The URL can be used to link to this page

11. Oak View Heights, PUD, Development Plan, Wetland Permit, Site Plan Review for 140 townhome units I It 1 CITY OF‘1 •-AA 0 IIANHASSEN 1 „ \ _ ,._ . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ''' 'on by Q. ,I,Ir„inistrafa,, ITO: Planning Commission ,,. ,_. I FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ,,,,, 7 { date r Jmlt'.. t) ;',nnissio7 DATE: May 17, 1989 _ II SUBJ: Oakview Heights Townhomes _ ' C.1 /.. •, I The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD proposal for Oakview Heights Townhomes on April 19, 1989. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the item until the applicant could 1 further work with staff to provide a PUD concept more acceptable to the Planning Commission. Some of the Planning Commission ' s concerns about the proposed PUD were as follows : 1 1. Too high of density; 2. Too many units clustered in a small area; 1 3 . Too high of percentage of impervious surface; 4 . Not enough usable open space and visitors parking IIspaces. The original plan contained 140 individually owned townhome units I located in 12 blocks ranging from 10 - 16 townhome lots per block. The original proposal also contained two outlots providing open area around the townhome lots and two lots for future develop- 1 ment. Lot 1, Block 13, was proposed for a future apartment building containing approximately 80 units. The denisty of the original proposal was 12. 8 and 13 units per acre for the townho- mes. The impervious surface for the townhome areas was 50 per- mcent lot coverage, which exceeded the permitted 35 percent. NEW PROPOSAL IThe applicant has submitted a new PUD proposal which has taken into consideration some of the comments made by the Planning 1 Commission. The applicant has reduced the number of proposed townhomes from 140 to 132. The number of blocks of townhomes have been reduced from 12 to 11. One block of townhomes has been II I I Planning Commission I May 17 , 1989 Page 2 removed from the north side Jenny Lane approximately where a I large number of the mature trees are located. The applicant is proposing to remove the block of townhomes to preserve an area of open space in which to locate a tot lot. The total number of II townhomes have been reduced by 8 with 4 townhomes relocated within other blocks of townhomes . The applicant has also com- bined Lot 1 , Block 14 into the open area surrounding the townhome I lots south of Jenny Lane (Outlot B) and has provided the drainage and conservation easement over the 980 contour as recommended by staff on Lot 1, Block 12. I The following is a comparison between the original PUD and the current proposal : Original PUD Current PUD 1 Total Total I 140 Townhome Units 132 Townhome Units 80 Apartment Units 220 70 Apartment Units 202 12 Blocks of Townhomes 11 Blocks of Townhomes Lot Sizes II Outlot A 3 . 2 Outlot A 3 . 4 I Blocks 7-12 2 . 4 Blocks 7-11 2 .1 Outlot B 2 . 9 Outlot B 3 . 9 Blocks 1-6 2 . 3 Blocks 1-6 2 . 4 Block 12 (Apt) 5 . 8 Block 12 (Apt) 5 . 8 Total Right of Total Right of Way 1. 3 Way 1. 3 Density 12. 8 Units/Acre (Outlot A) 11. 2 Units/Acre (Outlot A) II 13 Units/Acre (Outlot B) 11.1 Units/Acre (Outlot B) 13 .8 Units/Acre (Apt Bldg) 12. 1 Units/Acre (Apt Bldg) II Impervious Surface Outlot A & B 50% Outlot A 48% 1 Outlot B 38. 3% Outlot A & B 43% I Whole Site 31.5% Whole Site ( incl. apartment lot) 32 . 5% Parking Spaces I Parking 376 Parking 352 Visitor 14 Visitor 40 390 392 II Planning Commission ' May 17, 1989 Page 3 ANALYSIS ' The applicant is pursuing a PUD designation to allow the smaller lot sizes and to allow the whole site to be considered as one piece ( impervious surface and density calculated over whole site) . ' If the PUD is not approved, the applicant will pursue the develop- ment under the existing R-12 designation. A concept plan of what the site would be proposed as under R-12 has been submitted by the applicant (Attachment #2) . The benefit of a PUD to the ' City is that it will receive additional amenities, i .e. open space, parks, trails, creative use of the site. The benefit of a PUD to the applicant is the ability to cluster units, work around ' unique features , have a higher density, etc. The main issue is whether the City is benefitting enough to per- mit the increase in impervious surface and smaller lot sizes. Since the original proposal, the applicant has provided some usable open space with vegetation within the townhome develop- ment. The trees that are located within the open area will most likely not survive the proposed grading unless certain pre- cautions are taken. The totlot has been relocated to the open area which is preferred by staff . The applicant is also pro- viding a conservation easement on the 980 ft. contour as requested by staff. The conservation easement should also con- tain the vegetative area (Attachment #3 ) . Additional visitor parking has been provided. Staff is recommending that the visi- tor parking be distributed to each complex. Additional visitor parking would still be preferred, but this would increase the amount of impervious surface. This could be a trade-off of the ' PUD designation. The total number of units has been reduced by 18 ( 8 townhomes and ' 10 apartments) . The impervious surface has been reduced. Over the whole site the impervious surface is below the maximum allowed, but still exceeds the 35% on the individual townhome areas. The density meets the requirements of 12/acre for the 1 townhome sites ( the apartment site is . 1% above) . The Planning Commission must determine if the proposal is ' acceptable as a PUD. The proposal meets most of the R-12 requirements except for impervious surface and has approximately 2 less units than the PUD proposal. The current proposal is an improvement over the initial PUD proposal, but it ' is questionable if the new plan meets the Planning Commission' s concerns . Staff recommends that the Planning • 1 Planning Commission May 17 , 1989 Page 4 Commission either recommend approval of the PUD with conditions that would satisfy the Planning Commission or recommend denial of the PUD and pass it on to the City Council. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PUD, staff recommends the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall provide deed restrictions against Lot 1, Block 12 to maintain lot coverage of 35% or below and density of 12 units/acre ( for the entire 17. 8 acre site) . 2. A drainage and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 ft. contour and vegetative area on Lot 1, Block 12 . No alteration below the 980 ft. contour and vegetative area ( for construction of apartment building will be permitted. 3 . The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ' ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation memo dated April 13 , 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 4 . The 20 ft. wide easement be dedicated along Powers Blvd. and an 8 ft. wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 5 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. 6. The applicant shall work with staff and DNR to provide addi- tional landscaping to replace the trees being removed. The trees on the open area between Blocks 7 and 8 shall be pro- tected from grading of the site. The applicant shall submit plans for protection of the trees which shall be reviewed and approved by the DNR Forester. 7 . Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 and approval ' of Site Plan Review #88-15. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver County Engineer. 1 1 Planning Commission May 17, 1989 Page 5 ' 11. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 12. Detailed construction plans and specifications including ' calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of ' the construction. 13 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all ' public facilities. 14 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17 . ' 15 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber ' Boulevard. 16 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and ' supplemental parking area( s) provided. 17. Additional spot elevation and necessary contours shall be provided for proper surface drainage around proposed ' buildings south of Jenny Lane. 18. The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the ' site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. PLANNING COMMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the planned unit development concept and development plan for the ' following reasons : 1. The applicant was not providing enough visitors parking or storage. Additional garages should be provided. 2 . The development proposed under the R-12 appeared to provide more open space around the units then the proposed PUD. t3 . The proposed PUD misses the intent of the PUD ordinance. ' 4 . Four of the six intent statements of the PUD were not being met. 5 . The impervious was too high. I Planning Commission May 17, 1989 , Page 6 6 . It is not a question of density but rather the provision of open space. 7. The PUD lacked creativity. ' The Planning Commission also recommended denial of the wetland alteration permit and site plan review. It should be pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended denial of these two items because they did not approve the PUD and felt that they were not able to properly review the site plan and wetland alteration permit. The Commission chose to deny the proposal rather than tabling it again so that the applicant could pursue the application with the City Council. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The City Council must determine whether or not the proposal meets the intent of the PUD ordinance and either recommend approval with the following conditions or denial of the PUD. ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 1989 . 2 . Re-12 Concept Plan. 3 . Conservation Easement. 4 . Reduced Copies of PUD Proposal. 5 . Planning Report. 6 . Planning Commission minutes dated May 17, 1989. 7 . Plans dated May 8 , 1989. v i 1 1 I . . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 i 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer 01 1 1 DATE: May 8, 1989 1 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Oak View Heights File No. 89-1 Land Use Review The site is located on the west side of County Road 17 approximately one-half mile north of Trunk Highway 5. This 18 . 9 1 acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with mature vegetation scattered throughout the site. 1 This parcel was platted as part of the West Village Heights plat which was approved by the City Council on April 20 , 1988. 1 Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site on the east and west. These existing sewer mains were sized and 1 installed to service the anticipated development for the subject parcel . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided on the plat over all public utilities. A common sewer and water utility 1 corridor is proposed for each building complex. Watermain 1 The plans propose a looped watermain system to be constructed from the existing 12-inch main along County Road 17 to the existing 8-inch watermain that has been provided at the easterly 1 property line by the West Village Heights Townhomes development. The watermain will need to be jacked under County Road 17 and a wet tap connection made to the City ' s 12" main. A county permit 1 will need to be obtained by the applicant. The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and watermain within the right-of-way of Jenny Lane and the fire lane 1 easement respectively. The sanitary sewer and water service to the buildings are in a common utility corridor ( see typical building detail ) which will be maintained privately by the 1 developer . The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plan and specification. 1 me . Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 2 Public Street ' The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane. This right-of-way extends from County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the plat. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. Jenny Lane shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed through the public platted right-of-way with a 36-foot width to meet the anticipated demand for this type of development. Private Street ' The plan calls for a 24 foot wide private roadway looped through the north portion of the site. This would be dedicated as a fire lane and posted for "no parking" . In addition, internal access to the individual plexes is proposed via a 18-20 foot private drive with parking proposed for individual units with 2 to 4 parking spaces available per unit depending on the unit ' s loca- tion (see typical parking detail) . It is inevitable that special functions such as parties , etc. , will present parking conflicts with other units in the area and overflow will no doubt result in parking on Jenny Lane. In this regard it would appear that the 18-20 foot private drive width is inadequate unless supplemental parking facilities are provided on both the north and south sides of the site. With this new concept the Developer has provided 26 additional parking stalls for a total of 40 scattered throughout the site. It would be more beneficial to have 4 to 5 additional stalls at each building complex rather than scattered throughout the site as shown on sheet 6 of the plan set. The 24-foot service roadway north of Jenny Lane shall be main- tained as a private roadway but considered as a fire lane and no parking restrictions posted accordingly. It was the understanding of the City Council that when the future alignment of Jenny Lane was established that the West Village Townhouse segment of this road would be brought up to full city standards . As such, city staff will be recommending that a feasibility study be initiated to extend Jenny Lane, from Oak View Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard. The anticipated demand by construction of Jenny Lane necessitates that this roadway be extended to Kerber Boulevard. Grading and Drainage ' It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads . It should be noted that additional spot elevations and contours will be needed to correct surface drainage around the proposed buildings south of Jenny Lane. ' L Planning Commission May 8, 1989 Page 3 Although the new concept plan has shown the removal of one ' building to protect a grove of oak trees and create a totlot, this area still shows proposed grading and shaping. No grading should be done in this area in order to preserve these trees . The applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny Lane to maintain the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event. A storm sewer net- work is proposed to drain the site runoff to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plan and specification sub- mittal . ' Erosion Control The plans show the entire site wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the city' s Type III standard ( see detail ) . All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized ' using erosion control blankets . Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with ' the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . ' 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. ' 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver County Engineer. ' 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including ' calculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of ' the construction . 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17 . 1 Planning Commission I May 8 , 1989 Page 4 II 8 . The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber IBoulevard. 9 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area (s) provided. I 10 . Additional spot elevation and necessary contours shall be provided for proper surface drainage around proposed I buildings south of Jenny Lane. 11 . The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the I site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. ATTACHMENTS I 1 . Typical building detail 2 . Typical parking detail I I I I 1 I I II II II II I I I I I TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL 0 0 d 11M. 1 CRUSHED ROCK BASE IBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT i15 MIN. i� )1,-20' Ig' I 20' W cc 1 , W W M SS' < W 20'' I I-I i s a:MIN. 3 In o a RAD yr to D 1 A•• 20' i FIR[ L ( f 16' le I 21'(/IR<L.AMS `t-SEWER CLEANOUf VPSITOR 25'MIN. T 1CAL PARKING R I 6' 51 DEW.4LV.,. I I IN r anning Commission Meeting pril 19 , 1989 - Page 8 5. Proposed street names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval. 6. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contained in the City Engineer' s report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . ' 7. Since the watermain is not looped , proper sizing of the watermain will be required for fire and health reasons. 8. A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements . 10. There should be a secondary access going off of the cul-de-sac out to County Road 17 . If approval can not be obtained from the County, then the Public Safety Director and the City Engineer ought to get together and decide what can be done, if something needs to be done, to provide a secondary access . t 11. If West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it ' s shown on the preliminary plat, then there will be a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of that . All voted in favor except David Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Headla : I certainly agree with the applicant ' s desire. I believe Tim' s recommendation. . . PUBLIC HEARING: OAK VIEW HEIGHTS , \ PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BOULEVARD, )APPROYIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A , WETLAND AND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 140 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS . ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report . 11: j Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . . 0) , c '. i. plarinng Commission Meeting �, IApril 19, 1989 - Page 9 C I Conrad : Just a question. If they meet what your recommendations are , do they still get PUD status? IOlsen: . . .because the lots are smaller . . . Conrad: So they' re forced to a PUD status not because they' re meeting I what we look for in a PUD. It is a mechanical reason that simply they have to have the PUD status to do what they want to do. Not that they' re meeting our PUD ordinance which says we' re looking for these things. . . to grant a PUD you should be looking for these characteristics that add value I to this whole project. Whether it be a park. Whether it be certain improvements. Public improvements. Whether it be open space. They have not done that or you have not, have they done in your mind those things? I I think that ' s what ' s not in the staff report right now and I 'm sure they want to talk to us about that but i.t' s kind of, it' s one of those things that I 'd like to see before hand where staff or the applicant says we want PUD status because we are going to offer these benefits and therefore I I can grant them the additional units . Let them go over the impervious surface ratio. I guess now is a chance for you to give us your viewpoint. IOlsen : I tried to point out what they were giving. . .and the first thing would be that totlot. This area is not park deficient and they are giving that. They are providing additional landscaping . r Conrad: They are? Olsen : They are giving more than what would be typically required . IConrad: How much more? IOlsen : When you start getting into the replacement . Conrad: So i.t' s not a requirement. Normally we require 1 tree per lot on Ia subdivision right? Do we have 1 tree per lot here? And their landscape plan would improve the site? Olsen: They' ve got a lot of trees . IConrad : What else Jo Ann. Be persuasive. IOlsen : The PUD site . . . Conrad: We ' re pretty tough on PUD' s . IOlsen : They know that . I explained that to them. The thing is , the reason that it ' s going with the PUD is because of individually owned units and the thing that ' s really hard is that when they actually. . . The way Iour ordinance is written, this would actually be more. . .comes to individually owned units . . . The way our ordinance is written . . . IConrad: Your other point is that individually owned units would be bett=er than rentaL units? We' ll open it up for public hearing and I ' m sure that the applicant will have a chance to talk to us. You' ve heard my I 1 nning Commission Meeting .ril 19 , 1989 - Page 10 comments as I ' ve directed them to the staff and really we have, I don' t ' want to get into a whole lot of detail on some of this stuff if the Planning Commission doesn' t really like what they see. We've got .a concept and then we get into the development plan but if we don ' t like what we see in terms of the concept , I think I don' t want to get into details. Yet on the other hand, if everybody things that the concept' s alright , we can do that too . But basically. . . is way, way different from what we've ever granted in the City to my knowledge and the number of units is over what this supposedly could have based on the number in the ordinance so I guess I ' ll open it up for public hearing. I 'd like the applicant to tell us why they think this should be granted as a PUD. Gary Purser: My name is Gary Purser. We originally submitted a plan to the city and it was Steve that indicated that because of the fact that we were going to go with individually owned houses. So in other words , we ended up with a zero lot line. We' re selling fee simple title to people to own the land underneath them indicating that we would have to go on a PUD. That would be one way we would have to submit because of the 3 , 600 square feet minimum. We feel that what' s required under the PUD, as far as offering additional amenities to the project , we feel that we' ve met that in preserving the wetlands . The City had asked us to provide a totlot and to their. specifications . It came in, actually the one that we submitted, they' ve altered and the cost of this totlot is around , our cost ( i.s around $30, 000. 00 to provide it. Also , providing the additional sidewalks and the landscaping , we feel that under the PUD concept, that it' s a give and take situation and we' ll providing the additional items to be approved by a PUD concept. In addition, I 'd like to just make a comment as far as the idea behind the zero lot line and a condominium concept. If we were not to do this on individually owned lots, we' d simply do it under a condominium concept . By doing it under a condominium concept, the owners or the people who are going to be purchasing the property of course would not have fee simple title and it ' s basically more expensive for them to purchase it because there ' s considerably more cost in doing it . It seems like it' s almost a glitch in the zoning ordinance because it does not, because your ordinance differentiates between common ownership and fee simple. Do you have any questions I can answer? Conrad: Anything you want to react to in terms of the staff report? Gary Purser : Well I guess with regard to the engineering. . . , Randy. Randy Hedlund: My name is Randy Hedlund. I 'm the engineering for Dean Johnson, the developer and one other item I want to point out . As far as the give and take on the PUD, from the very start we have been extremely concerned with this area here. Jo Ann pointed out , there were 11 large oak trees up on the upland part of the site that really can not be saved but down in this wooded slope area, which I 'm sure most of you are familiar with the site , coming up from the wetland there ' s a considerable . amount of oak trees and I didn' t get an actual count on them but I might _ guess maybe 50 to 100 large mature oak trees . Now what the developer can do is come in with this proposal to just meet the city' s requirements as far as impervious and density with the City, because these future parcels , Outlot A and B are not developed at this time. Somebody else can Planning Commission Meeting 0,� ' April 19, 1989 - Page 11 1 ( II come in and do a lot of damage to that slope with the oak trees on there and there wouldn ' t be anything to prevent them from doing that. The only thing that ' s really required is the 75 foot setback from the wetland II that's down at the 940 contour . One thing that the City is asking for is that we provide a conservation easement all the way up to the 980 contour which is 40 feet above that wetland. That will basically insure that all these oak trees down on the slope are preserved . As far as the grading, II like for this future apartment that would have the driveway entrance down here and it would be all underground parking. The building could be I designed where this grade along here would be about at garage floor. Up here would be about even with the first floor of the apartments so from this end of the apartments, patio and decks, you can walk right out onto open grade. It, s still some distance from the tree line. Down here I there'd be decks out over the garage level of the apartment. It fit the site very nicely. Is there any other questions concerning that? That was something that we' ve always done quite heavily was the preservation of II this large wooded area , the wetland and the slopes in that area and that ' s another, I think that' s a valid point to bring up in order. . . Conrad : Are reviewing that tonight? That ' s not part of the PUD is it? IThat 's not what we' re. . . Olsen : That ' s part of the concept . Iy Hedlund : We showed this , the developer does not have architectural plans for the apartment at this time so it ' s almost like this is a first phase and that would be coming later . This is what he ' s intending to do II with it. That it would be covered with restrictions that limits him to do this . The developer is also willing to give Lot 14 into Outlot B as the City had requested . That lowers the density of this portion of the site II to about 11 units per acre and I not exactly sure how it affects the impervious . If we look at the density over the whole site , the impervious over the whole site, we ' re at about 12 units per acre for density assuming IIeach. . .building 8 units and we ' re at, I believe 33 . 3% impervious on the overall site and that ' s what we were planning toward . . . He doesn ' t really have architectural plans for this so . . . site plan for the apartment at this time. IIDean Johnson : My name is Dean Johnson . I 'm one of the co-developers . One thing I wanted to. . .vali.di.ty. We looked at this site. . . We don ' t IIreally look at it as say the numbers . We look at it as outlot . . . so we worked our site plan . . .and we did save these groves of trees . . . As Gary pointed out, there ' s some trees on the ordinance having to do with townhomes that are independently owned with a zero lot line. Whereas if IIthey were condos . . .discussi.ng this issue. . . .amenities that are going to go to the homeowners . We do have plans here that . . . We have done another townhome project . You always learn by doing . This one will have a IIsprinkler system. This one will have . . .mai.ntenance free type of a siding . That always seem to be the thing that plagued the association once the -` auilding was up was the maintenance. Totlot was something that as much as IITodd recommended we do and something we had in the plans already because we expect these things to be sold to a lot of starter families . . . We also too have learned that sprinkler systems . . . so the piece of property is II ll . II anning Commission Meeting. ,ril 19 , 1989 - Page 12 II going to be irrigated . One of the issues that came up here has to do with I Lot 14 and Lot 13. Lot 14 seems to be an open piece of ground. Lot 13 is the one with the apartment building. Something that ' s been brought up is the fact that we could sell it do something else. . . The reason we split II ' half of it was because we did not feel it was a fair burden to the townhomes to have that piece of ground next to a . . . that the residents and quantity of residents that came into the apartment building should share I in some of the costs of maintaining this property per density. . .are worked so that. . . That is the reason why. . . We have seen those types of problems. Did do a townhome project in Plymouth. At the time cedar I siding . We all all weather this and that . . .and the painting bill and their watering are their two largest expenses that they have. . . Any questions? IIMavis Sculley: Mavis Sculley and I live at 7 right across the highway from this development and DI�guess�Ihhaven' tequite understand the map. How does this connect up with Kerber? I can see the II line there but where does it actually come out on this side? So this does not extend all the way over to Kerber? Does it begin at Powers then? Olsen: Right. And then where those other townhomes are, that ' s where it I will connect . Mavis Sculley: That ' s what concerns me. That was one the things that was I \-- concerning me. Considering the density there already and with apartments or townhomes or whatever so I 'm concerned that if this ran into that , that it would make literally just a wall of townhomes and multiple unit I dwellings . The second thing that concerns me was that hillside . We have to have an easement. We know we bought ours so we could maintain the sanctity so to speak of the valley and we were just under the impression that was also going to be maintained on the opposite side of the highway I and when you look in the direction of the valley across the way, you would also see trees and greenery and things other than man made landscaping . That was . . .but that will be maintained? Okay, thank you. II Emmi.ngs moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor. except Wi.ldermuth who abstained and the motion carried . The public II hearing was closed. (Tim Erhart ' s discussion with Jo Ann Olsen and the developers was not IIaudible on the tape. ) Emmi.ngs : I 'm opposed to it the way i. t ' s. . . but it ' s almost okay. I take it that _th-is- is a good location to have some high density development . I II like the zer9_ _lot_ Line business of locating . . . I think again we need to offer a diversity of housing in our city that we don ' t have now. . .and this almost does. a..t _ I .like the way they look. I think a reasonable amount of II thought has- gone into the plan. My objections are these. I could almost , live with the Lot 14 and sliding everything over and open a space up a _ tittle bit and making more density on the south side that way. Then I can_' t live with . . . My objections are these . I think the parking II is woefully inadequate. I think that the setbacks from the property tines are totally inadequate and I think that the setbacks from the road itself I ■ Planning Commission Meeting ' April 19 , 1989 - Page 13 1' k are inadequate . The density is too high. The impervious surface is too high and I see that the potential for that apartment building coming in, II that just adds. . . That being said, on top of everything else , you talk about a glitch in our ordinance but we' ve still got an ordinance to apply. When we put together this PUD ordinance , the essence of it was that the I City should get something. That a PUD should not be granted unless the City gets something that. . . So far nothing that I 've heard offered , the preservation of wetlands which is required under our ordinance. . . And a totlot which it seems to me for the amount of development that' s going in, I in itself would decide. . . The totlot again is something that would be used as an amenity to sale of the units'. Anybody who would look at them is going to say do you have a place for my kids to play but I don' t think I the City is getting anything at all . And for all those reasons, I 'm opposed to it. I said a lot of negative things. Now let ' s go back to the positive things. I like this type of development. I like it where you' ve got it. I 'd just like to see it done a little differently. IThe applicant ' s architect made a statement from the audience. I Emmings: When it becomes a PUD it' s not R-12. And it' s not R-12 anymore, then I get to say the setbacks are. . . 14 extra spaces for visitors is . . . We could argue all night long but I 'm getting my comments. You 've had I your chance and not it' s my chance. It ' s inadequate and it' s inadequate because every, I think it ' s inadequate because you have a single car garage for those units . You ' re talking about young families though. That' s what you said the market is . Most of those young families are I going to have two cars . That puts 1 in the garage and 1 outside and 1 as a visitor car. Where do the people with the single car garage . . . When they have Thanksgiving at their house , where do they park? It ' s inadequate. I Ellson : Jo Ann , when you were giving your report you said that the oak trees were being designated . . . IOlsen : Alan Olsen , when he came out and he is doing all of that and that was one of the sites that was . . . IEllson: The 11 as well as the hill? IIOlsen: The hill is definitely. . . Ellson : My biggest concern was those oak trees . They' re.Y 100 years old and I 'm not going to be around by the time we replace them and . . . II think the City has already made , indicated that if we really wanted to say respect the trees that are out there, it ' s almost impossible to do something to protect them and maybe it ' s just bad timing . Who knows . In a month they might have been a protected woods . . . r Batzli : Would this require a zoning amendment? IIOlsen: A rezoning is part of the PUD. Batzli. : So the people to the north were notified that this was . . . ? II . Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 14 I A Jo Ann Olsen ' s answer wasn ' t audible on the tape . Batzli : Do you plan on putting deed restrictions on Lot 13 or is this actually a registered deed? Is that what we did on the other lot where they clearcut the trees? Olsen : Which lot? Triple Crown? Batzli : Yes . ' Olsen : That was just , there wasn' t anything in the plan. Batzli : Was that just in their covenants? I guess I had a couple ' questions . One thing that I 'd really like to see is that we' re not. . . If we' re not building the apartment building right now, I have a question why it' s even in there. . . if that ' s what they' re going to have. If this is being separated, I don't want to give approval to it now. I 'd rather see it all open and have them spread everything out a little bit here rather than cram it together and then decide that they have to go with a PUD. So I agree it should probably be higher density development but I think there' s room in the lot to do something like that without doing what they' re requesting tonight . I 'd prefer to see more given to the city although. . . Wildermuth: I don ' t think we' re at the PUD point. . . I 'd like to see the applicant improve the building . . . The parking adequate addressed. Unless the applicant can convince me otherwise , I think there should be a pr_ovi.sion. . . to change to double garages for each unit. In looking at the plan. . . What is the construction. . . ' Applicant' s answer from the audience wasn' t audible on the tape. Wildermuth : What is the difference in cost , construction cost for putting that in brick? The applicant ' s answer from the audience wasn ' t audible on the tape . ' Dean Johnson: I 'd like to point out that . . . The small units will require an annual income to qualify of $30, 057 . 00 per year to qualify for those units. It' s going to be our goal to try to keep the price low so they' re more affordable units . . . Headla : . . . totlot near the parking . Who pays for the playground ' equipment? Dean Johnson : The homeowners association . We as developers pay for the equipment . . . .-ieadla : And then the City maintains it? Dean Johnson: No . . . y Planning Commission Meeting s IApril 19, 1989 - Page 15 R tr. \ Headla : . . I looked at that and it ' s a 50 foot drop. I thought that ' s terrible. I think the Park and Recreation Committee would take that tremendous asset. All the people. . .just think what they could do for I sliding in the wintertime. They could be out there 8 hours a day and I think the City could really capitalize on that . I just think that' s a tremendous asset that we overlook and we ought to try to capture it . I . . . it' s a safe place for them to be. I like the plantings. I like all the deciduous. I 'm not that concerned about the oak trees. I think they' re past their ultimate climax . If we put anything in there. . . is I going to kill them. Not today or tomorrow but 3-4 years when we kill them, then the City doesn' t get anything out of it . But if they come in and. . . I think if we can get that trade, I think that' s reasonable. Gary Purser : . . . the zero lot line . Conrad: The zero lot line is a little bit different issue than the I ordinance says in the PUD what we ' re -trying to accomplish . The accomplishment is we relax standards and hopefully we get something in return. That' s pure and simple what a PUD is . Maybe this concept which Iyou've got, obviously there' s some glitches but there' s some glitches in what you' ve got planned , you obviously knew it didn' t meet our ordinance . You put more density on, you put more impervious surface on. The way I have to read it, it ' s our norm. . . so if there was a plan that kind of meets Ifour ordinance and meets the intent of the ordinance , and I think most of "*.- the people here said they don' t mind the townhouses and I like the townhouse idea . I think we all envisioned apartments going in here and Ithat' s why we have an R-12 designation and you ' re trying to do something a little bit different . Maybe it doesn ' t quite work as easily but I don ' t mind the townhouse. The zero lot line is fine and maybe there ' s some problems in our ordinance to try to accommodate that that you can resolve Iin the future but I think the from the pure and simple standpoint, I don ' t believe you ' ve tried to meet the intent of the ordinance and that ' s why I prefaced our whole discussion saying , if you want, you ' re here under a Itechnicality basically. You ' re applying for the PUD because of a technicality. Not because you have some interesting features and property that you want to alter . Not because you want to embellish something and Igive the City something. I didn ' t see many cases other than the landscaping . That ' s alright . I didn ' t see anything where we would feel , the Planning Commission comfortable with this. On the other hand , I think we see a lot of things that are positive that unfortunately, my preference Iis that you try to meet the ordinance as it stands and we would work with you to try to help you to do that but my preference right now, unless you can go out and show us how you ' re embellishing this into a PUD. . . On the Iother hand , I ' ll remind you that we ' re pretty strict on PUD ' s and City Council sometimes has differed . They take other views besides ours when they review them as a concept for a PUD. . . I think you ' re missing the Iintent of our ordinance basically and you came in not trying to not meet them and our intent in Chanhassen is greenery and open spaces and the preservation of some of the wetlands and I think you ' re missing the mark . fie obviously want high density here . That ' s why we zoned it R-12 but if I `you want to increase the density over what we originally intended , and I think when you do that we become a Little more critical . I think the parking appears to be a problem to me like it has been with some uth`r. Ell f . 1 /nni.ng Commission Meeting il 19 , 1989 - Page 16 I people . In other residential subdivisions , when a house goes in and they b I ring in a single family unit and there' s one garage and no place for / storage and what have you, we' ve been very critical of those designs . So I I want, now that you ' re really giving home ownership here, I think we've become kind of critical of what this neighborhood is going to look like in 10 years. The parking appears to be a problem to me. I know you' ve got more parking than individual units and I , like other members, are I concerned with visitors and 14 units. I 've visited developments like this and parking becomes a problem and I think the city will end up with the problem as people end up parking on the main road. So from that I standpoint I 'm concerned and I 'm a little bit concerned and my direction is for you to somehow meet the impervious surface. . .but I think we have to meet that because that has some meaning in what we' re trying to develop in Chanhassen. That means green spaces and a little bit of openness and I places for people to go. Based on the land , and again I don' t care how you do it. If you bundle more property in here or not, I think you have to meet the density standards that we--set but I think I 'd go along with I the other small lots that you recommend and I can go along setting the lot lines so if that means you have to take out one whole unit or you have to bundle in additional property, that' s what you do. I guess I can give you i my direction but I think. . .and I think the staff has given us some other alternatives of bundling in some land where the apartments are but that chunk sort of bothers me too . I guess I could prefer to look at the units there as being as what we ' re looking at and hopefully that will mee tthe I t zoning ordiance , or the ordinances as they stand . Unless you start developing some . . . Here are some reasons for granting a PUD which then you could possibly say, yes that is PUD . The last thing I ' ll say is we I try to, one thing sets precedent and . . .we' re always concerned if we set precedent on the Planning Commission and I think our minds tall us that other things that have come in the past that have looked like this . . . PUD status . So those are my comments . My preference tonight and I guess I ' ll I ask the applicants what they'd like to do on this one. My preference tonight would be to table it or turn it down. Tabling it to see if staff and the applicant can work together to see if could come in with something I that staff believes is good . Whether it be a PUD and bringing something or whether it ' s something different on meeting the certain zoning requirements. Or we could vote on it tonight and send it along so you I could get reaction from the City Council which many times is different than ours. Gary Purser : . . .We in our minds have met that . Now as I see it then , I what you' re deciding on tonight, we can go back and . . . To do that , we can have an architect draw up some prelims on the oui.li ing . Say this is the building. We can bring it back in . . . What you ' re deciding tonight , just I so you know. . . 3 , 600 square foot on the lot and that ' s somethi.ng . . . zero lot line is fee simple ownership. We looked it the lot line . . .something that should be , as much as it' s a progressive idea , should be considered as I something that we are giving to the city. They are getting . . .andj that is something . . . i ` Conrad : But you can ' t . . . thi.s parcel to meet the impervious surface ratio . I Without the condo , you can ' t structure that whole parcel , the overall parcel within the apartment and Lots 13 and 11 is 34 . 3'. . 1- ti . 'Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 17 NS: I \A IGary Purser : Granted we don ' t have the building design but we ' re saying we' re going to live within that lot . . . We are already within your Ibuilding service so that really isn ' t the issue. Jo Ann Olsen discussed the impervious surface ratio . IGary Purser : What we' re saying, is that really that much of a consideration? . . .That' s why we get back to this zero lot line. That' s why I 'm saying . . . I guess what we' re trying to do is get it less of a I cost. Something that is an advantage to the City as well. That 's what we really want to do. Conrad : Any other comments? What do you want to do with this one? I Erhart: . . .as part of your you PUD. . .maybe y y meet the coverage, you meet the density. The one thing you don ' t--meet is the philosophy. I think I what we ' re saying is, as a PUD we can negotiate that lot size. We don ' t have to require that you have 3 , 600 square feet . I think as a rule. . .and I would suggest maybe you take another . . .setback from the through street . ' I think that ' s what we ' re looking at and then we' ll talk about impervious surface. . . ;ary Purser : Hopefully that can happen . It ' s hard to get direction I \- when. . . I guess we met with staff 3 times and. . .are those the types of things . . .as much as I 'm sure you guys want to work with us . . .give and take. If we have to cut the density in half, obviously there' s no way. . . IWe'd just as soon not do that . . . We could change the density around to where it is . . . but it' s hard for us to know. Obviously we ' re meeting the design. We' ve got the design. . .but we have to have a general direction Iwhich way to go. As much as we ' ve already. . .we ' re asking you. Dean Johnson : This is the sixth concept that we' ve done . IGary Purser : We ' ve met with staff 3 times to try to get this. This is something that your staff worked with us . IConrad: I guess the real question is if they came back . . .would it still meet what we would consider a PUD? IEmmi.ngs : But they can ' t come to us and ask us that question . They can ' t ask us until there ' s a specific plan in front of us whether it ' s something that we ' ll approve or not because we don ' t know what it looks like and we don ' t know if it meets our , we can ' t answer that question. The things Ithat they' re proposing to me, it sounds like they' re headed a long way in the right direction . I like the general idea . I like what they' re doing here . I think they' re doing too much of it . Now you ' re talking about IItaking some of it away, and I 'm real interested. To me and my objections , it would be coming a long way. Whether you come far enough so I say yes , - chat ' s good , I don ' t know until I see it . Gary Purser : I guess that ' s what I meant . . . I I • MN - Commission Meeting -' , 1989 - Page 18 ' Johnson : The other thing too is the parking . You need to . . .deed 41.2g _ri.ctions , . . . ry Purser : Going back again on the deed restrictions . . . ,onrad : . . .Commission is kind of wasting our time and Steve, as you said, we won' t know until we see something . Yet on the other hand , what the offer is . . .what we would get out of a PUD is we allowed a smaller lot, we would get individual ownership of the property. That ' s the trade off. We would grant PUD status on property that we thought was going to be apartment buildings anyway so we kind of zoned it thinking we were going to get apartment buildings which it' s not putting the townhouse down. I like that and I like the individual owners but it kind of goes back to a philosophy, are we getting anything in return? They certainly can hear that . If we' re going to say, well still you' re just not a PUD. Yes , they've taken care of impervious and taken care of density and we've got a totlot that ' s here and there ' s 10 more parking spaces . Do we have something that we would say, that ' s a PUD and we got a good trade? We just bought for Chanhassen individual ownership versus one owner . Wildermuth: That' s something but I think the PUD is something you' ve done uniquely with landscaping . Something done uniquely during construction and frankly I haven' t seen that here. ,.. Emmings : I wonder if they should be asking us or if we should be looking at some zoning ordinance amendments along with this . I didn ' t think of this business of getting individual ownership as an amenity but I get a certain feel to that . . . and when you look at what it says in the PUD, it says . . .encourages creative site planning and subdivisions of high quality. For Chanhassen, this is kind of unique quality. It does have a certain amount of creativity. . . individual ownership. Maybe we should be looking at something to work. . . Conrad : In the past City Council ' s had a difference of opinion on what constitutes a PUD. Emmings : The old Council . ' Conrad : Is there any valid , and it ' s still our choice here but is there a way to get Council feedback other than a aye or nay at this point in time? I guess the aye and the nay eats it off the table but a tabling doesn' t. Any insights on this Steve? Hanson : I think 1-.P.1 cin .l „ ;vs ass ioneclina un and then pass it with direction. I woad ventur to ; iy, r,-ally what I hear you talking about tonight is tn• _onc 'ot plan is ,opo;;a,l to me Orel imi.nary. They' ve asked you to Cons1J,)r and :,a,n you -it irted the discussion . . .concept plan so you could .:ass ;_� ;: .on. Pt ! orward if you wanted to . If you do f that, you ;uant : ) da it ,r, t:a :a flush as direction as you can and I think _ _he bast 4iy :v that is 'r ther ,,/1 to approval or denial with specific reasons fir L.1 a _,n i 31 is ,i i th the coed i t 1 ons for approval . . . 1 II 'Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 1989 - Page 19 I ' ■ IIConrad : Is there any way of getting around granting a PUD status unless we change the zoning ordinance in the R-12 district? Maybe I ' ll say it clearer because I didn' t understand what I just said . I see the PUD as I something really kind of special and unique and creative and contrary to Steve, I don ' t think this is unique and creative. They' re doing something that place can use. It says we want high density there. I would like you I to encourage them to come in and taking a few of our comments and changing that. Are we locked out of any other alternatives right now? Meaning are we forced to be granting that PUD based on what we' re seeing tonight? IHanson: I don' t think you can grant smaller lot sizes without it and that ' s the direction hopefully. . . In order to accomplish the single ownership through the property owner . The only way I saw that they could Ido that was through the PUD process . Conrad: Because a zoning ordinance would take too long or why? Hanson : It' s the only way we have the possibility to reduce that lot size. IIConrad : Unless we change the zoning ordinance right? Hanson: Yes . s II t ` Conrad : Which would take what? I Hanson: I would venture to say 3 or 4 months . That ' s going to open up a whole different group of . . . Conrad : Just out of curiousity, would you like this to go up to City I Council for their input or would you like to take it up there with our . concurrence? There ' s a couple strategies . . .City Council goes along a bunch of what we say. They pay a whole lot of attention to us . They I disagree in many cases . They have disagreed in what constitutes a PUD. . .let you know that. Do you have a feeling in terms of what you 'd like to do? IGary Purser : . . .We obviously would like to . . . By the time we petition the City to do the work . . . so if something could be arranged that way. We ourselves think we' ll do whatever it takes in whatever time we have to II do . . . Conrad : Do you see us granting this as a PUD status? 1 Headla: No I don ' t . Conrad : Jim, do you see a way to persuade you that this would be a PUD? 1, Wildermuth: Lower density. . . IConrad : Lower density would mean . . . So you ' re not Looking for half? They' re not going to take it down to half but you ' re looking for a few less? Brian? Anything that they could do or would you consider I • p anning Commission Meeting .pril 19 , 1989 - Page 20 something like this as a possible PUD? Anything that would make you think that yes, that' s a PUD? Batzli : I think if they were to . . . Lot 14 and get some more open area that way and decrease the density a little. . . I think parking ' s a problem. I like that they are actually saving all the trees even though it' s on a slope. . . 1 Ellson: I can picture it . . . Conrad : Steve, can you get into a situation where you would pass this? Emmings : Yes . Conrad : And those are. . .what you discussed? Emmings: Yes they are . . I Conrad : . . .you don' t think the developer could never. achieve? Emmings: I would like to see them move this project . . . If Lot 14 doesn ' t ' have any development . If we lower some density. I don ' t know what can be moved . . . The only thing that still sticks a little bit with me is the size of the apartment building . I 'm not sure you can put that big of an apartment building on there and still satisfy the. . . I think I could be convinced . Conrad : I guess you ' ve heard that we haven ' t ruled the PUD out . There are some amenities to the property that I think you could persuade me on. The numbers in certain cases look really great to me . I could go with a PUD. Therefore, I guess what we' re saying , the consensus would be, other than Dave. Headla : I 'd like to see the portion. . . Conrad: I think that means we should table it and see if city staff can muddle through some of the comments that we made . Work with you and see if you can come back with us with a revised site plan. Another concept plan that might encourage us . Batzli moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table I action on PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights so they can work with city staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: NORTH SIDE PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED JUST EAST OF 480 WEST 78TH STREET, CITY OF CHANHASSEN: _ 1. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW. Steve Hanson presented the staff report on this item. rt n rrr..1• .er i a w: n an.•�p�,e,. •r.l•„Iffl„1,��„all,�� .., . �t �1 I OAK VIEW HEIGHTS - LEGEND • GASMAIN --G- .” '/I L WATERMAW --W— I l I _—�,__. _ I li( / Ser 41'4rE 112e.re J ,41 gMERMWN 5— l IS i CLASS 0•l ; 1 / , // / �� 1 •� r R /,./;„1,, DUST.crttuR—moo — EXIST OAKS O 6 1,1 y . ...LAN,. ' I /%%� , l, \ . ,0, U J. .,• / i.-- ij1 1 \\\ i \ )i Uj �'S• i rmwLE ../1/, , FENCE — I I .a I t , ,� / .' , _ , I I /I ,,,.I /' 1 � _ ,-- -�, --- _JO' AN ITS. \ / o 5.r:‘,7.—....M1,11:::_. _ >, I i J, p I � ��/— R-12 SCENARIO co •Lai ' O I // - � ' ' '<�`”.- -� , OT 4 I I-L1N 75 I l 3 �W 1i e UNITS I ItI 7, , -_,--.----;1---;.... �' : =` , ' \ I _" J ' / _ ,I. !i ' / .,- O / ..„ i. i Q '' 'I;. .j .15,454V-/ , ;- ��/: :\ / ._ -- ,COT 5 Z L la N ITS /' :1 ., , . Ise I:: !I it,.. i , --'....-7p= ---,--_,-------"----- ,\ "- .._, . -- 4)...C.7>;\ ,-....‘ -----. -. Vi EST VILLAGE I 1 1 ii,,..V I ,1: '' 1 --/ ;'vs./ ...- II;�' , ,; —T—. 'a ^ 1 v _ .�; /i q7 �L LOT '7 C7 ,� =� t z 0 1 g ' }'I � ,� r.. �` ;., ' /�''''I ;1/ 'r I q-r3 E4T $ _�_ '3 r' , s I ” Z , I ,, , 1 i//.? ,/ , / ;'YI I AREA•824386 S.F. �— .0 N ITe� F3:."'dS — 1 ' ` '' / i /: I;/j t 18.925 AG 1j \ - } I o /i �' ./� 3I S.F �- iv��5.�. - PREPARED FOR:7.�' %may;% , . 1 - - _IE- - - /. ' �� _ , PRONE (612) 559-3fi50 R \— - f' MINIMUM A 1 I LOT 10 I . v Y I ."'T"j ,`;.\ LOT--15----4, -- F . \` -Lei`-1 i - - -- Ba,EN 1i / , \ .`L©T- 1 3- - f PREPARED BY' r o I �ILOT16 '��' ' _� z LOT 12 ��-_ . �/�._ '_' / 'LOT 14 --— • `-- • l -— . __- ENGINEERING SURVEYING +s�+H ' - I , - �, --- i I I UN I'r ^� \ It la N ITS, `et' ' 9201 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY TS•m 1 •" ,. - 1 24,400 6 F -- ..��Zp 5 F I I Z �`' e /PHONE 1 6121 886 0299TH 5fiA20 3Z,1/v05,F• I37'51'3a ' y \ IIN 3.L.Oz ?.N'.E.. . . ,�-I ` • . - i3�o.F.. ,/ / 4c7m F 47,Q80SF ?y • UNIIT C -.1 -- b 1 —i :7•41'ITE 999.9n 990-- ' —' — / 1»•••r• .l .r.`` T L` \, \ �_— --. — Y.I•t•o..1•..•••••N...Mtr'II;M I•y I1 Z. e Lo-r �IzE 5Eb OH ID' MIN. \ • R , -- - . .., . -.... ...,r STI E T' P tz•o N TA.G e 4=—FFS -'►�N, •, \ 1 `,` I I DATE M1 ARCH INCH • SO FEEL,/ I!EDIU UAW GATE:: MARCCH 13. 1989 9 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY PROVIDED•Y OWNER REV Ilrly WI•••rly ••■ll• SHEET 2 OF 6 OAK VIEW HEIGHTS EXISTING CONDITIONS `- ,o, ,,,..yp�ya ! LEGEND .-_ t 44' • C^N* ' i. '� t {•..r •�14 GASMAIN -G- -- v `�y�"'J' �, , R '•'- WATENMAIN --W- IJIJ / ---- 887.41'48' 1128 46 i C SEWEHMAIN -5- / �I / MANHOLE -•7-- 5'I 1 1111111 Il1// // F }I 1 _///„/__ II,I 1 1 ! - — , / /./ / EXIST CONTOUR--9.0— 1 1111 I / LLASS B' WETLANDS i7 I //i (r�/I \\ /ll 1 / I ----x—rte' . IIII I I / // J 1 / 1 1 / i I x EXIST. OAKS O Oil III I` 1 11/ / ' /�//i '. -!/\R{ \ W1 111 I _ /� /_ POWER POLE {Y ' II 'hi' I / / / / / /6 !�/^ 1 1 1 1 1 // ---.- / I FENCE -7- -1 I III. Ar ) / ..- i'//�/ //// .-Ji/�1 111 I 1 1 ♦\ / -. J / it (I III n�Nit // �, i i //,i;//i i-- ,'' ,, , I I /'�o�.a ;'/ e I �.- , , J 'cc h.J11 Ifll (r / / - ..///i' a// ^Y' �' /7i I 1 1 1 I 1 • 3 II 1 51 1 y J7 / / /.��iSvF 1:y-._ 'a y...I - 1 / fY \\ J III// Il kJ/// i //'��. 1rt?' `µ'•;-- �.'� I i~ ' \ I o I I 11111 i. /;/////,%/'/i i / _ - - - i , /' ■ \I 1•. a I su ill 111 1i 1 // /ii/ z,,,,-,- -; ,.5s �-..as''' f // i ! ■ Y♦ r ' ,l IIII II / ///� //'� '�►!,/'"�-_•- �` ,.•/ ! / \ I ,- I II I111• IIII III /I / // ///'//%'', /,',/ / / / c;`. \\ °t"_ / C3 \ ll Ilpi,l /I •R�w •/ I I Y/ sl/• ///. �-- / ' -_\..„•\\`\---' ,,',/,-..__S.,\\ '\,- / i/ �� II 111'1111 / // / /I/ / / // /// /f,��'Q`,'F / '�' -\� �_/ / \ �� -__'/I / - II14 / I 1 11l Ill 1 17//// /'/�%�- -- -_/ /--- \ J/ / / I I :I 1111 /1 / 1 / I II I1 // ' /1///// -------.`\ \\ �� _``\ �- \ 1 i 2 II II1111111� I f 11 I II / J''/!�! //% : - - - _ _ II 11IIIII� I IIII II II jj)' �1 // / -- ! � \\ \\ - ///,./- ,Q I I I I 1 11 /.' '^F \ - ///-.----\ \ \ �ne. I/ r� WEST VILLAGE II III 111114! [ I / 1 I i1 I'', II,//I(J, /! l / / \ - »//, \\ ` \ \ / 5 _, I 11 111 I f 1 ! J, I III; I J 1 J J, l/l / \\ \ 1 ', /� -, I II �11 II ./ I / Il1 ,,, �,1i I„,// !1/ / \.�- �_ /� �.\\ `. !/ ` -- `�/ ,(•'y'vi�HiJI,. /...,T. ii,,,,,,,, ,.. i.,.I 0I 11/1,11,1 ,1 / /// ///4 ///// ill i1„/ // l/ ��- 1 - - • VIII, ///, e, i,/, 7, 7 ,1,, /, I 1 °-�- �. ♦ � 4 [ iY' ��\ i i I dVIII / 7/ /, ,//j n, l l! 1 __,- - \\14,‘ �- I I 1 / o II'I 111 // ; ////%�,i/ ,/ , I„� lil ---- - d 1 1 1, II 111111 ��/�/ /////„ // , //I! 1, I I � � 82438E SF \ ,'\ Jw�■ ___ I 1 1 I Ill i '%'i/// i//D ii /I „g/ /I I 1 \\ / 16.925 A.C. /-- \ �r-( = ----^ I I 1 ::RE- I PARED FOR.■ 11111 �j'•;',////// 'ii 1 ! l \ --, 0 I /: __ ,.� _ __ ' I i 1 CE{.VESCO• I 11 //- -.� - /i�//�j/ 1 \ - \ 1 1 / r- 1 U.".4/''\ ``\ `\ - -- ----- 1` - ` I 1 1fi50 ANNAPOLIS LANE Q -/ -/% __ .'/ // I ` \ ` �♦ -`\ ` 1 l I ♦\ \\ - - \\ 1 / 1 / 1 / {'I YH.Il11 H, MINNESOTA /.ijC: // l \ t \ \ 1 / ! / PMONC 16121 559-3650 • „ w l I /�/I//// I r 1 1 Y\\ \ ♦\ \ 1 1 \ I ,' /' -\ I \ - \ I I I l - r IIl loll \ (/ 11 \ \ , 1 • __,� I / n,.s \ - 1 I/, / / Z< I I I,I 1111`I\. •� --'i�.-�•�—L. • \ ,1 I. 1 , \ / I - \\\\ I 11 ! / // 1 1 I Ili \ \ 11 r 1! / / w I It • ♦ \ \ \�\ -r�►�:-__- 1 111 / r I III 11. \ \•\ \ • \^. ♦ \ \ \ - --\ \ \` \- - ��' \ / ! i,11 / / / • 1= I I 11,1 \ \\\\\`. - `` \. \ \ \.- - \\\\ ``��_ _- ��- \__-/” l „ ,/ / I+NEI•a REO 81'C c7 I Ill �i I I 1 i , 1'i • i `:-\;\�`\ = �� \\\ ,�)\.I c' _2uloi�-- - /'--------- ,r:/'l f�EDLUND PLANNING 1 ■1 \ ` - _ - . ( ` _ _ _ ;/ ENGINEERING SURVEYING I I VIII I ` 1 i, c-. C _< L_— Pi 1 - __-- -----:........,,‘\ �\ \• / / \01 9201 EAST BLOOMINGTON FREEWAY � I I II'", -_-_--- _ _ _ _ = _ - _�� `;I'� \ �\\ // / Oy♦, ELONL N612N MINNESOTA 55420 1 1 / 6NON, f6121 66-0285 1 _ �, 1 illl \ ,/ /° Illy I /' ----------------------- ..7-7,...-11-r...7444._-----_=-__' -__-_ -- - / //'h 1 I , / '. -,95iv----- 1 IIII 111\- ~ '/ I/I I' J I r 'i\ -___- -�i 1 l' l,11 1 - - _I- _ ---I / N .r.n.,.......I.....,. .w I ' , I 1 I r n - 111 111, JV �I\-1 1 ; - _ I L_ iit, �,--, 1 11 II II, ��-. - '_.-•- - - �'I11{—' /^/�'/�/ '- it I , ;�; III �, ,,III III\ -_., V ,'I�.u�1 ..' .o lurF I - / / .r r r I I 111 --//,,// ` SCALE. 1 INCH . 50 FEET J ��-___/ DATE. MARCH 14. 1989 7/.�j„J7 L!'�n AFIT .TOPOGRAPHY BY OWNER __ REY MARCH 25. 1989 ✓tlrl ..../ ✓V TREE LOCATION BY HEDLUND MAY 3• 1989 Yl•nnrn, En.In..rrn. Ew..l.1 SHEET.]OF 6 - 1111111 I= - - 1111111 ME 1111111 IIIMII • • NM NM I I • I = MI =11 • NM NM =I • INE • • OAK VIEW HEIGHTS EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND A�--) 6ASMAM —G- 1T-1"i ' / WATENUA IN —W- 1 11IIII / • �- -- SB 7.11'1d• 11281& SEWENM4IN —S- 11111 / / / L),I I /�,/,/,/,,,,„/„.1, lil( 1 1 - - 1 • J ,�, MANHOLE —�-- !Pill II I /14.5*CLASS •B- WETLANDS // I / I I t / 1 �� / / [KIST COATWR—.40— I I IIIII IIII I1 1 ' //,;-,...-='-'6 I 4, ‘,,,l, III I I f 1 I , 7• , - EXIST 04K5 0 ill II/ / / / / ,(/___� I J II II I�l� I fI 1 / �i/,//, / -�!/ I I�I II l 1 1 L� i / ------` /f ; POWER FOLE # CO ^x1 Ir 2/r/, ,_, , I , , I `�� __�__' f J / FENCE —,-� H He / % //'�// --/`- -//1 1 1 I 11 i I`(' �d. r / .¢ JII 111111/1 // / / /'/ ,�;" --,-;--',/,,/%/;', ---'%r' 1 1 ' I 1 i t\ ` J 1w II IIIII, /� // , /;.;7 f��i/i _ - ,7 ) �� 1 \ \\ CI 1 II vl') / f1 // , ///�/// %.%•°.09. ,:' �• 1 - \—'/' l / f"‘ '\ i' \I \1 1 _ ∎all/1 Ail 1 / 1 //,'�/�///- i,/j� --_ ' ; �('�)\�.�\ ) f,- / I III II:1I11iy / / /.//!f�/� ///�, �i' ' i //"� ♦ j / '�?``L\ ♦♦ /,I, f , ' / III III 1111 III /' •R�P+ '11Yr/ sl'. ///, ,�� '''.�—� \♦♦` ,// -- �\ \` i I 11 111'1I111• ✓/ / / i 111/ l !/ l%i// ,„"/".,',--,-----'/ // '/'�-`„ ,'�, \\ '� .---- I f 3 I I) ili NI�l I 111 / IIII I I/ l/ , /• /////,////7,- -;-------'',:\`\�-- , `♦ �- ` ( , . II 1 111 11 11 II l ,'/7�/ � '� ♦ ,' /' . , �I I IIII1IIf I / , - --- C II II 111 //III it is, 1j/� ,i,,, /%, ,- @.. .. // -,\\ \l )o... / - -� �J/r--�- VILLAGE I III 1111 I I/ I 7 / / / o..t `♦ . ; \ \\\.../// 1 ..C_s1' II JII 111�1i1 I , j lI/ I 1 J, I ji If ;11/11/11/17/%i 1 / ♦ -- i /�-\`\ •�\ 1 / '( z* . -- 111 I / 1/ ! //, //////1/7, 1 7// �.� - / •\ '- `\� __/ /1.• ,., ,I •„vi.i�{t;l,l',F j „ I{''11111 / I, I/ l�/ /��,�� r;/, / 1 R i/I/�� -�/ - �-. `ft i `\\•” ',,--- C 1.c, 1 III, ` I / / I//// // / ,, ,, - 0UT,LOT : , , \ \ N. —7—�== I '.I1f IIII II , /// /l/ ,/,/,,.,,,',„,,,y i i /� /l I _ ��— 1 \, / - I — lfl 11� {/ rf , , ,1/r /r 11 1 1(�} �t / �`\ 10 _ ,111111 ////6'7/ � // r I�I1,7 /7 / `�\ __�� \ i ��J ___ 7 7 i o 111 II1 ,,/7 ///,,/////i,,,/,' ,,,/, 7 r/,11 17 / I _ _ ♦, I' I , , -_- _ Z I I r ' 7 / 1 'Ak EA. -- Y 'f \_ 1 1 I I I I ..Ii II y// /� A/// //ii ' l rr7 ff 1, , 1 629386 SF �♦ \ ♦ _ I 1 1 II'�-) // /// , / // r7 7/ I I , ( \ , 16.925 A.0 t i0// // / , / I 1 1 \ ♦ �\ \\- ` - I I 1 r77E1 AR£D FOR a I I 1 Il i:' ,/i/ i/i/ 1 1 1 ` 1 \ /-- �.\ \\ ♦ _ 1 1 I = I I Ili ,/ i /'. / �;/i// \ \'\ 1 \I i / , _ 1 I i 1 CENVESCD I1--,,,;, - ,/,', // , . ` •s ■ I \ / Y 1 `Y-' ` \'' --- ___-_--\� I / 1 IE50 ANNAPOLIS LANE • II , /-5 )--•"!:.-.:-------:::///& 1 I I I '�+, 9 / I / , f•L YM IIITH MINNESOTA• W 1 II Ifr/ ' -r---.-/ f , 1 1 �\\ \ ■ 1 /�� I O \___ \ _ _ \ l / ///'� / / ! '•,♦ \ 1 1 1 \ ` � { 1 / 1 IoIONi 6121 559-3650 I- f 111(1 11 / I \ \ ` \ I \ •�i �\ / - 1 1 / 1 z a I III 11 II 1 i,` ��1 �,�,.. \\ \\ \ I 1 - I ..s \I\ -� \\ 1 1 1 / 7 to I iI lit(III 1i\.\,\\\\\\\I\ \\\ \ \ `\\ \\ \`\\\♦ `.----- ____-� ` \ \��.`-r-��;-- I . I _ I I II 1 11 / /• II 1 \\\\\\ - �`T \` \`�\ \\,: `�� `\ ^ ` �7/�Il/� f/ I EI ABED 8/ •F U I I� F• 11 II \� III' �r\:� \\\ j�`� _`�o,o�! --_-_ i /�� 7 IiEDLUND PLANNING I 1'111 I I 11\ �� .\ �__c__- -- - _ / ENGINEERING SURVEYING .1 =s 1 I I III ; \ l - \�, .) c-_-- ( - Imo -_ �� -- • -� �' `��i i rill ii: ;,. I VII 'I,II`-, ,—�_ _ --_--.---Z-_-_-_:.- _ \`\\ �\ \ , i ,., Et DI.,1,01ONL OOwNNESOTAP 55420r - _--___-_ "' :111 \ \\ /,/ Cy i•nOr,: 16121 dBe-02BS . I10 11 11 r - -- � .�_- ----_- -,I I'Iii 1 \ 1 - /,�.q 1 III ' , I/ ----_ =41Z4 II II I1 I\ \ _- , •! II I 1 '�' I ,'----.. —--=_ - -- 1� �``-- , II III' II - - ` li �i III 117 Ij i1\ •io-_��1�1�I'r it \.``-.I `•�-- // //I��\I( .,.,.,....,.I �...."il..'... -- ! V / / �1 ,,�-- 1117 III, --� / III j_1,_.:::: 1/'1' II it \-_•,. 4.Irri”.Y~ �- ••1 .. I.L. • SCALE. 1 INCH • 50 FEET �,'n Z.7.7.73 DATE. MARCH !A, 1989 ./;102, .TOPOGRAPHY BY OWNER __ REV MARCH 25, 1989 TREE LOCATION BY HEDLUND MAY 3, 1989 A.,rn..r l.. Sac SHEET 2 OF 6 i OAK VIEW HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT sD j 50 WC 75 S87.41'48.6 1129 46 SS ) « A o I , r s4. 5, 1 m , IAT'AlrElr 1 s r"``� ) '4's LILs L DDfsLe G20PY800G 6 12 S 0- $ 1 .�1 $ 1 W2 $.4 $�®~F, `��'� 1 �r $e C•Pi 1 1001.E:FIILP„ED PIAI IKm-K In w W :. . 'tz$ • .° rap . couN11. Ni. sol A. 3 h ' - T yea $ A ao I /�� . ,0 •c <�' as 'a Y // \ I8 s tY ¢ �\5 u W + I 1 ii° LOT I / g�.0 2 mr 5 $ ! ��' ,- a a, s J`~ 11 x 1 /Q QS�'c /// $ T0.0''''''' S Ir`l'' -(1 O �''4 Ix A°p A4 �� / F // Q $ 4p 0 $, 5� Wr P omi D1•- Dogs s°•c• In.o SO sr. D>I•c is ) / / '- -05-4,-- e $- l_)-11.F l.1 0 S0 Fl. SO'S AC 7e I / // /- $ Buis 7 e.ri•ll.oao s� / )4 41111 Pr 6" 1• Open . 1Pi i0o is Fl ije i[ {_ / / m•TY<l' ) - Fa 2 a b:04A 11,- IPPen°spec. is)Sb0 SO F1 •2 rC / / YTS 313•T»S m >S ';$ �l• -SI 1!m 1014 AD.-.1•nn •n• S1 5�.5o fi )e)e•C I 5 4 � 1' --- 101.L Ix.,.Da sn F 1 MO Ac I _ / $ o %) // /(/ 1-'''S 1 r 10 9e 4`` A a.E.i. rsrs.W )� lig 81 $ v{•t1• lass;n I - ss pv, ) / / )a) la 5 > 8 6eA,1' IW*N� °•0 t ____ n 1 2 / JQ4r / ) 1 1: 66 •m $ J.f 1, y„..El--46 o0 .. 1 OQ // ..... // /4.`" t ) $ 1 41111* r r,.' $i+.��l• z a Z 1 ! / 4 / ':7' 2 $ m8 .8.e.TY`tp0 O* ; / ) ( 1 CP r -a4��' ,---- ` /^� 2 2)AEi1AAEU FDA. >- / / ) / ire L1 l;tS. ` I•= I / / r / -_�Ei,1,1 a ).r l�Ni L/'a•a 1 ` r 81'•'08 s CENVESCO, INC. _� %,r - is NY 5'22'.2' ----_ llAm-------;'.i5.• OS-°, 1 1 1 smm °0m .85588 ANNAPOL IS LANE I __ Er - JEN_�"i•l �u AT 11 m 1•.).1 L CV Trl_• _-� -L� ---� rr N1 Ir E° t 1 R ¢ I�2 337111 M. MINNESOTA W I ■ _— �t*m _�_______I r___T �_ To__� ; 1 8 t. 1 8 ,1 7 PMO11E 1612) 559-3650 _391'2:ITC P.lSG�- mPrr4lm.m error lm to 1 1 ml'lt'1,4 T.''''4 b 11 8 SSm rm ,��'• G 8613-—1:11.1.•se. _12',"---- x E g x , 1 S 2x Y 1 1 A- i V) I I -1 ( Y to S Y ID Y 1 x 55m 5:m 1 �� 1 ��x F. S 1 _sJ lim LLi it-� 1 1 •I•)r1r.152m rem r• mm s 5� 1 0 4t, ffii��y1J•S 11111111/3,1 x _1 c I a°° ID ; r z 11 4 mm mm ¢ ? I [jl ± a i®1111S. ] B��5J B� f c� 4� F 2 x 111)AAEU BY �" ®I s it I xs! 6 �g • 8 @ER=s : �: `��8 '�v" Q rl•1r,r.lmm J HEDLUND PLANNING min•� 1111 ' 9 e Y S » m.m 8 s �s1 s� mm x x ENGINEERING SURVEYING b 1 s 5 ° r r 1 I., � m» rl')1'li[lum 2V»•Pl lrm Slrm $iS! m•I lmm $ «m F 'Bti 9201 EAST B500MINGTON FREE4AY s • • Y '�4;,� 81.04.MINGTON, MINNESOTA 55420 I OW u•v,10°m s ,'p°i PHONE 1 612) 988-0289 T.6 �° �' OUTLOT _. 81.12'1:,S." B ,h: 581.41 43.6 999 94 POTEt 8 sup 2 5 P•I.•.••n 111,173''''''.••.• /E ei Pn1 15.•8.8.n.e•Ina le•• 001354[. P-12 10160 0155577 PESIDf011AL1 p' n •ns•n tnu•.° el 719.57.7•.f ni I•• {fF PACA At 04,1E 4[x15 O1 SE1b A4.12: --'�= 2 e i ire _ _�. D.n3...-,C}�- PuoAS[51SEC1 _x5 1,11 J•1 n I•n, 0I0d No, 14])6 AL. 511.•4[, •25 1111 ---}-_-J L_-_!-_- CD(YANOASUM., -I4 FEET v--Y 695,1 )05350 SC 1bA[•ANO E•sf NE NI 3 NA1505 mm Ym 1 1 - °NOr30 I1 7 CI13 0)[naNNA55(A 5 e 5 Y ••In5 6 1«i 5 n 6.1.111.3 505100•D 151155 SMALL 50 PROVIDED 570,0,5,70, 5 555.el.inin SCALE: 1 INCH - 50 FEET -7y r. ACROSS IN[ 5sOcu£1N DORA.LARD s --.1[1.r.,., . 7,1165: s DATE. MARCH 14, 1989 J'- •1 7�J� 0Tw•O5o FOP 1MC TO.ANOUSL NoNEO•NEFS •1•• •5561•n tn••1.1. .pin. yl :ui50k 00LUDCN11110N. a E...•.nl w REV MARCH 25. 1989 81.11215 EnPIn...In1 s.rr•)Ins 0 n 8,00.7 s°r :::::::',X7«•s•••5 ur•n•n MAY 3, 1989 Even 97.4E SMEFT 3 S3 6 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — MS = E NM ME I NM = MI NM IIM MI `" OAK VIEW HEIGHTS .i _ PROPOSED GRADING.. EROSION CONTROL, AND DRAINAGE PLAN �1 I r ! r WOOD FIBER BLANKET(,yp) / - - sr.is' R EROSION CONTROL FENCE III 4IIIII 1/ / / I It / / / „ 1129 I9 �—�RETAINING WAIL � / o lli,/ ic � 'I IV / ///—i i /� =— '�//' Sn� l �'� /1 JI lI / /,--, .,--:::Z_-.-=---:.--- , -;%,,/, =;:_-_,_./ i ' aj+/ • �r' r.F./ooe , a I Iii) X111 It1s / / ///�/��ii ' iii%�' :;'� tiylO• vF 1,ogs °°'� �1♦ - _/III ', R I / I) l l /� /J�/// i////��J� •�ttt _ \ •� �.F.to� 7,a;--L-----.:T-..-1-_-- I II I, 1 I �II III f rll/ '//it,/2/i/ -1�.4e - ..Y \ .••'°_ ....... �. .0 (fi,/ / I'I I I Ili II)/ /1/47 /'/u, .,/ ...ONT•- I I I;III#11 I ' I) I I 1 I I1 l�/ /• ;• ''N' '� \�• ERUSION`CONT CONTROL DETAIL III IlP I II I I 11/1111)///71//l i // '••i/' Ay+• 16-- —_ — rr,` '\ b----F 1008 / _ ' LL—/I0 . ) )II )/, //1/// ,1%.11/1/,1 l••"%I / ��,1% `-' I�\ 1P� °!' PP I / l l ///// // 1'l1 f+/ 9 l \l �� / �// i'tr,/. F.F ,DDa � 1 I5�1'� III f/ /// /////,%////,,,,'',„'/i1' 1 /11 �`, �\`` �'' .x�•••• _ � . o I I'1 r III //,p//// i r. �i - „.,,,,,a , •• w` y 1 i•I i �i,t\ ,/,'/i/// //..".),/,/// / // ///: 4 4 .�,*•i~ ,� : I I PREPARED FOR. - = I I I 1r.11, .;q� '�%!''-' 4,.. E.,,�, y ��.L�a��..mo. - $ I 1 CEIJVESCO. INC. ��TYrC/•, j. ��r 1r ' Q I '�C ` y• Iv ( "V'.' o4, y/ 1 li(R. A1E121 IS LAN[ � :-1. 11 _— ' ) `s•". � I 11 �'LYIJUTN, MINNESOTA malistai- , ._ • •••V A. ��1 T••tloo. IIt/0nE 1612) 559-365D tri---90 i-_ > 1 bo _� ; ti Or 'Y sr r�F ,- va sc.F_,oy2, ��• dui/,,, /; r / �t = I I yr• s4-.� _ ti��`l �.i,E.3?=; \ ' -_� ` _....,,,,i 1 r/ PREPARED BY • L U I 1 1 t l,A`F.F.oes,B'� •� g. ` 411 , j, ` ` _ ,/ / I • e :.- �.,� m.�' HEDLUND PLANNING • I I r%I I I / :\� ��1\`J ! __` =_ C_, ,,_/.,,:.• ENGINEERING SURVEYING -�' I -4---...;.;_-.....,...,...-........:. �; '`02 •1701 EAST B.OOMINGTON FREERAN , I ,J.IJ.AA•Jt.•JJ.JI`.JJI�J•'.•. •'��JrA`S',_ J - ---- -,'�J"'_ �, A, NI Or NING10N, MINNESOTA 55.20 AD I t a1 6 /•_____ J'�� - _ -�\ • �•j pa+ PHOr.E 1 6121 986-0289• • I 11 ILi 1 / r----��--� ..............� ',`�_.io- -- 1j1,,,,, II�•-^••••\`••.•=T.6•.�. �: w - 1 1 1 :1--/ I;I -•III I III I : ...r uw• •.• I l f 1 I 1/ Ili I l\y`�__---- _--1�,1 I,III1;' ---EROS=ON-GO`T=Ot-FENCE-�-• ••/ N •f ln..t.t••i�,e. • rlr I AP 11 I1 1� [ E III _-1Kt8--- I,1II Ij11\� _-- ^�_ ` - -. / \ ' i I ti; y!i r rl, ` ---. I I III I 1\ �""=-"-� -- - - _ C.�Fa-4.1,.. I ' `� I 1 „ou w. Tun I: // /---� .-, • SCALE 1 INCH • 60 FEET ' ' �P- -..'T• C.:77.47'''�s2—, :.-, _.- .. '- ..-s,•:n,•cr,•. s+ .. DATE. MARCH 14, 1989 (J REV MARCH 25. 1989 eq.,,.,4 p„ ul•.N,v • - !EN LANE STREET SECTION - ,. __ _ ' MAY 3, 1989 1• • - - NO SCALE SHEET OF 6 �Yi�.w- 1 i. _ :L=.,.... r_•_,._-... - - .... _ ___5..�.�.-. ._ >. _ _ __.a.___-. / _ _ . .. • ..1 • BAK VIED LIEIGUTS e. :I i► SITE DATA I �` 6� J ZONING/COMP PLAN LAND USE '- q Eal st Zoning R-l2 8 0 �� >A Proposed Zoning P U.D. m +' �{ •� �, CITY Designated Lana Use High Density Residential / Proposed Designated Land Use - No Change o - / r- BUILDINGS COVERAGE - /f BUILDINGS I / ///// J/% Total Townhouse Base Area 105.612 S.F ■ I1! rig I v v v o 6 /V DENSITY' �w lownnouse Units 132 -.!,1 I Proposed Apartment Units 70 - r/ Blks 7-11 and Outlot A 11.29 DU/ACRE a Blks f- 6 and Outlot B 9.25 DU/ACRE Block 12 (Future Apartments) 12 DU/ACRE F F DE -� . OVERALL SITE UNIT. NSITY 11.48 U/A • PRELIMINARY PLAT DATA (rut lot A - Open Space 148.415 SO,FT 3 41 AC. elks 7-11- Platted Lots 90.400 50,FT 2.08 AC Outlot B - Open Space 169.891 SO,FT 3 90 AC. Blks 1-6 - Platted Lots 103.200 SO FT 2.37 AC. Block 12 - Open Space 253.880 SO Fl 5.83 AC. T otol P.S.N. 58.618 SO.F1 1.34 AC. S I TE PLAN Total Gross Area Total net Area 824.404 SO,FT 1B 93 AC sacc r-rod 765•BB6 S0,FT 17 59 AC PARKING PROVIDED(For 140 Townhouse Units ErCtosed Overflow - 176 rHc TARED FOR alslior' - 40 Future T Yr r �U ).r TOTAL PARKING SPACES - 423 CENVESCO, I NC. %�I' ill ��I .�r.5, ArJNAPOL 15 LANE I':- lHOIlE U TH. MINNESOTA 55444 PHONE (612) 555-3650 n — �\ iII�1 INDEX II .'r7(PARED Sr •-r Y�� ! LJ L, 1.1 COVER SHEET SITE , T °0° ."°,^Da C]� HEDLUND PLANNING a 1 L- 2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C �� — °f�� -❑C ENGINEERING SURVEYING S , "}I--jJy" R. 3.) PRELIMINARY PLAT — --- — -- �ICUi...--IL__j 9.201 EAST AIODMINGTON FREENAY J ` ei Or�MINGTON MINNESOTA 55423 o a 4.1 PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL PHONE I6f 2) 6d6-W d9 ' / \ 000 /i AND DRAINAG"c PLAN. 5.) PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN Or Olhosl �_ �/ 6 ) LANDSCAPE PLAN •2O" n..Ir•44444 trrna Sy,,,,,,unDer rho loos pr ith Slaro Or Nis... LOCATION MAP wo SC ALE DATE. MARCH 14, 1989 ir v1_7.1r Cjv2 REV MARCH 28, 1989 ..•""."c char"..mF F„r•e I"o MAY 3. 1989 NM MN — MI — — MI — MI — — INN — MI 1111. NM .111111 Mill 11.11 OAK VIEW HEIGHTS `° �° 1 "�Y LANDSCAPE PLAN I�s I ` t 4'111. 11E 1-p• Q yb• 4 ae_ 4..... •• FellIk.' ..'-?' ' A .„).; a Vii• .* v mss) % �NUr-C4oPIJUACII 6uRUC EED' S , //O \\ , ,� ...FS, NDO CC.GD.'SwrUD CI) I L • 0 I �J L.,fa.,F^P.�D(9) 0y /�'�� /�' / 411 / °� Et t ,r.-.,r�..nrR u.,ocr.a 1 6 1 S ,/ ,.0.• --' �— / .r ~ ��J i 1"11" ■ I (�urq D.?NUDCI) W I // 1 1 -TUNPE 11•pµ1 __�. IN W F e __- ,", I I �e.ar ow.m /// / r1e�'41 3f`,. i b• 0 , � 111.1. .•.-.._• .w.(z-) I ~ r e1lz.,uar� ! cv..rEr'Ti"fRCE I a I / / / e''� I': 1e.I- �,y 3 mPD _ ��' (rn;r45 R 5"D) N. I I , Q , ,r - 01 4 3 1 '2 �'-.-1.Pz (v� na,tee, o Z I // �/ // �4 ,e� y��. /.`' i0H .(E 1": _, cc,o�w RUp ) >- I / '� `/ �' '� �� ,3' �I Tr.y 2'wP C --JN r / I. �� ttelJl� t�tr /�� I I u..E O I ,f (T'� I ��a_r .PP___ .Db AR 1 a (v.!'J\ • z,P.� JENNYf fE� \ :P.� :.r 1-ee,1 T. r q �' "� '111 �� TYPICAL ENTRANCE PLAN r If I :16°11 f..... . < I 1 t �' `r I I 1111 16 i •I�1 ,.{E FARED FoR do> I r # iro Or se LOr a Or 111� AG) CENVESCO. INC. l' Y - � ' om, w 1,51 ANNAPDI IS LANE 711E Fn �� 2aR 'O'f1:;1UTH, NIt.NESDTA La 1 CS. l�r 'r e� „))-)0),E 1612) 559-3650 e pT a�117 w; r 1��]i! "i!p / 'Sf•I �i� , e I�J V161TDR /LKII-W(TYP)4'.lei r.Jl.•'�� 4-'fG '/ 21. ` SY I r'c u�', 3•T 3_PP 1-- 2-aR 2-P C t I-a1. 4.-IE .'RE.ABED 61' HEDLUND PLANNING FT x I �Irt.Dn 411 I DD,� �2 COMM we 41r D _ 11 ENGINEERING SURVEYING „^ 4.'"t TIC ••I Ir.W;L�a M1V•tt Ora ROW. n P S D D facia.4 52.10[011°L.A.,�c�,nn°u..O . - , - k GP °F.`A CA,•• -912 LIrt.1.1 25 4AL in 00 ;:;:;°11.11°1° i°.` 7. .D .aao ry O TRt TO.1• r:rur uati*v ,r. " s. PICT ; DD WIT ve<er.unc wsno� E`er !.'�1 EAST BI JH NESDN FREEWAY .F, `�Ir�c¢`P.. ax��caD•�"e is I �I�"Le CAM rwv:.ew r.•.- �woKC Im Ix 7..a HI O,•NIICGT DN NINNESDIA 55420 mrrvn.c T. I c:c Ir1.`.4 .nµ o1•D (,.,c 1.c�H� rau rca u.,I T- PHONE'+.-,c .w� s DD D 11) L.,.I,. Fs,c ,---1,......,H.) 1 (6121 tfBE-02fi5 en..n.. 1.720 a T D D um.INSac 110, Iria c,vm.,7�yT• ��M«I,�r c', 1� a ® 1 CENTER UNITS 1 et Kr r RL Gr.tcTt iC 1 ]IN.Af.(2-W E T rJ,iD-Jl"+,n5t21t<11 tm(Xa,fiAGr 114 171 1t D D I W>�..LI UNIT o°tr.•.g�.` D n mom" btnrn7 nery1W .rµ4:7',"2o70;Kr C `m wor4�%t t �_�T \ r•..I• Ir.n.4 n , r.1• YltS1,814.0.6.ar.lol tor U. c1aD u `ry1 .I ..(•.� • ILb1,Of..Y ,152-1 6..t,^C Ic'T Lxat IC u.n� L�w a 101117•win Ina nIcc a71 .c .1°.c D IC I. Ca L1 1)I( U ......I..c `'Ip ,I � 10 r e. I7� 1- YYY .• 0.7,.....:...:o i iD ,w,•0onr"1wn.c1: TOOT I Teom•.•"rmw.�`.1..2 . Na a: D e (I )) END UNIT ru..nl .,r.n,r.s/ _ I•. Hip AI.e;11.`.:i 'r1l tai luiui roer�c pnn Wr I r''''T1 . . w cc I [LUR.e CAC Gn4.�.E a � �Qi��"••O�T1I.. nK.:iil .or T 1^-'1 v�n°.� 4 1+,. 1 10-A z� y (PO✓.P.r.-Ny .5454>rwc. PLANTING DETAIL �... .... 1..n t 'wlni a.. __ D. .•..I 12.0 UNI7) �I 111 °7■0 rwer� nu 1111 ay cc SCREE. 1 INCH • 50 FEET J �1. ic wccl"' 11m ii11u Kd PI.I6 iix:o rlrE ac I i c c • DATE. MARCH 34, 1989 ^ ---/^�n 7 V,"n3 C.) 1 MoCT1I7 sx -w see Tees TD Awn.in D In 1.....111,rw I REV MARCH 25, 1989 •I iJ•.11..�`7 •� Teo • wnD1iES m I:u s os,clr�aTC1tS1 TYPICA! PAR3LING DF7AIL MAY 3. 1989 vu°1,111. e,1om..nn. s...°,p. SHEET 6 Of 6 1 OAK VIEW HEIGHTS , PROPOSED UTILIITIES c • sD I i0 I 587'I1'I8'E II28 IB TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL co ix Alp ,,,,,, ,. r s \\,..„4„ . T ..... ,,e.. .... , :i / // 1111'19;;;'''''' Vt �•PY 1M4^ �,` J ~�\I e.oeayy .., . " ___......lil / I � / Ly) A . s6 // 1.: •/ �' �-T— W --— L ' } I r / T� Cl‘ .. -- .nc AAED FOP = I I rCENV ESC INC !ff#1� I \ . le \ .6 . 1 Z K, .,...: .c I a ,AEG wl ` i HEDLUND PLANNING /,u ti,f1C•E 116121 tl6dN02897A 55420 SB/• P 43•E 999.54 .°A s nor.,coral?, rho?'hag*rah was or Ir.Stato of mi • SCALE f INCH ■ SD FEET i :— ,,uj uen -4;T:hc I 437r '''±±±�� DATE. MARCH 14, 1989 ill 1,437 U�. 3 REV MARCH 25, 1985 E.o. s„r..Ylna MAY 3, 1989 al".�� SHEET 5 OF- 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 PE 509 345.61.0(41 1 , 1•0111Wei 4 ‘11 i I fti_ tei ‘to,N,%<\ \ - b 4 1- Ki "� , 1 � - N - ? II I A o \ S,ltNn 4-1 Y ', coy Z b t ° ki Ts. Ai ei_ 2___ _ .�li, 0 I r Q Cr v 1 -D-- ‘04: ‘ - .4-ti. I W �_ ? `fir i Sli NC1 al �� :ilimeal 14* b 1- -i- = - 4 . , .• , 0 Ito _ 0 . < . \\ Ck Id cit,m CA 0 i z 1 ti`s \.0 \ V Ill O _ _ \ ry�yr \ t tocr a � \ b` \ I ' \ \,_ gy m, IPA .. _, , , c„ , \ , , t $5 --. 04, = k\ ID 0 7 1 -I 3 Q d 4- �- - 1--I -, A, I fW W a-to O Q c,� 0 t ----- ,_a ...r.1-- - ravuaa 1---- a u,.—Sfairitii,a-a 661EL 3di.LE.6Q1 a _ _ _ I ( OA1 S13MOd) L i 'ON AMH 0I V 3101S AIN1100 a T • I I • 3 C I T P.C. DATE: April 19 OF X989 w r ,G QO [7© C1 C.C. DATE: May 8 , 1989 II K,--Y1 -7 _�` CASE NO: 8 9-1 PUD 88-15 Site Plan Prepared by: Olsen/v II i �� I STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: A. Planned Unit Development Concept and Development Plan for 140 Individually Owned Townhome Units B. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a Holding Pond and Stormwater Discharge into a Class B z ' Wetland Q C. Site Plan Review for 140 Individually Owned Townhome II Units '—'1 LOCATION: r Between Kerber and Powers Boulevard, Approximately ? Mile North of West 78th Street II APPLICANT: Cenvesco Hedlund Engineering 3650 Annapolis Lane 9201 E. Bloomington Frwy. Plymouth, MN 55441 Bloomington, MN 55420 II ,1 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: 18. 9 acres ( gross) 17. 6 acres (net) II DENSITY: 7. 7 units/acre (net) ADJACENT ZONING ' AND LAND USE: N- RSF; Saddlebrook S- BG; vacant II rIE E= R-12; townhomes II Q W- R-12; vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer is available to site. II PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has steep slopes on the north and (f� west side of the property. It contains a Class B Wetland and has heavily vegetated areas. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: High Density I 1 II \`! i i Li .1 E T-"!� r 4 I , 1#7,�z� J J�1t 'sk a�11111114,,/ ------P.'"7-.§.-' ' I ' --Mllrr---•iL___.,..Lrr_r_ ..—_—,_.„,\ 4,:.. r • _ / 4,g 44 I ...., L______, ,,.:„.,....„,..,, ,. ......414...1 ..,, 1 . ,\ ...,, , ._0 ,_- .„..; . ''' Ic, Q, _ `r—��i —°'� Mi �7I� .—\- •A • `:' /1-- C.....2„\ I _.) II , —"I,:::0 cs -'"/ - • ,: , • \. •- ---'-- --7\ RD ' i i i ,.-fit: ' !� '. I \ , -- ` /.I tan ii, . iii z O T II� <;—_- a . a ,,,1 R ___ .RO 1-v ® .:4 aL? asi lid �11�:aLal V``� 1 • 1 d� c 4 y^�1) i ',< ___y+ I. ,i Xi IN t il .'")r \ 3 I/ i !t ! I!___77_1_, thl , , ..i, 6.44 c .--) -,- i 1 _ -,--odp I , , ' . _ . } ) (71 H._i 71-17: - , . , , „ ., ., ii -------- .____, ..,, y1c , , , i , 1 . ,h.i { �--.� L�'1;� x!11 •. �r 1 ,,,�,� . as 1 „...%4` _ � 7 1 . If 1---c ---14-to-i cP Pcx_-) a- ^ +P - _I ,.L ^ ,_._. h`�> R :�era west/f i 4 i I , _dm th! —1_,L../"..4"`"1044, . .2-._Irr., / '!A Rp i CUITE / ■ C • Inn OE 1 PARK I �" ..� ` C WT s P ORNE l✓� ��1 2.f IF \ c �Ac1 - S IGHWAY ' = � v_'4'44\ _____--4--- 1 7-E. LJ 1 0. ,-- \ ' ) i A'0 itettb, ..,.. - : .4 Egli A!. • IN Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS — Section 20-504 ( c) PUD - for uses other than single family detached structures , conditioned upon the following features being provided: 1. Preservation of natural site features , wetlands , lowlands, wooded areas, etc. not protected by the State Department of Natural Resources or city ordinances. 2 . Creation of public areas for active park use or other public purposes such as schools, park buildings , etc. , which meet the intent of the Parx and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 3 . Installation. of public improvements designed to serve areas beyond the project boundary. 4 . Installation of off street pedestrian ways. 5 . Structure design conducive to solar energy features. 6 . Landscaping plan showing additional boulevard trees , rear yard treatments , buffers from existing developments, etc. beyond the required standards. Section 20-518 allows the applicant to apply for the concept stage and the development stage of the PUD process simultaneously. Article XV, R-12 Districts requires a townhouse unit to have a minimum of 3 ,600 square feet per unit and a minimum street fron- tage of 150 feet per lot (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #2 ' Public Safety Attachment #3 Park and Recreation Attachment #4 Watershed District Attachment #5 Carver County Attachment #6 Building Department Attachment #7 ' Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 3 ' CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PLAN The applicant is proposing to construct 140 individually owned ' townhome units . The proposed site contains 18 . 93 acres and is currently zoned R-12. Since the townhomes will be individually owned, each unit will have to have its own lot. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 19 . 93 acres into 140 lots ' with the remaining site being proposed as Outlot A and B, Lot 1, Block 13 , Lot 1 , Block 14 and public right-of-way. The indivi- dual townhome lots range in size from 1, 200 square feet to 2 , 000 ' square feet. Since the proposed lot areas are smaller than the required 3 , 600 square feet per townhouse unit, the applicant must receive PUD designation to allow the smaller lot areas. The applicant is requesting PUD concept and development plan approval simultaneously as permitted in the ordinance. ' Site Characteristics The site currently contains mature vegetation on the easterly, ' northerly and northwesterly edge of the property. Also in those areas are steep slopes exceeding 13% and a Class B wetland located in the northwest portion of the site. Pr000sed Development The applicant is proposing the individual townhome lots to oe ' located in 12 blocks that range from 10 to 16 lots . Six of the blocks will oe located north of Jenny Lane and six blocks will oe located south of Jenny Lane. Seventy-two of the townhomes will ' be located north of Jenny Lane and the remaining 68 units will oe located south of Jenny Lane. Outlot A will contain the common open space around the townhome parcels north of Jenny Lane and Outlot B will contain the common open space around the townhomes south of Jenny Lane. Lot 1 , Block 13 is provided for a future apartment building and Lot 1 , Block 14 is also provided for future development. ' Density The total acreage for the site including right-of-way is 18 . 9 ' acres . The net density removing the right-of-way of Jenny Lane is 17. 6 acres . The net density of the parcel using 17 . 6 acres is 7 . 7 units per acre. Seventy-two of the townhome lots are located ' within Outlot A. The total acreage of the 72 lots and Outlot A equals 5 . 6 acres. The net density of the 72 units north of Jenny Lane, just using Outlot A as the boundary would be 12. 8 units per ' acre. The remaining 68 townhome lots which are located south of Jenny Lane and within Outlot B have a total acreage of 5 . 2 with a net density of 13 units per acre. Since Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 are separate parcels which can be developed in the ' future , the number that actually reflects the density of the pro- posed townhomes is the 12 . 8 and 13 units per acre. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 4 As the site is currently zoned (R-12 ) , the density would not be able to exceed L2 units per acre. Since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development, the city may permit an increase in density in exchange for the applicant exceeding the minimum requirements of the ordinance. Impervious Surface As with the density calculations, staff calculated the impervious surface by taking the total acreage of the two outlots and the total of the townhome area divided by the total area of the impervious surface within those areas . The total acreage including the outlots and townhome parcels equals 10.77 acres. The total acreage of the impervious surface equals 5.32 acres for a total of 50% of impervious surface. The R-12 district permits a maximum impervious surface of 35%. In calculating the lot coverage, staff did not include Lot 1 , , Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 , since they will be separate parcels with the potential to be developed in the future. Again, since the applicant is pursuing a planned unit development designation, the amount of lot coverage could be negotiated between the applicant and the city. Setbacks ' The PUD ordinance does not specify setbacks for either single family or multiple family developments . On sheet 5 of the plans the applicant has shown the typical setbacks of the R-12 District which is 25 foot front and rear setback and 10 foot side yard setback. All of the proposed buildings are within the required setback. There is one area where the driveway and parking areas are within the 25 ' setback ( northeast corner - Sheet #5 ) . As part of the PUD approval, the Planning Commission and City Council, can determine whether or not the setbacks being provided by the applicant are adequate. The City has been con- sistent in requiring the typical setbacks to be maintained. Streets , Utilities , Etc. ' The townhome parcels will be serviced by a 50 foot public street right-of-way (Jenny Lane) . Jenny Lane will connect the site with ' Powers Boulevard ( CR 17) and Kerber Boulevard. Individual blocks and units will then be serviced by private drives from Jenny Lane. The 24 foot private drive servicing the 72 units north of Jenny Lane will also act as a fire lane. The Fire Inspector has reviewed the proposed private drives and has confirmed that they will provide adequate access for fire and emergency situations ( Attachment #3 ) . The applicant will provide a homeowners assoca- tion document which will provide ingress and egress across the association common area. Oak View Heights ' April 19 , 1989 Page 5 The City Engineer will further address streets , utilities, grading and drainage in his memo ( Attachment #2) . ' Landscaping Sheet #2 of the plans show the existing conditions and provide the location of the existing trees with the caliper size of each ' tree. As can be seen, there are several existing mature oak trees . The oak trees are located such that they are right in the middle of the proposed improvements and the applicant was only ' able to save two of the oak trees ( see Sheet #6) . Sheet #6 of the plans shows the landscaping of the site. The applicant is providing extensive landscaping along Jenny Lane and around the proposed townhomes. The applicant is providing several Red Oak and Maple to replace some of the trees that are being removed as part of the development. ' Although the proposed landscaping is extensive, staff is recom- mending that additional landscaping oe provided to further replace the trees that are being removed and to provide ' landscaping over and above what would typically be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with the DNR Forester and staff to determine what additional landscaping should be provided and where they should be provided. The applicant has provided a drainage easement around the wetland which includes a 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland ' ( see Sheet #3 ) . • Staff usually picks a contour to follow so it is easier to locate the ooundary. The 75 foot setback is approxima- tely where the 960 foot contour is ( see Sheet #4 ) . As can be seen on Sheet #4 the 960 foot contour would not include a majority of the vegetation which should also be preserved. Therefore, staff is recommending that the 980 foot contour reflect the conservation easement and that it be further con- ditioned that the complete stand of trees be protected. It should be noted that proposed grading will impact the northeast corner of the vegetated area and that the conservation easement of 980 feet should reflect the finished grade. Parking ' The applicant is providing two narking spaces per unit. The interior townhome units will provide a single car garage with one parking space outside and the end units will provide a double car ' garage with two parking spaces outside of the garage ( see Sheet #6 ) for detail) . The applicant is providing a total of 188 enclosed, 188 overflow ( outside garage) and 14 visitor spaces . (The total number of spaces shown on the plans include future parking. ) The 376 townhome parking spaces exceeds required parking but staff feels 14 visitor parking spaces may not be enough. One option would be to provide some of the future parking at this time. • 1 Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 6 Park and Recreation , The applicant is providing a tot lot with ark play P y equipment ( see Sheet #4 ) . The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan and recommended the following: 1. The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13, 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 2. The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an d foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within , that easement. 3 . An additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. 4 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. PUD SUMMARY In order for the applicant to receive the PUD designation, they must meet the criteria as stated under Applicable Regulations . The additional amenities required for a PUD can oe orovided in the form of trails , park facilities , additional landscaping, pre- servation of unique features and open space. ' As the preliminary plat is proposed, the two large lots, Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 1 , Block 14 will be separate parcels which could be sold and developed individually in the future. Since the lots could be developed in the future, staff is not including that acreage into the total lot coverage and density for the proposed townhome units. As a result of this , the density is over the normally permitted 12 units per acre and the impervious surface is above the permitted 35% lot coverage. To compare what would have been permitted under the ordinance with what is being pro- posed, staff took the total amount of acreage of the outlots and townhome lots , which is 10 . 77 acres, and divided that by 3 , 600 feet, which is what is required by the ordinance for each townhome unit. The result is that 130 units would be permitted on the 10. 77 acres . The applicant is proposing 140 units which results in an increase in impervious surface and density. The PUD process allows the applicant to negotiate with the city to receive over and above what is normally permitted in return for additional amenities to the site. As has been seen with past , PUD ' s proposed in the city, it is sometimes difficult for the ■ Oak View Heights ' April 19, 1989 Page 7 ' applicant to provide additional amenities over what is required by the ordinance. Any wetlands that are on the site are already protected by the city, the ordinance already requires the protec- tion of vegetation and if any is removed they must be replaced as part of the landscaping plan. The Park and Recreation Commission requires any trails and park areas that they feel are necessary. ' The applicant is proposing to develop a tot lot with playground equipment proposed by the Park and Rec Commission. The offering to provide the tot lot equipment could be considered an amenity ' over and above what would have typically been required since the area is not determined to be park deficient. One of the reasons for a PUD is to preserve unique features of the site. The site ' of the townhomes in Block 8 and 9 contain very large mature oak trees . When staff visited the site with the DNR Forester, it was felt that there would be no way for these trees to be preserved since they were in the middle of the prime buildable area of the ' site. As can be seen by the site plan, only two of the eleven mature trees can be preserved. ' Even though the applicant is providing some additional amenities, staff feels that lot coverage must still be maintained. One of the options that the applicant has to reduce the high density and impervious surface would be to remove one of the blocks of ' townhomes , preferrably in the location of where the oak trees are located, and preserve that area as open space. This would result in the reduction of the number units and lot coverage, provide additional open space while preserving unique features of the site. Another option would be for the applicant to shift the lot lines and increase the area of Outlots A and B to reduce the amount of lot coverage and density. This could be done in the form of adjusting the lot lines for Lot 1 , Blocks 13 and 14 or to remove ' Lot 1 , Block 14 completely. If Lot 1 , Block 14 was combined with Outlot B, the density of this area would be reduced to 11. 9 units per acre, but the impervious surface would still be 45% . A third option would be to combine Lot 1 , Block 14 with Outlot B and to provide deed restrictions against Lot 1 , Block 13 which would limit the amount of units and lot coverage that would be ' permitted on Lot 1, Block 13 . If the total net acreage of the site is used ( 17. 6 acres ) , and the total units proposed are used ( 220 [ 140 townhomes plus 80 apartment units] ) the net density would still be 12. 5 units per acre. Taking the net acreage of the whole site and including the future 80 unit apartment building, the total lot coverage would be 33% . For the site to ' maintain the maximum of 35% lot coverage, the remaining area ( including Lot 1 , Block 14 ) would only be permitted to increase the lot coverage by 2% . As a result, less than 16 , 000 of addi- tional land could be developed which reinforces the benefit of ' combining Lot 1 , Block 14 with Outlot B . 1 Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION PUD Concept and Development Plan ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #89-1 Concept and Development Plan for Oak View Heights as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 30, 1989" with the following conditions : 1.a.The number of townhome lots be reduced within Outlot A and/or B to reduce the percentage of lot coverage and that the reduction in townhome parcels be located so as to preserve the mature trees located in and around Blocks 8 and 9; and/or 1.b.The applicant shall adjust the lot lines for Lot 1 , Block 13 and/or Lot 1, Block 14 to provide the townhome units including Outlots A and B with a maximum impervious surface of 35% ; and/or ' 1.c The applicant shall provide deed restrictions against Lot 1 , Block 13 , Lot 1, Block 14 to maintain an overall lot coverage of 35% and a density to be determined by the city. 2 . A drainage .and conservation easement shall be provided over the 980 foot contour on Lot 1, Block 13. ' 3 . The developer shall be required to install playground equip- ment similar to that attached as part of the Park and Recreation Memo dated April 13 , 1989 and the tot lot be located in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. 4 . The 20 foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard ' and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail be constructed within that easement. 5. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way be dedicated along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. 6 . The applicant shall be required to pay 100% of the park dedi- cation fee and shall be given 100% credit on the trail dedi- cation fee. 7 . The applicant shall work with staff and DNR to provide addi- tional landscaping to replace the trees being removed. ' 8 . Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-14 and approval of Site Plan Review #88-15. Oak View Heights ' April 19, 1989 Page 9 ' 9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public ' improvements . 10. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for ' permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 11. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities . 12. The City Council should authorize a feasibility study to be ' done to facilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. ' 13. All buildings, parking and driveway areas shall meet the R-12 setbacks . ' 14. All conditions of site plan approval . l`7• On(?,- RECOMMENDATION Site Plan Review "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review ' #15 as shown on the plan stamped "Received March 30 , 1989" and subject to the following conditions : 1 . The applicant must receive a Watershed District permit and a permit shall be required from Carver County for access onto County Road 17. ' 2 . The apartment building proposal shall require a separate site plan approval. ' 3. Detailed construction plans and specifications including cicuiations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of ' the construction. 4 . A wet tap connection will rye required to the 12" watermain ' under County Road 17 . 3. The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and ' supplemental parking area( s ) provided. 6 . The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. Oak View Heights April 19 , 1989 Page 10 7. Type III erosion control shall be wrapped and maintained around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. 8 . All conditions of preliminary plat approval. ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT As part of the site plan review and the development of the site, ' the applicant must provide for the stormwater runoff from the site. Initially, it was proposed to have the stormwater directed through a disapation chamber and then into the Class B wetland in the northwest section of the property. Staff preferred to have a ponding area provided to allow for the sedimentation of the stormwater prior to it entering the Class B wetland. This option was preferred over the chamber in that it would better preserve the quality of the wetland. Therefore, the applicant must receive a wetland alteration permit to provide for the holding pond at the southerly edge of the Class B wetland. Staff has visited the site twice with the Fish and Wildlife Service and it has been determined that the Class B wetland would ' not be detrimentally impacted by the holding pond and by directing the stormwater into the Class B wetland. The proposed holding pond would prevent erosion of the wetland and would allow the sediment of silt, etc. prior to it entering the wetland. The Engineering Department and the Watershed District has confirmed that the size of the holding pond is adequate to contain all of the runoff prior to it entering the wetland. ' The proposed holding pond will be altering the most southerly tip of the Class B wetland and the remaining portion of the wetland will remain in its natural state. Since the holding pond is not totally within the Class B wetland and needs to be designed to a certain contour to enable it to contain the stormwater prior to it entering the wetland, staff is not recommending that the holding pond be designed to the six Fish and Wildlife recommen- dations. Staff is recommending that the vegetation around the holding pond be returned to its natural state and not be sod or seeded with grass . RECOMMENDATION ' Staff is recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 as shown Sheet 4 of the Planning Packet dated "March 30, 1989" with the following conditions : 1. Vegetation around ponding site and disturbed areas be returned to its natural state. ' 2 . The wetland area beyond the proposed pond shall be protected by Type III erosion control . Oak View Heights ' April 19 , 1989 Page 11 3 . Approval of PUD concept and development plan #89-1 . 4 . Approval of Site Plan #88-14. ' ATTACHMENTS ' 1 . Zoning Requirements. 2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 12 , 1989 . 3 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated April 13 , 1989. ' 4 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated April 13 , 1989 . 5 . Letter from Watershed District dated April 12, 1989. 6 . Letter from Carver County dated March 20, 1989. 7 . Memo from Building Department dated April 13 , 1989 . ' 8 . Letter from DNR dated March 28 , 1989. 9 . Letter from Hedlund Engineering dated March 28, 1989. 10. Letter to Hedlund Engineering dated March 20, 1989. 11. Plan Reductions. 1 1 I 111_!:7 a • El 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer DATE: April 12, 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for Oak View Heights File No. 39-1 Land Use Review The site is located on the west side of County Road 17 ' approximately one-half mile north of Trunk Highway 5 . This 18. 9 acre site is comprised of a rolling topography with mature vegetation scattered throughout the site. ' This parcel was platted as part of the West Village Heights plat which was approved by the City Council on April 20 , 1988 . Sanitary Sewer Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site on the ' east and gest. These existing sewer mains were sized and installed to service the anticipated development for the subject parcel. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided on the plat over all public utilities . A common sewer and water utility corridor is proposed for each building plex. Watermain 1 The plans propose a looped watermain system to be constructed from the existing 12-inch main along County Road 17 to the existing 8-inch watermain that has been provided at the easterly property line by the West Village Heights Townhomes development. The watermain will need to be jacked under County Road 17 and a wet tap connection made to the City' s 12" main. A county permit will need to be obtained by the applicant. The City shall provide public service for sanitary sewer and ' watermain within the right-of-way of Jenny Lane and the fire lane easement respectively. The sanitary sewer and water service to the buildings are in a common utility corridor ( see typical building detail) which will be maintained privately by the developer. The applicant will need to verify and document sizing for the watermain with submittal of the plan and specification. Planning Commission ' April 12, 1989 Page 2 Public Street ' The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for Jenny Lane. This right-of-way extends from County Road 17 to the easterly portion of the plat. The access onto County Road 17 will require an access permit from Carver County. ' Jenny Lane shall be built and dedicated as a City street. The street section will be constructed through the public platted ' right-of-way with a 36-foot width to meet the anticipated demand for this type of development. Private Street The plan calls for a 24 foot wide private roadway looped through the north portion of the site. This would be dedicated as a fire lane and posted for "no parking" . In addition, internal access to the individual plexes is proposed via a 18-20 foot private drive with parking proposed for individual units with 2 to 4 ' parking spaces available per unit depending on the unit' s loca- tion ( see typical parking detail) . It is inevitable that special functions such as parties, etc. , will present parking conflicts with other units in the area and overflow will no doubt result in ' parking on Jenny Lane. In this regard it would appear that the 18-20 foot private drive width is inadequate unless supplemental parking facilities are provided on both north and south sides of the site. The 24-foot service roadway north of Jenny Lane shall be main- tained as a private roadway but considered as a fire lane and no ' parking restrictions posted accordingly. It was the understanding of the City Council that when the future alignment of Jenny Lane was established that the West Village Townhouse segment of this road would be brought up to full city standards . As such, city staff will be recommending that a feasibility study be initiated to extend Jenny Lane from Oak View ' Heights through the West Village Heights townhouses site to Kerber Boulevard. The anticipated demand by construction of Jenny Lane necessitates that this roadway be extended to Kerber Boulevard. Grading and Drainage ' It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping and/or grading to create the building pads . It should be noted that a majority of the oaks ( 18" to 36" ) will be removed by the site development. These are shown on Sheet 4 of the plans with an "x" for removal. The applicant is providing a sediment ponding site to be constructed on the northwest corner of the parcel just off Jenny 1 Planning Commission April 12 , 1989 , Page 3 Lane to maintain the predevelooed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100-year storm event. A storm sewer net- work is proposed to drain the site runoff to the storage pond area. Details will be required with plan and specification sub- mittal. Erosion Control The plans show gaps in the erosion control network. The entire site shall be wrapped with erosion control fencing in accordance with the city' s Type III standard ( see detail) . All side slopes greater than 3 :1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets. Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance with the conditions of the Watershed District permit. Recommended Conditions 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with , the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public improvements. 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of P the Watershed District permit. 3 . the applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Access Watermain Crossing Permits issued by the office of the Carver -County Engineer. 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within Jenny Lane right-of-way and fire lane easement areas to the City for permenant ownership. The remaining building utilities will be privately owned and maintained. 3 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including ciculations for sizing for the roadway and utility improve- ments shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the construction. 6 . Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities. 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12" watermain under County Road 17. d . The City Council should authorize a Feasibility study to be done to Eacilitate the extension of Jenny Lane to Kerber Boulevard. 9 . The parking needs and peak demands site shall be reviewed and supplemental parking area( s) provided. I • I Planning Commission April 19 , 1989 Page 4 10. The 24 foot private roadway through the north portion of the site shall be designated as a fire lane and post for No Parking accordingly. 11. Type III erosion control shall be wrapped and maintained around the entire site. Erosion control blankets shall be ' utilized on all disturbed slopes of 3 : 1 or greater. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Typical building detail 2 . Typical parking detail 3 . Type III erosion control detail. 1 I 1 1 r 1 1 I . 1 1 1 1 .. pRiopilsED uTELgTgEs TYPICAL BUILDING DETAIL 6 0,... d • .... ,. CRUSHED ROCK BASE 81TUMINOUS PAVEMENT If15'MIN 5 14' 1 I' . �6 ' I 1 .O' s crl cr 9' lil W I . , t MIN. W 20'5. v. 10 TYP. 1 20' 6 4' FIRE LANE I f Is' '2----\ t 19 24 OtREtLAME ' SEWER 25'MIN. '`J CLEANOUT VISITOR i TYPICAL PARKING R O W I I it YP ! CAL P RK3NG DETAIL SIN/`1....c r� �RYc_ (_,N N PARKING PROVIDED( For 140 Town^ ease Units Enclosed = 188 Overt Iow I rIn� Visitor i14 ' TOTAL PARKING SPACES = I15 1 r:"' u=aE=E2=c=smanimrxzaprz.wm..„„,nmznrnmmmnumm.....m..........n........rimmi...... .um I ....4;2 ,T03,17. ,FolGN401:,,e(IT3,03S,T,STLL BE OAK OR STEEL I .ECC—LtF■40E0 TCE-IN mt.rHOO I :AIRAFI inOX FASTEN w/HOG 511:55, 1 ■ -,-.-- /—t:AILS OR STAPLIS. i I :--q F•;.- r .-.--c .----___..... ----.›,-, _Tq--;-:-------;-_:-.1: ''.---;:_-,•- '.-* ---:----,:::- .--; . . _ ... I •-•"2=.:,--•-•-,--, , ,./-1%.; .------..„.,.,_......,.,.,:, „*-0,ii•A ---..•_ • I p ----=-------,,-"---.11.//VP 1 •..........„1//I/ MN OK PIN .// i/1 A.DIG TRENCH 8.LAY IN FABRIC a 2ACKF ILL -J < CC UJ I-- 1 • • i __EROSION CONTROL _______________. a I . ... • i _FENCE-TYPE I 2 . 11 Ul . 1 -• J J . I CO srn. FENCE 1,05,5 SHALL OE USED TO SUPPORT SNOW FENCE rircinnn99nrinrInnlinfl cc I . I I . —1-7-77:i.yilt: 1111,i , 17Hii'l:fL • LU z I ..3Y no si oaw oaLEs I ' - — TWO PE•oARS DR■vE THROuGH EACH BALE 1 i/2 1- -2 •N TO GROUTS ROLES TO 9E RECESSED Z < Z N 6 BELOW GRADE ANo WALES TO SNOW FENCE EROSION CO NrPn F-7NCE-TY0m- 2 STEEL FENCE POSTS S.ALL :ps 6560 To suAPoKr 550.,/FENCE LIJ .-. 11.1 CO 0 l- IJJ I I il a CO UJ ' fin.111111f1,11,1777.7 .4 I SILT FENCE .. . .. < co UJ I— >- < 2 T i I TWO RE Roos OB,VEH THRCL:CH EACH HALE 1!./2-2',NTO GROUTS RALES To BE RFCESSECI 6 BELOW CROOK AND WIRED TO SNOW FENCE i t IP EPORION CO N,IT° TYP ' 3 i r .. . ll A c 1 TY 0 F S I LT FENCE ■ 4 SCALE 1a- t' q DATE PLATE NO. • .._ 52 1 2 I I . ' ChYOF I ,,,„ , I\TA or"-4 q . El / 21 Mill' r\ I �`-\�L 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 i r - '4 r AningGigii ri h �, (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM ITO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector IDATE: April 13 , 1989 SUBJ: Case #88-24 SUB, #83-15 Site Plan, #88-14 WAP, Oakview I IComments and recommendations regarding Oak Park Heights : I 1 . Fire hydrant spacing was reviewed and is acceotauie. 2 . Road width as shown on site clan is acceotabls. I 3 . "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will oe installed by developer on the north access road ,)er Fire Chien recommendation. I4 . Additional information and input will oe needed for a building numbering system, and a private drive name for the north service road. I I I I I Iv IN CUYOF S SE X 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner ' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator v ' DATE: April 13 , 1989 SUBJ: Oak View Heights Townhomes , The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for Oak View Heights at their last meeting. This site is not a park defi- cient area, however, due to the high intensity, the Commission felt that playground equipment Should be required ( please see attached) . The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for an off-street trail along Powers boulevard and a sidewalk along Jenny Lane. The Park and Recreation Commission unanimously recommended that the developer be required to install playground equipment similar to the attached in an area a safe distance from vehicular traffic. It is also recommended that a 2J foot wide easement be dedicated along Powers Boulevard and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail oe constructed within that easement and; an additional 10 feet of right-of-way be granted along Jenny Lane and a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk be constructed within such. The Commission has recommended that the developer be required to pay 100% of the Dark dedication fee and be given 100% credit on the trail dedication fee. • 4 1 . . • •. . •. • . -' •-• • • -•--- . • • - • • . .. :. --.••-- - • - •- . .-• • • . - .... .. ,_ • _... . . .. . - ._ D- .---, - - .. , • • . . ... .. . . • .. .•• . • , - . • .• . . • . . .. • . . - . _. .... .. _ __ .....• • - • . (-) ': Ois • . - . - - - , - . .- 1 • l• - - • ' 4,42r••-i' P. • - .' - • ..,_ • . •.77,... :t? i. ;. .• • - • • - ( .., ' . - • _ . ..... ..... .... _.......... ... • . \ .. ,....0 ,.. ---600-- _.,,m.v.-.7:-.,..,._..---, -II 1 i ,.:- . k,,..•%1 • . .. .,_IT-- .... • . .. ,,4... . . . . • ., oi. -,„:"..e.- ---''•6-- ‘ 4 - )•' • ,, ‘L'-'-: . 1 . 4''''' ' *':'-,.--.-tq----7: ----.1.--_,.,' _ t, _:.• 4 - . - • _ 444-• - . - - . . :•.:• ,•N tic -P,,z- -::_;?-...:...--;.----?,i :_ii k •.-""`,,,■11„0 • . - .....- --r.-,..--, • - tt..- ... -..... - , v ; -- • - •",'.'._:,..-,4:••.;,•t:,'4.7'1. . , .. ..s•-• ,.•'' -; •'•'' s ' * ••- :- im< ..._ t•ti*...it':"".... ......."-..:N.."11••'''L""..1.,,, riegt...L'"'''''"-';'.7"-'.. :-;•7:, pfts•---'s. , . 1%."■.-- m.- - - - 1 1.' ."-,_ - -______,..--------- : --",;. VI • -..-.=--.-:z,•`'l c- !-- ;-scag'.1.•:41)K-',‘,.-X v".4. z..-1-i.:.: . - .. ' ' ,: %4:-' . ._, N,;, • .:.:-:--;:,...;-:---,.; k --ti .. ,., ‘•7::6-lip.,*-°"'wl•-ii. lev". . -- • 11,..7; '' • .t--v-e-e_,, -1.,..1.1. _ .s„.4,;„...,- , pc' %,..,g.., ,.,. :" "',A-‘•:,„;,;.-ri t--;,-..-:-.-',.;,-",- . 4.- 1 - ti....,-4. '■ • ' ti-------- r".4-.,Zir-4.tVre,1'...7-:+:-.1%•"*._ \-Pc -`■44f a.-.'-'4:-.--1-_-5-c.,*=:. ..., 1 .147T'' :'/•77.-- 11 .r."0 • "w t'-.----.--•••--"". . .....,......,_.,"s "■,--.;..._ . . - :r4-7,-.,‘„•:-.--. .4. -:%a<b..A.r.• -•• re•:.:,•-.1,k , A 7,:+1••!--., /...••••..1-•-:....... - 'tiraii= •-- ..... .- -• .1:4•1 •''"r .,...t.-..0---- --..t.:.•:.:. - . •••'...,.-,s 'N:..-._. ...4. :: '." •,„4„ ...-, ,-....,' ,--• t , -... •• ..0%..ir.i... ...--s- ,..,....art \\. , , . D., F.1,›..n.t.........1401- -'1e1;i1-., -'- ism, .„,..;---,----r-Z.:5--',.._,,,e3... . g-....., -..-----.... i i 4 ,,........ VP? 7' 1'4. _ 'z•••-?..,;•4.7--.:;- , , . 4A .••-• ' - -' - 00111,11,.. 1 [ ,' " . ---4 N -,.,..N. ,= ;:..,• k110.• I-:, 7.T. -- _ 1,.....,13, ei 1 6_4_ r^1:::-.3 `A' •......10. -„..... • _.- ' • --, - - If ktit"er:d4.--ki.t,. 1 :. 1,_-...- • :,'-••••• , •• 4•• • --...„ "V•,.„( •-,-...-.o.%.--,..,--•-•,-...- ••••,•0 ••=4.-,-4 -- - - -:, ;-:-er.---:...Z. 34.:;•:..*:.• 1*' .,•_A,-;•, E••-•"---- ci . ._,.....:::-.--- ---..1",•,....i.r.....` • .ts.`..,-1..n.x" • .- -.......--- t , ',Z.- I --:"--'1 : -•-•<---'..-.. •"*_-.....,•- ..•- ......1•••,•-:-71: -.••".,.. •••.i.tr•:`:-t."4,•;X:1"::':•:.:)..7-.1" „ .."''''''.:7* ...•1%1E4, ........--1 ___-••-•k...„. lig...a- < -•,<Apt•OTV,A.r-,-,?.... .........- •-,..-r---a:•••!.,, --:=.n.. -...,. ......., .„,, ,- ... „ ,.- ,..r...... ,..4_,, . ----..:74-.....e.4„..,-. t••-.A. ---,-,-....'---.t...:,-;,...--......--.:•-•..-;4-,-,--•'..'.,-->44.,-..--7.-,.2.....-Li -- ..- --- -",:.•;;•%--/- ..-..."4.'"--""'-bs„,'` •-••.-: ,., ,..;.=-7----- K.'nf.,1 Ft.' -,k: . ....- --.-.54.z. 3:I....v.;r,:...",c-ar..„... .:.-• '-'---...-,,..-,.-;.-...--,,,rr.-let,...,..„.•-t,-4.--,.. .;:..,-r -,..4,4, , „-;,-„„7. 77-- • - ..•t •-•- ---*-, ,.......-___,--3 -_,„.--._,• ..--- . -3..„;=,-.-'• ......-.----- • -,.„.., ---;,..E.--.•:--,.-.,--1.--•-::-___.-,.•._,..,,,A. .....,,,..,-,-,,,....: - Tk.,,,, 'K-'! 6,.•", ' s... .-,.'",,,,I.. 5:••'"••••- ,,,.... :lekl>15 -4V-a-...-,..-4-....,,a,,,L...A.i.s...--;:r-ei, -,..--,..--4-.• --....,{ --.",..-••,•.,• •"•'..?..t.•-...7, -2- ,'F.N. ,".•-.Y.;-:`:-.1.,...^ . 'MN,. ..... • ''''--- -01111a.d3. '''.94r...A:A-7n, -`,A1- .4=7....ji....; .....%.45mr,..,4,,,, ,...:-..„41,.... ,_ .._ 7-- - - i ...... .,..,. , ...,,,pl.n :.•- '2,-___. ----- , . ....i..e. .E...-- -. 4,-,,,..,„ ... i.,.,:,p ,,,_5„,-....„as?„,,,,:l.7.. _,:„,,„,.,..1,,,,,v-,.._- I ..:+sc„)0.;,--, 44.....,.4.v..ii , .,rv'gr•,J, ...±7..,,,TL,•--1,..1.-.,.:-. : *--4.1c---:...•,--,,,''....-A-,.7 ,,,f. , ,„er •Il ,7",.r; VW \ \ 411•114.1104 \.7 -- -:0V17..7 .1.4,2-4,5,,,t4;•••:**,:;:.. .ff., . ,4&t-•:.,:,•• -•:- s•--A,' --* „... •)`PA ( +Al - •!, -. ....,j-v;-71-4-11.--. -.- ...r.r.,--- - --=•-,---„,..... ..,.=, ,/ ...._ .- , !.....,„,.... „., ...e. , . 3.4, _,..,...,,...,,,, ..r.„ ..„,.....c..,.,,_.....ie. .„ -.. •,...,,,,,...4.,„...-,2,.. _z,..:,,, , t,i;rz /..t'" _ • . ■!'";_.- "7-- ' \`‘,-- . i - .--• V--.....A.--,, A. ..7.-:: * ti.:4,,, • ,••-...,._.-_•:$, '.f I ' . ...„,...:1‘,..v,„.. .. .. ..,. ...,....,:. ,;,.._ ... ,,. , . - _- \ N rl • °)1 \ -.;.. .., •-•"=.7.,,---., ....-..?ZS. -;4.••!4--t-..54,_..---....-1„i„,--..•.•.Ai.4... ..-,„„ _we_ \ _.. --it--1 . . --- .,„...:,-.-•:._ -' - _::". --: - - ' --•i,..,,g;,..-.-44,-1•!'t•74:7•%•'2;,-;.<1-'''-f.. 'v.-4.g . -',,...,LN. - ,T.,_.„...;.-„,_„..v,;.:... re,..::-.,tg. .. ...e. "j"'.... 4 _:-•, . - -7:---'-'-- - '' --.2,..,____. ..i:„';•-•'...,,. .'•...,,- 4,44*„..,r-AW1-•'-X"."-•••:,-.2.."45L`;',4 --.....„}•*4Fie•* ,,.:-",-..,.,A• ..,...1.": '... ..t...-'''' ikr.,_',."--;:,:'`. .,'-•-• -7.7.4e .,,fg--.. ..-'67,f-g;t. ' '.,.-: . •--- .- •• - --- ',-,-- ._ . .'"-77:•":= '='-' ::4,t` . 0 ''f:-...-C.:;;;;-.5::•fe.:'''''''?..:4-.•21.?f;t5 .4,74-•il ., -"::::;••,_ '''''..J.....:"4::-,te.,.•'i'.'.3, .-:14Z.!--;;Cf I .i id.•-•<_. _•--Y7;li-- .••‘1.• -'',.- '-*.. ---- _ "- - ..',•-,,,,-„,,--■-;,...,,,,_1''',;4=',1,:',r I .,,:il:...._.-,T';5,-..,-14;:.„. 11,a,t4Alt.'- 'r-...z,?...--6t.--.44-4.-,..-71.'=-4,,.. ...-..-"-VS-:i!-I- _,_, `,..'",..: 72',.i,_,-.3 it.'4.e:', .: - - ......,. .2.. - - -. --- • „-•-,..,-„:„E...-1....... ..,. ...,., ..„,...,- _ ,-4.=._. .4.--..„_.-z,.......,,A. .-;,....5.--,..-4...-_-1.:-.''....------,-----... ..-""- - e- :-.kr • __.--...--..L-,y.,-...i..A--..z..--ez..,104:4.--t„pg--_--;„,7t1,,„...,,,, ii.i.L ._, --:',•g-r-Ly!.;•..4.,43;.,...5. , - -....„„43.-:_'?1-'si'il"-'.. ---'"k-'-:•-",.;..-;:.. ••. --..-_,.:i .. - ..c.,....-,---.- • .'5" 4 ,e`'-• ' '- -;"-- ' ' '- •?g0,-A.-„--t-.-.t4..--.e,.r_-",..,"%..•.•z-.--r.'.\".>.c_-.-.•.:,..,•.•:.f--:....m,,..-.--r . ,k--4".-v,-1,:,:,•--f:..".i-1",,.•1'"•.:-;.,:-1'1..,,%.,A„_,.:5._•'..W+....--..:...,;.-.-.„.•--..-F-z•,-;.•.:•:--:-;•:,o-S,_...,..•.-:.,•,.-,„,•Pp_.,-->,„,!,.:•;i-.=2.-.,.-.--",•.I.:-..<---C3••.--t•m•.•-l4-4•re,•■..t-.•1..,.V•2.-.,..--.;:-:....-4;'-...':.--,•,.T..-,t_.•,,".•.i-.,;...--.aE'-•..='•`-1_,*.:4-;...-•,..•-.-.•"....!_-_-1•,..,-.1k=:.'.-...--•,..,--'.-.---..4.'...,.;.-,:.-.-‘,1`,,...-•,f1..---!.-.!-.e'-Z,-e.-.1.!-!`..t.`,.,..'•„.;i,=,k.,.-.••;:.,,-.-...t_*4:.:.,-'-7.•.4,,(.•-•-.."'..;:bt-•-.v..?-•=...,1,,";,-,..4-.'e1Z-'J'.4..i.,--.i-.k.:'W..,•.-i•1..-.••-?.1/2r•e---,-.•.••-,.:.,;7-.,-.,-.',.:..1„..1:z--•..-`,-.-,-,.-,4_;".•1--44:.,.--:,:--,':'.-.-,,..'.4.-.i.„--,..r.-1,r•0--*.;-.-,..'.a.",.;,i:.F.--4.;....1-.,.4,:!V:.t-Y4.-:,..,-......-:`j,....--.,Te.;..;."..2",..,,:4,:-,2.---n-,:.4,;:.::Ai--'--s'4--.:.t.-.:.-T'.,.•,.-.--'1;---.,-=.-.t-..3'7,"*..-,.'7•'2,,,„-,.,-1,)-i:T;..--t..=?.'...i•..-.._•:.":,..-4,';,„•V:i'•-••.L'0,...•.-..,---••-.-..„.cf---,-..4.---:1,„;-t...,2-•.`N,;';..:.;..-.-,...-:-.-a,3L0-:,:f:.,i;'--.•.rF,,-:..-l-3,t;.r-.-,.,,:.„.;',-4::r---:-i.-.-:;::-.---,.-';..:.-;.:.--:.:,_•-4-.,.::---:,,t:,-;:-....:-s.•.-...-,Z.:.1.;,,...-.,,..-;-,.'.,.•--..:•,..7,:n:.'.,.-.-,::-..-.--;_,i-..-•4:,..,,•,_•-,.?:-,-.t--•---s,..•--.sr;,-:,-,•.,•:-.-.::"-..-..";,•:•:.-e.--,•_3-:•,.,_:-:...-'-:?.--•t'i.:-..z.,--.-,.:7-'.-:-...r-::.--.-,..>_t...-..-,--...-!,:".•-.-i.•:-.",..,t■-::-"..-;':..-,-.--;:;.--.."2.-:..,..--:‘.--.,'..•'4-..,...;.j,..v;s•,-_,..-.i...:.:._,-•:7-,-l•:;,-N-s.•."-t,.-.-.;I..,..7.54.:--A.......-:,-,.;.•..--;'..•--._.t.---_-.t-7.•:!.%--v,.,•-.4,.7_-...,-•,.,-1.-.•,,,-,:.•-(_<.7 i„:.•,?•4.._.4..4.-L-•.4.4'4,4-.',,-.4,..'1 1 .,..4 4 ,. • ..-,i.-.,..--.- .-.-.,. 2-•-- C.,_-:,.-=';',,•-'..:.s•••7••,V•7,...,4'.--.,--•',,...A, • i-'. ...tf^..:'•-::;ik'1:;•-■:.::i--: ::::.:‘4;.•11;1•ttil, • Nc.,-.7.....j.--7.c.••••*-7,4.,• .N".."7,,,,...,......,P.... . T,•',''.•,. -••••-••.',‘..•'f.':,,V:-•■••`..; :•••••.i4-!-• '-'-'5 I••■,-:• .:., ••'-':,'.'4,',-.:,.•,-,) ......:-*12..-'.•'..:z,..',.-.:-• !CAP,ev..,.•.;,.... -.? ';1 ...:.,-.,:':"......''''.7•"'"` "I'- ..lie.' '-'. %. ' . . . 9 . :"...."• ,.,. . ..., i..v...e.r.71-5,);.:=.%-0,*.-•'..,1'..''14,,,,,,.... . ••-• ir ii-:::::.!r••••.."`,V,...-0"' • ... ' '• 'y -.k--...r :• •--•• - - ir.,',-,*'-a.--t.,.-. --.-..,-,--. -1-1.-..--•..-, -,..4-P,-,---.- ... - .... -,-,..r...,-4.--•---.1e-5-•-•••••••••."- -•- •: • _ •...V. •,03,..".•'4.5..,r.7.,.....1'..,-:-'',-..." .., - .• --• ..,. . 111 nilleimill _;,,•-,.,• .....erit.. 110.1 '•44 ... -....a, .......,.:•.• !-••• 14,* • '. -.• -- ..' / ' -•••'...... .a.....,... ... i ."7.'••'' .V.D. 'i.`4.5`-t.:,;-f•-.-'-:,1:::=1,:r-:. •;;::,,r,.:044.7.'"4."•*•-','..),:z.... 2,17',*•••• rit.".7re ftl falieW. / At.,...- '' ;tit% .•-* '''''.44. -•'-:0.•00-474 ....r..., ifyy.„... .. ,_-......., _ . 1 .."7-- -1-,......,, 4,.... ,,,. , --s, - --...-.-%:-.... : - i . - ,--,_-.lAre,,-1• '3-1,-trtt.t. .. - - i$ . IlLjr. .:?..- --- •A . -". ., <ipear,<;,•1 i ...."?.....;;;?'4%,670X. . 4' :e - - ...;ra ' •- , - • : •••• 4.1 „., JIM-.. , • .... .. t..-.+.4•4:..-.,_ • ...............iao -..- ....--,.. , ••,..,,,,:. „, . .,.....,,_ it: .,..,:.1.1.11„. .. -7.-,.I ..., __ .... . ......,,„,- `":...--'• - -'t ''''- ,.--.. -.i• l'!"'"•7:: I AV--1. .0.. •• .., ' .. .10,•••'";■■••; P, .4:".... 1. .ir, .0 ••••-• • ....401,. ' Th."..:31i1Z.'-'•%•:....'4,iwArtS. < •1. ' ' - •• ••••,;.,< „ "r•_ . ,... 111N+ -Nam . •,' .04.6... •K''' \.11111sV ,, • ,a/. Venlea too., Roe'............,...'• RN, ./.2.•••• . 41111P'-- • .••••ii".? 1... ..t••••,- 4."4•••••• 1.4,..J.. -••••i )••• ••14,.. ..' ,,,,,,,V \\\‘,..;14••• 4. ,,,,• II ROOD -Rm. . ...ORR II*• • --.- -,,.4e; 447...r.--_ '.,••:...4 ._:,••••:-...1440/14‘.-4!--.... -•" - - -- 4..V.,...,,,,I....,• ••0.1.,,..f.X....e. VOURNIIIROder ../ „„....,,,,,,,. ip ;4•• We. • -,••-lie #144.7...,1.-,.f..'4,,i7...■ „.,...,,.. . .,, ., •Row.4...... 7 - . • ' 1 •41116‘...I •• •••••• , 4.1 1 •R •'• ••••.•• ••° • •• lio• •.‘". ,.. -.1. Xe.1•4• ,, • r„: •. 0.-.. • _ .„,0,--V-• -,....spr,..,..,..r.,'r . " • ...'.. 4 i‘"i . ....7`"4" ......, -•'- ":•t"- •ctl-•••1-'il• •••••••0 ••'• N f ^'- ..14-4. -....:-t--, res-tc--- y,.-•,-to. • . .7 .., --,gbi:2.4..4 ."'y . -••• --4.-',-.. ,• . --.' ,...'".;,...f.',.._,_-tV if, .4 _ ,„...5....5..i.,..,,t,..„ . ... ...„.,,..,...... s.k r.,›...,,,rt....• ,.,:...:...ra.,,;,...:.3. .....,3a.,.. ., • ...:. ,........,...., , :. ,,/,.. ...4.,.. „.......... 4.• -. 1140%.1.,_ 'C - - . ..... ..,:,- -;y: 0•-.--"ar.•,--•;•,.-.4'......- • • *A... .:.••••••x...-te.e4.1•,,, --, %.:-.1'.;1„4.--`:.„„. . "" ;111:4"ri-1. '4,t,4•1A. •••#',. • 4,0e-.:c•titd-r1-1.„4710:::.,,,..-or_-".;..' fik ."-0-4-. Iii, „1 - ,. • ' - ' .-, 4..;.....:-.,-;4,. .., 4 7. • ■.-.,- F-.....,:--.. _1st, " "' - ...."4,- 40:-,''..t, 8.•••• , '• . , :,-,.?..4.. ..i,1%.*:4,..+47,-,,:.-1-A.44.*.:.-« • _ , . -z. • -*" .4-* ••c ,--•' -•••41:1-zjet*.V.O.r....tanit_,,_,.-4-7A4=1" .. Phase I .. ......1, .-.• cr _......., •;.1,v": - . ; " ''." 7' "edgy. .P.,1-7,;.,4 il...t..!e4'. -.. --"it•*s!..01 4: ,.1-1. .,, . k. . ,-4 4S...g.,t.....,z4. -..A.3.•,-•:a.„, . ,....,, •AT•10.41111NORILS•;•••.:• .,.....e•jr-a-4....'...........••••,...• ..'.., • ... ..,...•••• •:' ‘•• ar4 ‘•• . •- V -... •r?.A.•,••-• l ...,4i.10 - , I • - ' ' -" . .... - ---' "!'?' ' '-'41"" - sf'4.-1. -•'.--.1-#''''- it . ,ii,.. ... .• - .----sq t-.y. ........4....•. ... %I-. .-... -scrUN ..... . • :7.0' •k •••■< -... .,... . (< • - ... . . . ..-•''''.,.t•••■••:.71-. 4.-,V- - •• ,•.",-..••-•:.19...,t-Is, •''• .A. - .f.ef • •1..... .--i..z.:.• ...41 • 1.1 l a . K+ ? , M1 i 1 is ., — .:: ;� —'-K The four m �. �.} ;�-: '-� ainstructures create hubs of activity and are con- �, !- nected to provide a challenging circulation pattern.This large e. �.`��'�.. structure can be easily purchased in phases a "'� P as shown. When I _ ,:k �~ complete,it includes almost all play events. TuffTurf resilient ~• �� I j - surfacing not included., _ _ 1 ,. i .:t>� � ;tT Actual size:42'x 46'(1280 cm. x 1402 t ' Minimum area re cm.) I -, v s. 4%,":.! .. required:52' (1585 cm. x 1707 cm J i i *f;�€ 14-,- z ,. ; Play events:24 l � '�= ' } - ; - = ,�y Decks: 17/Highest at 70" ) - (178 cm. t t � , .N Number of kids:50-60 ' -=+ ° T S i � ` Plan also available in Playbooster and Redwood. t tom.. I ;^'Ky .M�-.t- _ =- -;• I. v 4 � ' .. Z -rte::::. ,I s :..., _ 4f 7 Y "' I Phase t f _ , .�- •. , Phase H I I I 1 w P;_ri � d"�1 1��,_�_��( \ Woo•:\- . ,'�` El Slide•ry� '.t,� ��, .•Y♦\-;� �.�� tit rt 1Q}.� •7• \ /•r D00N. I �l-�t° '♦: �( 3' y� fia ta�. << ,.ti 4. \ l•".. •�i '- Z01:014:•11 �� s3 �-i—lb.A'�_y�. ... ..,tC� V •", 'e^. -s 1 ''` curer•n•y. Vr11•N T• tN1 _ i•�4!1±:�. ImoV•rllcy t•aer` �• trn wn•N `.0_ •w•u \� "'v.QM -- �. a7 `!— '� ul waee w•e 'a,a�.,� • ~�'`' ``�°r :-l+,rt�-•i<Q..- � .. Herl•eN•1.•a••r ;• .. •\ W ) e. •4-. Weed W••110 WMN • t \ rl \\p ♦C .- S• � ? *�;:, '_ ,' 'i - CvT ?3ii :4 7 • \ �� Sobel srla �': ..��~ • 4 i t 3 • 11. �.•�.e•,tie ��/ •l.earl .. • Twwtly•••. \\ '• - _yam Tree•RIO• I1`'10'.x.}ftl•Ny,.Y1..7..'' ,i`: '� �.�.-sir - '','-rZ�: T•:—mot^ \ \ A- '. -\'''.1pUi..4.,-,S7';''V;-.1;! 9 it I.4 - \ ,� `.'-� ' • 6,F . ..1 1., ..R Play e4+uA+>enr<must be JrakJ!!ed over a roll I• iE -absu.n,� <�ti; ► `r surface.Here.o(Kwnal TuitTurf is used in heats war _t Y .. rrs.':.�r:':�r .. wu�1�r�� •!ad areas only. \ :�. :,,,,,...„,:c....".4, ` � `` .' '-'fir r.�. it ). ,..•- 4"'' I ^.j"" :'r"�`^ ; ,"-'- v`, .ai ;,yam o'`` - - -5= i - fit -.. i .1 4.‘-; ' `*-_'....u4-. Landscape Structures 33 I IN I .__ I Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed r, y tershed District Engmeenne Advisor Barr Engineering Co 7803 Glenroy Road ..* --. ,. Minneapolis, MN 55435 ,� 830-0555 I1t-'� Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich& Kaufman J-1 -----k 'N.... 3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower Minneapolis. MN 55402 I333-4800 April 12, 1989 I Mrs. Joanne Olson City Planner City of Chanhassen , I 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 IIDear Mrs. Olson: IThe engineering advisors to the Board of Managers of the Riley — Purgatory — Bluff Creek Watershed District has reviewed the preliminary I information as submitted to the District for the Oak View Heights development in Chanhassen. The following policies and criteria of the District are applicable for this project: Ii. 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 II plan showing both existing and proposed contours must be submitted to the District for review. I 2. A detailed erosion control plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval. II 3. A storm water management plan must be submitted to the District for review and approval.The management plan must be in accctdance with the criteria set forth in the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of I Chanhassen. Sufficient pipe and overland flow capacity must be provided enabling storm water runoff from the site to reach and discharge into the proposed permanent detention basin Located in the northwest quadrant of the II intersection of Powers Boulevard and West 78th Street. I iiFFi 1 :1 1989 LILT iE ChAIVf-in55tly I Mrs. Joanne Olsen April 12, 1989 2 ' 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 830 - 0555. Sincerely , / Th Ro•ert C. Obermeyer B:rr Engineering Compa y ngineer's for the District c: Mr. Ray Haik Mr. Fritz Rahr ' 1 1 1 Riero CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 600 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 (612. 448-3435 kEisg t 1 COUNTY OF CAQVE March 20 , 1989 Ms . JoAnn Olsen Assistant City Planner 1 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive , P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 RE: Planning Case 88-24 SUB Oakview Dear Ms . Olsen: We have reviewed the above mentioned site plan and suomit the fol- lowing comments : \ permit will be required from the Carver County En7lneer' s Office for the construction of the proposed Jenny Lane onto County State 1 Aid Highway .'•:o . 17 ( Powers Blvd. ) . At that time we will need to see the construction plans showing the grades and cross sections of the proposed entrance . From the information submitted it is 1 difficult to tell how this roadway will tie into the gradeline on the proposed reconstructed CSAH 17 . This will need to be clarified before issuing the permit . 1 Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments . If you have any qus_stions concerning these comments , contact me at your con- venien('e . 1 Sincerely, William J . Weckman, P. E . 1 Assist .t,'. County Engineer WJW/cjr 1 ,'LIAR ? 9 i T ' OF CHANHAS1039 g 1 1 Affirmative Act on,Equoi Opportunity Employer F \�/ 1 \ .,, , ,,L7i i 6u ' tiii 1 ,_\ '��' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner 1 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Inspector I DATE: April 13 , 1989 SJBJ: Oakview Heights I After discussing the pr000sed foundation design with the contrac- II tor, the Inspections Department has re-evaluated its position. The contractor stated the engineered design of the building will include a Pair of interior footings spaced 43" apart. Building 1 utilities will run between these footings and utilities should rest on undisturbed or aporoved soils . Utilities should oc at least the thickness of the footings above the footing. The 1 contractor further stated the design calls for exposed soil 'bet- ween the foundation walls of the pair of parallel footings . Assuming the submitted design includes the details stated oy the 1 contractor, the Inspections Department will classify each townhouse as an R-3 occupancy. As such, sprinklering will not be required. All provisions of the UBC regarding construction on 1 property lines are aoolicable. I 1 I I I I MI tom' STATE OF is � yil(YNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF 'NATURAL RESOURCES 1990 ' PHONE NO. n96-75.)3 METRO REGION DIVISION OF WATERS 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO. March 28, 1989 Ms. JoAnn Olson, Assistant City Planner ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: PLANNING CASE 89-2 (COUNTRY SUITES) AND 88-24 SUB (OAKVIEW) Dear Ms. Olson: I've reviewed the subject materials for development proposals in the ' City of Chanhassen. Neither project site includes any state-protected waters. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any floodplain or shoreland issues to be addressed. No permit approval from the Division of Waters is required for these projects. ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at .::::3-7323. ' Sincerely, 4-1.„cL�1 l�C ' Patrick Lynch Hydrologist PL284:kap 1 ' MFR ' 9 1989 CITY OF CHANHASScNV AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -17egaiMaiND :Manning Engineering Surveying ' March 28 , 1989 JoAnn Olsen 690 Coulter Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Re: Oak View Heights - P.U.D. Concept and Preliminary Plat Submittal. ' Dear Ms. Olsen, This letter is to address the staff comments listed in your letter dated March 20 , 1989 . Each item was reviewed and our responses are outlined as follows: 1 Items 1-4 , 6 & 14: Easement Issues The utility and drainage easements have been adjusted on the preliminary plat as was recommended. Ingress and egress shall be provided across the Association Common Area and is described in the townhouse Homeowner's Association Documentation. Items 5, 13 & 15 : Storm Sewer Issues The stormwater detention basin, structures and calculations have been formally addressed in an attachment to this letter. The storm sewers will be designed to a 10 year storm. ' The details of the storm sewer and sizing will be provided with the final construction plans. The preliminary top and invert elevations as well as sizes are shown on the grading and drainage plan. • Items 7 & 8 : Fire Access Issues The site data and typical roadway detail provide 20 ' wide private drives to better accommodate fire fighting equipment. A 24' fire lane is proposed to provide looped access to the northern portion of the site. This dimension was discussed with the City Fire Marshall in a telephone conversation. MAR 2 R 1989 CI 1� tdr t., 1.4 v1.1H51 -201 East Bloomington Freeway, Bloomington, Minnesota 55420, Telephone (612) 888.0_89 • ' An additional hydrant was added to the plans . The minimum distance between hydrants remains at 300 lineal feet, as discussed in earlier meetings with City staff. 1 Item 9 : Vegetation Issues ' Tree locations and sizes have been verified and shown on the Existing Conditions Map (Sht. 2) . Trees to be removed are labeled on the Grading Plan (Sht. 4) . Tree replacement is shown on the enclosed Landscape Plan (Sht.6) . Items 10 : Parking Spaces ' The designated parking spaces layout for residents and visitors are delineated in detail on the Landscape Plan (Sht. 6) and also tabulated on the Cover Sheet (Sht. l) . Item 11 : Signage Presently, the builder does not plan to install identification signage on the site. The Homeowner's Association may want to install signs in the future. Fire lane signage requirements ' were also discussed with the Fire Marshall . A final plan shall be established after the scheduled meeting with staff. Item 12 : Trash Disposal ' There will not be a centralized area designated for trash disposal . Each unit will contain trash containers similar to single family developments . Trash pick-up requirements for ' hauling trash to the curb is outlined in the Homeowner's Association Documents. Items 16 & 18 : Drainage The drainage directions and spot elevations are highlighted on the proposed Grading, Erosion Control and Drainage Plan (Sht. 4 ) . The drainage area delineation is shown on the enclosed map submitted with the hydrologic analysis. I 1 1 Item 17: Street Grades The street grade has been revised to meet the 7% requirement. In providing this 7% grade, a severe cut will be required, as shown on the grading plan. It is our preference to maintain the originally proposed 8% grade to lessen the impact on the existing topography. Your timely responses to our inquiries is appreciated. Should A q AA you have any further questions, please feel free to contact our office. Sincere 1 Mary/J M ley, Planner r' 1 Hedl . lanning Engineerin rveying 1 1 cc. Dean Johnson, Cenvesco 1 MJM/kas 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I , , . 1 ...., , ,Ch Y OF 6) 610131A (ZZX 1 ,...--' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 March 20 , 1989 I I Ms . Mary McCawley s Hedlund Engineering , 9201 East Bloomington Freeway Bloomington, MN 55420 IRe: Oakview Heights ' 1 Dear Mary: Staff has preliminary reviewed the submittal for Oakview Heights I and has found that the following items need to be provided prior to the application Proceeding to the Planning Commission. 1 . Access easements to the townhomes must be provided on the I plat. 2 . Outlots A, B and C have to be changed to Lots 1, 2 and 3 . IOur ordinance does not allow development of outlots . 3 . All easements must be shown on the plat. I4 . A drainage and conservation easement must be shown around the wetland area. The conservation easement is typically 73 feet from the edge of the wetland or drainage easement. I5 . Staff had originally recommended that a retention basin be provided to hold the storm water prior to it entering into 1 the wetland rather than just the sedimentation chamber. Why was this not pursued? 6 . Easements from the center of the buildings must be provided Iout to the utilities in the street. 7 . Staff feels that the buildings are located too close together I and that the 18 foot width for the driveway is not adequate Cor Eire and safety reasons . We are recommending that a dedicated fire lane be considered to satisfy this concern since other alternatives would necessitate extensive no Iparking restrictions and/or wider driveways . 8 . Additional hydrants will most likely be required by the Fire IIIn.soect_or ( approximately every 200 E3et) . I — - • • OAK VIEW HEIGHTS PRELIMINARY PLAT ,, _ th...__I_1__•____,.1•t'1.., -556 ai ....„, 1 .,,• 4,,, Llt.U. LI:,.:10Y116 1 .. I.., j...-':, V-,, 4:., e S.i. 11 ADNY ..s,--,,,, i■LK!....7.1::Li.llii!'••:'''''''';''''' ...:\ „„, „ ,- . .;,. --: , ,• ..._ CD / Pk, '.. X,,,, / - 1 , if -..., - •,„. . 1 * # , / / -•`, 's N. 0 ' st;:. .:..- .... , \ .6',,, ', j t_ '...• - - - :1.: ,' LO7 I E„: II, i;.. 3 I 1 ■ ‘" __--- ..„,0,. P.1/./3 113 21/1 F 1 %/i•a / • 0 %,,,70h. . '.., •.•,•17.V.attos 131. 105 5,.1 ri .,•, • 1 1 1 1 ,I ' ,• C , ,4 - _,..,./<..,'' , A >l' ''.." '. q' '' V 0 ‘,.$ 0‘s ..----1''t-^'''- -' 11•1.1 6...a•ta.Lail ../as 5 11 Pt,' •. 11.C., 11 Otos/PC/ 25.11.5 31 It 3. /P\ , P. 1 if, , , '' s.1. •,'-'''' .S.'.:''''\. . ,„..:;;.• , ,÷al •410.k • , I ..: ... / 4,...r. \...„,,,,,,:r..,•..,, I 0 \.,./, ... "1,, 1.,....0 4.‘ ..../.1.°. .,...„,a• LI GS ,,., 7 •is4 ,... 3 ''' , ., P • 1/... '..d. ) 7 , / ; -•,\ *I ' ,,..' */ ° , ..'7-.E , ■ / / ,..,.., , , s\,..„.. o/. -- ',7 . ,Ss' ,..'"-. , • ..,4\ PREPARED FOR I 1 / `•,.''k; > I i , -7--, ' ,•,,,,,, -__-,..”5 S1 _ . ._•-s--/j,,-' L. -.5. - - 1 S s' X ta xx 1, CENVESCO. INC' / , / /'--./ '.,t.!.1 •.. z . , ' ___----- V.W It • ,.■,...!.,-;(. ...-.,\ 400 c 1 , ,--- .(:■:* ■%\= TOW 1 K1L'..2.,rn"mjir'..;'''''.'1.‘a : I _-- Pe:t.i. 16121 555-3E5: 10-; ; ,_.---,,,• ___-L1LS,...!:_____ ,..____.,___ „ ‘% , a .. , S 2• ■ S1.11 a 1 sa sa : ' 61. g 1' .1,mb%.S 10‘t : to I •': ! to i_C,":. t. ,----- ....1 I .•/a I ,,a• /10,55 .. . k 1, ir"'' 5 55 I', limn." .. 'I -s.,, ..., e . SO _......01,po, ..,■ ggjllPi'..ggiIl10V:St0 . .. ,:, I It • O.. 11 S d.//di ›- 1 .r---f.' • Ilt''11. LANIGIIIIRR:411111101r!414TRA.d,Vigni % ' I PREPP Ad.:0 5r sr : k ' . _ t ,, Z ' INEZ. t ...la 011110S ...,,,,xx,`'w. _ =. !: t 11 , 11!..:• s. g HEDLUND PLANNING . . t $ , ; • sal • ,;ii ti k , ' ,,.I 7 : 10 )000 L- •',I, E I i s . ■ I 5 N u N , .• I I i.-." ,. .. Si g&grO..(a U_.6.1 T L O_e X T Y.1e 1.•4,.•1'.1.as.x a. a P I ,g,,01.■''''* 1s t.%10..s,,,,,,,1,1.1a 5.B s 1 ,i' 11111 _P8__h.__0O3...r:...•I.....$•U..4.O.1.::.:.1....L.1.Y8..1.I3.P...,0..•....8S..9... ..................... 9Y5 94 --------------------------------' $••••••-------1.......•.,... ..0113 a•1------•s*so Is•■ 4 so a•••o •, i 11. G.U111.4---------4,11 :1-■::-'SI:-1%1 it----:1-""' ".'''' N ,... •,,1PG.LI.1■13 1.1 311.1.113l1 "odf.:■dl;I'd./!d■1■./.../ ...:- 11 /,', 3 - : . Lt.-• : ,,,,, ...1,,k,./1 •35/111 t /■---- 1 1 "7 b d .;' i-1 .7.;-■43,1. ...1 5,11., •25 11(1 P.n til ilorii te.cr :j::HI ti- ' • '..:.11 i f 1 6 : ...s.S..'I•su".......O..... SCALE: 1 INCH - 50 FEET u . ,,,,1/.3 .-----...al. 114./55 sea 16615S ism,gr ggOVIDED, ms•10 16.1 1.-----ag.66161.161 DATE: MARCH 14. 1989 AWOL UND gtTgalon.TIT4z,,,gal.;gio:,.. -- ,,, - ------I...GAO.OA 161.6161 11(0.: 3/25/59 *, _IL.To/.t ,S ...0 laolooa-lo, .is,res,lo, atiOLSAIIS.00.141n1■11. / a•.. SHEET 3 Of e __. • • 11111 1.11 IIII III In IIII IIII IIII MI IIII 1111111 IIII MI III MI III 11.1 MI 1111 I , , gill 1 �U cyti ,. U o m ow - . °` G V• ,= w , w Z --,.4,•-i cen G c_.) nn u 2W main -4.• . I Z. I No NO.,. m NNrvm.... _ i c YIN W.1t < rymryNNmm u la OC nn O O mn tmn" J n CO�JO 04 =0 ■ mY1OO4m hi I III o _ ■ S nw IMO (n J m 1 4 W 1 6a 4 J la W _ s�_ so o .osoaoo� _ m o o:c ca 0 1 ry J- Cl. m- a N a"-✓ mm. a J^ mOm W I Zs 1 I I __ , , \, , 7.4.; 1_>. . ,., L tip { � ! IL----- I!'I ``_ \'' f ; :e) \ ''I .....,),', V . .7-1 -\ 04/ • \ � I — r 3, C '- 1 cn-- . 2e,\'1 1\ `7— • . ...N ••..0•I I..w .• uvn..1001 \ \, I ■ IN OAK VIEW HEIGHTS PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, ANI) • DRAINAGE f'LAN f[1 1 So / r „ r EROSION CONTROL PENCE(TYP,) i.IIoI IIII / / / :I .I 4,,!7:1,,,I,114; '":'I�iur,r.l Out IuolrnwmNl .. t:.';�..^ hII1i /: j I .//// / / 1 . Y / . . (!.I i 117 // i I / i '�',/sl♦ \ I` r) .w�+ 1 •••.•.•ItvNI.r II III Ililllll / l / /'r .„/,::::,....2.-,,,,::/„,///r/.// :';:-;=:_"-=' / /' [ „,.• 1I 1I ., `� l/ / •+/' r + ..�.L.. s Jl! Illlll l01 / i%• �i_'��./2/�1/ —,1A .r KW ! 1 r 3417 i' a'•'-,...c.r� x 111 !, illy / //// %/� • ii�''� �:'� '.'• .T{/ ; 4. 1 _\�, P.r..roo1 \-. l ♦ \ S.«J !'- I / // ▪ 11 � -00, \ - • •+t 11 I'�$'1r( 1 ! /// // ,,,,,,,,,././.„/„.;,„,/i ,/ �� ice; -- /. i 1' T\\i -� ,_a •) "•— - seP '` II 4111'}/ /,/ / // � // / � � �. / i ,,1 !I I 1 / / / // //j////,'/ /,�'�_.- �•• ..--7-6'•' .,♦ N.._ib ,i / / .� I L'/i, II 1'4111,8 r DTI( l ( t7 '' �- \.` ° - • 1 EROSION CONTROL DETAIL 11, . if i i • -r -- �'J 1 1 �1I`.`1aT'�/� II 1i��„1 �Ir�n-/I/`}/�'�. ,��`, , V \ / ,rt' V 1 11 III IIIIL I /1 I ,III I f,l l I�r�r !'�/ i -° •.r _ e ; �► / �r I 1 '! 1 I/I /'�, i1! l�ii / L_ .� ts.>ood -\LL.TOO1 :4- -00 �� I. {' I y }t. I//J,11 /l% %//'/, r ,l /,'e� ., l / \?• 'ES �\ t.\ ,/. _3. i n.\ _' 1 .11, � //il//01,,,,,,/,/,',,,,///I d1 i,� •i,', E. ..�, I �'►�I �,!r �� i 1 I jllill �/�%/,;;,,„ ; ,..ft �l iF \ •-,, �^ \♦1 ►�i, d��1 } I r 1 I ii „ ,,;////,;i/,. rr/;��t i'L� , lam. l�j J //'rr•�f'� . , °iJ I F L II �//i/iii/ /i ' 1i r \ \. ._ ;�•? PAff'a REU Fop .7. 1 I ill �/ ° �~r �. �_ _ �r �. % .j..�: +� � i i CENVES INC• I I I ?✓ rte, _ -- � ” z- \ re,,_ _ t' �, -- r 1 < 1 I ,•i % ^G`•Cr _+_fr — I r ✓.r. w ti•t�,.• ••r..i.Zti y '1� `;4„,` 1 : 1 PESO IMI .n: ��!� �• ,+E\ PC,IS 1 II - _. L .y.•• �1I f`-•- t \ PnOnc 16121 555 3550 1 , II rR-u'rl Nlnr.,SC i. II w1. Tj° / �sl — ..,s S.' !V . \I flee ; L.- I 11' �►!•Y1r.H.Y� I , �L.� __ • \♦♦ �• 11• ,. ♦l � a��}d�:•/CE'OSION CON ROL 11 I� 1 '�-- J . ♦♦ E'1 `_SV_s �; , ' I/I f I : I 1N \ 1_ _ -- ' -a ' 11,_ - / % PLANNIN ENG I N, EER I NG SuRVE 1 I N IiEI III '.l � - _�-�- :-_• _- .� - • �. C 1 B_C_r 1.612) •S7. • .: I IrI II` ---- _ _- _' ti._o,-___—_____ __=_ `�� _ / /L conLF61216Barc� `s it Zy 1 • t i� iUi ;,---rN•,s,E.•.cows«a�-s E«2�R�7� __-.:: 5i9r____ �_ _-� Iliil (tl�--'\��^�_ _ /:(fE• I I 11 I Vv `11; 111 11 �� ♦ _a/ / �. . ,t/� II 1; I • ------- '-`11111111; =_= -_�`— ___ -r / .,�........,......... "�,.�. I 11 ; ,1 I�i ' ;1111;;�;\= _` •__^ . ...,. . ., . I I I I /,II/ I;I - II 111 III\ ��'—_ ♦ ..i rr�' y.n. IJ I I 1 • r 1..>.•• ' `I�-- SCALE: 1 INCH - 50 FEET • DATE: MARCH 11. 1989 ,s ., UND - AEA.: 3/E5/I1 •,.,.,.E I.PIr.•,y av SHUT 4 Of e ' — — — — — — — — — — 111111 — — — — — — — — INS MI MEI MO MI IIIIM IIIII• INN I= MI UM Ell MN MI IIMI MN MEI I= MI •• OAK VIEW HEIGHTS PROPOSED UTILITIES TYPICAL•UILDING DETAIL I I / / / ) — I : I t---7----/----------- 1 VI VS'I 11.1 0 i / , -Et--0-11- . , 1 , „i i 4 ., •„...,_..... 1 1 /77--------77t, -77. --;----\;--,----;-- , , _ ... 2 IV LA(D.G _.7._____:... .fit TaA91, 7-1 1 1,i ...._, ,/ / il'/! I ,, , „..._,. ., :z., ____-., it \, )--, ,-- , .C) , //' .;--,-.-_,_____-_._ 1 ,,,.e 1 --,, r / ..--.7"-__. 2f • I • ,G . , i ■ 1 ,.....E-.4— J ,.",../i ', (.) ' --x(-4 1 ,---- ..------..,:, ,,,,---;,„:,„.„,---.-_-;„:,--: \ , I ‘ '\ -.1 1 =7.'1 1,7 , ; , \ek 0 t $ , ' ----,--„-- =. --,, --,z,,,,,„,___ _<7-k. ,, „ ----- ------- ) --- -\--, -- \ - $ --." / ,,t /Z_ ,, -- -; $/" :- t:,.e. / ri - ,,,> .,-,--2 .•/11:-76' . •1111 L7.-:-: -,..=I. 1 I • ,- •,■ .. ---,, ' ',-- ' --- ',Z... iii.. _ ,_--. - Olt I--......„.. • i ' -- - - -7:-,• .,...,,, ,- _ ,..,. . , sT , _ I- ' - i , '' c1■• . _ - , ,.. „ ' ' \ 0 , ‘,...,_=1..._\ I I .1 ii / /••••', . I I I: •-./ 11. :_,>,, : Ite.,. E..' ..gt,Wal------- ---- i, / - ;•- ' ' \ L 0 4 , ---->, .\ Sie 10' e ,s'is,-1, • ..—, .1 __.. ii ,....,t, —— * li , J I f /-, / .- ' / 4‘. I / 1! -. 14 * '''''A 4 I ..• I ' / I . ./ * 1_2* / - i ic.i.?* - gl, l'• " ' LIKY D . A, • 0 , PREPARED FOR I II, '\-7 • c ' “VD 1 I ffalittilillrna CENVESCO i— ..,Ni-i.- _1'::',:'-----' / .so •10000.111•4110 ' I : Net 411 . 31350 ../...POL IS L A< PL'IoL.JTii MiNA:S:14 PHont 16:21 555-3.i5D , ....., I • . am bun.O.G ' ‘ . 7.1 1110 < -.• sr ,- cr., -- 'i' i , , PREPAPED B r o , . . ' • • 110 '.' :-: IF• / HEDLUND PLANNING . :I , al ENGINEERING SURVEY I NG 1 - - I _ . „ iii .. . 7.:—.7 , : '----__--7--- ; 4 9,701 FAST 6..0:nir.LIcr. rAilkAl /4. &DOA INGION mInt.ESOTA 5542Z . I - .\ ,PhOAE 1612/ 888-0289 ; • . / • ,/,' 1 - - - , - -----&Q L_ ---s1- Ir - ... - ....SI l'A01C11 ----. .--1 / , - - - I ' -- .., — - 'II,/, ,1 :. ... .,,,,,,,,,,,,,1.4t■•••P.a.••• / ,,,,,,,,••••41,,,,,,.11••••E I 6.....111,•••••[In•I I•••11.1, 7 I -a._. .,4_ f ..„.., ,,.... 4-, ,_ ■ ; , „.. . _ 4,1......i Iin•I.......■.....In•I••• •I 160.....•I•■....... ,:- ,I* - 34 r, d 1 I ' \ :•__ __ v i • ,I ,_.. , . lfz•s.4.1 rl-k,,MittO librrUM1,:x.4 I: IL t.".■ 0,A...1.- 0.11e. •,-0-LAA,...0., 1 .' •4.''' ,II ,,I. ,...4 _ 1 •oorar "34 I I '--- L'--; lz• cs4r,6 4......6.,_,,,,,,,,, cam ea,........, ' I% ' \.4-... l- SCALE: 1 INCH • 50 FEET. / ' I '--sys--- - --_ , 'I.‘ s_ DATE: NAACH 14. 1989 l RIEDI,UAL, JENNY LANE TYPICAL SECTION-Q-2- -2,1; 11' REV.: MARCH 111,11411 0.0...0.4 AAR IA..-Ms 1.+0 SHEET S 01 6 t*A....i.l.6 . ---- • • •• OAK VIEW HEIGHTS EXISTING CONDITIONS • • LEGEND ��—,— a f0 / •�. GASMAIN —`- 11 1.<,ENY<1N I° I II IIII I / / I I /."// / / r .r'1 II:E.' I ■ St ut NM<IN _,5— I I:f.11 III ..�E •s, } I / l/� , / ,,,!�1 , I - --__ /,'i i yu.1 .>- i f / .- 3,;)/1/ Z \ 1111 I Ar71'-�1 ' I I --i-, ' - , I III I I I (�...� / �//// - 1 ,''' �I ' EliSr OLkU.M-0 — I I I, j1y,17 I 1 / / �y�/ ///, / i 1 , 1 , 1 I —-.-�-r-t, _ nis, o<.s O ., m I1 I II /// / i / / I ' I I 1 , I , , `� � ''' LI /I 3 :/'iii;; V / `//,'////, ',/:/;/,;:; :: -- ,'''' ( W;� 11117 /t F/ //// ///// / �--- �,//,/- \\i `. ,///---- �-11i il/,l,// / / /'� ''/' _ — ' 'I 11111j! IIII 1 1/ //,, , .. ,' i ♦ - / 11 I III' I II /I ll III /1;,//II/II/,,/,///%i' \\ �� ',/' `\\\. -�{�f.. / I7 �✓s.. II II,.IiIi 11 /'�.I ! I�il III rt �i�r �lij// '/�/�- -`•\�\\\ "' / / // 111 III 1;,',/1,1): Ir / �" .,,,-:�- „�� II Ill il,l I I 11 , Ill, /, / / i i , 1 - / f.L.,. �.�.:-�. \\ \ 1 "r ►I , III I'JhII l {l ll ►I 1, 1, ,/„' �” - _ - I �7 t�I / 1 1 F //I 1 ., /1,�1,/�It„//,// / - _- / , \\` t 7 771 ij Ho, I 1 f' 1!l!I 11 /. ///%' '/ i lip J!,',// \--- - _ ! \\ 1 ` �_ / ✓(�,• ------.\ >� --- _ '1=--.:;7'..i.:7, 5. 'I' Il /1/1/ /, /1// //'p ,/ ,Iii F ,, ,/ 9 Cli�\i r ,/ \ ^ / ice' ,,- I fvli ,I IljEy. I i//i//,�/,//7//i/l/ili/i�l. / F/l l �� I 1 \ t-,/ I ' r.I 1, ----- - - IIIIII / 6tf ///✓ /�// I";/,',/ 11 -- �- I I --�-° i ly II�I1111r{1 �/ /"//1/, / /�///i„/l��r�,/,,,t 1 , I I - - --- �y � t J '” ' - Z I7I fl IMI 7,// 'ri,/��//�I,/1 �i' Ai/ / I - �`• K~�- --� I 1 ' I �// // !! /// 'I�i II, 1, , i .. I •[,:.::�,(. .f -� \ .... _ I t 1•III I,i;1!,1 01. .....//.-�',� ///t'/y//„,,,,/ ,/ / //,"r1 I I , I ) ■ 'i,j�.J<C A C -- ` ` ' 1 1 ill� �/`//'/ ' III /1 1 l /� ` - ♦ \ 1 I I -FAE PANcJ fL:1 I I I'll} i �,'r.� 4',...-,,/,',/,',',/,/,'III 1 1 \ '-\ `,1'i �� ♦ -- -- 1 1 x i I 1 1 �, ��/ ;;8 //,' /1/ 1 / i I i i CENVESCO 1 -- - �. '' e,,, f 1 t \ I I I I ,1',,,. ` ♦ ` I f 1 , 8.0 ud..PO.INk arr' _ I I IQ//1„�'-�. ''/ r I I I\\\ ``I If I �_ C) \ _ �\ _ --\� I t / FnJnE lib121 SSs-ic5. 1111(I EII - �/ 1 \ - •, 1 1 I. -\ 1 / ♦ - \ I / 111 / =.z I I�III 11j 1( `:—t-' _1.� .\\ \`, t \ 1 1 I / o��t \ - --� �\1 III ! /•.- I I Il li 11 11 II, \ , \\ ”—'C—\.r-i\-1:� •------—_ \• \• ■ `I\I i f 1 1 i I it II `,\ \, \ . / I ), ttf / z1 III - --- - , _ - ItI U I I I 1 'tl i`• ... \ �\\ - - •�\ �`\ - f(^�� _ \ --' ' 'I I / FnEFx q:J tlr I '41I `� .> c' <_'' --_-_`( - ___ _ °'- =- --- ENGINEERING SJRVE1 INC. ' :II I,I 1 —-__ �� ` -_\ __--'/. -_phi —•I-.-1;-1-�.I �I I I• i - _ - _ - _ •♦\\ \ / / `c' S:J: E.LI b.: .. c.•. 5 t I ____�--__ ___- __ - -__-_—__ :�ill1 \ \♦ --' /' /,,,,�♦ PnORE Il612) 58fi-02E6 1�'SE:•V1 I Y,1 __ �. .I 11' . ' r '' �.. � _ 41 _-- -i/ Exq,„NG tOroGRAVnr vno✓Into By a oo,R SCALE: 1 INCH - SD FELT DATE: MA 'iEDL��D TREE LOCATION VERIFIED GY HEUIUND GURVEYING • AEY, MARCH 13. 19819 H 11.1111 ...O. 4.....,..• ow 5/1187 2 Of b — — — — — 111111 — — — — — — 111111 — — — — — 1111111 RN IIIMI MN MIR I= MO I= =11 II•11 INN MN MO I= • MI MI MN MIll • . OAK VIEW HEIGHTS , , ,. . i ,, .'. r. LANDSCAPE PI.AN _ I St C,1 I .,,1•) -1 1 / ■ f------/1 (fl-----.1•HH1) \ • /1) , 1 '5 vaCT1....247.-- r)-<-----s , • --< .,..), \ , ...„... ..) ri, • , • \ -tl''' .---\17--6.--: I/ --• ___.„ - - :-.. I _ ', kl-2).-i' e , I - ..•,-.. r..4 C.._ J.,.-/ f" \• 101,,,,,,,,* C -1-....3' \''''')'":".16 jr";:.''\-.4-11 • 40. 1 :". r' , ... c'• ..„. CC /'''''%•,..7..) ;'•.'\ .1; ) • •••-. i ,.; 1 2••"":, !._-.•` .7" ) ,;,)----. „,.--r•-•,,,. ')'.- \-C.-li .. ,t) i . ,,,• - --;-, 5 P5-2 -- 1 I !. •;,c._jjr ,' ,,,5 • ,,.• ' .) ' (••• '''' i ••- fl ---_ ,- , - iit •-•••, ii ,2 1/ ,,,yri, .., .-..,... a,' --_ I'■,...1 -i!......-_-_-,..-..., -- ..: , -k --Li-.., -.:-_-• S ‘ --- I I ':. e • , ' .../..)r- ) / '-': • ';' • •--1,„"- ..'",--------.C-, 1 k....:1••-",.----::::--r- kz.: ____._...J.-,• A__ [ , • • t • • ,_ , _ \ C5,•,--- ...• 1 '.\,>,, , 1 C I ' , • ,. ,e •,.., ..r z 1 i / _. il,.., t,...i.. } ,-v,, . ... _-;-- , ----) AI „..„..„...e: ...„.„-. 7 1 ) _. .....f._±." / < .- ...1„k„o - ,. .. :, , I i 7-- i i- , } ......_...-, .. r•-•,,, ..t,--4--T.,— sl•' . .,Yr''.,t•-___,;`...W--..r_C -.....:.,-1-1: _ .,. / h't-,-,'• ii-f"1.1 --""-f;:`"-- I =-L`..L.-11.7":7-&- -'-'1S-Y ' --",-- ! r..;;.'- ---- i ... --,1 :_'„.,/i.„;;/_:.-c; Li., _•____,-_- ___z:2,,, r.1., ___-11---/------c.r...--- .., • ....:: ; ' / i '.— '--1-'--- ) , ,-.1<---L--1--=-------.'Sj ----_ ---", ,_,4....,.-•„7-liTh-. .-F-tr,-)—(7.-...,.. --;'-'-----f-..'r''-' '-..fr`-'—' • -..) . .__ •,- "7.----""1- i. ,1..../.... Q:...1 ----Li, t,.. ___ ,___-_,,)j " '_3 ,,7-1 .....c 1 __ _____-- , _ , 1.) 4.- I :_-,71-'skj• ',.../"--, - --1.- --' - A, Eir, ir r 0.) 1.• -..._ ___„____•.-_,_____ .• 1 fur,,'..2)z ,.—., :1; 4,4:e....ild, _:..a.:(kr--\-3_.b c,:ii c (2j, 1--- 142 ( -,-. , )C--' ,. CEN■E'...C.0 • P., 11' •. Fi D ,,...- A--\1 ,..- :-.1 --:-=.. ,-- 1 , .. -;r1-I -• " — - 1 C-, 1 • \ 1 1 r '1-.. I ..s.-., .:r., la--. ':"1 ,:,y• . i :4,, i: t_J- I %, 12):, ____c) , ,t••••11.0. ,..••••••• •,•') '•• t •••-•j i r• • ' I— SC I .. '' " '; i,• 1_.-,-2:- -— HED1.1.11,D P L 4r.;;Ir.,- -;---- , ,,,---,.,iz•s,•-t2 c-„zr f.,:: , ,.... ;; _;..-.4,_:•7 _,.,..:•1•-, ••,.... ..25.1 2 9, C4. 42 i"•• ...Jr ...... /t c... ..r. 0• I 1 ''''tf .',T.i*: I: cc:: :■t:: • 2 3 I•• ;.`ir-.-.--1.-'-:,-.... '""• .., ;.•'...`,7::,.:7:::;=,.."' :: Z.- I :` ',i: •• '•. - •7.._./ i _ ,.....Lc, ..: '.' ; l';''.51,13.•"1"."7"ettl.r711. I"•-• t"....,..;-...■1"5...., 0,0 fr•l• a .47 IS t V IRA..Di...C.•01.22.I • wt-I 11 i•• (1., I I f.—I) •C Sc.,•0■•■••5 405,r1,0 6 00 l• •e PT _2• ...2...0..• OUX.....4,11 6 •C7 ID 0 e irl 5 2 •.-2.C - .- 4— ; 1 1••■•r I I. I.h..I Ot 111 I DV 1 4C, 1 0 N.M..,t Un 111 ''.".... ."' "."..'""" •-• ... V 1.2,,,,,...•,,,,,,, '711.1•454 lw I,.. de,L.1101, C) I (...1'..•...,C‘,..., . • 2. • •Iria.0.7,2,44 c,;,•_ ••••••20..1. 30 0•1 I( <• "'''''".I 5 .." 11 20 I C• if,C1C,Ded •• 'fib N • 1b8 / cl il'arn........L.Z; lt I....U,............-...... is..3•0 J•r•sr.13. • 0...• 2. •• (I.)I_:Li.) 11111ur ILIAL P1.1•1'I NI, 1.1 4C1.5 • 14 • 115 t.'s IA.--.L "Z.7irf.....ri..:. r. :"•:r,:::`...."'"'"" .....,0 .04-co 2,1" 0.• S. C• .•MG C.402.., 2J .1•1• 3. C 6 I Cer.5,1 (,-,, “,... t ■•',L40.4 ,pt., ••• .. 14.• ---•-• j - Ce I.. ...•.........,- ■ ,,... ev,.....v,fi I. 2, .c. S. C 6 1 "....".;3..t.';.■..0■•.;'"''" C•••• .-,........ec 3.I. ••••• S. C• I 4-- . , ....CALE. I INCII • !A/ II CI row,il,II, 24 G•-• S. C• G••■••RA.,•,11.1.2.‘ re, 3..1 C f. l--._-_....-- --_•. LATE: DIAACDI 14. l'Ab9 MIMI/URI" _13 ...CT as 2, •Dv C....7140 To 1.-•in(2.In••..,__00.2c,Jr..., KY MARCH 2I ISIS •,•,,,,H /W....0, Mr -----,. MIT_ •• orm•Tri. ........... .....r mu .....T.-, onc wan c a Down, ca.r.....a.at:. arc nn TYPICAL PARKING DEIAIL still I 6(II c II LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANUA;SEN I 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ( 612) 937-1900 I APPLIC:u1T Cenv esco OWNER: Cenvesco ADDRESS ;CaO nanolis Tane I ADDRESS 3650 .Annapolis Lane —21vmeuth MN 55441 Plymouth , MN. 55441 ili TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 559- 64Z p Code TELEPHONE 559-6430 Zip C REQUEST: __..y. _ e Zoning District Change I g Planned Unit Development __ILL Zoning Appeal I Sketch Plan vn , Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan Final Plan . \c) , Zoning Text Amendment _ II Subdivision _ vo , Land Use Plan Amendment Platting I `"n Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Site Plan Review .'c_ Street/Easement Vacation I Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Oak View Heights PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION P.- 1 REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION R- 1'_ PRESENT ZONING R- 12 REQUESTED ZONING R- 12 USES PROPOSED Multi- Fami1v SIZE OF PROPERTY 15 . 925 :acres LOCATION Fast o F IFwv . 17 (Powers Blvcl . 1 and north or 78th Street hest REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Dovelo ) Townhouse Unity 1. S. 1. !'. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) II Outlot "B" - West Village Heights , according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. I • my 1 Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 3 I I Resolution #89-1 : Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 89-1 finding Modification Development District No . 2 and Tax Increment District No . 2-1 consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor except Tim IErhart who abstained and the motion carried . Erhart: I ' ll abstain on all these issues. Our company is looking at one ' site in that area as a future site for building . I OAK VIEW HEIGHTS, PROPERTY ZONED R-12 AND LOCATED BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, CENVESCO: A. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 140 IINDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS ON 19 ACRES OF PROPERTY. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET OF A WETLAND IAND STORM WATER DISCHARGE INTO A WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 150 INDIVIDUALLY OWNED TOWNHOME UNITS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . IEmmings: Does the applicant want to add any comments to the staff report? I Dean Johnson: Not to the staff report . I guess as the discussion goes on between the commission members, we' ll be able to add, show you some different drawings. I Emmings : Well if you' ve got something you 'd like to present , why don ' t you show it to us . I Dean Johnson : I guess I 'm not sure when we met last time, I know. . .HRA Board. . .but that' s the elevation of the building. I just wanted to show you want they do look like. I guess the reason I bring it up here is so in I the design of this building and the type of unit that we' re going to use. .:,: private complete with rents is something they can move into for the same amount of money of rents and then actually be cheaper for them by the time they get their interest credits , property tax deductions and all the Idifferent things like that. This is the type of unit that we come up with . I know that you talked about putting double car garages en it . It ' s quite hard to do on a unit like this just by virtue of the fact that the whole I front end is garage. That ' s something that comes out of the design. It comes out like this to get front elevation. It gets the front door and it gets open areas and patio areas. Just to show you a detail of what the area would look like under this proposal , I guess this is the layout to I scale. We opened up the center area here. Saved all these trees that are in this area here . Moved the totlot area which again was something that staff recommended or thought was a better place than where we had it over I here. We were able to adjust this building as to get it totally out of this area here so it became an advantage to the site. We increased more I I. Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1989 - Page 4 area inbetween the buildings and just generally took units away. We end up now with 132 units and we ended up with 70 units of parking area. I instructed by engineer to make up this dimension. Jo Ann basically showed you a rough one of just dividing the lots up with what it would look like in an R-12. I asked my engineer to take and draw this drawing using my unit or the unit that we had designed, keeping within all the R-12 criteria . We ended up with the 3, 600 lot minimum. We ended up with actually more than the 150 foot frontage. We ended up with a 35% impervious surface with this project, with this layout. The units are slightly less. Rather than the 202 to a unit, it' s . . . This one is 196. In the process this becomes a public road . . . Everything , the densities , the impervious surface, the frontages, all work. . . with the building that I ' ve designed for it . The other thing that they showed you or the thing that you have in your packet was just something done for what types of quantity of units per acreage. This is taking it a step farther and saying geez, we have the building. Let' s see what that building can do on this site . Emmings : Then the R-12 scenario , these would all be rental units as opposed to owned units? Dean Johnson : Owned units . Remember we spent a lot of time talking about the point that I had was the zero lot line to the condonized. This would be selling condos to the homeowners . They would own air space . Okay? The other project is zero lot lines . They would actually own the ground that they sit on. Hence comes the ordinance proolem with the 3 , 600 square Loot lot. Emmings : As far as the marketplace is concerned , is this a Legitimate ' choice for you as a developer? Is the market the same for each type or property? Dean Johnson : It ' s the same product. The iroolem comes ; n , as _ stated before, is that you ' re increasing the orice. ;he pact )t selling it as a condo causes , processing condonizing each separate piece becomes it ' s own plat so everytime that you file this , /cu f i Le these i nd i v' dual iy so your filing fees virtually go up times 12 . ; condo is sold as sir . In other_ Words,_.a surveyor after the building is framed , comes in and surveys literally from sheetrock to sheetrock and does a description . So many feet high, so many feet wide and basically what they want is a cube of air. They have the rights to everything in that cuoc so you have an extra surveyor 's cost. I threw out a figure that we ' ve used that we ' ve studied and looked at. It' s approximately $1 , 500 . 00 more por unlit to condo this project than the zero lot line. Now we felt if we zero lot Lined it, we were able to offer the customer more product for the same cost . Emmings: Would the buildings look the same with the R-l2 approach as they would . . . Dean Johnson : What would , as a businessman , as a developer , what would end up happening is I would have to make the choice of whether to market , sustain the $1, 500 . 00 more or whether it 'd be bettor to you know, lessen the product. That ' s a real hard decision quite honestly. I could sit here I , , Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1989 - Page 5 I I and say, geez no. I have to cheapen it down. I don ' t want to be so definite. I could see that happening realistically and the reason is is because of mortgage amounts . Because of what they' re mortgaging and what it would increase them and what that would do to competition with the I rental units and the type of person that would be doing this . The project before was rental units and I mean the project the Durand Company brought in front of you in September of 1988 . They were rental properties . They I were virtually the same square footage. They were different here and I have that too . I don ' t know if you remember this project. These units were 8-plexes. They had problems with impervious surface also . . .got a copy I of the Minutes and that was one of the things put on theirs. But in their project, these buildings were 8-plexes. They had what they called the legacy trim, I don ' t know if you ' ve seen it. It ' s kind of a paper covered trim. The doors were of cheap material and they covered it with literally I printed contact paper . Siding on this project was masoni.te siding . Windows were not thermal panes , they were 2 individual slider units. A less expensive window. Those types of things were done for them to keep it I in the potential market. As owners, we'd like to go after that market . We' re trying to build . . . sell to owners . They' re trying to go after that market and I ' ll try to get every advantage I can. If zero lot lining this is an advantage , then . . . Other things that come in as it becomes a little I hard to get totlots in on this area . . .and make the unit a workable project . The totlot would be hard to squeeze in. We did have a hard time saving the trees on a project like this. I know that the trees up here, the forester. I mentioned and I think Jo Ann mentioned it again , that they might go anyhow just because of the activity going on around the trees. Even thought on our first project or proposal here , we ' ve got some distance . We can cord this off and the elevation of this , which is , what i.s it? 910 or 1010. I Ican ' t remember the elevations . 1010. And the units around it , we ' re looking ac 1008 so we' re going expecting to have to do any mass grading of this area . It ' s one of the things that with the design of this Plan we I were able to work in . . . Other things that this plan gives over this one is just , as much as we know, we have a grading problem here. We ' re going to have to make better use of this site and consequently keep units closer to I Powers Blvd . . This one it' s squeezed in bringing this tighter in together . We get 270 feet of distance away from Powers 3lvd. I guess in thinking about the things that you brought up last time with the spaces , we added quite a few more with the open area . With the dropping down in density and I getting within the R-12, density, we thought . . .we feel that we ' ve given you some reason to look at it as a POD. Any questions? I Emmings : I guess this is not a public hearing but is there anybody else here that came to comment on this project? Alright. As. far as comments , Tim, do you want to start? IErhart : What variances are we looking at here Jo Ann? With tni.s proposal , what variances would be required? IOlsen : Since it ' s a POD , there would be no variances . Erhart: So it' s just a matter of us getting something in exchange. So the I differences from the ordinance that they' re asking for ] s the increase in impervious surface, the lot sizes. The reason our ordinance really didn ' t I Planning Commission Meeting ' • May 17 , 1939 - Page 6 take into account these kinds of zero lot lines , therefore our ordinance calls for 3, 600 feet and these lots are running 1, 200 feet? Olsen : For individual units . Erhart: Am I still in the same meeting? Alright . Do you expect the people that are going to purchase these things are going to be young families? ' Dean Johnson : I expect quite a variety. We took a closer look at another project that I mentioned that was already up and we found younger families. We found single parent families . We found elderly.- We found quite a mix in this type of thing. We found the retirement I 'm sure because of the cost of the units in keeping their budget down. We found quite the variety actually. It'd be hard to say what the exact percentage was because these II are. . .types of things outside the units . Let ' s say what one group would use over another age group but there is a mix . Erhart : What' s the park facilities available for this site? Olsen: Across the street, Chan Pond and there ' s a walkway around that. Erhart : Passive park? Olsen: And then the school facilities . ' Erhart : That ' s somewhat difficult to use tnat during the weekday when tae kids are there. Olsen : And there are some facilities up in Chaparal . Erhart: What neighborhood park? flow do they get to that? They'd have to go out on CR 17? Cross it at Kerber Blvd .? Olsen: There' s trails on Kerber and tner_e will be a trail on Powers . Erhart: On the east side or do they have to cross the street? Olsen: I know that there ' s a trail on the east side. I think there' s one on the . . . Erhart: Isn ' t it on the west side? ' Olsen: I think it' s on both sides on Kerber . Ellson: It ' s on both sides of Kerber . Olsen: On Powers it ' s going to be on the east side . Erhart : Okay, so children could , where they could go would be north on a trail along CR 17 or Kerber? II , PlanQi.ng Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 7 I I Olsen : They could continue down Jenny Lane to Kerber . That will be connected . Erhart : Yes , and then go up Kerber . How far is that? IOlsen: About a mile. So they wouldn' t go by themselves . I Erhart : I guess the concern I have is probably somewhat the same as last time. You' ve just got a lot of people packed in a small area and kids are going to want some space to be outside in and a totlot might be interesting I for a small kid but if you get any 6 year olds to they get their car , where do they go? It' s hard to tell how many are actually going to be in that area but if there' s 200 and some units , it could be a fair amount of kids in there . I guess I 'm wondering , with that density, is it more difficult I to get some playground area than say the kids living in the single family area or is it the same? IIOlsen: It depends on how close they are . Erhart : The southwest corner is not wooded currently. Are you planning on putting any trees? Yes , the area that you ' re leaving green essentially. IIIt ' d be south of Jenny Lane and next to CR 17 . Dean Johnson: We can, yes. We don ' t have it on the plan obviously. I Iguess it ' s just a matter of. . . Erhart : Yas , I understand that but I 'm dust trying to see if there ' s any I way you can make this thing the most liveaole with the density that you have . Applicant ' s Architect : We didn ' t feel a buffer was needed there of plant Imaterials . Erhart : I 'm not suggesting a buffer_ . I ' m Dust suggesting an area where Ithe kids can go out and kind of do what kids want to do . Dean Johnson: What you ' re basically talking about is , it ' s a townhouse . It' s hard in townhouses to get large open areas . It' s not like a single family area where you get 5 backyards. . . Erhart: Who owns Outlot A and B then when we' re all said and done here? IOlsen : If it' s a PUD, it ' s under the Homeowner ' s Association . IErhart: So the individuals own the lots but there' s an association . Dean Johnson : Right . The maintenance on the exterior of the building becomes the association ' s responsibility. IErhart : And until the future apartment building is done, you are maintaining ownership of Lot 1? II I Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1939 - Page 3 Dean Johnson : That ' s correct . That ' s the reason for the deed tastr. iction in the recommendations . Erhart : I don ' t know, I guess I ' ll just pass my discussion on this along . You may want to come back and look at it some more. I 'm still trying to get comfortable with the density. I think the northern area looks much improved. Emmings: I don ' t know if you' re ready to comment on this or. not Tim but one of the things we looked at last time was whether or not this project fits within the definition of a PUD at all . I don ' t know if you want to comment on that. Last time I think we felt it didn' t and I don' t know if you feel like it' s changed enough so that now it might fit. Erhart: I think it' s changed a lot. We' ve taken 1 building away but we redistributed the units to some degree . I note that on tie Plan you showed up there as just an R-12 is that there ' s 10 buildings and there' s 11 here . I don ' t know, the numbers indicate , if you take the aoartment out which you really can' t look at. The numbers have changed by 8 units and I don ' t know if that ' s what we had in mind . Why don ' t you go along and maybe I ' ll nave some more comments . Conrad : -ire these units going to have oasemen rs ? Dean Johnson: No they aren' t. ' Conrad : ind you ' .':e still designing teem, some .ii '_n _ _:ar :ara:ces out most with 1 car garage? I Dean Johnson : One _hi.r_d with 2 cars , two-•_n? rds ,ei_ tn _ : ;r. . _. e units that the same people ou'fore, Durand , those didn ' t nave aasenents either . Those are the same type of unit . I Conrad : ,:hat kind of covenants would tnis group, there tJOuian ' r oe covenants. They would be covenants? So wnat do you vision rot outside storage? What kind of covenants .would . . . Dean Johnson: For outside storage? I Conrad : Yes . Boats and trailers . Dean Johnson : They have to be enclosed . :;i. tner they nave to t„;e them outside of the storage facilities or they have to :;eep t;iem. . . if they have parking stalls outside of their garages wni cif is the way it was in the other townhomes, the apartment project . Conrad : You increased your visitor parking and kind of decreased the owner parking. Two weeks ago we saw a similar proposal for zero lot line and for maybe a group that had one-fourth as many units as you do. They have probably 50% more visitor parking than you do ind because we don ' t have an ordinance that really governs or, dictates the amount of visitor parking , basically are we assuming that Jenny Lane is joing to take overflow type for parties"? What ' s the thought? We rtnn ' t have a lot of visitor 11 C I , Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1989 - Page 9 II I parking and again , we don ' t have good standards here for requiring parking spaces. Based on what we saw 2 weeks ago, you ' re way, way different than what they' re offering for visitor parking . Like not even , it' s not even comparable. IEmmings : And all of those units had 2 car garages . IConrad: They all had 2 car garages . Dean Johnson : What was the price? Conrad : They' re higher but not by much. Maybe $15,000. 00 higher . I 'm not dealing with price. I 'm just dealing with where do those cars go? I 'm just curious , is it just assumed that Jenny Lane is going to take overflow Iparking or where do they go? Dean Johnson : In the project that I built before called Creekside of I Plymouth, we don' t have anymore parking that this . I think probably the reason for it is that being the type of unit it is and the size of the unit and the restrictions of parking, people don ' t normally throw parties like I that. It ' s not like in your neighborhood with single family where they' ve got a large backyard where you can set up the volleyball court and have maybe 30 to 40 guests over . We don ' t see that type of partying . In the Creekside of Plymouth project, they' ve never had a problem with that type I of stuff . People use it in the manner that they are allowed to use it. It ' s something that just isn ' t done. There' s restrictions oy the type of thing I guess is what I 'm saying to you. You ' re dealing in a townhouse , I almost an apartment. You ' re not going to be inviting 445 friends over to be at your house and have the parking problem. Conrad: But let ' s say they did , where would they go? IDean Johnson : The same place they would go .inen tner_e are single family houses which is on the street. But it would be no different than a single Ifamily project . Conrad : Each family, the families with the 1 car_ garage , how much driveway Ido they have to park additional cars? Dean Johnson : One more space . I Conrad : So they would have 2. And storage iot that family would have to be in the garage. I Dean Johnson : Again you' re getting into townhouses and a person that has that type of stuff, the person is probably looking at a home or , which is very common is people use . . . I Conrad : What ' s the building material Eor these units? Is it primary wood exterior? It was metal siding . II Dean Johnson: Metal or vinyl sidi.ng . . . soffits , clad windows , steel doors . I I. Planning ,ommission Meeting • May 17, 1'189 - Page 10 Conrad : Jo Ann , in terms of having an outlet , a second outlet for Jenny Lane , you ' re not uncomfortable? I didn ' t see in the staff report that this will not go through when this is built. You' re comfortable that one entrance in there is just fine? Olsen: I guess I 'm not following what you' re saying . Conrad: In essence it doesn ' t go all the way through to the east right? , Olsen : Yes it does . It goes all the way to Kerber . Conrad: Tt does. Okay. ' Emmings: Connecting with that other project that ' s already in . Olsen: With the cownhomes that are there. That' s private right now but they' ve got the right-of-way. Conrad: is I look at this and I take a look at the different ways we can develop this site and then I compare it to the PUD guidelines , to be very direct anu not to Prolong this , developing tnis under the R-12 district as I see the applicant, there looks to be, to tell you the truth, I like that better than I like tne PUD. There seemed to be a little bit of flexibility or creati-eness in that more so than I see in this particular PUD. Therefore , I feel tnat it' s a more comfortable , more open feeling which is what I 'm _ooking for . I ' m not really looking for reducing units as much as I 'm looki .c for making sure we have some open space nicn we kind of like out here _or_ people. You can no that open space by clustering and doing some thin.;s . I meet tner' etore tnat the _Z-12 district has .nerlt and I 'm not prone to PUD simply because i-men I look back at the ordinance for PUD, there ' s s i:ne intent statements end tne first one says variety. I don ' t think this shows variety. The second one says sensitivity. phis one shows some in tact we ' re saving some :r_ees but oor .:1 tnan likely we can ' t save more than a few so I don' t know now mucn sensitivity we' re showing. :A:e do have-a wetland ana a steep slope our we' re really not waking at that right now. We' re looking at the rest so i not sure that sensitivity is a factor. af£ici.ency is an intent statement and I think for the developer , it is efficient. Density is a factor in our intent statement and basically in derrsiti,-, you look- at transferring units so you can open up one area and increase the density in another area . This is :ot -Ding it as far. as I see . We' re not protecting anymore than that our ordinances are already protecting. There' s another one called district integration and I don ' t think that' s really applicable here . .'he :si-_-;tn one is parts and open spaces and other than the totlot is tine and That ' s okay but the v,etlands and the steep slopes , that ' s protected already so I don ' t know that , and then we don' t have any major parks so I guess the bottom line to •ne is , I think the developer can do a good job in an R-12 district . I don ' t think than-constitutes in my mind a PUD because it' s missed maybe 4 of these factors teat our ordinance calls for . I naven ' t been persuaded at this point in time that individual ownership is , I like that factor but I haven ' t been persuaded that I can give up some of the intents of our. PUD ordinance. I think they still are valid and I don ' t think that we meet them in this particular plan . I also 172e1 ':hat the R-12 district foes , and . , Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 11 I I the way the developer showed it could be developed , it looks very flexible and it looks like to me that there are a lot more open spaces for people to walk around . I Emmings: I think what I 'd like to do at this point is get some sense from the rest of the commissioners as to whether or not , before we spend a lot of time on each person commenting on the individual things and there are 18 I conditions here to look at and everything else, I guess I 'd like to get some sense because if people feel that this shouldn' t go forward as a PUD, we might want to just act on it without spending a lot more time on it. If I on the other hand people are of the mind that they feel the spirit of the PUD and the intent of the PUD ordinance has been met, then maybe we want to go into more detail on it. I Ellson : I don ' t think it ' s being met right now but I think this plan could still be worked on to meet it. IBatzli : I have a hard time looking at this without envisioning the apartment building in there. I think if the apartment building ever went in there it' d be great . It ' d be swell . You clustered everything in the lower corner and the rest is open and regardless of whether the wetlands and the steep slope and that type of thing , you really have to be protected. I would kind of like it then. It' s interesting but right now thinking that the apartment is going to go in there and the densities that I we have, we really haven ' t done much of anything and I actually agree with Ladd that when they put the R-12 concept up there I think I like that better . I don' t know enough about it but that was my initial reaction as 1 well . I really don ' t think they' re providing a whole lot of open space here or creativity or the other factors that are discussed in the PUD. Wildermuth : I 'd agree . I 'm not persuaded that we' ve satisfied the PUD I requirements and I 'd like the R-12 approach better just on paper . Just by this for instance . I Emmings : Tim, I don ' t know, did you get to address this question? I think you did but do you want to do it again? I Erhart : I guess I sit here and keep looking at this and the common alternative to this is just simply an apartment complex . I question the value to a person to purchase these townhouses from an increased equity standpoint. I 'm not too sure it' s a good investment. I 'm not sure that 15 I years from now that the site won' t be more valuable to Chanhassen as a well planned apartment complex as opposed to a townhouse. I might be completely wrong but I keep struggling with that same question. I realize it doesn ' t I answer whether it' s a PUD or not but maybe it does in the sense that if you want to look at it as a PUD which gets us out of this other approach , there should be something more. Some amenity there for the people who are going I to live there because I think you can get more amenity in a well planned apartment complex. Emmings : There seems to be a consensus up here . I agree that to me this Iis not fit under the PUD and I 'm kind of sorry about that because I like the townhome idea . I think the problem with it to me is that it hasn ' t I EN Planning Commission Meeting May 17, 1989 - Page 12 really significantly changed from last time. They' ve done a lot of work here to make some changes but basically they shifted units from the north side of the road to the south side . I think the north side is better than it was last time. I think the south side is worse and I keep going back to the fact that when we wrote , or revised the PUD ordinance, the whole idea was that the City was supposed to get something to allow an increase in density. Now the density isn ' t that much different than an R-12 but R-12 is not the only other option in the world either . If it fits under R-12 I and they want to develop it as R-12, they' ve got a right to go ahead and do that. I 'm real concerned about the parking. I don' t think any of these units should be built without double car garages . I don' t think anything like a. PUD like this should be allowed without some provision for overflow parking space for visitors and I don' t see those kinds of things being provided and I don' t see that the City gets a heck of a lot out of this . In fact I don ' t see that they really get anything at all . So I guess at this_point, and I don ' t see any reason to go in any more depth unless somebody else does , I don ' t see any reason to go into any more depth on things = like the wetland alteration permit or even the site plan review and I I think what we'd have to do at this point is , I think maybe what we ought to do is have a motion on the planned unit development concept which obviously would be turned down here if everybody votes the way they've been talking. That would at least give you the opportunity to take it to the City Council to see if they agree with us . The last big PUD we had in town we turned it down and the City Council turned that decision around and allowed it. That way you could test the people that make the final decision but then it would have to come back for the other items. So it necessarily will involve more time . I think your alternative here to having us do that is simply to ask us to table it while you work on it some more or while you decide to submit a different type of plan. We can accommodate you in that regard but I think those are the alternatives that I see for you at this point . Dean Johnson : If I 'm understanding this right , all other recommendations that staff has done, the other 15 or 16 or 17. Emmings: 18 . ' Dean Johnson: All you' re turning down is one? I have to come back? •`w)-1t,7 - y. - i. -r r - Emmings: No, let me explain. We ' re looking at 3 things on this. The first is the planned unit development concept and development plan . Second is the wetland alteration permit and the third one is the site plan review. What we' re saying is to us this does not meet the City' s-criteria for a PUD. So what we would do is simply act on that issue. We'd sav it does not because that ' s what people have said in their comments here . We'd turn this down as a PUD. You take that up to the City Council to see if they agree .with us or they don' t. If they agree with us , you ' re going to have to do something else. If they don ' t agree with us, the plan would come back essentially with instructions from the City Council that they agree it' s a PUD and we should then look at all of those 18 conditions. Do the site plan review and look at the wetland alteration permit but they would then take that decision away from us and we would just go forward with it as a PUD. Planning Commission Meeting May 17 , 1989 - Page 13 IDean Johnson : Why don' t you act on the other two points then so we don ' t have to bring it back? IEmmings : Because we ' re not interested in taking a lot of time to look at all those conditions since it doesn' t look like a PUD to us. I Dean Johnson: I put something in front of you and as much as maybe you don' t agree with the one, to sit there and cause me two months of delay which will effectively kill the project for this year doesn ' t seem quite fair either. I realize that I 've taken up your time and I realize you don ' t agree with the PUD but to make it so that I have to come back in front of you and if I get a yes vote out of the Council and waste another 2 months , not waste but use another 2 months is going to make this project a 1 next spring project at the earliest. Conrad : I don' t know that it has to come back here though Steve from the ' Council . Emmings : So we simply forego any discussion on the wetland alteration ' permit and all of the conditions on the site plan? Olsen : It would depend if you tabled the other items, it would have to come back. If you denied them all , it wouldn ' t come back. ' Emmings : Alright . I don ' t want to cause you any delay. It seems to me, I think the best thing is that it does go to the City Council at this point I because it ' s pretty much a stone wall here , it would appear_ and I think you ought to go and find out what they feel about the project . Dean Johnson : I guess I don ' t have a problem with that but I think the ' other thing should be looked at and if they have merit, I don ' t think that I should have to go in front of the City Council with all 3 no ' s in order not to come back to you with a wetland alteration or the way you talk about ' the grading project because whether it be a condo project or whether it be a PUD project, it' s going to be very similar . The other is a site plan review. ' Emmings : We can ' t sit here and review a site plan when we don ' t think the thing fits the criteria for the site plan that ' s being reviewed . It' s doing it in the abstract . It ' s doing it with a false premise and I don ' t think we should do it. Now if people up here don ' t agree with me, they should let me know and we can go around and take comments . IEllson: I think the idea of applying for both at the same time was basically set up that , normally you 'd think, okay first you get the PUD and then you look at the two things but we allow people to apply for both at the same time. Especially if you do agree on the PUD, you then can do it I but I think it ' s true intent initially to have all 3 here today was to try to help developers if we approve the PUD, we could then within the same day look at the other two things but that ' s not happening here. 1 Planning Commission Meeting ., May 17 , 1989 - Page 16 opposed to it. I think there would have to be some very creative and unique things done on that site to quality as a PUD using the contour of the topography. Conrad : Just one last comment . I find the R-12 district to be totally adequate for this proposal . I will take exception to Jim's comment. I think it' s not density. My issue is not density as much as it is open space. Like Tim, I thought this was a good property for apartments where II the density was stacked and where we could still keep open space for people to play and walk. This proposal is really packed together . It 's back to back apartments . Back to back townhomes and that' s not what I had envisioned for this district. Emmings : I want to go on record as adopting basically all of Ladd ' s comments just to keep it short. Anybody else got anything else on this one I then? Erhart: Yes , I 'd just like to say my biggest concern is when you get all of it done is that what ' s going to happen is because they' re new, they' ll sell . Obviously they know how to market the things. My concern, with that density, you' re walking the fine line that the values would go down. If you have a complex like this where the values go down, we will then own a tragedy in the City of Chanhassen. I just don' t think the amenities , there ' s something lacking to keep people interested in rebuying the units and at least the value goes up at the rate of inflation to take advantage of the tax advantages. My concern is that it ' s not tnere. It" s going to be a diminishing value peice of property and ttratLs- bad-tar Charrrrassen . Emmings: . Can you tell them when this will go to the City Council? Olsen : June 12th . PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF- A- TEMPORARY OFFICE, SHOP AND YARD FOR EDGEWORK BUILDERS ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED...AT 8301 AUDUBON ROAD, DAVE STOCKDAL:.. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Steve Emmings called the public hearing to order . Y ' Dave Stockdale: Basically just to summarize a little bit. In the past process I was , I 'm sure you remember , I was denied at the Planning Commission level and approved at the City Council level , my other project . Emmings : That would be comforting to the people who just left .�~ �~ I Dave Stockdale: Even though my conscience tells me that a site like this is more appropriate because of the zoning situation . I had some concerns with some of the recommendations. Again, when you review Merit Heating ' s I CITY OF CHANHASSEN \ 1/4, , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner (r)1_, ' DATE: June 8 , 1989 SUBJ: 1989 Goals for Planning Commission STAFF UPDATE At the May 17, 1989, the Planning Commission asked staff whether or not the City Council had reviewed the Planning Commission ' goals for 1989 and prioritized items that the City Council wanted addressed in the year 1989. Staff stated that the City Council did review the goals but did not establish a prioritization of the ' list. The Planning Commission directed staff to again present the list to the City Council with further direction that the City Council needs to prioritize items they want addressed in the year 1989. Should the City Council not wish to prioritize the list, then the Planning Commission will choose which items they feel most important to be addressed in the year 1989. ' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the attached list and be prepared to list at least five top priorities from the Planning Commission goals. I I I 1 13 , 1 CITY OF CHANBAS SEX 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 i (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 DATE: June 8 , 1989 SUBJ: Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project Work Plan In April, 1989, Barr Engineering prepared a work plan project for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project. The plan was 1 prepared for the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District for submission to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project was funded in 1986 1 by the EPA through its Clean Lakes Program. The work plan outlines the activities planned by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and the cities of Chanhassen, Eden Prairie for the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project. 1 The work plan describes the history and funding, the roles and responsibilities of various project team members and re-evaluates some technical aspects of recommended water quality restoration 1 activities. A major influence on the funding of the Clean Water Project is from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources which will not 1 provide it ' s share of funds unless public access is provided to Lake Susan and Lake Lucy. Public access will be provided for Lake Susan and the City Council will be acting on possible ' acquisition of property for public access to Lake Lucy on the June 26 , 1989, City Council meeting. 1 Certain residents of Chanhassen have reviewed the work plan and have questioned some of the proposed water quality restoration activities . There have been several meetings between Council members, the Watershed District, Barr Engineering and Chanhassen 1 residents to try to resolve or answer some of their questions regarding the water quality restoration activities proposed in the work plan. It appears that there are still certain concerns 1 which need to be addressed. These concerns should be resolved prior to any further action taking place as far as the work plan or the whole Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project. There has been some discussion of an informal meeting taking 1 place some time in June which would allow representatives from 1 I Mr. Don Ashworth June 8 , 1989 Page 2 the City of Chanhassen, Barr Engineering, the Watershed District, the City Council and the Pollution Control Agency to meet and try to resolve any concerns over the work plan. If it is determined that a technical advisory committee should be formed to discuss the work plan, staff is recommending that the City Council choose a Council member to represent the city on such a committee. Staff is presenting this item to the City Council so that they are aware of issues arising over the work plan and that it is not yet guaranteed that the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project will be moving forward. Again, the most important aspect of the project at this time is for the City Council to determine whether or not a public lake access to Lake Lucy is possible. If land adjacent to Lake Lucy is acquired by the City to provide a public boat access, then the Lake Riley Chain of Lakes Improvement Project should be able to move forward as planned. Any recommended changes to the work plan can be made to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the EPA who will have the final decision on acceptance of the work plan. 1 1