, that what you're
suggesting has not been approved. And I want to make that very clear
right now.
Tim Anderson: I apologize for that. This is just an example. Anything
to the north of 78th Street is an example. Taco Bell or any of the fast
food, Hardee's. Any type of fast food or any type of auto service area is
going to produce a lot of noise. This land is zoned commercial. I don't
know how the owner of this land feels about having owner /occupied units
within probably 50 feet of their building. These people who buy these
units will...this area is developed, naive like we are I guess. They're
going to be coming to a Planning Commission 5 years from now complaining
about the construction of a fast food restaurant. The construction of
some type of auto body shop or car dealer. That is very, very close to an
owner /occupied. To me it's like maybe...of Chanhassen where they are that
close. But you've got to understand, this is at least 10, probably 30
feet higher than this. Expect this part of this house or this unit
probably 10 to 15 higher than the ground level down here. They will be
overlooking it. You will not be able to buffer a berm as such on a down
slope like that. You plant trees, it takes a long time for those trees to
mature. So you're going to have these, I bet you in 5 years you're going
to have the same people who purchased these units are going to be here
just like we are in Saddlebrook, complaining about the development that
will occur right down the hill. Second of all, the property values here.
I would think Chanhassen would like to keep their property values at least
steady if not rising. These won't. I'm not a realtor but I don't think,
especially in the end units here. They are very close to a commercially
zoned property. So these people will not, will have very, will have some
difficulty selling these properties and would probably face those property
decrease. Renters, like I said, I lived in apartments. As an apartment
owner, you don't worry about land values. It's more a convenience
possibly that there is going to be a Taco Bell down the hill or grocery
store or a K -Mart. It makes more sense to have that transition from
commercial. Very high density. These people are not going to have a nice
view of essentially 80 -90% impervious. It's not going to be parklike.
Highway 5 is going to be right here. There's going to be noise from
I
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 12
would have to be cleaned out quite frequently. That is not low
maintenance. Finally I'd like to know why, somehow has the Planning
Department or developer commented on why on -site ponding was not
considered at this site. I believe there are locations for it. They jus+
deny that they say they're not there. I want to comment, I think the oaitf
trees have been commented on quite a bit. If you saw on the video that
looks like they may be removing more oak trees than they say. If you look
at the parking lot. This area, these are oak trees right here. They'rer
overhanging the parking lot. Oak trees are very sensitive to earth workri
and you have to do earth work to build a parking lot. And those weren't
counted in the 2 that he said would be lost. As you have read in the
staff report, or at least may have, the engineer technician who reviewed
the grading plan basically said all the oak trees would be lost. I saw a
new grading plan. I agree that it probably will be, it's much better than
the original one but I question that it's a matter of trust. They say, at
originally one end said one tree would be lost. Now two trees. When wis
it stop? I would like to see some type of proof and this proof includes
that there be a detailed survey done of all trees greater than 6 inches i
diameter. Then the developer should go through and identify which trees I
are lost due to construction. And then have, the developer should pull
some type of bond so that any oak trees that are lost up to approximatelr
3 to 5 years after development could, would have some financial penalty
for that. The bond would be used to replace those trees because oak tree
are very sensitive in the long term to development. Not just during
construction. And also the developer should replace all landscaping if ht
dies. Especially in the buffer areas between our houses and the units.
Steep slopes. Page 5 of the staff report says that planned unit
developments are to encourage the following. Preservation of desireable
site characteristics and open space. Protection of sensitive
environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks,
wetlands, lakes and scenic views. They're not doing a very good job on I
the steep slopes. These are 4:1, 3:1 slopes he's planning to build on.
Very sensitive to erosion. Many communities including Carver County,
which of course has no zoning authority in Chanhassen, has a limitations
and setbacks to construction on steep slopes. I don't know if, I'm not
familiar enough with Chanhassen's zoning ordinances about construction ox
steep slopes. I'll be curious to get a comment about that when I'm done.
Especially since these units will be constructed halfway down an 80 foots
hill or more than halfway down. It does also kind of destroy a very good
view which is not something that should be encouraged. And finally I wan
to talk about something that I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on but I
know a little bit about this. Enough to be dangerous. I see that Mr. J
Svoboda, the City's consultant on wetlands is here and maybe he could ev€.
comment on it but I got one more overhead. This area here, this is
approximately where the road will be built. This does have the hydrolog,l
matching a wetland. It's approximately a half acre in size. It also
contains blanco soils. Blanco soils is the same soils that are in this
wetland and that were up here and also the wetlands adjacent to Chanhassen
Park Pond. I would like to see this somehow addressed. Checked out. Id
it defined as a wetland according to the City of Chanhassen? I called Jo
Ann Olsen about a month ago asking what a definition of a wetland would
be. This is a Type II wetland I would guess. From my knowledge of it.
And she had told me that it would probably be protected and have to be i
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 13
mitigated probably on a 2:1 ratio. Loss filling of this wetland. That's
' all I have to say, thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. I've misplaced your name. Is was?
' Tim Anderson: Tim Anderson.
' Batzli: Does anyone else wish to address the commission?
Mike Henke: Hi. My name is Mike Henke. My wife Mary. We reside at 7560
Canyon Curve. I live directly, when you looked at the tape, when you saw
the berm that runs inbetween the two existing ponds, I'm looking straight
at that building that's on that hillside. To just make it short and
sweet. I just, it's really hard, there's so many different, you asked in
' the beginning Mr. Chairman what the advantage would be to put it into the
PUD and they said the preservation of the trees. And then on page 2 of
your notes for tonight, it says the main, in the last paragraph, it says
' the main wildlife area around the wetland as well as the wooded hillside
will remain untouched and protected under the proposal which is a complete
falsehood because the marker that's, the survey stakes that's on the hill
is 85 feet from the water. They're taking that whole hillside out of
there. ...not be true but I'm just really concerned about the trees I
guess. I mean I'm not trying to be looking at. It started out in the
notes for the meeting in July 15th I believe where it says...1 tree would
be lost and then the letter he sent to us was 2 trees. On page 5 of your
notes tonight it says a few trees. On page 9 of your notes tonight it
says many trees. So I think that we need to give it some real serious
consideration and maybe have them mark the trees so we know exactly what
1 we're talking about there. I mean you go a long way from 1 to 2 to even
so many. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you.
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Callister and I live at 7540 Canyon
' Curve. I apologize first of all for being late. I had another meeting so
if I repeat myself, I apologize. When we first looked at this proposal it
was hard to assess the impact on our particular neighborhood. I think I
originally stated that we all agreed that there was going to be apartments
or multi - family housing in this area someday. Or at some time or another
and my intent was to minimize the impact of that work with the city. Work
with the developer in minimizing that impact. As I look at the situation
' now with the survey stakes that have been placed there, I'm totally, I
can't agree with where they're placed. It's not minimizing the impact.
It's 85 feet to the pond. By the time you go straight measurement on the
survey, it's probably less than that. All of our houses are 75 feet away.
Like I said, I don't know if I misunderstood originally where this was
located but I really, I really can't understand why they're located so
close to the pond area. As outlined, did they get a copy of this here?
' That's fine. I've got one I was just wondering if they had seen it yet.
I don't know if this has been mentioned tonight. I know it was mentioned
before regarding the logical transition for any type of development or any
11 type of zoning would be from single family to mid -range family to high
density. Multiple family dwellings. I don't see that here and I realize
there are some circumstances that we can't control but like I said, all
r
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 14 1
we're trying to do is minimize the impact and enjoy our property. I thi
we all paid a premium on our lots that face this area and one of those
reasons being the trees. As you, the tape was shown? As you saw in the
tape, it doesn't make sense. The trees are going to be taken down. There
was 5 of them with one building. It's hard to tell from the 4 stakes inll
the ground. So I guess that's one thing I would like to have required oil
the developer is to stake that property out to show the citizens. To show
the City where those buildings are going to go so there's no question
about it. I complained before about them showing the solid stand of oak
It's not on the maps anymore but it was a solid stand of oaks and it was
rhy, impression that no development would come on the north side onto thos
oaks and that's not the case with the stakes that are presently out then
Another thing that I would like to address would be the roofline. The
developer has worked with us on reducing the impact by reducing the
roofline so that it looks like, not a full 3 story walkout. But he's ong
done that on a few buildings and I would like to request that the Planni
Commission consider making that a condition on the rest of the buildings
that face the Saddlebrook development. I believe they're only on like
these three and I guess I would like to see them on all of the apartment
that are facing the development because those are going to be sticking u
out of the trees. And I would rather, much rather look at a roof than a
full facing and then a roof on top of it. As mentioned before, I think 11
that the Planning Commission needs to have more detail information on th
landscaping part of it. The existing trees and so on. A site survey
showing exactly where every tree is located. There's so much confusion.,
Everybody says something different about where those trees are located.
Those trees are an asset not only to our neighborhood but to the entire
community and as contained in all of your ordinances, you do whatever yo
can do preserve those. So I think that more details need to be presente
so that we can find out where exactly those are and the ones that we're
going to lose, we need to know that in advance and not find out later that
somebody chopped down a tree they weren't supposed to. The only other II
thing would be a traffic study and we talked about it a little bit last III
time. I don't know if the County is doing a traffic study on Kerber. Or
not on Kerber, but on Powers Boulevard there but I don't know whether th
City has ever, is considering doing a traffic study but anytime you add
that many residences in a type, high density type situation, you're goin
to have an impact. Not only on traffic but other things and I hope that
gets addressed before thise project proceeds. In closing I guess I'd juil
like to say that I do appreciate the fact that the development up in the
northeast corner was changed. That's certainly acceptable to me. The
thing that I do oppose is the proximity of these three buildings right
here. And to me the location of those three buildings are unacceptable.'
Thank you.
Batzli: Mr. Callister. This document that was signed by the residents,"
was this ever given to either the developer or City staff?
Dave Callister: No. This was something that was developed in the last 11
or 3 days, yeah. After our neighborhood meetings and after our initial
meeting.
Batzli: So the Chanhassen Planning Department hasn't seen it? 1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 15
Dave Callister: No. They have not. Some of them are the same concerns
' but there are a few additional ones.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Greg Hromatka: My name is Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve.
About that survey that you have. That's basically a thumb nail. Meant to
be concise. Readable for you all and for the persons that we went to to
get to sign it. It's always been talked about the oaks. I wouldn't know
an oak if it bit me but that's probably the only way so I want to be sure
that there's big trees. Elms, lindens. Maybe they're not as desireable
' as others. Actually when they're this big around in the trunk and they're
going to take 20 years to replace, they're pretty desireable. And so I
think that has to be considered too.
' Batzli: Did you give your name and address? I'm sorry.
Greg Hromatka: Yes.
Bob Bohara: I'm Bob Bohara. I live at 7510 Canyon Curve. I'm concerned
about the transition area. As they said on two sides it's high density
residential and on the other it's commercial. If they build apartments on
the north side then, you'll have high density on that side too so you'll
have this small little area of owned homes there with lesser desireable
type buildings all around them. That seems to be not good for the people
who buy those homes and having the high density apartment buildings next
to ours doesn't seem to the best way to go from transitioning from this
higher density downtown like area to the single family homes in our area.
' We live actually on the western most end. Back over here and I have a
couple additional concerns that weren't mentioned. I'm not very good at
reading these things but it looks like the road they're putting in is very
highly graded in that area and that's something of a concern to me. One
of the places for the extra drainage is down here...lines, that's very
steep in there. I don't see how they're going to get any extra drainage
' in there for this property development. And the final thing is that
there's also supposed to be a path here. It's actually a city
requirement, not something the developer volunteered to do. That area is
right along CR 17. I think the plan at the moment is to put it in the
' utility easement and at least part of that is very highly sloped away from
Powers Boulevard there and I'm concerned about how they're going to do
that. It will take some kind of heavy build -up there or terracing or
' something and once again you run into this wetland...
Batzli: Thank you.
Mary Henke: I just have a short thing. My name is Mary Henke. I live at
7560 Canyon Curve and on page 3 of the staff notes, at the very bottom.
It says the residents to the north would also like no trespassing signs
placed on the property limits. I would just like to know if that is still
going to be part of the development. If that's going to happen. And
also, remember when I asked you about those, the buildings. On Monday at
11 our meeting I asked you, are they going to be on top of the hill and you
said yes. And after the stake was placed there, I don't know a couple of
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 16 1
days ago, it's like right in the middle of the hill. I would like to kn
why that was changed. Thank you.
Batzli: Do you want to address that Kate? Respond to her question.
Aanenson: I went out and looked at the stakes today myself. I was kind 1
of surprised as far as the location. I'm not sure how they were placed.
We had the same concerns about them. Paul and myself went out and looke
at those. It's obvious that there's going to be more trees taken out th
even originally ourselves thought. That's why I raised the question
tonight. We'd like to see more detail in that. I'd like to hear from the
developer. Exactly what those stakes represent. He did it out after thil
meeting that was held with the neighbors last Monday night. They asked
for some stakes to be placed and I'm not sure exactly what they represent.
If they're off -set. If they're on corners of buildings or what but I
would agree that the ones that are in the trees come down the hillside all
ways. The other ones to the, that are on the northeast side, that's the
way I always felt they would be located...misunderstanding on that but t
other ones we are concerned about that location.
Ahrens: The three buildings? All three of them?
Aanenson: Those three buildings that Mr. Callister pointed out. The 8 II
unit. The two 8 unit rentals and the one 12 unit building.
Batzli: Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission all
this time? Okay.
Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. I'd
like to go on record that I agree very strongly to what some of the othe
people have talked about here tonight. And I also would like to thank all
of you for taking the time and hearing our concerns. One thing that I d
want to point out or make mention of is, I live on the, it would be the
furthest pond to the east. And this past summer the berm that was moved
back a little bit closer to Kerber I think in itself has created a littl
bit of a problem in water runoff. Okay. So it brings up a strongly
concern of mine of what's going to happen to all this extra runoff that'
going to be coming from that adjacent development. Being that close, I
have many opportunities to see what that water looks like going to that
pond and coming down the street, Canyon Curve at times when it's a fairl
strong rain is considerable in itself but now in addition to that, with
that berm being moved back a little bit, there's an additional at times
river that actually comes through there. And it's actually starting to
cut through, cut past Greg and Cindy's home. Coming right across to mine
and there's already a fairly good sized, I don't know what it would be
called. A little canyon it looks like almost. And each time that it
rains it creates a more mitigation of that soil and stuff that actually I/
goes into the pond and I'm not sure what to do about that myself. But
it's getting worse so my concern is also with all that impervious land
that's going to be up there, where's all that really going to go? And c
you really make that pond big enough to handle all that extra runoff and
personally I don't think so because of what I've already witnessed so. 11
1
11 Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 17
11 Batzli: Thank you. Dave, are you aware of the area that he's talking
about?
Hempel: Yes I am Mr. Chairman. Recently this past summer three of the
residents got together and applied for a grading permit to relocate a berm
that was located in their backyards which is just north of the most
easterly pond. Essentially they did that to create a more useful backyard
and essentially the same drainage pattern is being maintained. There may
be with the relocation of the berm, there may be a more concentrated flow
' through the most southerly yard but it can be taken a look at. I know
they've resodded the yards up there and it's been all approved by us.
' Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the
Commission?
' Cindy Hromatka: Hi. My name is Cindy Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon
Curve. One thing I just want to go back to this transition area thing one
more time. In the City Council meeting on August 10th, Mayor Chmiel did
ask that they demonstrate why it cannot be switched and I don't see that
that has happened at any point here. No one has demonstrated yet why we
cannot have the owner /occupied facing us. The rental on the other side.
I'd like to see that done because obviously we all want the owner /occupied
' there and I think it makes sense and I would think the City would see it
the same way. Would see that the same way. So I'd like that. The other
thing is the oak trees again. I was told, Brad Johnson told me before the
' City Council meeting last time that he had talked to someone and they had
told him that they actually needed to have driplines between, well two
driplines from the oak trees. That they couldn't build within the two
drip lines in order to preserve those trees and that they would
incorporate that into the plan. That obviously hasn't been done. You
know in a lot of cases as Tim pointed out, they are building within one
drip line. I would like to see an expert maybe consulted on this to find
' out how close you can build to oak trees in order to preserve them you
know like 3 to 5 years from now. That's a big concern. You destroy those
roots and then the oak trees die way down the road when the developer is
done. Those are the two issues I want to talk about. I'd like to see
something that would show why we can't have the owner /occupied facing us.
Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you.
Randy Swatfager: Hi. My name is Randy Swatfager. I live at 7511 Canyon
Curve and I think one of the things I wanted to address was the lighting.
We had talked with Mr. Johnson before and he said he could work it into
the covenants. The size of the lightings. The height of the lighting.
The lighting itself so if you look at it in perspective, we'll be looking
' up at this and there will be a lot of light pollution coming down from
that site. So I'd just like to have some assurance that the lighting will
stay where it's needed. Not where it isn't. Obviously enough to make the
residents in there feel comfortable but not enough to make us feel
uncomfortable. And the only other thing I've got is, I believe traffic is
going to be horrendous in that area. I've got kids going to school
shortly that will be walking that area and I haven't seen any studies, as
has been mentioned before. If that's been addressed or not. I've got a
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 18
II
question for Ms. Halla. The trees that you're going to be putting in,
what size will they be? 1
Kay Halla: ...there are certain standards that the City...how many units,
and it's a money thing.
II
Randy Swatfager: It's always a money thing but I mean.
Kay Halla: So the size is really, it could vary and I can't say at this'll
time...
Batzli: Excuse me sir. Kate can probably help you on the size of the, II
the minimum sizes at least.
Aanenson: Well there's a conifer standard and a deciduous standard. II 2 1/2 inch caliper on deciduous and 6 inch on a conifer.
Krauss: However, we recognize that trees don't grow overnight and we
often times when it's warranted, insist that trees be installed at 12 foil
heights and 4 inch diameter trees. It's very difficult to do that acros
an entire site. Really it does cost a tremendous amount of difference.
But where screening needs to be provided quickly, we do...
II
Randy Swatfager: So in layman's terms they're going to be what size?
Krauss: The minimum they can be by ordinance is 2 1/2 inch diameter, 6 11
foot height for conifers. But again, on a number of instances, I'm not
sure exactly here but we have the ability to say no. You cannot put...
What's needed back here is 10 to 12 footers at installation. 1
Randy Swatfager: Are you thinking of doing that ?,
Aanenson: Well I think that was one of the things that came out of the 1
neighborhood meeting is that the residents had asked for in those areas
that screening needs to be done, that Mr. Johnson had committed to put
that in immediately.
II
Randy Swatfager: Yeah, we keep asking some things but we never.
Aanenson: Yeah well I put the, I think I've got a lot of the comments ill
the conditions. The lighting is in one of the conditions. That was
addressed and the staff put that.
II
Randy Swatfager: Yeah we know it's a condition but we're just trying to
put it in perspective and get some details on these things.
Farmakes: Paul isn't there also probably, we've had landscape people ill
here before talking about if you put too big of a tree in, you greatly
increase the chances of a dieback as the years go on within 5 years. Is"
that?
Krauss: Well, Ms. Halla can probably reflect on that. I think Halia's
known to have the biggest tree spade in the State but yeah, there is a
limit to it effectively and there's a limit for what kind of soils you c
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 19
put trucks on steep slopes.
pu it in. Also, you can't get one of those t cks s ep
Kay Halla: Can I make a comment? At the nursery we'll ball and burlap,
which you can manually plant. Balled and burlapped trees. 3 1/2 inch
trunk diameters for deciduous trees. When you get into 4 inch, it's
recommended to go with a smaller tree spade. Then you can go along up to
18 inches. A real huge one but it is difficult on it, you know depending
on access and that kind of thing to get a spade in certain areas. But in
' some areas but it may not be possible but the maximum would be a 3 1/2
inch balled and burlap. That would be safe to handle.
Randy Swatfager: I guess keeping it in perspective, when it's on the
hill. Here's the house and here's the tree. I mean we're still looking
at the house so I think it's all the more important for us to keep the
trees that are standing. We keep hammering away on that point but it's
' something that we're going to be living with here so. I just got one
question for Mr. Johnson. You had mentioned the median priced home of the
townhomes would be $90,000.00, is that correct?
Brad Johnson: What I said was that the, under $95,000.00.
Randy Swatfager: Under 95. What would be the lowest point in that?
Brad Johnson: Probably about 70.
' Randy Swatfager: Would these be the higher priced ones?
Brad Johnson: Absolutely. They may run 110...
Randy Swatfager: Okay. Just once again, I just want to go over some of
the same things that everybody else did. I don't like the transition.
I've got a question with the traffic and I guess we're looking for the
Council to follow up on our concerns and we appreciate it. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
' Is there a move to close the public hearing?
Erhart moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Kate, before we take comments from the Commissioners. Can you
briefly run over whether it was in fact explored to move the renters, the
rental units to the south, and if it was explored, why it wasn't done.
Aanenson: I'll let Mr. Johnson answer that question. As far as what I
know and I think he can explain in more detail, is his best alternative as
far as the grading was to come back with just the owner /occupied in the
northeast corner. Again, it's a grading issue. I'll let him answer it in
more detail.
Batzli: So did you see a plan which moved it to the south? The rental
units to the south.
Aanenson: A flip flop plan?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 20
•
Batzli: Yes.
Aanenson: No.
Batzli: So you never saw a plan? ,
Aanenson: No. Just in our sitting down and meeting and looking at the
issues why it couldn't be done.
Batzli: And what were those issues?
Aanenson: I think I'll let him explain a lot of those. 1
Batzli: Well I'd like.
Aanenson: The grading is the main issue. The amount of grading that
would have to be done. And the types of the buildings.
Batzli: And you agreed with his arguments that it couldn't be done that"
way?
Aanenson: Well it's a trade -off. Of course it could be done. There's II
trade-off.
Krauss: The trade -off you know, anything is theoretically possible. Vo
can go out and start with a completely different product and maybe it wi
fit. Maybe it wouldn't. The way, trying to, you know what they're trying
to do with this market, this type of unit and the way it's been designed
there's significantly more grading required for the rental units than thil
smaller for sale units. Yes you can flip it if you want to but you
basically wind up flattening large areas of the site which is then
reminiscent to what the plan was 3 or 4 years ago and there's a cost. I�
mean if you're willing to look at sacrificing, if in this scenario you'll'
willing to look at sacrificing the trees up on top, you can do that.
Aanenson: Another issue too I was going to bring up is you recall the
first site plan had larger 16 unit buildings. Again, one of those trade-
offs is to reduce, the neighbors were concerned about the massing of those
buildings. Those were reduced to 8 unit buildings along that side. Aga"
it kind of punches it forward a little bit more into the hillside and
again we're concerned about how far it's going down but there has been
some modifications. There was a...and staff was too about the 16 unit
building up against the single family. 5o again, there's another trade- II there going to two or three 8 unit buildings and what that means as
far as spacing and how much land it takes up. On this proposal again to
revisit this whole issue is trying to go with a lower profile. The
proposal that was before this one had larger unit buildings. I think Mr.
Johnson...and staff's recommendation was to make the smaller units.
Reduce the massing and spreading those buildings out and that's a trade-II
off issue.
Batzli: Does it make more sense, everything else being equal, to put a
transition from owner /occupied to rental? From a pure planning
perspective, do planners see any difference in owner /occupied versus
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 21
1/ townhomes by way of transition from single family to general business
11 district?
Krauss: I can give you an answer but it's probably going to sound kind of
gobbely gook. There is nothing in the planning literature that's been
written since the 1920's that insists on a hierarchy of zoning. It's one
of the original concepts of zoning. It's long been surpassed. What most
communities try to achieve is called performance zoning. Where
' theoretically you could make anything fit into any place given the proper
design. Now most communities, Chanhassen included don't take it to that
extent but we have a PUD. One of the advantages of the PUD is that it's a
comprehensive project. It's developed as a package. It functions as a
package. Internally, from a land use design standpoint. I realize the
residents are raising other concerns. But from a land use design concept,
it doesn't make any difference whether people live inside the 4 walls are
paying rent every month or a mortgage every month. What matters, from a
land use design standpoint, it makes no difference. Now I understand that
you're raising other issues about who's living there and what their intent
might be and how they might exist but in terms of a site plan, a site plan
doesn't know. You know it really doesn't matter. It's the concept of the
building. You can take this thing to fairly extreme lengths should you so
' desire. We could ask Arvid to come back with a 4 or 5 story apartment
building that only tinkers with a very small part of the site and will
save everything. I'm not sure that that would be found to be acceptable
either but what you do is you try to find an medium here between
significant disruption to the site and significant impact to off -site
properties.
Batzli: I have one other question. Does the assumption that it would be
graded more depend solely on the type of building that they have come up
with? In other words, they've come in with a particular type of building
that they are going to build regardless and so they have to grade the site
to make it fit the building. I've always been told that you pick the site
and then you choose the building to go on it to fit the site. It seems to
me like they've kind of turned this on it's head.
Krauss: Certainly there's an element of truth to what you've said. You
could come up with, I mean a lot of different variations that are deemed
to have different amounts of impact. I could sketch out for you a single
family development of that site that's much more disruptive because the
land area around each home is much larger. The yards are much larger.
Each home is physically separated. You need to grade a bigger pad for
each area. You're talking about a site that's guided and been zoned, it
has been for many years, for high density housing. Within those
parameters, what fits. I mean you have townhouse designs. You had quad
home designs. You have multi - family 3 story, you know 3 story midrise
kind of a thing design. Theoretically you could have a highrise. Within
those parameters, I'm sure somebody may be able to come up with a better
idea but this is fairly consistent with what you're going to be seeing
with anything that would be consistent with that density.
Batzli: Would anyone on the Commission like to hear from the developer on
why they did not choose to go with it? Brad, do you have comments on?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
November 4, 1992 - Page 22
Brad Johnson: I've got a couple comments. To get this tree issue out of
the way. I just looked at our plan. Our goal, and we may have screwed 41
but our goal is not to take anymore currently than 2 oak trees and lookill
at the plan, we actually moved the buildings back from the oaks. It is a
fact that we take 5 to 8 linden trees and some of those that you saw tha
were the large trunked trees were lindens and elm. Maybe you want to
speak to elms and lindens Kay as to their lifespan and are they fast
growing trees or slow growing trees because we understand. We've got oak
trees you want to preserve and we're trying to do that. And if we
misplaced it or misstaked it or whatever, we'll change that because thatli
not our goal.
Kay Halla: I haven't been out since these stakes have been in the grouni
but when I was out earlier, I noticed that there were more of the linden
and elms along the slopes and I found more of the large oaks in the cent
area where they are being preserved. There seems to be, there's got to
some sort of trade -off. That in order to preserve.
Brad Johnson: These are the oaks. Supposedly. And these are lindens all
things like that down here. So we've had to move the trees away from th
oaks. The buildings away from the oaks which then cuts into other trees.
Kay Halla: And it seems like in order to preserve that, which I feel is
very important from a design standpoint. That central area of oaks whic ,
when I was on the site, that seemed like a very important part of the
site. From not just the homeowners direction but from all directions. II
And I think in order to preserve that, some of these buildings have to g
somewhere. You have to adjust them so rather than jamming then all on the
top of the site and destroying that, they maybe do have to come down all
the slopes a little and remove some of the elms. And again, I haven't
been out to see where these stakes are but the elms are a faster growing
as are the linden and as far as value, you know big trees are valuable b
as far as value compared to oaks, they're a lesser value tree. They gro
faster and the elms are a shorter lived tree.
Batzli: Thank you. ,
Resident: Could she answer how old those are and how much longer they
would last if they were left there? ,
Kay Halla: I'm sorry I don't know.
Batzli: How long does an elm live generally? 1
Kay Halla: Well lately they aren't living very long. They generally,
they're not as shortly lived like silver maple or something but they're II
becoming pretty diseased with the Dutch elm disease and that kind of
thing. So they're not as long lived. And as far as value from a nursery
standpoint, we don't even sell elms anymore because they're trying to II develop new strains of them but they are not, they don't hold up to the
disease so we'd recommend something more like a linden or something fast
growing.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 23
Resident: Well the trees we're talking about provide the buffer between
the apartments and our homes. I mean that's the key issue. And being no
matter what it is, mature tree...
Brad Johnson: We're replacing that with is a large amount of trees that
are evergreen types...
Batzli: Excuse me. The public hearing is over. If you have comments,
' please address them to me and if we have time, we'll get back to you.
Brad Johnson: The other thing is, and I agree. You forget why you do
11 things. One of the reasons, if you look at the Highway 5 corridor plan
and all the concerns that people had about that. They wanted to maintain
this stand of oaks so it looked okay from Highway 5. They wanted to
maintain as much of the trees over here as they could...so when we were
approached by the site, you also have to deal with economics. Today you
don't build large apartment buildings. We'd love to build a large
apartment building. It's a far more efficient way of doing things but you
can't finance them. And secondly, a large apartment building on this
particular site would have to be set back again over in there. Secondly,
we're building to a market and the market happens to be today, if you're
going to build something you've got to be able to either rent it or to
sell it and if we're going to build something for sale, the type of unit
that we have put here is what's selling. And that particular unit can't
be redesigned to go over here because this is flat and this is undulating.
We did design some higher priced units than these for here. Now the
question is, have we changed? Yes we did. We took out all the rental
units that were here and all the rental units that were here, because we
could perceive that there was a problem because in fact these people, this
is a barren hill. And we've cut the number of units there from like 28
down to 16. We put this staggered unit. This is a far more expensive
unit to sell than this one. The developer is at risk when these go on the
market. We do not feel that they're at risk here and the project will
actually get done. So I would say that we are faced with the real
marketing opportunities within the community of Chanhassen and throughout
the western suburbs. That this is the type of unit that sells. And I
guess our, the reason we can't really remove from that is we can't come in
here with a project we'll never complete by trying to design a for sale
that would go over here. You can also see that the density drops
dramatically when we do that. So then we have to make up the density
someplace else. And that's, as I understand it, this was zoned R -12 and
to me that means high density rental for the whole parcel. That's what
R -12 means. It could even be zoned up to R -16. To me if the zoning was
R -2, R -4, that is transitionary. That's what I'm used to seeing. Or even
R -8 but this is R -12 and so someplace in the world, in the process of
approving both Saddlebrook originally. After this was done, the City
itself made the decision that they would want to encourage high density
here whether it be rental or not. There's no requirements I don't think
in any of your rules that say people can't have to own versus rent in an
R -12. It's considered to be an R -12 zoning. I'm a developer. To me is a
rental zoning. Now the current owners were aware of the zoning there.
I'm sure they could have contacted the City. I've talked to the developer
of that parcel a number of times and he's always told me they were aware
of it and he put up, there's a buffer. This particular point here is
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 24
about 150 feet from here, which is the property line. And up to about 250
feet from their houses. This point over here is about 200. Some of the
parcels are as far as 300 feet. That's a football field, away from the
homes. We have tried to handle the site as well as we can Brian. I don't
know exactly if we could economically do it differently. We've got it 11
into the FHA approval for the rental sides so we could accomplish that.
They like the project. And it's not a low end rental. It's tough to do
any of these kinds of things today and to finance them. They like the
project and that's what, it's economics when you get to that point. We '
don't think we can design a for sale in the Chanhassen market, which is
probably under $100,000.00 for a townhouse, and put them on those sites.
Batzli: So assume for a minute that you had a flat parcel. Would you pi
the owned units to the south?
Brad Johnson: I think we would, yeah. 1
Batzli: Why?
Brad Johnson: No we wouldn't, if it was flat. Right. You're absolutelj
right.
Batzli: You'd put it to the north then? Because you could charge a ,
higher price then?
Brad Johnson: It's a premium site. I think, I happen to run along the
ridge up there and my feeling is, these are not the type of site, the wa
those units are designed, if you notice that the decks are on the second
floor. They'll be able to look out over most everything. They're not II
going to be looking down on roofs. They're almost what 40 -50, at least
feet above what is going to go in next door. There's pretty nice views
from up above looking south. There's going to be great sunsets. If you!'
look down to the, south and west. If you look over at the Rottlund
project. That's on the freeway. Right up against the freeway. It's a
nice project. It's sold out. As fast as they could build they, it sold
It's buffered by a freeway. It looks right into it. We don't have to II
build a big wall because we'll look right out over it and I don't think,
in talking to the marketing guys, they see no reason why these will not be
sold. They think it's a great site and a fine for sale site for this tyll
of project. And it's economics. Now we've tried on the other hand,
Arvid, is there a difference between a for rent building and a for sale
building?
Arvid Ellness: From an architectural point of view?
Brad Johnson: You've only done 15,000 housing units. Is there a
difference?
Arvid Ellness: From an architectural point of view?
Brad Johnson: Yeah.
Arvid Ellness: No. It's the bulk and it's the enclosure. It's the
occupant. The issues that I heard from the residents...the occupants an
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 25
11
not the buildings. The building type I'd say would have the same
11 configuration and massing. If there was a market for that to sell, the
design would be very similar. But I don't think there's a for sale
market.
Batzli: Thank you.
Brad Johnson: So, in answer to a couple questions. We are, I've got the
plan here. We think we're not on top of any oak trees and we'll warrant
that, other than I think it's two. We think we're taking out 5 to 8
linden trees. A couple of those stakes could appear to be either way.
There's some porches there and the corners that we have put the stakes are
' actually on the porches. If they're off, this is a computerized world and
the whole thing is done by a computer, we'll change the site plan. We're
not here to you know, not do that. We've modified that site plan on the
north side a number of times to try to meet the requirements of everyone
and we did discover that there were more oak trees on the hill right here
which forced us to move the building a little bit away from it. That's
been the goal. And as far as the water issues are concerned, we have
basically put our fate in our hands of your engineer. And we're simply
saying that you hire the people. You tell us how to do it. I agree.
There is not a quick fix over there for where the water's going to go.
' Ideally it will go across the way through a large tunnel into the Eckankar
property into what apparently is not at yet owned by the City and we dump
a lot of water over there. Apparently we can't do that yet so we have to
deal with that kind of an issue. We're willing to work whatever program
meets all the various standards. And I think staff will admit that that's
what we're trying to do. Isn't that true. I mean Dave. It's in your
I hands.
Hempel: In the storm water consultant's hands, yes.
Brad Johnson: Well I know. Basically we're working with it to try to do
it the proper way, so that's an answer for those two things. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you.
Erhart: Now Brad, why are you requesting a PUD zoning?
Brad Johnson: Oh, we're doing the PUD primarily because we can preserve
and still get the density.
11 Erhart: Who's asking for it, the City or the developer?
Brad Johnson: I think it's a combination of the two. When I came here,
all our projects lately have been PUD's because we felt that even though
they're an onerous procedure, such as we're doing with Target and Market
Square, it's onerous because you have to run through twice. And secondly
we can't just go build. We could just simply subdivide this and pull a
permit, am I right? Subject to the building approval but we felt that the
site had a lot of sensitivity and by using the PUD approach, we could
preserve the site. That's from a developer's point of view.
Erhart: What advantages are you getting as a developer?
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 26
Brad Johnson: We're getting a higher amenity site, in our mind.
Erhart: Okay, so it's totally valug. You're not getting higher density"
You're not getting.
Brad Johnson: We've lowered the density. '
Erhart: You're not getting a higher percentage of impervious. Nothing.
Brad Johnson: Nothing. What we're asking for is, we're trying to have,"
and it doesn't sound like we're getting there but I think we've come a
long ways, a higher amenity site for the City. And I don't know how els"
you would do it. Otherwise you could simply put a road through there.
Subdivide each lot off into whatever is necessary for an apartment project
and sell off the lots. We're coming with, at risk with a complete proje
saying, this is how the project's going to look and then we're trying to
adjust for that. And it sounds like we've got some problems in this are ,
which I agree. We did adjust this. We can probably adjust here. I'm
kind of surprised where the stakes are too. And that's a risk we took '
because we didn't think we had a problem. They asked us to put some
stakes up so they could go look at them, so we did. And it snowed, so I
haven't gotten over into there myself but we're trying our best, and
remember when they say we are putting a lot of pine trees. 8, 6, 8 foot"
pine trees and you look up. Pine trees look pretty big most of the time
when you look up at them. They'll block off that lower. They'll block
off, wouldn't you say the lower level? And I don't know what we can do II
about the upper level so.
Batzli: Thank you. Tim, do you want to go first? 1
Erhart: Well I missed the first meeting on this so I'm going to let you
fellows here, and Joan and let the meeting take the bulk of this. But
just a couple things. I think in listening to the property owners to th�
north here, I think the, and I appreciate the fact that you're losing an
amenity that you had on a temporary basis but it ought to have been clear
that this was zoned R -12 when these lots were purchased. You know you II
also got to keep in mind that the owner of the property is the owner of
these trees. It's not you and it's not us as a city. So we have to keep
this in perspective because it has a tendency, there's a lot of emotion
into this thing and I'm not sure it does any good. Your thing that I he
is amiss is that ignoring the fact that they're putting in a lot of trees
here to replace the ones that are being taken and I think the point that
I'm going to make later in this meeting is that, you know what's the lif
of these buildings. How many years do you expect to see these occupied
this site before they're torn down? Brad? Anybody.
Arvid Ellness: At least 50 years. ,
Erhart: I'll bet you'll see them there a lot longer.
Arvid Ellness: Well they can go 100 years too.
Erhart: Yeah, and you know a lot of these trees, and while you may not it
living in those houses there in 30 years but a lot of these trees that a
11
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 27
1
going to be planted are going to be fairly well along in 30 years. If you
11 look through Chanhassen here, these trees weren't here 30 years ago. A
lot of these areas were farms. Most of the trees that you see have been
planted so I think in looking at this thing, one of the things that we
have to look at is what's this development going to look like in 30 years.
And it bothers me sometimes because I think we're laying out these
developments and I'm hearing a tinge of it here tonight. We're putting
the owner /occupied, I thought I heard. Well I'm not sure but we're
1 putting the owner /occupied maybe not in the best location because we're
trying to save trees. And I'm not sure that we're making good trade -offs
there. Maybe we ought to look at the long term life of the project and
see what it's going to look like 30 -40 years from now. Maybe you're
right. Maybe the owner /occupied buildings should be in the north as
opposed to the south and we're putting too much emphasis on these trees.
Originally I, someone explain to me this trail that went along. On the
original plan there was a trail down by the wetland?
Krauss: The original plan shows a trail traversing.
Erhart: On the south side?
Krauss: Yeah, on the south side of the wetland. It had been requested by
the Park Board. It was thrown in by the developer who thought it was a
good idea.
Erhart: It was going to go across to Kerber?
Krauss: Yes.
Erhart: And we're taking that out when the developer volunteered to put
it in?
' Krauss: The residents objected to the proximity to their homes. We
realized we could put a sidewalk...street anyway...
Aanenson: We've got sidewalks on either side of the street so it was
thought that...
Erhart: I think you've got to be crazy. This is an obvious place that
the developer's willing to put that trail in along that wetland and... not
only just the people who own the homes to the north. It's a tremendous
amenity to be able to walk along an amenity for people of this community
as opposed to putting the trail along the street. It's just unfathomable
to me that we would tell the developer not to do that because it's a much
bigger inconvenience to the people who are going to live in those
apartment buildings in that they're going to have people walking close to
their residences. If he's willing to do that, I think we ought to leave
it in there. Let's see. Going through the report. What are we going to
get out of a street study?
Aanenson: I'm not sure it's warranted. They felt strongly because the
County had asked for it. Because we kind of looked at this when we did
the superblock area for the West 78th Detachment project. Where the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 28
lights should be and that's sort of the issue. I'm not sure that's
warranted but Dave may want to add. 1
Erhart: What's the worst that's going to happen? Are we going to change
Kerber and Powers because of this study? 1
Aanenson: No.
Erhart: So what are we spending the money for? '
Aanenson: I think the deceleration lanes is what we're looking at.
Krauss: Yeah, the County Engineer raised the question of the intersect"
on the west side and how that relates to West 78th Street which will be in
the area of how it relates to Highway 5. It will function in the big I
system but as Kate points out, when the Target proposal was brought in,
expanded the traffic study for that to include this intersection so we
became comfortable that it works. II Aanenson: I think the issue still is, as Dave, is a deceleration lane.
Erhart: Currently what the County is requiring. '
Hempel: The County is the one with the issue with regards to turn lanes.
Deceleration lanes. By -pass lanes on Powers. That, I anticipate, would
be the major ingress and egress through this development since this is t�
closest access to Trunk Highway 5.
Erhart: Okay. So the developer's not offering to put the lanes in at II
this time?
Hempel: I don't think we're totally aware of what lanes were needed out
there at this time.
Erhart: Well that's the purpose of the study.
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: But when we did the traffic study for the Target proposal, we 11
didn't take into account the density at this site yet?
Krauss: Actually it took into account higher density. 1
Aanenson: Right. It's just what those decel lanes should look like in
more specifics.
Erhart: Do we actually have an ordinance that says we can't have more II
than 7% grades? Or is that a policy?
Krauss: Yes. It's in the subdivision code. 1
Hempel: We have granted variances to it . in efforts to save trees or
reduce grading limits, yes.
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 29
Erhart: Okay, and I was a little confused on the storm water. Is all the
11 storm water ultimately going into an existing wetlands someplace? That's
the objective? •
Hempel: There's 3 different components, yes. Ultimately it will end up
in, all 3 components will end up into a wetland.
Erhart: And we're not doing NURP ponds because there's not enough room?
Hempel: We're going to attempt to design a sedimentation basin to NURP
standards along Powers there. In that area.
Erhart: Okay. And then lastly, why are we requesting a conservation
easement over the wetlands when the wetlands are already essentially
I/ preserved by our wetlands ordinance. They really can't do anything with
the wetlands, without a wetland alteration permit, which is a fairly
arduous process. Why do we duplicate? It says the conservation easement
shall dedicated to the City over the wetlands on a parcel already
protected. Why do we duplicate? Again, it costs more money.
Hempel: I think we've done it in the past just so it shows up on the
Title of the property. So the property owners are aware of it. That it
is a conservation easement. And restricted to what can be done in these
areas. In this circumstance there is a multi- rental type unit.
Erhart: Well it just seems like again more duplication and more expense
so.
Batzli: Where does the expense come in Tim?
Erhart: Well just writing the easement and you're going to have to define
where it goes. You're going to have to go file it at the County. I don't
know. It's not so much I guess in this kind of a project but it gets more
what we're talking about later. I'll pass.
Batzli: That's it?
Erhart: That's it. I mean otherwise I think it's, well again I haven't
seen the first pass so these are comments are based on a pretty short...
Batzli: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: First I wanted to comment about lighting. Are we concerned about
lighting the elevation, Kate?
Aanenson: Well there wasn't, they'll have the street. Our standard
street lights on the public street but on the interior, where the
buildings are located and the parking lot areas, there wasn't any lighting
shown, so we want to see that specifically. And then the neighbors were
concerned, the neighbors to the north were concerned about floodlighting
to the back and their privacy. So we want to see that specifically to
limit that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 30 1
Conrad: Just in general, and we sure hear the neighbors comments. I
think that some of us who have been around on this Commission for a whip
always knew this was going to be a high density development. Maybe you
didn't but for years and years we were, this was the logical place to put
it. So as we see this coming in and I guess you're going to probably he
some comments that they're not sensitive to your concerns and I hope it
appears that we are. Yet on the other hand, in our minds, at least in
mine, this was the area that we were going to put apartment buildings on
And you can see that the developer is trying to, you can make compromise
You can save trees or you can go up and elevation and in my mind, over the
years, I've tried to make some of those compromises and I think in this
particular case, the apartment buildings was always something that I
thought was what's going to go here. It looks like what's being develop
in my mind, and I'm not a planner but I've been around for a little bit.
In my mind what they're proposing is fairly decent. Hearing your concern
about who's living where. That's a tough issue to handle. This is the
right place in my mind for a high density. I think the developer has
taken it down a little bit. It's a quantum leap better than what we
looked at before. I'm concerned, as you are, with trees and I think we'll
heard that and I think we're going to do something about that. I think
Mr. Johnson is trying to be as sensitive as, well we'll see where trees
are. I guess I'd like to see some sort of, what we call a landscaping
plan. I'd like to know what trees are going in and what trees are going
out at some point in time. I think that's important. Not every tree's
going to be saved. It's just not. And we can't take everything away fr
this R -12 district. That's the way we planned it. That's the way it's
been for years and years. It's a balancing deal and hopefully we can ma e
it as sensitive as we can but you've got to remember that there will be
new plantings and I'd sure like to see what those are. I don't believe II
property values are going to disintegrate one bit. And we've reviewed
these property value issues for a long time. And to my knowledge the
economy changes some property values out but I don't think the way I see ll
this is going to effect anything. Dave, I'm concerned about what the
residents are talking about in terms of drainage and whatever. It seems
to me, we have a PUD here that, and it's a large site PUD. We should bell
able to develop something that's not second rate in terms of all the
things we're talking about. Drainage and protecting wetlands. Not just
funneling water to wetlands so I'm assuming we can do a good job and the
word assume is probably dangerous but it's one of those things that we
have a large site and I can't imagine that we can't design the drainage
our standards which I believe are pretty good in the city. Or they're
approaching a real comprehensive type of program. So again, my feelings"
are to protect the trees. I don't want to protect them all. I think
there's some reason that we have to, that the developer has the right to
use this property. I would like to see how the trees are coming out and
I thought I heard the developer say he's sensitive to that and I think w�
need some kind of a plan. I do want to see the drainage. I want to be
convinced that the drainage is being properly handled and Kate is tellin
me that the lighting can be a concern. I think I ticked off some things
that the neighbors were saying. If I haven't responded, it probably mea
that I didn't, I wasn't sensitive to the particular concern that you had.
Those are my comments. 1
Batzli: Thank you.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 31
Conrad: The trail, yeah. And you won't want me to hear talk about this
one too. I love, when we have natural amenities, it's great to put trails
next to the natural amenities. I know it's going close to your backyard
and I understand that. And I'm not going to change. I'm not going to
take up this position right now. But, very seriously, that's where a
trail should be. Right next to the wetlands. If we open up to people
that can actually experience the habitat and the nature down there.
That's where I'd be. I'm not going to bring that issue back up. It's out
right now. The developer's taken it out. But I thought I'd give you my
preference. Amenities in Chanhassen should be open. That wetland is an
amenity and I'd like to, if I were designing from scratch, I would have
kept that trail there. One other comment, when Tim is talking to you
about trees. Don't think he's not sensitive to trees. I think he's real
involved in the Arbor Day program. He's probably planted more trees in
Chanhassen than anybody else. Well there's no doubt about it. So when
he's making these comments, it's not that he doesn't care about trees.
Batzli: Is that it? Matt.
11 Ledvina: I had a question regarding the for sale units on the south side
of the project. I was looking at my grading "plan here and that hill on
the south side, the units go right up to it and I'm wondering, are there
retaining walls at the parking lot? On the ends of the parking lot and
how does that all work? So there are retaining walls over there? Okay.
11 And what is, how large are those retaining walls?
Brad Johnson: You mean height?
Ledvina: Yeah. What are we looking at there? Well a related question to
that. I guess I could see that they're likely in the vicinity of 10 to 15
feet or so. Or least that's what it looks like from the grading plan.
Brad Johnson: The width or height?
Ledvina: Height.
Brad Johnson: Well I don't think so.
Ledvina: Okay, then I'm mistaken here.
Arvid Ellness: It varies but it's in the range of about 4 to 6 feet.
Ledvina: Okay. I was concerned about how that would look from the
Highway 5 location there. So essentially the retaining walls connect the
building all along that south face, is that pretty much?
Brad Johnson: Yeah, and then there are plantings in front of that.
Ledvina: Okay. And then there's like a, is there a walkout or something
to that side? No, just windows? Okay. Alright, I was just, I didn't
quite understand how that was all laid out and concerned about how that
would look from Highway 5 but we are talking.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 32 1
Brad Johnson: I guess what happened here and we put a lot of focus on
what this looked like from, we started out what it looked like from TH 5
and now we focus on...what it looks like from the north...We are concerned
about that.
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. One of the items in the staff report relate
to trespassing signs and also mentioned by one of the residents. I just
had a question. The residents are concerned with people trespassing on II
their property so they want signs posted right at their property boundarig
is that the issue?
Resident: The issue is that there's two berms. Or there's a main berm
there right now and there's a smaller one off to the side. Right now it
being used in the summertime and in the springtime as a major cut through
area. Anybody from the development beyond Kerber, walks down Kerber, cull
into the Saddlebrook development and walks down Canyon Curve and cuts
right across the yard, ...and back up the hills rather than...
Ledvina: Alright. And a question that I had on the parking. On page 811
of the staff report we were indicating that we were concerned that there
was insufficient visitor parking for the rental units. Has this been
resolved Kate?
I/
Aanenson: No. I've spoken with the developer and they can pick it up on
the other side. They are short the handicap stalls so that is mentioned"
in the building official's letter too.
Ledvina: Okay. Is there a condition to that effect?
Aanenson: Yes there is. 11.
Ledvina: Okay. And I remember when we first looked at this in the
concept stage. Steve, when.he was looking at it he had concerns about t
parking actually for the for sale units. And now we made modifications
there. Was that to decrease the density along this south side to providll
for more parking there and were those changes made accordingly?
Aanenson: Well what they did. The ordinance doesn't require that but w
felt like it's necessary based on the way this is laid out. I'm not sur
that the wording is such to remove density to get it. I mean that's
happened anyway. But they have provided additional visitor parking which
...into those for sale units. 1
Ledvina: But the number of for sale units along the south side, is that
essentially the same as the concept proposal? 1
Aanenson: On the south side?
Ledvina: Yes. 1
Aanenson: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. Let's see, I think that's all I have for now. 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 33
Batzli: While we're talking about parking. Dave, in your opinion memo of
October 27th, you talk about the 12 private service drives are too many
and you attached a sketch but that wasn't one of your conditions. That
any of these can be blocked off. Apparently you were just trying to, was
it just get rid of one or, that's an old layout isn't it?
Hempel: I just tried to point out wherever it would be possible to
eliminate an access out onto the major, I guess it's called Oak Park Road,
would be beneficial I guess from a traffic turning standpoint. I felt
pretty confident that it would be able to accommodate on at least one of
the parking areas. To eliminate that access point out there. I may have
11 inadvertently missed that as a condition of approval.
Batzli: Because it wasn't included in any of your conditions.
Hempel: That is correct I guess. It would be appropriate if we could
reduce.
11 Brad Johnson: Kate, didn't we take this one out?
Aanenson: That's the one we talked about asking to remove it. It got
omitted.
Brad Johnson: Not on our plan.
Aanenson: We've spoken to him about it. It did get on there as a
condition of approval. He's aware that we've asked him to take that out.
11 Batzli: Because on the October 22nd plans it was in there.
Aanenson: Right. This was after we spoken to him about the conditions we
wanted in there. So he has agreed to do that but you're right, it's not
in the conditions. It should be added.
Batzli: Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm going to touch off on a couple of things to start off with.
There are issues on water runoff and sloping and trees. The developer
said that the tree, the site plan needs some additional review and some
additional work so I'm not going to comment on specific issues on that.
And the water runoff and so on, that's really not my department. I'm sure
that the City and engineer can discuss that at length with some of the
residents. The issue of the concerns that I saw on the statement that you
brought forth. I'm not sure, are you acting with the group here? Okay,
and that's a part of your association? It's not the one individual?
That's a part of your whole group. Several of those comments resolve
around existing ordinances in the city. Several of your questions. You
should address that to the city staff. I'm sure they'd be happy to go
1 over each one of those with you and comment on those. I hear a couple of
words over and over again tonight. One of them is trade -off and the other
one is change. We hear this over and over again here. A lot of people
have a lot of anxiety to change, and that's understandable. Many of you
have just come out here or recently come out to Chanhassen. You built
there. Saddlebrook I believe was built in the late 80's. You have a nice
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 34 i
amenity that you're looking at but as Tim said, that amenity is owned by
another property owner that you're viewing. And I think some of the issit
here is responsibility.. You're asking the city to have a responsibility
in developing this property. The developer has a responsibility to do a
nice development within Chanhassen and come up with something that's
appropriate to the neighbors. However, at the same time he has a
responsibility as a financial situation to do something that's financial y
feasible and that people are going to buy. You also have a responsibili
to do your homework when you come here to maximize what you're doing her
You want the developer to make some concessions to you. I'm assuming th
you do and address your concerns. That's understandable. I think some of
the work that you're doing here, you need to address these issues in a II
communication loop between the city staff and the developer. Many of
these things such as the list that you brought forth, as I said. These
are things that are already covered in city ordinances and if you look
into these things further, and again I know sometimes it's hard to latch
onto the right person. You can get a lot of these questions answered
before you ever come into a public hearing. It would be helpful to you I
think. To eliminate a lot of that. It would speed things along and it 11
would lessen your effort here tonight. I think that the City and the
developer has demonstrated a willingness here to work with you in
resolving these issues. Perhaps if you selected one individual to
represent you and come forth and work a little tighter and improve that II
communication, things would go more speedily here. The history of that
property we touched on earlier. I'm familiar with the history of that
property to the extent that in the early 80's when Chanhassen was workin
on a master plan, I have to take some responsibility for the fact that t
R -4, R -2 is missing on that top ridge. I was in the audience with a group
of homeowners, single family homeowners in the area that wanted the farm
that your homes are presently on, to be single family zoned. The City II
wanted it medium density. In the ensuing process, that was changed. It
was changed to single family. The idea being is that that development w
going to follow along the lines of New Horizon, which was the previous
development to the north on that property. Basically it's a single fami y
development that's wrapped by R -2, R -4 type on the north /south and to th
west. What you got is only to the north. You got that type of
development to the north of your property because of a site problem. It
ran into a peat bog on that property and that's that lake that you see
there. Actually if the problem would have been solved in the overall
design that you're talking about, there would be duplexes or fourplexes II
where your homes are now. So in the long term thinking, yes you're
correct. There perhaps should have been another buffer zone there but h
that been done, you wouldn't be where you are today and that was a matte
of economics that was worked out between the City and the developer at a
later date and I was not a part of that. We agreed that the general plan
that they had was alright and we did not pursue that further. But then II
brings me to the situation here. You have a responsibility when you
purchase the property to know what your existing zoning is. When you come
in here and deal with the situation, I think you have to assume some
responsibility for that. And a city is only capable of doing so much.
They have to work within the existing laws and the ordinances. They can t
arbitrarily say well the citizens don't want it We won't put it here.
Many times you certainly would like that: Sometimes to do that but we
don't have the legal right to do that. We have to work within the
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 35
existin g rules and the master plan has had that listed as an R -12 before
you ever dug a hole there. And so you have to admit that certainly the
developer is within their property rights to develop that property
according to the zone. Now in this case they're using a PUD which they're
trying to maximize and deal with some of the things that you're talking
about. That your concerns are. The trees. The contour of the land and
so on. It would seem to me that within that communication loop, you could
improve this and come up with some of the things that you want. At the
same time, an important factor of that communication loop is going to be
you understanding your position as well. And it would seem to me that in
some cases you've done a lot of work here and you have a lot of fervor in
what you're doing and as Tim said, it's emotional. But you also have a
responsibility. A responsibility to really do your homework on this and
some of your comments that you've made here tonight has shown that you
haven't done some of your work in some areas. I think it would really
help this process and help you if you'd do that. That's my comment.
Batzli: Joan.
Ahrens: Well after listening to the comments of my fellow commissioners
and Brad Johnson, I feel like I'm in the position of defending these
homeowners. First of all, I didn't hear one of them say tonight that they
didn't want this project. They want the best project on that site that
they can possibly get. And you know, I almost feel like we're parents up
here scolding them for being here and voicing their opinion. Sure, they
knew this project, that this property was zoned R -12. That doesn't mean
that they don't want the best project they can get. I guess I feel we're
taking kind of a paternalistic attitude towards them and I don't think we
should. If I were in their shoes I'd be doing the exact same thing. I'd
11 be trying to make sure that I didn't get a project right in front of my
house that I didn't want. And when I did have a project as recently as
this summer, as I'm sure a lot of you remember, with Lundgren and I fought
also to make sure that the project was good. And that's the only way you
get anything done in this city. If you follow Planning Commission
meetings, and City Council meetings, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the
grease here.
Batzli: I think they've squeaked tonight.
Ahrens: Well, good. Good for them. I chaired the first meeting and
heard all their comments the first time. Let's see. The trail. I
happened to think that trails are a good idea around our natural amenities
in the city and I also think that we should have had trails around all our
lakes in the city, including Lotus. The City should have gotten easements
around everything. As it is, we have access to very little in this city
and we have a beautiful city. It's too bad. But I understand that the
trail won't be going in. Safety. The safety issue. I think it's a
concern having lots of kids around big drainage areas and wetlands but I
don't think that you can assume that it's going to be a safety issue for
11 the people living in the apartment building, if it's not a safety issue
for you living around the pond now for your children. If it's a problem,
I think you should deal with the management of the apartment buildings
once they go in. Steve Emmings also had a question about the spacing of
the sale units, if I remember on the south side. Has that changed or is
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 36
that still the same? I don't remember why he had a concern with that
except maybe it was just for parking purposes. 1
Aanenson: That's how I understood it. He wants the additional parking.
Ledvina: Right'. He was concerned with the parking. 1
Aanenson: Visitor parking.
Ahrens: Yeah, I'm not going to go into the drainage issues and everythi
else because I think those have been addressed adequately and I think that
with the additional condition that was brought up tonight, I think that II
will, I trust that our engineers can handle that part. I guess those ar
my only comments but you know, I just want to reiterate that you have
every right to be here and you've got to make sure that this is a projec
you can live with. Even though that property's owned by somebody else.
Even though those trees are owned by somebody else, you do have. You're
going to be looking at that and we do want to hear your concerns. I'm
sure that a lot of you were aware of the zoning but that doesn't mean yoil
don't want the best plan on that site you can possibly get. That's it.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. I have a couple of technical things that I wall
to ask first of all Kate. The driveway in the northeast sale units, tak
a big old V, right hand turn. And we had just gotten done talking about
how our firetrucks can't get around islands in the middle of cul -de -sacs
and I have to admit I didn't read our Fire Marshal's memo carefully enoult
to see if he commented on that. Did he?
Aanenson: Yeah. What it has to do with Brian is the proximity of fire I/
hydrants and he did show some relocations from those cul-de-sacs.
Batzli: But what about the ability to get a truck in there? He didn't
comment did he?
Aanenson: Not to my knowledge.
Batzii: Or is that his number 7 which is the turning radius must be 11
indicated.
Brad Johnson: Brian. We're not sure but we think that based on our ,
experts, that the radius there is the same as the regular cul -de -sacs.
Batzli: But see, they wouldn't be able to, they'd have to back out 1
wouldn't they?
Krauss: That has the same radius that we have on our cul -de -sacs. 1
Batzli: Where are the parking stalls on there? Maybe I'm not seeing the
parking stalls.
Aanenson: That's why, he had asked for, what he's asked for is for them
to give specifics on the radius to make sure it works. That was one of
the conditions of the Fire Marshal.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 37
11
Brad Johnson: They would have to back out...
Batzli: I guess I'd like to be consistent one way or another. And
that's on a discussion later tonight but I think we need to review these
things. Whether it's a circle or a V, same way. The number of drives, I
guess that's been handled in at least the color sketch. Are you happy
with 11? I mean to me what's the difference between 12 and 11? If
there's too many, does 1 really do anything for you?
r Hempel: Well, if it's not needed, by all means it could be eliminated
and I guess I felt that it could be. It's not needed for a secondary
access out there.
Batzli: So you don't mind all the other curb cuts?
Hempel: I believe all the other ones would be necessary to promote
traffic safely through it.
11 Batzli: Given this layout of the buildings?
Hempel: That's correct.
Batzli: Is it a safety hazard to have this many on this type of, what is
this, a collector?
Hempel: It's getting to the collector status, yes. With the number of
units and projected trips on the road, yes. That's why we've asked for a
little wider pavement section through here. Than our normal 31 foot wide
11 street. Here we're requesting, and they are proposing a 36 foot wide
face to face street.
Batzli: So for example the one that's on the outside radius of the
curve, right when the road starts heading north. That wouldn't be a
safety concern? I thought we tried to avoid putting them on curves.
Hempel: Is that the most westerly curve as you're heading up the hill?
Batzli: It would be just west of where the pool's going to go.
Hempel: I don't believe there'd be a site limitation with that access
point.
Batzli: Because it's on the exterior of the curve?
Hempel: Yes.
i� Batzli: We heard several comments about sight line versus actual
distance. When you're looking at the grading plans and they're talking
about you know 200, 300 foot buffers. Is that actual distance on the
ground or are they looking, talking about as the crow flies kind of the
line here?
Hempel: I'm assuming as the crow flies. With the grade out here it may
be, if you were to take a measuring tape and run it along the ground, it
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 38
may be actually a little bit more but as the crow flies and scaling it
off the drawings here, it is about 200 feet.
Batzii: As far as Tim's comments regarding the pond and Ladd I think
followed up. They're not to the NURP standards. We're moving a lot of
the water off of the site whereas currently I assume we don't move as
much of it off the site. It seems to me like there's a lot of room
somewhere on this site to do a good job on the ponds and including also
perhaps, and I don't know what the status of these particular wetlands II
are but why don't we have a setback around the ponds? A do not disturb
area which would be required under the new ordinance. Or will those be?
Aanenson: We'll look at that when we do the law Brian. We've
tentatively identified this as an Ag -Urban so we can do mitigation. I'm
not sure if you understood what we're doing as far as, what we're
tenatively looking at. What Bonestroo is proposing and that is that
there be a...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Batzli: The trail by the wetland, can you give me the condensed version
of why that's not going in? Or couldn't go in.
Aanenson: You recommended at the last meeting that it be taken out. Th
City Council supported that too.
Batzii: We recommended it? 1
Aanenson: The neighbors felt it was an intrusion into their.
Batzli: You were in charge.
Farmakes: The developer said it wasn't a major issue so. 1
Aanenson: Because the neighbors asked to have it taken out so I think.
Farmakes: So it wasn't, however at the time that we discussed this, it II
was a very fluid plan.
Ahrens: I don't think it was raised as a major issue. 1
Batzli: Okay.
Ahrens: Do you remember? Were you here? 1
Farmakes: Who was here?
Ahrens: I think I was the only one.
Brad Johnson: What I said is, the neighbors came up with an objection II
and I said no and the Planning Commission was sort of neutral on the
whole thing.
1
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 39
Farmakes: It wasn't a major point guys. And when it got to City Council
it was gone.
Erhart: If we wanted it back in, would you put it back in?
II Brad Johnson: Would I?
Erhart: Yeah.
If Brad Johnson: I guess that's one of those, you know we're having, we're
trying to do some things for the neighbors at the present time. What I
felt at the time was that the trail was a bigger issue than the trees. If
II you follow me. It was an emotional issue. They felt that the wildlife
would leave the area and all those kinds of questions so I'm trying to
preserve the trees and I thought I'd give away on that. I thought it was
II a good idea but I'm not, from my point of view, you guys will have to
tell me that but I think you were concerned about a trail there.
I Residents: Yeah.
Brad Johnson: So I said, I agree and that's where I left it.
II Resident: And the Park Board said that it wasn't on your major trail
plan and they saw no reason for it to go through.
II Resident: It's also on a steep hill and you'd have to dig into that hill
and there was a concern about drainage as well as the sides of the path
itself...
II Batzli: Kate, have we ever required, well I should, I haven't asked the
question this way. How long do we require a guarantee of trees after
construction?
II Aanenson: One year.
II Batzli: Just one year? But for a saved oak tree for example.
Aanenson: You can set something up different.
II Krauss: Normally for new landscaping, it's a full growing season past
the date of installation. As Kate indicated, we do have some flexibility
to vary the standard for preservation.
II Batzli: Because we don't have in our condition 9, we say protected trees
lost due to construction. How long would that condition last?
II Krauss: The way it's worded, I mean once the construction is over and
it's still there, you'd have to add a time extension onto that.
II Aanenson: Or bring an expert out to make a determination of the damage
or something.
I Krauss: Yeah, it gets kind of difficult too. I mean we could say 5
years or 10 years or whatever but once a tree dies, what did it die from
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 40
1
at that point. You know our primary goal is to keep the equipment away
from the roots. Keep the dirt from being impacted. Keep everything bac "
far enough and take our best shot.
Hempel: We could have these treed areas fenced off. We've done that
typically in the past to avoid inadvertent damage of the dripline and so ll
forth.
Batzli: But you're talking about during construction? Yeah. Currently"
the condition does require the fencing. It's an issue of replacement.
Do we, in the past we've had several people go out and do the inventory
and mark all this kind of stuff. Now that they've gone out there and
pounded in the stakes, do you want them to go out there and do a survey II
like that ?
Aanenson: They have submitted a tree survey. They haven't done a tree
removal. I think that's what was.
Batzli: Right. Are we requiring that and /or should we be requiring
that?
Krauss: Yeah, I think in this case it certainly would resolve the
question. As Kate pointed out, when we were out there tonight we had
many of the same concerns the residents did. That what we saw on the
ground or in the snow wasn't jiving exactly with what we saw on the plan.
Batzli: Okay, but what do you recommend we do here tonight to ensure 11
that what we're looking at on this plan.
Krauss: We're looking for a tree removal plan that says, trees 35 thru II
37 are going to be removed and nothing else will. And that's what we
will hold them to out in the field.
Batzli: Do we have a tree removal plan with one of the conditions?
Aanenson: No. '
Batzli: Do we need to add that?
Aanenson: Yes. 1
Conrad: Okay, and then where is our landscaping plan?
Aanenson: They have submitted one. Is that what you're asking?
Conrad: Yeah.
Erhart: It's not in here though.
Aanenson: It should be in with your, the architectural renderings. It II
should be the last sheet.
Batzli: Say Brad, does your architect have the copy of this sheet that II
can be focused on by the camera so that everyone can see this?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 41
1
Aanenson: The landscaping plan?
Batzli: Yeah.
Aanenson: I've got it.
Brad Johnson: One of the subtle things on this particular project is,
these are the oak trees right here that we're saving. And what that
originally...not knowing exactly where they were and then we had to move
them back to save that stand of oaks. In other words we were trying to
build around the oak trees.
Conrad: So the perfectly round circles on this plan are new.
Brad Johnson: No. The perfectly round circles.
Batzli: New deciduous trees.
Brad Johnson: Those are the existing oaks.
Conrad: No. No, the ones that have the jagged edges are the old trees
that we leave. The ones that are perfectly circular are new.
Brad Johnson: Right.
Erhart: This shows what's going to remain after it's done. It doesn't
show what's on the site now.
Brad Johnson: We'll be more than happy to, we've got that so we'd be
more than happy to come in. I don't know if...did we check on the elms
and where they were?
Gordon Christenson: Well the grading plan, the large elm trees are
shown.
Brad Johnson: There's another plan that shows the large elm trees.
There was a plan that was done... There are 5 to 8 12 inch trees that
would come down. They're primarily linden and elms. ...by saving oak
trees and it's a trade -off guys.
Batzli: Well I get the feeling though that the residents wouldn't be
happier if you moved the building further up the hill to become more
massive. Not only would you take out the oaks but it would be more
intrusive.
Brad Johnson: Farther up the hill.
Batzli: Farther up the hill. The coniferous trees that we're looking at
go around each of the units that are closest to the neighbors. Typically
when we plant those babies, that's just what they are and they're very
slow growing trees. How's this going to help block the view of some of
these things? It is just going to break up the base and hopefully
they'll grow big someday?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 42
II
Aanenson: Well I think...neighborhood meeting also that they wanted to
have more decidous trees. To give them more height in these areas here.
Originally it was based on the fact that there was existing oaks. They
wanted some more coniferous for the tree loss but in looking at this now,
realizing the height of those are only going to be maybe 8 to 10 feet. I
think at the neighborhood meeting there was a commitment by the developel
to put some more of those deciduous trees on the backs of those building
to get some more height.
Batzli: But that isn't reflected on these plans?
Aanenson: No.
Erhart: Could I ask, would you agree that the coniferous tree is a slow
growing tree?
Kay Halla: Yes, slower than your deciduous. The original landscaping 'I
plan had quite a lot of deciduous trees in the north of the building.
Especially up in the northeast corner. It was mostly deciduous because
I felt that area might be kind of a lot of wet soils so I thought get
some trees that could handle it a little better. But then based on the
comments, I changed it. So they are a little slower growing. They only
maybe get a foot in height where a deciduous tree, depending on the tree
can get, once it gets roots established, can grow... ■
Erhart: How big are the coniferous trees you're putting in here? 1
Kay Halla: The City requires 6 foot.
Erhart: 6 feet. 1
Batzli: Do the rest of the commissioners feel that additional, either
landscaping or some other technique is required to kind of temper the II
view from the north of these northern most units?
Ahrens: Why not put some dogwood in front of the, to provide some... 11
Farmakes: Isn't the majority of the problem viewing from the east where
there's no trees? At least on your video. The eastern part of the
property where you're showing the pole, there were no trees covering thell
building.
Resident: That's a concern but I think to maintain, the big trees are all
buffer, even if they're not an oak. The mighty oak. They're big and
they do a good job now.
Resident: There is an area where there's no trees at all and my house II
and my neighbor's house basically it's all open...
Farmakes: Is that the eastern part of the property? 1
Resident: No, it isn't. That's the center part.
II
II
11 Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 43
Erhart: Well I think it's clear that the staff has to come to indication
with the developer on what trees are going and I don't know that we need
to review that. Clearly they have to get a handle on that.
Conrad: Yeah, I tell you. There are a lot of trees in this. We require
one tree for a single family unit, right? Isn't that our standard?
There's a lot of trees here. If you're looking for some trade -offs,
whether they're the right trees, I don't know. That's up to staff and
the developer and maybe with input from the, I think they're listening to
the neighbors in terms of what they must have heard. I'm not sure if
it's the right assortment right now but it's sure a lot of trees. It's
sure a lot more than what we see in a typical development like this. I
counted 70 trees. Now that's why, I guess when I looked at this, before
the meeting, I didn't treat it as real.
Erhart: There's about 200 evergreens going in?
Conrad: Because there just seemed to be a lot of trees.
1 Kay Halla: There are a lot of trees.
Brad Johnson: She sells trees.
Kay Halla: I tried to put the emphasis on trees rather than a lot of
developers you might find large trees and then you'll see a mixture of
ornamental and shrubbery and I think as far as maintenance in a unit, in
a development like this, you're better off getting your impact from just
trees.
Conrad: Yeah. But this is a committed plan. Okay.
Batzli: I guess my final comment is more philosophical and that is, it's
difficult to sit up here and have seen the plans that we've seen and not
think that this is a good one. But I don't want to be paternal, as Joan
said. It's hollow words for you to hear us say, well gee this is the
M best one because the issue is exactly what Joan said. And that is, it
should be the best plan that we can get for Chanhassen and for the
neighboring residents, as well as the people that are going to move in.
I think, I hope some of your concerns have been either talked about or
recognized by us and hopefully you need to work with the developer in the
meantime between now and when it goes to City Council because what we're
doing tonight, again to emphasize, is recommending to City Council. They
will make the final decision and so your voice at the Council meeting is
still very important and you need to follow it to that meeting. I know
you've probably attended several meetings by now. Stick with it. Go to
one more. It will make a difference I believe. I would like to see a
condition placed in here that the developer will work with staff to make
sure that the sight lines of the northeastern corner buildings are
modified to minimize the impact to the neighbors to the north. What that
11 means I don't know. If that means putting in a couple of more fast
growing ones. Putting in deciduous. Whatever they've got to do. I'd
like to see that instead of putting in a bunch of 5 foot pine trees that
' are going to take 20 years to get to be 20 feet high. That's what I'd
like to see. I'd at least like to see a commitment that they're going to
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
November 4, 1992 - Page 44
work with staff and the neighborhood should give their input if, because"
I don't think, looking at this and listening to both sides, I don't know
that, and this is conjecture but I think it would be worst to pull the 11
buildings further up the hill. They'd be taller. They'd be more
massive. You'd have an ever tougher time trying to minimize the impact.
I don't know that it's so important to save the couple of trees on top o
the hill. I guess I'd rather minimize the impact to the neighbors.
We've got so many trees being planted here. If that would do it, if tha
would minimize it and help the development for everybody concerned, I
don't know why we're worried about saving a dozen oaks. The oaks will,
I'm sure the developer would replant oaks. Obviously they're not going
to be as big but they will get big. If that's the problem, if that's
what's causing this, then we need to look at that because then we live ill
a world gone mad because we're saving 12 oaks and we're ruining
everybody's sight line from the north. That doesn't make any sense. So,
having said that, is there a motion?
Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Rezoning to PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on the plans
dated October 8th and October 22nd, 1992 and subject to the staff
conditions with the following modifications. I'd like to modify
condition number 8 to make it a little more proactive. I'd like
condition number 8 to read, the number of parking spaces, including
handicap, must be revised to meet the parking standards as required by
the zoning ordinance. And I'd like to modify condition number 9 to read,
fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction. Protected trees lost within 3 years due to construction 11
must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in accordance with a plan
approved by staff. I'd like to add a number of additional conditions.
Condition 13. Elimination of access drives to Oak Pond Road in
accordance with October 27, 1992 memorandum from Dave Hempel on his
review of the Oak Pond site development plans. Condition 14.
Preparation and staff approval of a tree removal plan. Condition 15.
That the developer shall work with staff on sight lines to reduce impact
on neighboring property owners.
Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Discussion. ,
Conrad: When you're talking sight lines, you're talking tree? Or are
you looking at housing revision? Architectural revision. II
Farmakes: There are several sight lines. Which way they look.
Conrad: So what are we talking about? What are we saying to staff? Vol'
know we can solve a sight line deal with a tree. A major deal is if
we're talking about altering the units. The rental units and the
elevations. '
Ledvina: Well I think what Brian was getting at was the screening issue.
Batzli: Well, I was looking for screening of the northeastern units 1
which don't have any natural screening. Screening them from the
development to the north. Breaking up the impact of the mass of the
buildings more quickly by putting in something faster growing or bigger II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 45
immediately. That's what I'm looking for.
11 Ahrens: But isn't there some concern about the location of the building?
I mean that's what I heard from staff.
Aanenson: Right.
Krauss: They're going to have to rationalize the tree preservation
11 plan... It sure looked like out there tonight that they have...
Ledvina: I think that's what we were trying to get at in condition 14.
Regarding the tree removal plan.
Conrad: Well let's take that a step further. So if that means that the
11 pads are in the wrong location based on cutting down more than 2 oak
trees, then what's the next step? Does that mean we shouldn't be
okaying, given the fact that we think it's wrong, do you want us to react
to a site plan? What's our step on the site plan motion? Tree removal
might force a different site plan. Should it come back here?
Ahrens: Well I agree. I think it's real unclear.
Conrad: Yeah, and we've got to get some.
Aanenson: Unless you want to set a number of trees.
Conrad: We wouldn't know.
11 Aanenson: Let staff decide if we feel it's a significant impact.
Conrad: We can let you guys go forward with staff and you take, you go
11 to the City Council. You probably don't want to come back and talk to us
anymore, I would guess.
Krauss: We're occasionally faced with making decisions. You know
there's a lot of changes and accommodations that are reasonably made by
the developer, between them and staff prior to going to City Council
after you do it. If we believe that we've transgressed across some gray
line though so that the project is so significantly different and it's
not the one you approved, we hold up short and then we do bring it back.
I don't think that's going to happen in this case but if it does, we
would bring it back.
Ledvina: We see it one more time anyway. This is a preliminary site
plan approval.
Aanenson: No, you won't see it.
IS
Krauss: It's worded incorrectly. This is the site plan approval and
preliminary plat.
Conrad: We'll see a wetland alteration permit coming back but that's,
11 then this is out of our hands. We have control of it right now. For the
last time. If you think that's control. Well I'm comfortable. I think
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 46
II
what we're talking about is a reasonability deal here and if it doesn't
appear to be reasonable, it's going to come back to us. 1
•
Batzli: Balancing test. You know it when you see it.
Conrad: And I trust our neighbors will keep everybody honest on that 11
deal too because if it gets to City Council and it's not, well there may
be a different definition of what's reasonable but I think they're sort
of the watchdogs on this one. So I guess I don't want to see it back 11
here. For a while I thought I did. For a while I wanted to see what
would happen but I think the developer's saying he's going to work on
this and I hear staff saying they think they have a sense for it, so I'm
comfortable that it doesn't come back.
Batzli: Ladd, you started off by not liking condition 15 and you ili
wandered into 14 I think.
II
Conrad: I wanted to make sure that staff heard what 15 was and you
clarified that. Because architectural, that's a different, we didn't
make that, I want to make that real clear.
Erhart: A question on number 9. Kate, when you say that protected tree
lost due to construction must be replaced on a caliper inch basis in
accordance with the plan approved by staff. Are you talking about trees
that are identified as going to be removed during the development or are
you talking about trees that die later because of development?
II
Aanenson: Right.
Erhart: Okay. So let's say an 18 inch tree dies. So now you're going 11
to put in six 3 inch trees. After the development is in and the sod's
laid and the people have moved in, how do you determine where those 6
trees go? One obviously will go to replace the one that died. Where doll
the other 5 go? Which gets to Matt, your proposal now to carry this out
to 3 years. Is there a logistics problem with the concept of doing this?
Ahrens: No. I
II Erhart: No. Well how do you, who determines?
Ahrens: Play it by ear. Seriously.
Erhart: Well I'm just trying to be serious about this.
II
Ahrens: No, I know that but I mean really.
Erhart: Where do the 5 trees go?
Krauss: There were some neighboring communities that when something likil
that happens and there's no place to put it on site, they obligate the
builder to buy the trees and they stick them in a park. It still
accomplishes the goal of reforestation.
II Ahrens: But on a site like this, there's going to be room.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 47
1
Krauss: In terms of how you guarantee it financially, that's not
difficult. You just take the components of what the letter of credit for
landscaping and carry it forward.
Erhart: Okay, let me ask you this. Matt's proposal to increase this to
3 years. Does that make sense? Can you handle that?
Krauss: We haven't done it to date but I don't see why there's any
reason why we couldn't. It's just a matter of scheduling and going out
there on the site. If we forget about it, I'm sure the developer will
remind us that we still have his money.
Batzli: Well I would go a step further and eliminate the words "due to
construction ".
Krauss: Now that concerns me. I mean what if oak wilt comes through.
Is the oak wilt due to construction activity or?
11 Batzli: Well if I'm the developer, I don't replace a single one. In the
third year I say that wasn't due to construction.
Ahrens: Right, exactly.
Batzli: Yeah, I mean with due to construction in there, if I'm the
developer, I'm sitting in the back row laughing. Fine. Give me 50
11 years. I don't care.
Erhart: But he's supposed to replace trees that die from other causes?
Batzli: Well, how are you going to prove it?
Krauss: You know where the suspect trees are. I think Dave can attest
to this. The idea of bulldozer drivers going bizerk is legendary. You
know when they've transgressed and knocked down a snow fence or compacted
some dirt. And you start writing which trees you highly suspect have
been suffered, may suffer damage.
Erhart: That's why I think the point of the snow fence is so great.
Because I don't think you can draw the lines on this 3 year or due to
construction. All these things are soft. A hard fact is you put the
snow fence around and they don't go inside of it. I'm not sure that
going beyond that accomplishes anything. That's the point I'm trying to
11 make. Even if we had to increase the diameter of the snow fence to 1 1/2
times the drip diameter...actually protect that area. And by golly, if
they run over that snow fence, man they just replace the tree.
11 Batzli: So you'd change it to fencing shall be placed around the oak
trees at 1 1/2 times the drip line?
Erhart: Well I don't know what the right answer is. My point was that
I'm not sure, setting up a situation where staff's going to go out 3
years and inspect this. It just doesn't happen. If we're concerned
11 we're not getting adequate coverage, I'd focus more on something that we
could measure which is the fence line. Drip diameter and things.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 48
Ahrens: So they knock it down and they go back and put up another fence
Aanenson: That went back to my original proposal and we bring in an
expert to walk through the site and look at, make a determination and we
say it looks like this tree's been damaged due to construction or
whatever. After it's been final graded and, not only that but you know II
after they've graded the site, not all buildings are going to go up.
They're go up over a different timeframe. It's not all going to be bull
at once so there's going to be over a period of time, different things
happening. To say 3 years, I'm not sure. I think with each building
that goes in place we're going to have to go out there and physically
look at what's been done after activity. Make a determination. If it II
looks like it's been altered or damaged, which goes back to the snow
fence thing. I think that's the staff, although that's easier to try to
fence them off and go out and make a determination.
Batzli: Well when do you go out with your expert? After final
completion of the whole plan?
Aanenson: I think there's going to have to be a series of different
1
times. After the final grade and then after each building goes up if
they're around an existing oak tree that we want to preserve.
Farmakes: What's the time factor in a stress situation like with an oak
tree if it's damaged in construction? Is it immediate? 1
Kay Halla: No, not all the time.
Farmakes: 6 months? 1
Kay Halla: It can be, I'm just basing it on a plan that I had that we
put some landscaping in the year her home was built and just this, it's I
been 2 years, her 2 trees are dead. She has... It was obvious that the
had been really, really close to the house and really graded around. And
it took 2 years but it was pretty obvious.
Farmakes: So no crown damage showed up until then?
Kay Halla: No, they were totally dead. But again, it had really been
graded around.
Farmakes: Is there visible damage shortly after construction of some
sort?
Kay Halla: She knew a year later that there was some die back on the
tips and that kind of thing.
Erhart: What did they do? They ran equipment right underneath the tree?
Kay Halla: Well we think so. The home we went to, we did the 1
landscaping after the home was built but it was, it seemed obviously like
comparing to what the neighbors land and how it was graded. It seemed 41
like they have to get drainage away from the home and that there was som
soils put on top of the trees and then in one area the driveway was only
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 49
2 feet, the edge of the driveway was only 2 feet from the trunk of the
tree. So it was right underneath...and it took, in 2 years they were
totally dead but I think some can last longer.
Batzli: If no one has a proposed amendment to number 9, would anyone
have any other discussion before I call the question?
Conrad: Just one more thing in terms of runoff and ponding. Dave, what
11 is it that's going to assure us, from your department, that we really do
have good specs for water runoff? Our good system. We've got a
consultant out there that we've hired. They are making some
recommendations and what are the standards that they set. They have to
meet basic minimum standards.
Hempel: That's correct. They're going to follow our latest storm water
11 quality practices that we're employing on storm drainage.
Krauss: We should throw in a proviso there. It is possible that the
11 consultant's going to come back and say that by all rights, a portion of
this should be handled off site and...developer shall pay x number of
thousand of dollars into the city program so he can accommodate that.
That's very...
Conrad: That 'a acceptable.
Batzli: Is there any other discussion?
Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
11 approval of Rezoning to PUD #92 -3 and Site Plan Review #92 -3 as shown on
the plans dated October 8, 1992 and October 22, 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 Road.
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
11 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
11 Kerber Boulevard shall be constructed with Phase 1 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.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 50
6. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trail
and possible location of sedimentation pond before final plat
approval.
7. Park and trail dedication fees be paid in lieu of parkland. 1
8. Number of parking spaces, including handicapped, must be revised to
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 within 3 years 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. II
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 1
memorandum dated October 21, 1992.
13. Elimination of access drives to Oak Pond Road in accordance with II
October 27, 1992 memorandum from Dave Hempel on his review of the
Oak Pond site development plans.
14. Preparation and staff approval of a tree removal plan.
15. That the developer shall work with staff on sight lines to reduce ,
impacts on neighboring property owners.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: Is there a motion on the preliminary. Is preliminary plat the
wrong word here?
Aanenson: No, it is a plat.
Batzli: Preliminary plat? Is there a motion on the preliminary plat? 11
Conrad: I make the motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary
plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated October 8th and October 22nd ,
1992 subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
Erhart: I'll second. 1
Batzli: Is there any discussion? I'm still a little concerned about usil
not having the areas around the wetlands at this part of the process.
Why are we taking that at the wetland alteration permit stage? Because
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 51
1
that's when we get it and that's when we do it? It seems to me if there
11 should be dedicating areas around the wetlands, we should be doing it
now. I haven't quite figured that out. Why we're not doing that at this
time? Can we at least put in here, well you already have in here that
they have to get a wetland alteration permit. Okay, then that's good
enough? Okay. Any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat PUD #92 -3 as shown on the plans dated
October 8, 1992 and October 22, 1992, and subject to the following
conditions:
1 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
I outside the easement and right -of -way shall be privately owned and
maintained by a homeowners association. Detailed construction 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 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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Batzli: When will this be going to City Council now?
Aanenson: We're going to do the wetland alteration permit before it's
forwarded on and we need to get the traffic study back.
Krauss: Yeah, we want these issues resolved once and for all before we
go to the City Council. What we'll do is renotify you...
Batzli: Okay, thank you all for coming in.
Brad Johnson: Can I say one thing?
Batzli: Yes.
Brad Johnson: I agree with Joan about the parenting role that some of
you played with them today. From a developer's point of view, that was a
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
November 4, 1992 - Page 52
11
very good point but I think you do have a better project because of your
input. I know we've kind of gone through hoops for you. I know that
that whole barren hill over there, I didn't even think about it when I
started out the program and so I think in real life, it's been a benefit
and it's obvious that we're trying and we just, sometimes we can't do
everything you'd like us to do, like not build it. So I do appreciate II
your input and I think we've tried to improve the project because of it.
You've got a better project. Thank you.
Farmakes: Do you feel that those objections are crystallized?
Brad Johnson: In your mind?
Farmakes: Yeah, because I got the impression here tonight that they're
not crystallized.
Brad Johnson: Well I agree with what you suggested. That one or two of
you are welcomed to sit down with, because most of our questions are tre
and design. One on one and just sit down and work through some of the
problems. You know we've had neighborhood meetings. It's always usuall
we, they kind of a meeting. 5o if you guys wanted to appoint a couple
people in the next couple weeks, because it's about 4 weeks before we're
back here Paul probably.
Krauss: Well it's a matter of when we get the materials.
Resident: ...because there's different issues depending on where you
are. This is not an association of people here. The neighbors have
primary concerns about the... 1
Farmakes: Okay, what I'm trying to suggest, to be productive, if you
crystallize those things as a group. List them as the major elements of
what you're presenting and some of the sub - elements, it would help in th�
negotiation process. It would make your position much more clear.
Specifically. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Resident: They were on the paper.
Batzli: Well yeah. We need to move this one along and I like what's on
the paper but that needs to be shown to City staff and the developer and •
you need to sit down and discuss those things with them. If it's as a
group or, it would be nicer to have a couple of people so that, it's
difficult to do things by committee. If you can have a couple people si
down. Go over those points with the developer, that will be very helpfu
and we do appreciate you coming in and telling us these things and
'pointing out, because you're intimately familiar with the project and hol,
it will effect you and so we do appreciate that. Thank you.
1
1
1