1d. Preliminary Plat Subdivide Lake Suan Hills West, Argus Dev CITY OF P.C. DATE: April 19, 1989
■. C.C. DATE: May 8, 1989 Y 7 call:mos:3i
' CASE NO: 87-3 PUD
1 Prepared by: Olsen/v
STAFF REPORT =utior, t:Y city Administrator
1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for 21 Single Family Lots r t;._.._5- -j 5
Lake Susan Hills West PUD 2nd Addition Date :eb!�i;tt:a to L _ +
'rrm- ,sioi
'..~°--- _
I Date :t.::-^.r';t to Got! cti
I LOCATION: East Side of Powers Boulevard, approximately
one-quarter mile south of Hwy. 5
11 917 APPLICANT: Argus Development
18133 Cedar Avenue
IFarmington, MN 55024
I
IPRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential
IACREAGE: 12. 6 acres ( gross) 7.1 acres (net)
DENSITY: 3 . 0 units/acre
I ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; single family
I ,4=1 r
S- PUD-R; vacant
E- Lake Susan
IIL.l W- PUD-R; single family and vacant
L.1-1
WATER AND SEWER: Available to site
IPHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a Class B wetland in the
northwest corner.
I1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
.
II
., I r / -... i
> I
, ....
<- ,a0-°- Or 0 AZ_ ' 1 - • V '
- .
c...1kVit-4 ,
a.... 4....--""...."- -
.. .
-• ------4_4- ' ,
'- - \ \ ..,.............
______\--_ \ 3•
Loi
1 _ am-5
......_...,
Illatj,
-..". • !----1
/* I •-.. : • , •'- II,mile _
-1,
._.,
•, lip ;ta-s
V ---' ---7- -
- - • --- - - . - -
_ .,
. • ,E
..,.=
Lo ,--
' II-) 51i--1 PI .
- .;
- - - ,
1 I A
la z -obici2iiick.) , n\ ?ii„
.. _.., i 1. ( .:
_ a
---2-7.1
1 ,
LAKE SUSAN
- . • A -
-PT.
-' ■ ,:.1?_,.. ,
co
RD-
.------- --il %V\ .....
PUD — R
..._
0 ‘ . .
a_
, j 86 TH ST
iliil..11 .1
II
1-- .
,
i
-.-C•r:
1 i
, 1 .4-' S r
I
_--. .-
..-
.:- RSF r-- - • 1 1
,
,
:rt . i
I I
cc ,
w
..r. .." Ct
41
0 , - •
LY PI —'s1 (.. /. % 1 Fl 0-- EVARD . (C.R 18 )
, ..-
Cf.... ‘.
I 4 '
I I
A40. I
1 ,
,
ill.
. ,....,
I
-- -. --_:r1
- •
• : 1
i - .
1
1 . ....
! i
- AMMIIIIIIIIMINE
' Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition
April 19, 1989
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-518 of the City Code requires the applicant to receive
1 development stage approval of the PUD following general concept
approval. The development stage is essentially the preliminary
plat of the site (Attachment #1) .
' REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer Attachment #2
Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #3
' Public Safety Attachment #4
BACKGROUND
' The City Council reviewed the PUD concept plan on June 29 , 1987,
and approved the concept plan as a PUD with certain conditions
(Attachment #5 ) . The developer subsequently revised the concept
1 plan to address the Council ' s conditions . The Planning
Commission and City Council held a joint meeting on July 27 ,
1987, to review the overall PUD philosophy and specifically, the
' Lake Susan Hills West PUD proposal . The City Council recommended
certain changes ( increase Outlot H to a five acre park) and again
approved the concept plan as a PUD.
1 The City Council felt that it was beneficial to have the 299 acre
site developed as a PUD rather than as a subdivision. As a PUD
the site will be reviewed as one coordinated development enabling
' the city to require adequate park facilities and to require logi-
cal staging of road improvements and utilities. Since the PUD
will be developed in separate preliminary plats , the city and
developer negotiated a concept plan agreement to ensure that all
of the conditions will be provided for each phase.
On October 5 , 1987 , the City Council approved the land use plan
' amendment, wetland alteration permit, rezoning and preliminary
plat for 76 single family lots for Lake Susan Hills West 1st
Addition (Attachment #6 ) . At that time, the City Council
' approved to rezone the property from RSF, R-4, R-8, and R-12, to
PUD-R and to amend the land use plan to correspond to the dif-
ferent areas of density approved as part of the PUD Concept Plan.
The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit for
the construction of a holding pond within a Class B wetland and
preliminary plat for the First Addition of Lake Susan Hills West
containing 76 single family lots on the east and west side of
Powers Boulevard.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing 21 single family lots located on the
east side of Powers Boulevard directly south of the Lake Susan
I
, 1
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition
April 19, 1989
Page 3
Hills First Addition plat. The average lot size is 14 ,706 square ,
feet. Thirteen of the 21 proposed lots contain 15 ,000 square
feet or more ( 52% ) . Eight of the lots contain less than 15 ,000
square feet ( 38%) . Lot sizes range in 12, 000 square feet to
20,359 square feet. The PUD ordinance requires that at least 50%
of the single family lots contain 15,000 square feet or more and
that the average lot size shall not be below 13,500 square feet.
The PUD ordinance also requires a minimum of 80 feet at the
building setback line ( 30 feet) and no lot shall be smaller than
12, 000 square feet. The preliminary plat meets all of these con-
ditions .
STREETS
The 21 lots will be serviced by a 50 foot public right-of-way off ,
of West Susan Hills Drive. The street ends in a cul-de-sac adja-
cent to the public open space (Outlot B) . During the PUD concept
plan review, it was recommended that a temporary access be
reviewed connecting the cul-de-sac with Powers Boulevard until
future phases could be developed which would provide another per-
manent access to Powers Boulevard. With the proposed addition,
there will be 26 lots serviced by approximately a 2 , 200 foot long
cul-de-sac. Both Public Safety and the Engineering Department
have reviewed the necessity of a temporary access from the Second
Addition to Powers Boulevard to provide emergency access and feel
that it is not necessary at this time since the chance of a
barrier closing off access ( large tree) is slim.
DRAINAGE, GRADING AND UTILITIES
See City Engineer memorandum. '
LANDSCAPING
The ordinance requires one tree per lot to be provided by the '
developer. As part of the PUD approval, the applicant proposed
increases in landscaping at entrances and along the boulevards .
In addition, the PUD was approved with the condition to preserve '
existing vegetation as best possible. The preliminary plat
includes one tree per lot and additional landscaping along the
entrance to the cul-de-sac and along the westerly edge of Lots 1
through 6 . The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which
provides one tree per boulevard and additional landscaping at the
entrance of the cul-de-sac and landscaping along the westerly
edge of Lots 1 through 9 . The plan does not specify the type of
pine or spruce or the height for the vegetation along the
westerly edge of the property. The applicant has been notified
that these need to be specified and will provide staff with an
amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning Commission
meeting. In addition, the approved concept plan showed
landscaping at the end of the cul-de-sac, at the entrance to the
park area. The applicant will also provide for this landscaping
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition
April 19, 1989
Page 4
' in the amended plan. In working with the DNR Forester, it has
been stated that Marshal or Summit Ash are becoming very common
and he would prefer a different variety of trees to be used as a
boulevard tree. The applicant will be contacting Alan Olson to
determine what types of trees would be best. Staff has also
recommended that some of the higher quality vegetation that has
been removed as part of the First Addition on the northern por-
tion of the site also be used as a replacement for some of the
landscaping ( such as oaks and maples) .
1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat
on the March 21, 1989, meeting. The Commission's action was
based on the PUD agreement with the Lake Susan Hills West
developer with the following conditions :
1 . The dedication of Outlot B for park purposes and to require
the grading of that outlot at the same time that streets are
installed in accordance with the grading plan provided by the
' city.
2 . Require the installation of a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the through streets within the development. Eight foot
wide bituminous trails along the east side of Powers
Boulevard.
3 . The developer shall receive 50% credit on park dedication
fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
11 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat
#87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped "April 12,
1989" with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall provide staff with an amended landscaping
plan prior to the Planning Commission meeting on April 19,
' 1989 .
2 . The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the
' Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
3 . The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk
' along the through street shown as West Lake Drive on the
plat.
4 . The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide pituminous trail
along the east side of Powers Boulevard.
I/
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition
April 19, 1989
Page 5
5. The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication
fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees.
6 . Prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult
with Public Safety for recommendations.
7 . Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion
contained in this staff report shall be submitted for I
approval by the City Engineer.
8. Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the
watermain will be required for fire and health reasons.
9. A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for
approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
10. The developer shall rough grade Lake Susan Hills Drive east
of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition as a second access to
the site.
11. 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 .
Planning Commission Update
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary
Plat for Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. Condition # 10 was
changed as follows:
10. There should be a secondary access going off of the 1
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.
Staff has contacted Carver County and they have stated that it
would be possible to have a temporary emergency access from
CR 17 . The applicant has provided an amended landscaping plan as
required under condition #1.
City Council Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: 1
"The City Council recommends approval of Preliminary Plat
#87-3 PUD as shown on the Preliminary Plat stamped "April 12,
1989" with the following conditions : "
1. The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the
Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
1
II n Hills West 2n
Lake Susa lls We 2nd Addition
' April 19, 1989
Page 6
' 2. The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk
along the through street shown as West Lake Drive on the
plat.
' 3 . The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide bituminous trail
along the east side of Powers Boulevard.
4 . The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication
fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees .
11 5 . Prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult
with Public Safety for recommendations.
6 . Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion
contained in the City Engineer' s report shall be submitted
for approval by the City Engineer.
' 7 . Since the watermain is not cooped, 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 . There shall be a secondary emergency access from the cul-de-
sac through Outlot B to CR 17.
10 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
11 the City and provide the City with the necessary financial
sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these public
improvements .
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Section 20-518 of City Code.
2 . Memo from City Engineer dated April 12 , 1989.
3 . Memo from Park and Recreation dated April 13 , 1989 .
4 . Memo from Public Safety dated
' 5 . City Council minutes dated June 29 , 1987.
6 . City Council minutes dated October 5 , 1987.
7 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 19 , 1989 .
8 . Plat stamped "Received April 12 , 1989" .
11
I
y N �---. ` 1
7.u 0•;:i. ,...,,,....i,t:,
- flu .:.:....::...:::•:.::::..•.:...
. .i•h.i r-i, .- g li • ' 1'dill it
. Ate• • . -. zo... •,4.(;.i:/::i--.1:..:.,:n:.:.:4:::::..:.:::::::::::.::.::i.0:
•
:-.0 o m
‘7...,.:.'.:-. :.
f'...1.1:,.,::,:
• \,,:v', .
I
.11
', 0 ; ;6 1 1 314 .
. NI • ' .: oil all . .,.
• 1
k, O.: -- - .L•••ttn...,- 1-. .IF Ii.
3
ED .
at I.
3 3/ . 1
ii. IP
•
,••:: r 0,
* 1 3
.-:4
)a.4•,k,a .-,-c,,4..,_•..:,.,"-.....,.,..-..-r---(•c-- ew r 0r_,,.,.,.,.-.i..‘
I- .-1. 1I1t 11 .
11I 1a 1
11‘,\
li\e.o:. ' 7 Y..f(_J • a', fie'.,
-.a- t 1.-1,.o4.0.,..,iP.:.i.'i,-k_'•...:'.'•„..
,....
-
..
i1,4
:._ 9 • ° o.
im\1,0
- • V . -... IS VIP
.S1
\ * . :N..
•
. :2b"0-c.,n .i L:IP�Lt.• • M 3 Cl 5 7 8 •
!J
C�.� III /o -3 2.0
e ) .
? 1; AA' • f=z.dt,...cs,,,..z..,._
JI::: is& cqamitogagemghiMi'
Nil
tz / * . . '
. i:: 4iiiikk...:.its
6 ':--:N.
�so i .� , ��,r n tilm a3 2.1.- t-/ Zo 0�
4? : :::••
in 4L ICILLA---......--
--,.. .,,t f______:..
61.7 ii
il
al --- i - ' t z,,„, •
•
1 ii •
4•. # ; ' y _ .r'" /.
All ._ __`\ ..,-
MI
CITY OF
11,3 EN
11 /
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
1 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition
File No. 89-2 Land Use Review
This site is located on the east side of County Road 17. It is
the next segment south of Phase I built in 1988 ( see attached PUD
plan) . This site is comprised of a rolling topography which has
been farmed for many years.
Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site by an
existing 8-inch sewer main constructed under Phase I of the
development. This existing sewer main was sized and installed to
service the anticipated development for the subject parcel.
Watermain
' The plans propose no looping of the system at this time but
rather construction of a long dead-end line for future
development to the south. The City will require the watermain to
' be sized for elimination of stagnant water and Minnesota
Department of Health requirements .
The do not show any watermain valving and as a minimum the
City will require a valve at both ends of the project and at the
cul-de-sac de-sac intersection. This will be covered as part of the
plan and specification review/approval.
1 Street
The plans do not show typical street sections ; however, the road-
way shall be built to City standards with a 28-foot face-to-face
concrete curb gutter conforming to Phase I construction. Street
grade and right-of-way shall conform to City standards.
Due to the long length of roadway ( 2 , 200 +) from County Road 17
without a second access, the developer should rough grade Lake
Susan Hills Drive just east of this site as the second access at
this time ( see attached PUD plan) .
II
Planning Commission
April 12, 1989 I
Page 2
Grading and Drainage I
It appears that a majority of the site will experience shaping
and/or grading to create the building pads.
The plans propose that the street drainage and emergency overflow
be directed to the ponding area in Outlot D developed under Phase
I construction. We find this plan acceptable providing proper
grading is undertaken to provide surface drainage to the pond
along the rear lot lines of Block 1. 1
Erosion Control
The plan shows that the lowland of the site be wrapped with I
erosion control fencing. We find that this is in conformance
with city standards.
Recommended Conditions 11
1. Revised plans that address the conditions and discussion
contained in this staff report shall be submitted for
approval by the City Engineer.
2 . Since the watermain is not looped, proper sizing of the ,
watermain will be required for fire and health reasons .
3 . A typical section of roadway is to be shown on the plans for
approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site.
4 . The developer shall rough grade Lake `$San Hills Drive east
of Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition as a second access to
the site.
5 . The applicant shall enter into a devoLopment contract with
the City and provide the City with the necessary financial
sureties to guarantee the proper instillation of these public
improvements .
6 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
11
I
•,;\ .. `,� , - 1 w }:__� 1 --L-- 1
•
7`'I` y , cam:,�.:,. r� �' ,-(1 .1.1-...',. j ' �9 , y_.,. _ �'�,1_._,_.. ,, .._- • "..:,rx.t. 1,--,7.....s.a.A.4-Aiiirt ...... :.. ei/ •-- ../.. ..iitus...iwils- 7 /.- __
...v._
...' '. l,•1 4,:..... ./ 111101,--ii-/---- a lip- i ,
lcsecs a►�1 ;` � \� I ,�.. :/. f s;,, ��,., `
i; ).tr -ii ILI: ;-. .'";:;%. . .)i -- 1p .- .. .,- 1/4. - - -. . .-...,.....„."......„..,,,,...„ ,,,,..)„. •.
1 � � 1+ if
11•� \ I ,4 ``
i1/ ��'\t'fi K',I •it -'�; • �. ' ' d a. %`� Io
s,*. • ••1111W, .11V: Vipli,,,Ilt■• 1 • ;111ri.4(*.2.`I ' .■ 11W,,,,,„,„,,, •:. lir •
r •.:Tdr.740 1 , 'I •• /..:i r'..' i t . r ,t.
7v a f f'y'' i `t LE Ca■
t ;�� �rza Css7�1 2 ,
t I - - K::.• j r " ;fi -'-+•-` 1• fir^-„ Exm TNv•
ri1/4,,,,„„...\,.... .... im 1 -a I
T ';I I - `/ *°► whoa a BITUMU
\ • - b• ♦a, �..►
- %Sr
l .1v.. t,_pua{.... �~ �i\\ .,
,.
. ,iii...s�,�;I I; A .. .k>,
Ilk
,,;
. ,
%.$ 40.',4", .I;,1.. (4P,i,„ v .,, jilig.1.41ki. • -
a,..--*....• .
AO IK' Ar: ,i i t ti 4/,'W. > 11... .. ; 41311 H ter. /.
�7y L�1.w 1 T ,�� ' II,1 I :�• _'_v ._'. /- 04 °-r�i ,1 av ,' .lJ `n - _ I,�t. .•
...rtirime .ncti•i .'!";4. ., , -• '400110. 101101, \ • .:.„, vb. ,V ...
' . .., ; rf i V i
,44 ., -.....„-„, -,
. .. ,,,:„.„.... ,:.
: , _1,._.
... , , ,
' 6° 163 \ ‘,. 81,41"-:: "4° ''l • 1°' '
11131,!;)) 1 \4.' - •
,„ i 1. %-10 ' .- ---. -.7.-2°- , .,I , ', :4:-, : -;:' ;, . _. a. ....,.. ..,--, 1
iL till% ,.,-,■,, :4_,.C7-7, .,,-‘,
•
0 1113$1 "1' /
•
. 4 .w,... 'dhb - 1 • 141r,i 7- _ - ,.
4.,,k, ,. . ,, .11` - <:s . / 7
S.7 �• `,,4 _ ./i: C.- /=J�1, - ,
,4411
� ., . ,� 1 l/tI,/ ( 1� `•.464 ",;.; �;�! '��.. - % Q1 , �,,;* �;,%,,, _ ,-...\,
(,,,, !,,',;,/,.,.. _'1 --...i , a ,�j / o' b 'P.4.f'/!%r •-'`ter J \ _---:-. �;``\: •�� i
I,. -=Y/�bl ;r ��1r��,� /'I 0 i•'y//i:j : / _'�. `, ,,....\\ \ ' ,'/ '• ,P•Y. �y4f ,'W'. /// _J{ ! /� ;r i! J • .fr'�/ 1 •�ZMl.l:lll:1 1 i i \. ; .,•al y/*'r (Y ` ,�.r1... . ( ,, ..„ i s `• SITC Dti1
• 4 U 1•7‘... 'v'w YA�• F' i. - ,. ;,f. - TOM. 11.0., 1007•
,r
CITY QF
„:„
CHANHASSEN
\ `3 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator I
DATE: March 28 , 1989 ,
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Lake Susan Hills
West Site Plan Review
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for
Lake Susan Hills West Third Addition at their last meeting. The
Commissioners ' action was based on the PUD agreement with the Lake
Susan Hills West developer. It is the recommendation of the Park
and Recreation Commission to request the dedication of Outlots A
and B for park purposes and to require the grading of those
outlots at the same time streets are installed in accordance with
grading plans provided by the City. Additionally, the Commission
recommends to require the installation of 5 ft. wide concrete
sidewalks along the through streets within the development; 8 ft.
wide bituminous trails along the east side of Powers Blvd. and
the east side of Audubo Rgad; and a 20 ft. wide trail easement
along the west side of .. ` er Blvd. , as outlined in Sections 4
and 5 of the PUD contract dated November 16, 1987. Additionally,
it was recommended that the developer receive 50% credit on park
dedication fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees.
Attached please find the Park and Recreation Commission minutes.
I
I
I
11
1
r '
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
IIMarch 21 , 1989 - Page 37
SITE PLAN REVIEW - LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, 3RD ADDITION.
‘ Sietsema : This proposal is very straight forward. It doesn' t deviate,
I as far as I could tell , from what was in the original PUD agreement as far
as what was required in parks and trails . I attached the PUD development
agreement and as you can see in Section 4 and 5, there were park
II requirements made at that ,time. So basically what my recommendation is to
just carry through what that original agreement was . To request park
dedication with Outlots A and B and require the grading of those Outlots
I in accordance with grading plans provided by the City. This would also
require you to direct staff to prepare grading plans and start with
preparing a master plan for those park sites so that a grading plan can be
submitted when they' re ready to go. . Also, to require the installation of
II 5 foot wide sidewalks along the through streets within the development. 8
foot wide trails along the east side of Powers Blvd. and the east side of
Audubon Road and a 20 foot wide trail easement to be dedicated along the
1 west side of Powers Blvd . . That was_ to insure that we had the space to
put in another trail on the other side of the street is such was needed in
the future.
II Mady: I like your recommendation with one exception. That is , taking in
Al ' s comments about Chanhassen Hills Park and that is , that we need to put
a time line into getting that grading done . Because they' re going to be
I moving a lot of dirt this summer , just have that be included with that .
It might require us to move a little quicker on our parkland but .
I Boyt: Another thing that we need to look at sometime this summer .
Somehow tying in funds . . . so we can get that done right away.
Mady: . . .we had one developer who indicated that he was surprised that we
I waited and took them as the permits were filed instead of getting it all
up front from the developer . . .
IIHasek : I 'm surprised that that' s not what we do.
Boyt: Should we change it right now?
II Hasek : I thought we were. I thought we were taking down from the
developer .
IISietsema : It ' s stayed with the building permit .
Mady: Can we put that on next week ' s agenda?
IIHasek : What should happen, when a piece of property comes in , he only
wants to go into Phase 1 but we ' re taking a big chunk of land. That
should come right off the bat , when the property is subdivided , that ' s
IIwhen we should be getting our dedication. Right then.
Sietsema : We aren ' t right now.
IIMady: Let' s next week we' ll have a full discussion of it . I move that we
recommend to Council to accept staff ' s recommendation on this parcel with
1
.
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
March 21, 1989 - Page 38 1
the exception that we request the developer to move quickly on the grading ,
of the parkland so that land is useable as the families are there. Those
kids have a place to. . .
Sietsema: If I could suggest that you request that the grading of the
park be done at the same time as the streets .
Hasek: Second . 1
Mady moved, Hasek seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission I
recommend to request park dedication of Outlots A and B and require the
grading of those outlots in accordance with grading plans provided by the
City and to be graded at the same time as the streets. Also, to require
the installation of 5 foot wide sidewalk along the through street within
the development, 8 foot wide trails along the east side of Powers
Boulevard and east side of Audubon Road, and a 20 foot wide trail easement
be dedicated along the west side of Powers Boulevard as outlined in
Sections 4 and 5 of the Planned Unit Development Contract dated November
16, 1987. Additionally, it is recommended that the developer receive a 50% credit on
the Park Dedication Fees and 100% credit on trail dedication fees. All voted in favor
and the motion a carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF JULY 4TH CONTRACTS .
Hoffman : 9 (a) has to do with the selection of the band for the street
dance. Again, a search for the appropriate type of band being family
entertainment . A lively band playing the appropriate type of music for a
reasonable price. The search ended up again with the Hi-Tops. They
continue to provide an excellent show. Last year , if any of those on the
Commission who were in attendance I think would agree with that. They
have evolved over the years . They' ve stayed the same but , their name has
stayed the same but they' ve changed faces and thus their show and their
act and their music changes correspondedly. So it ' s staff recommendation
to accept their contract in the amount of $1, 200. 00 for three 60 minute
sets for this year ' s 4th of July Street Dance which will occur on Saturday
evening, July 1st right up back here in the back parking lot at City
Center Park. i
Schroers: July 1st?
Hoffman, Saturday July 1st . 1
Mady: A following question , are you planning on doing the Oktoberfest
again this year? i
Hoffman: Yes .
Mady: Okay. I ' ve heard discussion on having , the different . . . idea of
Oktoberfest. As long as we have two items . Two different fields. We can
have both bands . One on each one . I think we satisfied both groups of
the city. So I ' ll move we go with staff' s recommend to enter into the
contract with the Hi-Tops this year again for three 60 minute sessions for
•
$1, 200. 00.
a
1
CITY OF
cHANBAssEN
I
'� "j 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner
1 FROM: Mark Littf in, Fire Inspector
DATE: April 12, 1989
SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills 2nd Addition
Recommendations at this time:
' 1 . A second means of access from the south is not required
for 2nd addition.
' 2 . Proposed street names must be approved by the Public
Safety Department.
1
I
I
r
C 014
•.. :. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
t` II' 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT \ /
(612) 448-3435 CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
!A'N E 50�
COUNTY OF CAQVEI
March 20 , 1989 1
Mr. Stephen Hanson
P
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive , P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Planning Case 87-3
Lake Susan Hills West
2nd and 3rd Addition
Dear Mr. Hanson:
We have reviewed the plans received concerning the preliminary ,
plats on the above mentioned projects . Neither project in itself
shall greatly effect CSAH 17 .
The completion of the total development of the Lake Susan Hills
subdivision does have a traumatic effect on the CSAH 17 road cor-
ridor. Carver County is still working with the developer concern- 11 ing the borrow material needed for the widening of CSAH 17 and the
possibility of obtaining this borrow material from the future
development of the Lake Susan Hills West subdivision.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our comments . If you have
any questions concerning these comments , contact me at your con-
venience . I
Sincerely,
//6 / I
�C.fGGF�
William J . Weckman, P.E.
Assistant County Engineer
WJW/cjr
MAR 2 21989
CITY.OF CHANHAsStAl I
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
oft
242 _
1
IICity Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
[-
II REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES
TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 212
AND TH 169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE. — —
1 Mayor Hamilton: Do Council members have any problem with this? It's
adjoining BF District that we zoned.
IICouncilman Johnson: It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning
I Request #87-2 to rezone the entire two acre parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of TH212/169 from A-2, Agricultural Estate to BF, Business
Fringe District. All voted in favor and motion carried.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. (CR 17) 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF TH
II5, DON PATTON, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. — —
Barbara Dacy: The plans that were dated June 26th in your packet reflect the
II most recent submittal by the applicants in response to the Planning Commission
action on June 17th. I'm going to keep my comments bried because I know the
applicants have a presentation that they would like to give to the Council.
To summarize the changes that they have made, in your original Staff Report it
Iwas noted that there were a number of lots or I should say there weren't
enough lots size 15,000 square feet and above and the applicants have gone
back and corrected that so approximately 57% of the lots are 15,000 square
II feet or above. Therefore, their overall square lot size has increased also.
Secondly, the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the overall
reduction in density. The original zoning plan anticipated a certain amount
of R-12 and R-8 and the proposal was to reduce approximately 30 acres to the
1 R-8 zoning. This plan reflects, if you look on Outlot D, originally that was
designed as R-4 and now they are proposing that as R-8. Outlot D is
II approximately 10 acres in size. Another comment from the Planning Commission
was to make sure that the recommendations from the Park and Rec Commission
were being met and the plan that you see here proposes park space on Outlot F,
Outlot G, Outlot H proposes concrete sidewalks along the interior streets and
II an 8 foot bituminous path along the west shore of Lake Susan. The bituminous
path is to be located within the acreage that is supposed to be dedicated to
the City. Also, the wetland area in Outlot A is also proposed to be dedicated
II to the City. Another concern the Planning Commission had was to look at the
site plan for sensitivity to natural features. Right now a majority of the
site is now cornfields and being used for agricultural production. It does
contain steep slope areas and the shaded areas are slopes in excess of 16%.
IA remaining concern that Staff has is location of the cul-de-sac at the end of
Block 11 here. It looks like according to your drawings would be encroaching
into the 16% slope area. We would want to look at that in a little bit more
I detail and look at the impact into the adjacent wetland areas. Other
sensitive areas are up along the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Lake
Susan Park where there is a pocket of existing vegetation. This plan also
6:
reflects proposed landscaping plan. Another comment identified by the
II
26
i #9
241
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
II
17 Planning Commission. They are proposing a rear and sideyard treatments
through to the site as it is existing as an open agricultural field. It is II
going to be difficult to vegetate the area. With that, you have the Planning
Commission recommendation in front of you. The applicant has submitted this
revised plan to attempt to address some of those concerns. The Council needs
II
to direct the applicant as to whether or not they feel the proposal is a PUD
and whether or not they should proceed to the next stage of PUD application
process. If not, then a straight subdivision application can be applied for.
II
Mayor Hamilton: The applicant gave me some letters that he had received and I
was wondering if you could, I know we don't normally like to have, but seeing
this is the concept plan, put these in your file for this particular project. II
I belive these are comments from local companies.
Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council, as a part of the growth of Chanhassen you
II
need a good employment base. You need a good retail base and you need a good
residential base. We're proposing the development, 299 acres of residential
development. It was carved out of the old Dunn & Curry project from some
years back. The owners of the land are here tonight. Mr. Tom Reeves, Mr. II
Mike Forbes and Jim Lamson. I bring this to the Council. The single family
lots as we will go through, have been bought on a puchase agreement by Joe
Miller Construction represented by Ron Dahlen and Bob Count. We think that we
II
have done a good job in planning this. We have met the requirements of the PUD
Ordinance. I would like to int- ce Mr. Jim Hill who will make a
presentation. I F Jim Hill: The pict- monitor now represents the original
-
application. P- / .4 nership it is still 300 acres. Some 893
dwelling un.' / '-family and single family detached. II
Approximatel, \ Zigher densities along Powers and
adjacent to ti �/ Bess Park to the north. Since the
application am / _ Commission and Staff, the partnership
II
has made a modi _.c. What we are reivewing represents the
latest land use E. .., a modification of the land use plan wherein
the park dedicatic. _ densities have been modified to reflect the R-8
densities giving u. ,at a 5% increase in overall densities. Reflecting the
additional 8 acres of park that was required by the Park Commission.
Addressing their issues with regard to concern that is it a PUD or is it not a
PUD. The proposal on this PUD is to provide now some 933 dwelling units in ,
classifications of R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-12. Generally the multi-family are
against Powers and against the Industrial still. The PUD addresses the
natural features of the 300 acres. Those are the slopes, the wetlands, the
I
existing trees and existing road system that is in and through the 300 acres.
In addressing all of those conditions and all of those natural features,
including Lake Susan, we have come up with this alignment of the roads. The
II
number of cul-de-sacs don't differ from the PUD that was approved some 8 years
ago. The cul-de-sacs still stay because the land has not changed and the cul-
de-sacs recognize those slopes and recognize the drainage areas. Along with
II
that, consideration for PUD, Planned Unit Development Ordinance of Chanhassen,
it gives the developer the opportunity to vary lot sizes. The PUD says and it
specifically says that lot sizes, single family residential homes, can be
varied within a PUD if it meets their standards. The data that has been I
27
II
244
II
I
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
submitted to Staff meet those standards and I appreciate that when you take a
residential plat, whether it be a standard subdivision or a POD subdivision in
R-1, you're going to see very little change because what you're doing is
meeting a POD ordinance that says you're varying the lots. In the 300 acres
' the reason for the POD is to vary the lots and vary the land uses so that we
can achieve and stay with the natural forms that are on the site. Recognizing
Lake Susan. Recognize Powers Blvd. that goes through the area including all
of the wetlands. The recommendation by the Park Commission calculated under
the Park requirement of Chanhassen that 33 acres shall be given and that will
be the requirement of the 300 acres and the 930 dwelling units. In their
calculation of 33 acres, they gave credit to the 18 acres here, the 7 acres
' along Lake Susan totally 25 and that's the reason for the change where we add
an additional 8 acres of park. Under the proposed POD and that 8 acres is
here adjacent to the residential high and 3 acre parcel adjacent to the R-4 in
' the single family. •
Councilman Boyt: Could you go through that one more time for me. Where
you're having your parks.
rJim Hill: Park requirements of Chanhassen shall be the number of dwelling
units times 2.8 people per dwelling unit times the number of dwelling units
divided by 75 and that's the number of acres you shall provide. That's 33
acres. The Park Commission looked at a proposal of some 50 acres of open
space proposed in the POD and said of that 52 acres we shall credit you 25.
' 25 consisting of the 7 acres along Lake Susan and the 18 in the southwest
corner. Along with that southwest corner we had proposed and provided a park
layout to the Park Commission and they accepted it. Ballfield spaces, soccer
and skating, totlot and future tennis. 25 acres of the 33 required was
credited against the 52 so an additional 8 acres remained...
Councilman Boyt: What's this open space now? Outlot G and Outlot H?
' Jim Hill: All the green on this site. The 18 acres in the southwest, the 8
acres in the northwest and the 2 1/2 acres in the center and the 35 acres in
Outlot E being the lower wetlands or the corridor to Lake Susan and the 7-7
1/2 acres along Lake Susan comes to a total of 62 acres or 21% of the site.
Part of the proposed PUD, and I think this was explained quickly to the
Planning Commission is to provide additional landscaping. The builder has
' agreed to allow the streetscape, around other subdivisions you would not have
additional planting within the streetscape over and above one tree per lot.
You would not have additional landscaping in the streetscape as you drove down
r the street. What the building is proposing to do additional plantings in the
street, adjacent to the street boulevards and that is represented by these
clusters of greens that you see along and throughout the single family
detached lots. He will provide approximately a $65,000.00 budget for that
landscaping throughout. Over and above that the multi-family, a low average
for multi-family would be approximately $530.00 per dwelling unit and that
would constitute against the 500 dwelling units of multi-family for attached.
r That would be another $250,000.00 in landscaping. Part of the proposal and
agreed on by the Parks, that the developer shall provide and build the
pathways and the sidewalks within the street. That is approximately 3 1/2
[::
miles of concrete sidewalk and/or 8 foot bituminous. That will be buit and
28
1
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 ,
constructed during the phases of the PUD. In conjunction with the PUD, the
developer shall also grade the parks. That's some 33 acres. The 18 and 8 for
some 26 acres. We have proposed a park layout for the southwest park, 18
acres. That was generally approved by the Parks Commission. The developer
has agreed to grade the access road, the ball diamond and the soccer field and
seed and produce cover on the disturbed areas. If one counted all those PUD
give me's in this PUD, one could come with a number in excess of a normal
subdivision of some $400,000.00. If you didn't like those numbers and you
just said James, figures don't lie but liars do figure. If you just looked at
the PUD that they are proposing and say to yourself over and above what is
proposed is some $60,000.00 to $65,000.00 in street landscaping in the single
family area. Park grading to the tune of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 and the 33
acres that is acceptable credits for the park, which is one-half of the green
space that you see in a PUD, of the. 33 acres only one-half of it will be
credited against the $415.00 that you would normally accept and require if no
land was given so that's another $190,000.00. So you could count over a third
of a million in the PUD that is extra in their eyes over and above a normal
subdivision. The Lake Susan West community is a neighborhood of mixed
housing, unglading lands, lots of open space, access to the Lake Susan,
pathways and parkways and available parks that are graded and useable. That's
the PUD and the developer is trying to provide a neighborhood of people that
can function within itself and have the amenities that are there without
destroying and going to the cookie cutter, grid system of planning.
Don Patton: This is the current zoning that we're conforming to. You see the
R-12, single family here and over in through here. The R-8 is in this area.
e Again, we're changing the arrangement of that. Some of this is outside in the
A-2 we would be looking at rezoning that. The MUSA line is this line. Do
some density transfers moving that into the.MUSA line. From the standpoint of
phasing, it's a big project and obviously can't be built at once. What we're
looking for is, in trying to figure out the natural topography, you've got a
line that goes basically like this. This draining back towards the Riley-
Purgatory Creek area and this area draining to the west into a different
Watershed District. This is a natural boundary for the west phasing. This is
the line that we defined as Phase 1 of the east side. The phasing that we're
looking at is in the single family on the west side, the market bracket, and
again if it doesn't sell it's not worth developing, are $90,000.00 to
$140,000.00. On the east side we're looking at $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 to
$250,000.00. If you've ever been down along the lake you'll see the
desirability of a lot of these lots. As a part of the development we would be
looking at Phase 1 in the high income housing project and the moderate income,
this would be Phase 1. Developing to the south, Phase 2, again Phase 2 here. I
Phase 3 here. Phase 3 down here. One of the things that we see in defining
this and trying to maximize the topography and terrain in this development is
to define the multiple size so those can then be marketed for multiple
construction. We're looking at covenants. A high level of construction. The
homes in here would be wood and masonry. Timberline roofs and panel doors so
we're looking at something that we would be proud to live in and something you
would be proud to be building in Chanhassen.
Councilman Geving: What was the price range on that Don?
29
1246
# it
11 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
IIDon Patton: On which one?
Councilman Geving: In number one. •
I Don Patton: We're looking in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00. One of the
things that we've done, if we can pull some more of rabbits out of here. (Mr.
Patton then showed a slide presentation showing the different housing styles
11 that Joe Miller Construction builds.) As a part of our partnership in the
Chanhassen community we met with a lot of the business people, Mr. Jerome
Carlson from United Mailings.
IIJerome Carlson: Don talked to me a week or so ago and we went over about what
you've gone over I suspect. What interests our company and me is that we have
II a lot of employees, as you know, who really have a hard time finding
affordable housing, maybe any housing, out here. I believe that this would
significantly help fill a need for our employees. It would be more
affordable. It would be convenient without a, doubt. I also believe that it
II would be a selling point for new employees, which we are having difficulty
finding. We constructed a facility in Little Falls and moved in to that last
August. Less than a year ago. The only reason was because we were unable to
find people within a reasonable distance to fill jobs. This year, less than
II one year later, we are in the process of finalizing plans for a 45,000 square
foot addition to the Little Falls facility and that is 100% based on a labor
availability business decision. We are anticipating as we have experienced in
I the past every year severe labor shortages as we enter the late summer and
fall and winter and spring season. Our slow time generally is May, June, July.
This year that did not happen. We are fortunate but we are really trying to
MI accelerate the addition in Little Falls because quite frankly gentlemen it is
IIvery difficult to find enough human resource within a reasonable distance. We
are raising the minimum wages. We are doing a number of things so that you
can assured we are working very hard in all kinds of ways but the fact of the
II matter is, affordable housing that would be conveniently located would be a
boom to the community marriage of business and housing and I would imagine the
redevelopment of the downtown. It all fits together in my mind. This goes
I back many years when we were working on a redevelopment plan that goes back a
few additions. That's what I came to tell you. I am in favor of this and I
hope that you can find a way to get on with it at the earliest possible date
because we need those people.
IIMayor Hamilton: I appreciate your being here for one thing. Do you feel that
if you had the affordable housing here and you feel by being able to attract
l new employees to this area that your businesses would expand here and perhaps
you wouldn't have the need to expand in Little Falls and the expansion could
take place here?
IJerome Carlson: We have additional space in our buildings that is not being
utilized. That was on the basis that we would fill these up originally before
II we would be going elsewhere. Now, in Instant Webb and at Victory, the labor
shortages are not nearly as severe as they are at United Mailing. We
certainly would not have built a facility in Little Falls when we did if the
[E:
labor had been available in Chanhassen. That I can assure you because it's
IIadded expense to a facility that we've already committed to and we have no way
30
II
247
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I
out of that. To the extent that labor becomes available Tom, down here, that
will directly impact the rate of growth in Little Falls.
Councilman Geving: Jerome, have you ever done a market analysis or an
employee evaluation of where your people come from to get to work in
Chanhassen?
Jerome Carlson: I can't say that we have one that is real recent. I think
the most recent one is at least a couple years old and there have been some
people that have moved over time to the area from where they were.
Councilman Geving: I drive TH 5 east every morning and it seems like there ,
are as many people coming from Bloomington and Edina and wherever they come -
from from the east coming our way but it seems to me that what.we're talking
about here tonight I haven't seen any, what I would consider, affordable
housing. We're talking $90,000.00 to $140,000.00. Are you having trouble
getting executives out here too? Your middle managers or your manager types.
Jerome Carlson: Our primary concern right now, frankly because it is so I
critical, has to do with the young people who are 30 and under and the
affordable housing issue. It was always my understanding going back over the
years with the zoning that in fact the City was going to take care of that.
Going to take care of that and address that so we would have not just middle
to higher income housing. That we would address it for all of the people who
we need in the community. '
Councilman Geving: What we didn't get from the developer yet tonight is an
indication of the multiple family and higher density areas and what those
might do for our community in terms of affordability. I haven't heard that
yet. Maybe you could address that for us.
Jerome Carlson: Those, in my opinion, are absolutely as critical. Those
later phases of those multiple dwellings. We would really like to see those
available.
Don Patton: Let me just address that point. One of the reasons for this R-12
is for the lower income. We're looking of course for these high densities,
you're looking at 360 units in this orange area. Projections on that would be
again based on that king of input I think would be certainly find some builers
for that in the $65,000.00 to $70,000.00 range which would address those
concerns.
Mayor Hamilton: Don, maybe you could address the Outlot, the one right along I
CR 17? You had at one time I think proposed to downzone that.
Don Patton: Yes, again that was what I was showing on this slide. I guess I
the feeling that we had is that downzoing was appropriate. The feedback that
we got from the Planning Commission was that that was not desirable. Again,
we want to be a good partner to the City of Chanhassen. We want this to be
successful and there are a lot of things that make things successful. The
market makes it successful. Good planning makes it successful and by changing
this area right here to R-8, we will accommodate that and we appreciate those
31
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
I
comments from Jerome on the housing needs. The buyer that we have right now
II is for the single family but again we feel that by saying this is where single
family can best be designed and go up according to what Mother Nature gave us.
Don't fool Mother Nature, we're trying to design around that. Platting the
I outlots as we've seen will give the buyers when they come in and market for
multiple family housing. We have talked to several people.
Mayor Hamilton: Co you have anything else you want to present or does that
Iconclude it?
Al Klingelhutz: I guess I would agree with Jerome. The fact that Chanhassen
I has a lot of businesses and we have more employment in Chanhassen than we have
people to fill the jobs and the only way we're going to create a little
different climate for more industry to come in here is to get more people to
live in Chanhassen and put developments up like this is one way of doing it.
Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Planning Commission on this one. I see
a lot of hocus pocus with these numbers. I'm 'literally very upset to tell you
I the truth. It really baffles me how to Blocks 8, 9, 10 and 11 we can increase
the lot size of 24 lots between Planning Commission and here and one lot was
decreased by 300 square feet so somehow we've taken that 300 square feet and
II divided that amongst 24 of the lots. Some of them increased by over 2,000
square feet and did it in the same area and having the same amount of open
space and the same amount of outlots. This is hocus pocus. This is
II unbelievable. The only thing that was done, when you took this, you changed
the numbers here. All the lot lines are identical. I can't find any of the
lot lines that are different. I can't find anything on the east side of CR
17, any lot that's been decreased in size except for one. I found one that
actually was. It went from 15,300 down to 15,000 but within that 300 square
II feet we're able to pick up 24 lots and increase them up to 15,000. That's
hocus pocus to me. They say there are 934 dwelling units. Mr. Carlson wants
II more affordable housing and this development keeps going smaller and smaller
on the multiple families. There aren't 934 dwelling units. There are 857
now. We've decreased the amount of dwelling units because we cut back by 12
acres the R-4. We cut back by 5 acres the R-12. We did increase the R-8 by
I 10.4 acres. It's interesting that we had 360 dwelling units in the R-12 when
we had 30.1 acres. We decrease that by 5.7 acres and we still have 360
dwelling unit in the R-12 district. This is hocus pocus folks. These numbers
I are not right. Somebody is figuring. I don't believe that Outlot B is
useable for R-8. There's no way to access it. It's hardly wide enough for a
regular lot no less than putting in R-8, medium density, residential which is
what Mr. Carlson wants. Everytime you turn around we're cutting down and
Iadding more. This is not a PUD. We need internal parks and totlots in here
versus making everybody walk way out to the periphery and the areas that we
can't develop anyway. I don't really see that this qualifies for a PUD at
I all. I would like to see more of the multiple. I would like to see some
commitment to those multiples so we can get affordable housing. $90,000.00 to
$200,000.00 housing is not what I call affordable housing. I see an R-8 right
II nest to an RSF. I see RSF right next to IOP, that's not good planning. You
don't put residential lots right up next to the Industrial Park. You put R-4,
R-8 or R-12 next to Industrial Park but are you going to tell the people that
[=7
IIare going to be buying these lots what's zoned behind it is industrial or
32
II
ill
2411
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 1
1r-
zoned next to it is high density? If there is someway we can make it required
II
to disclose that information, I want that disclosed. I sat and listen to a
developer tell somebody, Bill that he was going to have single family housing
next door to him and it was zoned R-12. That was a different development. I
believe as far as for single family housing, Chanhassen Hills and Chan Vista
II
are going to provide more affordable single family housing than this
development. than Vista starts at basically $80,000.00 then if you want a
porch from your back door it's a little bit more. The people who are moving
II
in there are the young, single, married, I just had 32 people move in behind
me and just about every one of them is in their 30's down with one kid or no
kids and just getting married and the type of people that you're looking for
are moving into Chan Vista right now. II
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick to this.
IICouncilman Johnson: I'm just making comparisons here. That was a PUD and we
didn't get much for that. I'm in total agreement with the Planning
Commission. This does not deserve-to be a PUD. I get very upset when people ,
do hocus pocus arithmetic because it's technically impossible to make larger
lots with 300 square feet. The numbers in this chart are totally wrong. The
only thing that stayed the same was 427 single family residents and that's
what they're trying to do. They're trying to push the single family II
residents. i don't think we'll ever see R-8 in Outlot D. I'll let somebody
else rant and rave for a while because I'm voting against this because I don't
think it's a PUD. II
Councilman Boyt: Let me start out with some good news. I think the move to
put public open space along Lake Susan should be applauded. That's something
I
if other developers had taken that same approach we would have a much
different city lake system than we do and I really appreciate you doing that.
I think the 3 1/2 miles of walkways and trail systems is a credit to you and a
credit to the Park and Rec Board. I would however like to comment that it
II
would have been nice to have the Park and Rec Minutes to read about this. I
assume you guys discussed it and we didn't get your Minutes in our packet.
Jim Mady: I don't believe they are ready yet. I
Councilman Boyt: I think you're an important body and we need to get that
IIsort of information to make a reasonable background search before we meet. I
think what you have is an excellent opportunity to be creative. You've got an
open field. You don't have neighbors. You can basically do all kinds of
things with this piece of property. You have by the nature of the zoning that
II
the city chose to put on this, you already have what I think might have gotten
you a PUD under other circumstances. The desire to do this has already been
zoned in there by the City so maybe you were thinking a lot alike. I've got a
II
question for you, I would like to know how many acres do you plan to grade in
each of these phases?
Don Patton: Part of that will depend, obviously we're asking for concept
approval so we can come back with the preliminary plat and as we talked about
in our phasing, this would be this phase 1 and this area up here would be our II
1st phase of initial grading. Again, we would like to get that in the ground 1
33
I
Ea
250
II i
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
so the next sales will happen this fall yet.
Councilman Boyt: Can you give me an idea about the number of acres that are
going to be opened up? If we're talking four phases, are we talking 70 acres
a tract?
Don Patton: I think this was about 30 acres and this was about probably 12.
Part of this, unfortunately, to get the necessary water and sewer
intrastructures started, it was more than we would like to open up but that's
again, the requirements of developing a wetland, the ponding, because of the
lakes, everything has to be ponded on-site. In ponding, grading in the
' sewer, connecting on the sewer provided through here. Connecting on the water
line that goes along CR 17, it's just hard. We want to minimize that.
Obviously that's a cost factor. _
Councilman Boyt: One of the things I would like you to do is bring to us some
sort of idea about how you're going to minimize dust going into Lake Susan.
Having lived on an edge of a dustbowl for the past month, I can tell you
you're going to dump a lot of dust if you open up a lot of that ground. Kind
of come with that in mind. We heard a good bit here about the need for
certain types of employees in Chanhassen. Mr. Carlson, it would be my guess
' and I have no idea that you're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.50
per hour. Is that roughly in the ballpark?
' Jerome Carlson: That is the lowest number.
Councilman Boyt: Let's say you're paying $5.50 per hour. If someone works
for you full-time they are grossing $11,000.00. I will maintain that there is
no one who can live in anything that's going to get built in this town that
makes $11,000.00 a year so I don't think that these people are going to be
providing. Not being a banker I can't tell you but I don't that anybody is
' going to buy a home with a total income of $22,000.00 so I don't think that
this offers an opportunity for you to find people to work for you.
Jerome Carlson: A lot of the people who work for us are also second income
' types. They generally are married to, if they are married, to a family
situation where the primary income is not that great and that's why they're
there. The most typical profile of the lower end wage earner at United
' Mailing, the most typical profile is that they are a two family income family
so what the gross wage that they could pull for housing would really depend in
part on the primary wage earner.
' Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying, in my opinion Mr. Carlson, that you are
indeed in a dilemma. If the City will not be building housing that can
substantiate or that someone can live in with the sort of income that a
business like yours is forced to pay because of economics. I think you're up
against another problem and that is unemployment in this city and Minneapolis
is 3.6% and that's full employment. There just are no bodies here and what
i you've done in Little Falls is go find a place in which people are locked and
in which they are very happy I'm sure to see you there, we're happy to see you
here but you have a different kind of employment base in Little Falls than you
do in the Twin Cities and we're not going to be able to change that.
34
r ,j ' 1411
k.City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 1
Jerome Carlson: The multiple dwelling though in some of these outlots as they
come on-line, I believe would provide part of the need. I still maintain that II
the lower end housing in this development, because of the second wage earner
and the primary source for many of our employees, many of our employees are
the second wage earner, this I believe would be a significant resource for us.
II
Councilman Boyt: The gentleman here on the Planning Commission had said there
is no market for multiple dwellings in the R-12. I think that speaks for I
itself. As far as Jay's comments about this being a PUD, I would agree with
the Planning Commission. I think you could make it a PUD but what I'm looking
for in a PUD is something that really shows creativity and innovation. I
don't think we have a better opportunity in the city than you have right here
and that's what I expect from you or I expect this to come in as a normal
subdivision. .
Councilman Horn: I was involved when this concept was originally approved and II
I remember one of the criteria we used at that point was that this was a good
area for this type of development because we had some concerns about moving
multiple housing adjacent to some of our existing single family housing. The II
neat part about this piece of property is that there is no other single family
housing immediately adjacent to it so I think they have somewhat of a unique
opportunity here to create a type of PUD neighborhood. i agree that anyone
II
who locates in that must be aware of what the whole plan is for the
neighborhood. I'm seeing that type of thing happening in Eden Prairie next to
ii
I believe it's Mitchell Lake over here when they had some very nice homes next
to the lake and now the multiples are going in and I think it's a matter of 5 II years later when all the phases are completed but now the multiples are being
put in place and I would envision this being similar t
g a s type of situation.
II
Where we have very nice homes next to a lake and in the same subdivision
putting in multiples. I think they've done some neat things here in what
they're providing in terms of amenities. The property does't allow a lot of
natural amenities other than the lake at this point but it appears to me they
II
are doing things with landscaping to make it very nice development.
Councilman Geving: I think what we have to realize here is this development II by itself represents approximatey 25% of all the housing units in Chanhassen.
Can you imagine what this will do to our community and the growth of our
community if it adds 25% more units? We only have about 3,500 units in the
city right now. This is one heck of a big development and we've got to do it II
right. We have a need for it. We have a need for a varied array of single
family dwellings which apparently are the hot item right now and are selling
but we also have the need, as Jerome mentioned, for the multiple units and I
can tell you one thing, I know a lot of these young kids that work for Jerome.
They're not just living by themselves making $11,000.00 a year. There are 3,
4 or 5 of these kids living together in a house or an apartment and they are
I
sharing these units. Maybe not even in Chanhassen but they are sharing units
and combining their income. That's how they're surviving. I would suspect
they could do the same thing here. They could buy one of these units, 3 or 4
1 kids along, together, whatever, and they could survive. They'll make it go
II
1 but what I saw and heard from Jim Hill amazed me a little bit. Some of the
developers amenities that he's willing to do for us. I haven't heard from a
lot of other developers some of the prospects of giving us for example all the
II
35
II
252
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
lakeshore on the west side of Lake Susan. Not many developers pers have done that
for us other than Jim Curry. I think I would like to look at approximately 30
acres or more for parkland and totlots spread more equally among the
development. I don't know what this 18.2 acres looks like on the southwest
' corner. Maybe Al could tell us. It might be more flat than I realize but it
just seems like it's fairly far removed from the plat and it might be very
difficult to get at and get to. I would like to see more of this parkland
spread throughout the development. This is a big development and there is
going to be a lot of need for example for that 360 units in the northern part
which are high density residential and I believe that Jim you said that is 8
' acres that you had set aside there.
Jim Hill: That's approximately 5 to 6 acres. 5.7 acres.
' Councilman Geving: Okay, 5.7 acres. To me that is not a lot of land. You're
talking about 360 units. There may be over 1,000 people in that one little
area in the north part of the development and ,6 acres just isn't going to cut
it. I would like to see us add a couple more acres to that. At least, I've
always been under the impression that unless you have a minimum of 5 acres you
can't even put in a ball diamond. If you intend to put in a totlot and some
ball diamonds and other things, 5.7 acres in that area for 360 units is not
enough. The other thing I saw on this particular development, we talked about
the possibility of some sidewalks and maintenance, who's going to maintain
those after we build them. It's always nice to have those in our community
' but what do we do 5 years after the developers gives it to you and we take it
over and start to maintain them? I don't know. Where does the money come to
develop that to keep it going? Also, I see an awful lot of cul-de-sacs in
here as was mentioned before. There should be a way and the Mayor and I have
talked about this, he had some ideas on how some of these roads could be
better aligned and cut out some of the cul-de-sacs. I don't thin you're going
to give up any land. I don't think you're going to lose any of of the
potential for lots and I think the road alignment could be better developed.
Overall I like the plan and I like what it could do for our city. I believe
it's a positive thing. It's something that would have happened. This
' development would have happened 10 years ago if it hadn't run into some bad
economic times and you wouldn't have had just 892 units, you would have had
over 1,000 units but there are some very positive things here. I do have to
question one thing, somebody mentioned something about a 50% credit for
parkland. Was that agreed on Jim?
Jim Mady: It was discussed that, at that time the 892 units, we were looking
' at 33 acres of parkland and I believe, and I'm holding my memory because I
haven't seen our Minutes either, we were recommending that we reduce the park
dedication fees by 500, getting all the land so we would have the monies
available to put into the park equipment. The comment on your 18 acre
parkland, our Commission toured that parcel. There is room on one hill to put
a soccer field and there is a considerable slope but I believe the developer
is planning on putting one ballfield down below the slope. That's it for
passive use really.
Councilman Geving: You might want to explain a little bit about the grading [E:
because I think this is the first time that the developer has done that for
36
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I
us. We've always asked for it but we've never gotten it. 1
Councilman Johnson: Centex is going to do it.
Jim Mady: When the developer came in front of us he mentioned something about
grading but really didn't have any specifics for us at that time.
Councilman Geving: These are the rough grades for the ball diamonds? I
Don Patton: What we're looking at here is a soccer field in this area. A
road in here, tennis. This is a nice slope through here for a sliding hill.
Softball down in through here. We're going to need ponding and again, various
real complex drainage on the site from the north, make this a dry pond and use
that for hockey in the wintertime.
Councilman Geving: This idea of the totlots throughout the developed area
was that mentioned at all in the Park and Rec? Did you discuss that and how
that might be achieved? _. ,
Don Patton: One of the things that was talked about, they were looking at
neighborhood parks and they agreed on four. From the standpoint and correct
me if I'm wrong, you do have the other ball diamonds for your leagues in other
areas. The envisionment of this was really for the neighborhoods.
`T
Councilman Geving: Would you care to comment on my question about the 5.7
park on the north part of the development and what you intend to put in there
in terms of how it could be developed for active play areas?
Jim Mady: What we were seeing at that time, as I remember we were looking at
about 3 to 3 1/2 acres of land so this is all new. Outlot G is new.
Don Patton: Yes, they were saying that they needed about 8 additional acres ,
in the formula so that's when we talked about fulfilling that requirement
which is part of that.
Councilman Geving: I understand the 8 but I'm looking really for more on that
very high density residential district up there, the R-12. You're going to
have a lot of people in there and they're not going to be going to Lake Ann.
They're going to be going out their back door looking for someplace to play.
If you're going to have kids, and more than likely it will be kids in this
particular unit. I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you're going to
have high density residential, you're going to have small children there. '
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make a suggestion if I could. I think this
gets into the area of creativity that I was talking about earlier. You have
an R-12 density but there are a lot of ways to get to that density and that
you could certainly create a good bit of open space which would be very handy
as part of that area.
Don Patton: That was part of the discussion we had that night was actually,
this entire 32 acres was the R-12 district and we were looking at this being
the trade-off of the open space for that design of the orange area. '
37
11
2541
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
II
Councilman Geving: That's something that you might want to come back to us
1 with. If I were a Park Commission member, I wouldn't let up on this one. I
would really want as much space in that area as I could get.
II Barbara Dacy: Another option would be, in conjunction with the high density
development, sometimes there are totlots developed immediately on the R-12
property immediately adjacent. That there could be some private recreational
areas there also. If it is approved as a PUD you could make that as a
I condition of approval that when the site plan comes in that that site create
recreational areas on the site.
II Councilman Geving: I really don't have any other comments. I think it's a
positive thing for our community and it's going to happen. i think that we've
got a good development company working on this. I think it's going to be
I great for the community. I'm in favor of what I see here with some
adjustments. I do not believe however that it is a PUD. That's all I have.
II Mayor Hamilton: I had some questions more on Staff's recommendations than
anything else. I spent quite a bit bf time reviewing this and reviewing the
PUD and what some of the conditions are that are called for in a PUD. It
seems to me that this is a PUD and that the developer is meeting the PUD
1 requirements. Just look at the Staff's recommendations. 1, a plan showing
existing natural site feastures and how they would be preserved. It would
seem to me that the developer is doing that by working with all existing
slopes. Trying to build the roads to the contours of the land and preserve
Iall of that that they can. You have to remember this is all cornfield. They
don't have very many wooded areas to work with. Consequently it's going to be
a little hard to work with site features when there aren't any. Item 4, a
1 landscaping plan showing additional landscaping along the boulevards over and
above the typical one tree per lot. I'm not "sure that our ordinance requires
something over and above one tree per lot, does it Barb?
IBarbara Dacy: There is the section in the ordinance where it says
landscaping, that is one of the criteria to evaluate whether or not it is a
PUD. There is specific language in there. Provide a landscaping plan above
I and beyond what is typically required. In response to, again the Planning
Commission in it's original report, they prepared this plan so that was not in
the original submittal.
IIMayor Hamilton: I know that the PUD ordinance states clearly in more than one
place that PUD should indicate planning design over and above what a normal
II subdivision would and it seems to me that the developers are doing that. As
Dale commented on, the plan with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs, I guess
Don if you could come up to your drawing here, I would like to just ask you a
question about some of the cul-de-sacs and see if there is a possibility of
II redoing any of them or just throw out my ideas. The one on the northeast
side, next to Outlot C. I'm wondering if they can't be looped instead of a
cul-de-sac, terminating in a cul-de-sac if that can't be looped?
IDon Patton: If you look at the terrain, you see the natural contours, this is
a natural hill. You've got steep slopes around it. The reason for taking the
6
hill on the top of the slope is you can make that cut then build the house
1
38
II
251
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
jr- benches around here so they would be walkouts around. If you start going
across that you start getting into some heavy fill situations and again, we're
going against what Mother Nature provided. This is a natural area. Certainly
it can be done but we feel like we're doing the least amount of environmental
grading, causing the least amount of grading adjacent to the lake which is
certainly a concern under the developed land use.
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple others I wanted to ask you about. Again, I'm
not terrible familiar with the topography once you get past the hill here. If
you go to the west from that cul-de-sac, the first one. If you took that cul-
de-sac and extended that somehow in a looped manner again so the road is
looped. U
Don Patton: Again, you have steep slopes right in through here. This is kind
of a natural ridge in here and what we're trying to do, originally what we
wanted to do was continue the road straight in but to get the grades of 7%
grades, we really needed to take this approach here to minimize the grades for
safe ice conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: From a maintenance standpoint it would be advantageous for
the City if there was someway we could go through. Moving to the west again,
the next set of cul-de-sacs to the west, that one and the next one to the
west, if those could be joined together.
1 Don Patton: If I could go to the slide. This is part of your packet. It was
Sheet #7. There are some wetlands designed in this area. Again Dr. Rockwell,
we've already walked the site and designated this one here, one here, one
here, one here and one here.
Councilman Johnson: Are those existing?
Don Patton: Those are existing wetlands and our tops require staying back
from them so to use that, the top one being here and getting the size lots.
One thing, if I could make the comment, these are larger lots in the PUD that
you look at down here because of the change in the zoning ordinance so we did
have to do that. The lots here. The road in here and then bringing this up
in to kind of preserve and keep the proper setback distance from those
wetlands. You see this wetland for the drainage here, again that wetland,
when this road, again this road is designated and there has been a feasibility
done to develop that road as a part of this IOP area, would utilize some of
that ponding area for the storm water retention. Again that then falls down
through a culvert and open ponding system and down into the park area that we
talked about earlier into the creek area so there are a series of ponds. To
answer your question, sure we could bring that across but you're going to put
culverts in and have to again bring up the expense and everytime you raise
expense you cut somebody out of the market. I
Mayor Hamilton: The cul-de-sacs directly to the south of the one I just
mentioned and then going ease, can you connect that one going across there? ,
Don Patton: That certainly could be connected. What we end up with that flow
that goes in through here in our ponding.
39
1256
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: Then right at the cul-de-sac at the end of your pencil, if
' you connected can that go across the ridge? I'm looking at those primarily
from a maintenance standpoint. It's going to be a whole lot easier if we can
have someway to plow and bring those through.
Don Patton: The thing we're trying to do is maintain the drainage that is set
up there and the topography. Those could be taken across.
' Mayor Hamilton: Item 8 in the Staff Report, traffic analysis to determine the
need for turn lanes on Powers Blvd.. Do we need to do that Barbara? I would
think that's a part of what you're going to do there anyway. You want to have
turn lanes there anyway so why would we...
Barbara Dacy: Carver County requested that and they will have to do an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet so there will have to be some information
of traffic flows in and out of the sight so the County can properly evaluate
the needs for those intersections.
' Mayor Hamilton: Item 9, I think theyrve already done that. Designating
existing wetland areas and providing a 75 foot setback. Item 11, a new
phasing plan providing a new south and north connection of the easterly street
with Powers Blvd.. Maybe you can tell why that's necessary.
Barbara Dacy: The main intent of that was to connect the two streets so we
' wouldn't be ending up with one long cul-de-sac operating on it's own for a
significant period of time. It wasn't in your objective.
Don Patton: What we talked about doing, going back to some of the original
history, when Powers was developed the current owners of the land donated that
to the County for that and as a part of the original PUD established sight
distances from an engineering and traffic standpoint at this location and this
' location and what we've been trying to do is some of those givens, again those
didn't change. Those sight distances didn't change. Those intersections
didn't change. What we were saying at this point. Again, we can't develop
the whole sight. We would run a temporary road from here out to here to
' provide that point. Obviously when Phase 3 is developed you'll have the
connection coming all the way through and it won't be a temporary access.
' Mayor Hamilton: I really like the concept and I think and feel very strongly
that this type of a project is needed in the City of Chanhassen. I, perhaps
more than anybody, has spoken out in the past for the need for smaller lots
' and for housing to accommodate employees such as Jerome's company employs. I
think the thing that we're perhaps overlooking is those people, if they want
to, afford this housing and it will make the labor market more stable here for
companies such as Jerome's. Your employees would tend to be more long term I
' think instead of saying, oh heck, I just don't want to keep driving out here.
They are going to seek housing here and they are going to be a part of this
community. Also, if you look at the PUD ordinance, which I've done and
' hopefully interpretted it correctly, I feel that this does very much so meet
the ordinance as it's written. It is a PUD. There are a lot of loopholes in
that PUD ordinance. It left a lot of openings in there and we left a lot of
discretion up to the Council to say it's not. I think that was done because
40
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
we didn't want to see PUD's any '
y longer. We wanted to see subdivisions, not
PUD's. However, I think the developers have met the letter of the ordinance
and the intent of it and I would like to see them move ahead with this project
and to start building and to come back to us with your next phase. I would
like to ask Don if you or Jim if you would care to answer any of the concerns
that Jay brought up about his hocus pocus and do another magic trick for him.
Jim Hill: Jay, it wasn't out intent to make a list of lot sizes and shortly
thereafter modified the lot sizes without changing, that's not the intent. We
have so many acres. We have stipulated that the PUD ordinance shall be met.
We've indicated that 57% of the lots indicated on the POD will exceed 15,000.
The intent here is to demonstrate that on a scale of 1 inch equals 200, a
pencil line is 10 feet so my technician, in her inventory of the lots, made
some errors and when I looked at it the second time I adjusted the tables. It
wasn't the intent to make any hocus pocus. With regard to the density of 934,
we have discussed the idea of taking 8 acres and placing the 8 acres in these
two areas and I suggested that because we didn't want to move density in the
PUD, that we transfer density. I have done that. We have done that on this
latest plan. In other words, the original PUD had some 30 acres of R-12.
We've taken some 6 acres, let's say, off of the 30 and wound up with 24. We
stayed, if you look at the table, we stayed in the R-12 with the same number.
360 units. The density then will be 14.8. That's given the open space and
still maintaining the 600 units for that parcel. With regards to the 5 or 6
acres adjacent to R-12 or 360 dwelling units in the north, in the final
drawings of Outlot A that bring in the attached housing, at this period of
time the developers don't know what that attached housing will be. Will it be
condominium? Will it be carriage homes? Manor homes? I don't think they
know today. That's why we don't see innovative drawings of Outlot A or B or D
and C. But in the development of the multi-family tracts that you see there,
the higher densities, they and we all know that on a PUD that site plan will
be approved maintaining density and maintaining open space for the number of
people that will be there. That shall and will be addressed, I hope by the
Council when those parcels come in under this PUD. If it is the wish of the
Planning Commission and/or Council to combine all of the private open space on
Outlot A and combine it over towards the wetland that is located here and
adjacent to the public parkland, then we would be starting to achieve the land
use space. As I indicated earlier too, we have separated the single family
from the industrial park. The only place we didn't do that is right in here
where Jay rightfully said that we've got it backed up to an Industrial
Business Park but this, as Don indicated, this area right here is a lower area
and will be used for ponding and I'm sure the folks that drive into the
industrial park will be dumping water into it and that system then will be
ponded in this area and this is a 1 inch equals 200 so we have almost 2 inches
right there from that cul-de-sac to Creek Drive and that represents 400 feet.
This here has got to be at least an inch and a quarter so that's got to be 250
so we do have that spacing between Creek Drive and the future industrial.
Part of the cul-de-sac system and correctly stated, yes this one could be
connected to here and this one can be connected here and this one can be
connected here but the overall drainage system does wind through in this
system in this manner. It's the intent to leave that as is and not disturb
that but these cul-de-sacs can be connected. If you look at the plat closer
you will see th darker areas of the 16's, 20's and 25% slopes and you will see
1 41
II
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
that there are very few, if any, in this area. Chan Vista was mentioned as a
PUD and Chan Vista and other PUD's prior to this one, is under the new PUD
ordinance. The old PUD ordinance did provide for small lots. 75 foot widths
and lot sizes under 12,000. Nearly 10,000 square fet. That's where we
achieve the lower modest housing. Under the new PUD ordinance that this one
is being constructed under, we have stipulations and under those stipulations
our overall average in this PUD, under the new PUD, our average lot will be
16,100 square feet. If you look at the minimums we are going to look at our
80 to 85 foot widths with 80 being our bare minimum at the setback. Under the
old PUD you could get down to 70 to 75. Higher densities and that's where you
can achieve the lower end of the modest cost housing. Modest cost housing
today is anywhere from $80,000.00 to $90,000.00. It just ain't there anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Don Ashworth, the City Manager, for
' comments. Don's been involved with the development of this site since the
days when Ed Dunn and Jim Curry owned it and were talking to us and I think
Don's input would be important.
Don Ashworth: The process started well over one month ago in meeting with
developers. Many of the enclosures you have in front of you were prepared
based on the information that we had again one month ago. Initially meeting
' with the developers, the Staff made them aware of the fact that this was 1987.
The approvals that were given before are not in any way binding and that in
fact the overall density would in fact change from what had been given. One 7
thing I would like to note is that I am very enlightened to hear the
developers speak this evening to a number of the issues primarily which is in
the park and recreation area. I think we've had some good discussions between `3--
developers and staff. As the Council went through that codification process
you made changes in that park ordinance. We made changes bringing over to the
ordinance that requires a greater amount of land to be dedicated for the
public requires park trails and payment in there. I was very enlightened to
' hear the comments regarding their willingness to not only grade but to
construct the trails as a part of this process. When the original report was
prepared by Planning going to Planning Commission, those forms of concessions
' had not been offered. And I think it was just a matter of time in working to
come to those positions but what I'm stating to the Council is that the
positions that Staff has asked for in the last month, to the best of my
knowledge, every issue that we have gone through with the developers has been
met in the current draft or with the positions that you've seen in your packet
as well as presented tonight. Construction of trails. Dedication of
additional green area. Grading of those are all areas that again have
' improved in the last 30 to 45 day period of time.
Don Patton: If I could say just one other thing, I guess I've heard the
' comments tonight that you want affordable housing. We can gold plate the
thing and make it unaffordable. We think we have planned, provided, working
with staff to provide a good community and the compromise of $60,000.00 in the
R-12 to 225 so your workers can be there or your executives can be there. We
think that speaks to the PUD. Again, we can keep giving things away but that
goes into the price so the request, the demands of the Council, the Planning
Commission and the Staff, go into the price of the house and I'm hearing that
we want to hold that price down. I think we've given what we can to make this
I/ 42
Of"
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 1
affordable. We request from you tonight to give us PUD approval so we can
1 come back in as quick as we can with the preliminary plats.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll have to represent a minority opinion here. I
think you've got opportunities to provide whatever Chanhassen has by means of
affordable housing in your R-12, R-8 and your R-4 and I am flat out against
small lots in residential development. When you come to single family, those
people need room. I am comfortable with your cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately,
those become playgrounds for a lot of kids in your neighborhood. I think you
have done some things that by our PUD ordinance would suggest that you're on
the right track. You certainly have got a variety of housing. I gather
you've done something to try to protect the environment although our
ordinances are fairly strict and the PUD clearly says that you have to act
above and beyond what would be asked of you in the ordinance. When we look at
this a second time I would sure like you to come back indicating what you've
done with it. Your off-street pedestrian ways, which is one of the things
that we've asked for and you've offered. The landscaping, I gather you're
offering. I guess my sense, as I said earlier and I'll stop, is that we have
such a tremendous opportunity to develop some nice large tract with a variety
of things that I know Steve Emmings wants in a development in terms of variety
in housing and I just don't see that you've-done enough for me personally-to
say that you qualify for a full reduction under a PUD.
Mayor Hamilton:- I think we've covered most of the issues. Unless there is
? something new that we haven't brought up at this point then I will ask you to
make your comments and try to make it brief so we can move on and get done
with this item.
Councilman Johnson: This is definitely the biggest subdivision and most I
important thing we're looking at tonight. You talked about house benches, are
you going to be grading in all of the homesites? Basically digging out and
preparing the house pads for the builder as a part of your subdivision? Is
that standard?
Don Patton: Yes. We really need to do that as a part of balancing the land
and to assure that you don't have bad material for the footings.
Councilman Johnson: That's one part of the PUD where, in this case, much of
this area in this area you don't have any problem. You're talking cornfields,
no big deal to do that but the cul-de-sac in Block 11, Lots 7 through 14,
that's a treed cul-de-sac. You're going to take out almost all those trees
that you're indicating on here to do that. Up on Block 10, again to put in
housing pads, you're talking clearcutting again and one of the things that I
see is if you want a PUD you're going to have to save those trees. You're
going to have to say okay, we'll individually cut in home pads. These are
your $200,000.00 homes.
Don Patton: That's the plan is to cut in the streets.
a
Councilman Johnson: That's not what you just said.
i
-s
43
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Don Patton: You asked two questions. One is the open area, you grade in the
' lots. In the tree areas, you bring in the street and the driveway to put in
the utilities and leave the lots natural to design the house to conform to it.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I'm trying to make sure.
Don Patton: Trees add value to the lot. We don't want to take the trees.
' Councilman Johnson: I heard that before then I saw the trees leave.
Don Patton: To assure the Council, I developed our 13,000 single family lots
over the last 15 years and believe me, trees are hard to get rid of for one
thing and they certainly add value in the sales price when it comes to putting
on a house.
' Councilman Johnson: I've heard that argument before. Just to reiterate, I
believe the entire street layout and everything would be done just the same
because of topography whether it was a PUD or 'a regular subdivision. I think
' if we look at it by the contours, I'm-not totally convinced. There's a few
small things that are being given. Trees here and there. I don't think we're
getting that much parkland for what we're giving. I still think that there's
a little more room to negotiate. 'through some tough negotiating we can get
some creativity going in here. I see ponding in people's backyards without
any real connecting the ponds. A trail system in a subdivision that I lived
' in in Iowa when I lived in Iowa briefly had a trail system through the
subdivision along ponds and stuff. We're putting ponds in people's backyards
but only those people can get to it. I can see something much more creative
here that would convince me this is a PUD. With a few lots out of 427 lots,
' we may end up with 400 single family lots or something. I would want to see
that number drop a little bit so we could get 'a few things. Sidewalks, we had
in our ordinance that we can ask for sidewalks in a regular subdivision. It's
not a PUD to ask for a sidewalk. There is very little here that we can't ask
for in a regular subdivision and get it anyway.
' Barbara Dacy: One technical item, the plan before you is the one that's dated
June 26, 1987. The PUD ordinance for the general concept plan states that the
Council may approve the plan but approval shall require four-fifths vote of
the entire council so if there is a motion to approve, it would benefit the
applicant to specify items that need to be revised in the plan if they are to
proceed with the PUD.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been trying to do.
Councilman Horn: I would like to go on the voice of the minority in saying
that I would appreciate leaving the cul-de-sacs as they are. I think they are
a great amenity to a housing development. I think for the minor inconvenience
they cause the city, they are well worth of the safety aspect for the people
who live on them and I would vote for leaving them as they are. That's all I
' have.
Councilman Geving: Just one quick item, I noticed throughout the whole
development a lack of identity. A concept or a theme and originally this was
44
r2 61
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
I
proposed as Lake Susan West or something like that and I'm surprised that you
haven't brought this out in your marketing strategy here to sell this to the
II
Council as a total package. What I would like to see at the beginning of the
development as you come into it, a monument in terms of entry and access
points and so forth. I
Don Patton: Lake Susan Hills...
Councilman Geving: Lake Susan Hills is the official name. Are you planning I
any of these entry type monuments with shurbery and so forth as you enter the
area?
Don Patton: Again, we're reviewing a concept right now and those are the
things that you will see in the preliminary plat.
Councilman Geving: I know they will come later but I just want to emphasize I
that that's the thing that looks good. That's all I have.
Mayor Hamilton: I will entertain a motion that the developer would like to
see concept approval for the PUD so he can move ahead with his plans and come
back to us with the preliminary plat.
The motion was made at this point in the meeting and discussion followed. II
Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer has the comments that all of II us have made and is supplied with the Minutes so they can review those, it
would be helpful ,to them I would think.
Councilman Boyt: As I understood what Barbara said, our motion has to include I
the areas that we want addressed. Is that "correct?
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been doing now. I
Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with this if that's what we're doing but if we're
making a motion that basically incorporates our comments, that's a heck of
job. a
II
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we've been doing I think for the last hour or so
and that's why you have the discussion is to give the developer those concerns
II
that we have and they get a copy of the Minutes and if there are any other
questions, if they have any questions, they can find them.
Councilman Boyt: On the one hand, if I understand all those comments II
basically get distilled into what comes to us next time, then I can live with
it as a PUD but if on the other hand we basically turn him loose carte blanche
and say, you look at these things and you adjust them the way you see them,
II
then I'm voting against it.
Mayor Hamilton: My motion included our comments. I stated clearly that our
II
4 comments would be given to the developer in the form of Minutes and he is to
respond to those appropriately. If he chooses to deny them, that's up to him.
That just makes his job tougher.
I
45
II
is
37h�'
Gam
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
I
Councilman Boyt: When this takes the next step down Barbara, does it still
' take a four-fifths vote to go beyond the first?
Roger Knutson: Yes. When you plan to rezone, when you get to that point,
when the final rezoning takes place when you get to the point of doing the
final plat, that would take four-fifths vote.
Councilman Geving: So we have another shot at this. All we need tonight is
' the concept.
Councilman Johnson: What does the preliminary plat take?
' Roger Knutson: That takes a majority vote but that won't do any good unless
you grant the PUD because if the preliminary plat does not fit into the zoning
you can't do it. Unless you approve a PUD, which is a pre-requisite to doing
any•of this stuff, it takes a four-fifths vote.
Councilman Johnson: That's not final plat, that's rezoning?
Roger Knutson: Right. Rezoning takes a four-fifths vote. They can't final
plat until they get the rezoning.
Councilman Boyt: We're not rezoning tonight?
Roger Knutson: No, you're not rezoning tonight.
Councilman Johnson: How much additional information do we have before
to rezoning? I see a lot of changes to convince me this is a PUD. we go
Roger Knutson: What you'll end of having is final plats and development
contracts. All the details spelled out. Grading plans, landscaping plans.
' Barbara Dacy: The next stage is called the development stage which is
synonymous with the preliminary plat and under the ordinance it says with the
appropriate notification, the Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing on
' the preliminary plat and the rezoning reports making recommendation to the
City Council.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve the PUD concept
review for 427 single family lots and 465 multiple lots, that's not an exact
number any longer but the plan that we have reviewed tonight as a PUD as a
concept including the Council comments as stated in the Minutes. All voted in
' favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.
' APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR $204,000.00 TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BONDS, SPECIAL
SERIES 1987.
Don Ashworth: I wanted to run a listing to show the impacts of, I mentioned
the Pheasant Hill project and the potential problem we may have in that area
and a potential benefit of a loan from the city over to HRA. Not only to
serve their financial needs in obtaining some liquidity but also to really
1
46
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
I/
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 1987
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 : 45 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and James
Wildermuth '
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Howard Noziska and David Headla
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City '
Planner
` / PUBLIC HEARING:
1
" �. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, R-4, R-8, AND R-12 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST ,
SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD (CR 17) , 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, DON PATTON,
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
i
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name Address
Kathy Holtmeier 8524 Great Plains Blvd.
Tom Rice 61000 Sally Lane
Neil Hamer 1225 Bluehill Bay
Greg Brick 4679Parkridge Drive, Eagan
to 2obert K. Kupp 22088 Navaron Drive, Burnsville
Ron Dahlen 15028 Butternut Lane , Burnsville
Don Patton 7600 Parklawn , Edina
Jim Hill 8300 Humboldt Ave. So. , Mpls .
Jim Lamson 5132 Medina Ridge
Bill Goers 1601 Lyman Blvd . '
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the PUD concept plan for Lake Susan
Hills West. '
Don Patton: I would like to introduce some of the people involved in this.
Jim Lamson and Carl Reeves are two of the landowners involved in it. Jim
Curry is also one of the landowners. The builder is represented by Ron
Dahlen of Joseph Miller Construction who is proposing to build the homes.
The thing we're looking at is really two separate communities. On the west
side we're looking at homes in the $90,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. In your II
exhibit you've seen the kind of homes that are being proposed in that. On the -
east side we're looking at homes in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 range. The
conservative estimate of what this will bring to the community is about 9 '
million dollars of taxable real estate. We have changed some of the zoning.
We're trying to maintain the R-12 here. Again, RSF, as Jo Ann has said, we're
meeting all of the requirements of the Ordinance. Minimum 12,000 square foot.
Average 13,500. 20,000 square foot lots along the lake and 15,000 square foot
average or more than 15,000 square foot average along the wetlands. And
(again, you have designated wetlands in these areas. In through here and here
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 17 , 1987 - Page 2
r
r
I and through here, we're looking at 15,000 square foot with 75 foot setback
from the wetlands. The building at the setback will be 80 and 85 feet. One
of the reasons we feel this is important to do as a PUD, it's a considerable
I area of land. There are several areas that have critical services in them
from the standpoint of drainage, because they are adjacent to the lake and
because of the sanitary sewer. Especially down through here. Jim what is the
maximum grading?
IJim Hill : Anywhere from 30 to 60.
IDon Patton : So with these extremes it is important to have an overall plan to
put all the services in. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who has done
the planning on this and he can give you some of the details.
IJim Hill: The opportunity to take 300 acres in Chanhassen, the owners have
combined their efforts in ownership and taken that 300 acres and we have,
under a PUD, have the opportunity to vary both the land uses, the house
Istyles, the densities, the lot sizes and how the neighborhood overall is
planned for the intrastructure and the park systems that hopefully we can
achieve in the Lake Susan area. We have taken the higher density parcels that
Iyou see in the yellow and we've put that as a buffer to both the industrial
and the business park to the north adjacent to Creek Drive and we've kept the
higher densities along Powers Blvd. for the opportunity for the vehicular
traffic from the higher densities will not traverse the residential
If- neighborhood but will go directly to the major collector and that being Powers
' .31vd.. So we've kept that higher densities then as a buffer and also adjacent
to the arterial. That gave us an opportunity then, in looking at the
Itopography of the site and existing tree cover, wetlands, the low lands, Lake
Susan, gave us an opportunity to determine where the homes should be built and
where a family should live. We took the position that between Lake Susan and
Powers Blvd., we would have a single family residential area that would
Irecognize the wetlands, the opportunity to have the PUD addressed and be able
to have access to the entire PUD, have access to Lake Susan through the system
being development and/or sidewalks and trails. So we allowed that to happen
li IIalong the edge of the shore of Lake Susan. When we get to the park plan we
will show you the pathways and sidewalk systems. Along with that we have
recognized the wetlands and the lower area that is this green strip of land to
Ithe south-southeast of the PUD. We recognize that as low. We recognize that
as a drainageway to Lake Susan from the south-southwest. Eventually in time,
I think that can be a very passive area for people in Chanhassen to traverse
and view nature. Along with that then we have and I forget the number of
Iunits we have on the east side of the PUD, east of Powers , but if you walk the
area, the entire parcel has beautiful views. It was the assumption of the
developers and the landowners that we would have a larger, more expensive home
Ion the east side of Powers Blvd.. We get to the west side of Powers and here,
if you get on top of the ridge line, you would see that the west neighborhood
has some beautiful locations for some homes. Both in views and the unglading
landforms that exist in this entire area west of Powers. Beautiful area for
homesites. We've taken that in this general area and again we are recognizing
and I'll show you the wetlands and the drainageways through the west
neighborhood, but recognizing the wetlands, recognizing the higher density
I
ME
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 3
parcels and provisions for parks on the west side also. We have come up with
this plan for the residential layout. In this neighborhood we wanted to
separate the residential neighborhood from the multi-family density and also
from the business park. For that reason, we had no tie, vehicular or industry
between the multi-family and the rest of it. We want to separate that
vehicular activity. That should be oriented to Creek Drive which is as
planned. The park system is approximately 18 acres to the south in the very
southerly area of the parcel. Considering the plan and the layout, there are
three designated city wetlands and we recognized that and we will achieve both
the lot sizes and the setbacks as the individual preliminary plats come in
for additional review by Planning Commission and Council. You can see that II phasing on how we will be finishing the entire PUD. These three wetland will
be recognized and planned accordingly with the residential development.
Although with that there is a DNR wetland and that's this larger area along
the southeast line of the property. Included in the west village we have a
major drainageway and ponding system that help in the overall storm water
management plan for the Lake Susan west PUD and that storm water management
plan will take the run-off through a Series of ponding areas and eventually goll
out through the normal drainageway not exceeding the run-off that is taking
place today. That's part of the storm water management plan and also part of
the Watershed District's requirements. In the original PUD, as proposed and II
in the narrative proposed, the park system and amended plan for sidewalks and
bituminous pathways consisted of this plan here. Approximately 18% of the
land open space and parks outlined in green and just short of 2 miles of
y pathways and sidewalks located in this area. In meeting with the Staff and
Last night meeting with the Park Board , what you have, I believe the
resolution or comments from the meeting. The developers have accepted their
comments. The park plan now becomes just short of 62 acres representing 21% II
of the land and it's located in these outlined green areas. All of this
additional 8 acres that you see in this area that are split will come with the
final approval. It is suggested here that 5 of the additional 8 acres and 3 II
of the additional acres be located... Along with that an additional sidewalk
was proposed from the original plan. Proposed to go to the southwesterly part
of that. On Powers Drive we have a pathway on the easterly side. A 5 foot
sidewalk will be built, on this roadway included a 8 foot bituminous path in II
this portion of the Lake Susan. ...3 1/2 miles of sidewalks and bituminous paths
represents 62 acres of open space representing 21% of the land. The cul-de-
sacs and landforms, I have colored this map, these forms right here, these
darker browns, are slope areas that exceed 16%. That's the darker areas. The
reddish brown is that wetland drainage storm water management that I just
showed you a minute ago, representing this system through the west village.
The question was , can we do a better job in planning this in eliminating some II
of the cul-de-sacs and believe me we've looked at that. We've traveled the
site. We've looked at the landforms. We've looked at the percent of grades
and remember that in the City of Chanhassen maximum street grade is 8%. These 11
indicate 16% or they go up to 30% or 40% grades. Recognizing those landforms
and recognizing the drainage plan along the storm water management plan along
the west village, we selected this plan as proposed to more readily locate our
homes, our families and keep the landforms that are there. Those landforms,
if you look closely on the plan, are in the rear yard in most cases and will
not be disturbed. I can see only a few that would be touched along here
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 17 , 1987 - Page 4
r
bringing this westerly road through. Most of them will be maintained as is
right here. Most of them will be maintained as that present road on it so
there won't be additional erosion and silts out of the subdivision. For that
I reason we have the cul-de-sacs. Because of those landforms. For example, if
I said, why don't you connect these two cul-de-sacs here, there's a
differential of 50 feet between this cul-de-sac and that cul-de-sac. This
differential here is 32 feet and I have only a short distance to make up that
I32 feet knowing that the grade of the city is 8% maximum. If I'm going to
meet the 8% max, I've got to do a lot of heavy cutting. That's starting to
destroy the landforms we have here. That was the purpose of that and I
Iappreciate the fact that Staff has looked at the fact that we have a number of
cul-de-sacs on the PUD. If you look at the original PUD you will see they
don't exceed the original that was done some 8 years ago. Again, another
Istudy of the PUD from 8 years ago came up with the same answer that we do have
to have some cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately or fortunately, if you are buying a
home and you want to live on a cul-de-sac, fortunately because of the landform
and drainageways we've got to recognize and hope to protect on this plan. In
' the EAW, which is required under the PUD regulations, the PUD will recognize
the fact that some of the areas outside of the MUSA line, and that's a corner
here and a corner right in here that is outside of the MUSA line and if you
Ilooked at the transfers of densities and uses from the original PUD that was
approved to what we are proposing now, that the small amount of residential
homes that would be added to the MUSA line should be a housekeeping item with
the Met Council. If you look at the zoning map today in comparison to our
I_ proposed PUD, you will see that we overlap them and changed some of the R-12's
and the R-4's and eliminate the R-8's. To us that's a housekeeping item and
if and when the PUD is approved , the zoning can take place under the new PUD
Ior the housekeeping can take place as each preliminary plat comes in for final
action. It should be noted that under the old PUD, there was some 1,023
units on 340 acres, 3 units per acre. We don't have 340 acres today. We
Ihave approximately 300 acres at 3 units per acre so our density is, in
relationship to the land that is in this PUD, we have not lost any units, it's
just smaller in size. In the park plan, the park department has required an
additional 8 acres. Generally the park plan has provided that 33 acres
Iaccording to code if you take the number of dwelling units and multiple it by
2.8 people per house per dwelling unit and code indicating that 1 acre park be
supplied for every 75 people we come up with 33 acres. Of the 53 acres that
Iwere proposed and still are proposed in the PUD which represented these two,
approximately of those acres were accepted by the Park Commission as
acceptable acres for park credit. That left the owners with 8 acres of park
Ithat was not creditable against the 33 and that' s where the 5 and 3 comes
about. The additional 8 acres. If it happens in these two areas, the R-12
and the R-4, we're asking that the resolution also indicates that the
densities, remembering that the 33 acres was calculated on the basis of 884
IIdwelling units and 94 dwelling units and that if we take 5 acres out of here
and 3 acres out of here, we've just lost 72 units of dwelling units that we
would like to still build those dwelling units in those spaces so we would
ILike to have the density transferred in a sense. When outlot A becomes
buildable, we would still like to build as proposed in the PUD. The 316
dwelling units and as Outlot B comes in for a development plan and site plan
( approval under the PUD, that we would still build R-4 at a total number of
It
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 5
r
units of 144. If this is not feasible, the wish of the Planning Commission ,
and Council , then we will have to recalculate and I think the 33 then will
become 30 acres and we will change that. I don't think the overall density of
3 units per acre is a strain on the 300 acres. I think the dwelling units I
proposed for those two outlots can be still achieved or combined with all of
the multi-family and still be achieved under this PUD. The lot sizes will
vary. You have a tab and an amended tab on the lot sizes. They will be
between 80 to 100 feet at the setback. They will be, as in the tab, meeting I
the code with 56% of them in excess of 15,000.00. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure
that we've covered all the items but we would answer questions .
Don Patton: I would like to show one other transparency. I think this is
relevant to what we're talking about. The question on phasing and the reason -
for that is topography, access of sewer and water and drainage. As you see
here, in the upper level housing, we're looking at developing this again with II
the street coming in here, the cul-de-sac and generally, all these lots would
be wooded. Phase 1 on the other side in the medium income housing, is this
area down in through here, Phase 1. Phase 2, on the Lake Susan side would be I
here. Phase 2 here. Phase 3 then ties onto this. Phase 3 here and again
Phase 4. We have no projected use or layout of the multiple family lots. We
do want to get the zoning at this point so once they are defined and the
density is defined, it's much easier for someone to come in and then that
would then go back through the whole approval process with preliminary plat
based on the PUD approval. But this is the phasing that we're proposing
probably over 3 to 5 year period.
Kathy Holtmeier: I live on the north side of Lake Susan and I'm here for the
Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I have a question about the trailway on
the western side. They are to give up approximately 80 feet to the City
right? That area is dense woods on a hill and it's heavily treed and I'm
wondering, 80 feet goes approximately halfway up the hill , correct? It
doesn ' t go all the way up the hill?
Don Patton: It goes all the way up the hill .
Kathy Holtmeier: So the entire hill would be given to the City? Okay, so
then the building will be on the flat part?
Jim Hill : It would be on the top of that .
Kathy Holtmeier : And the trees would be a buffer?
Jim Hill : Yes. Again, this is in, last night at the Park Commission, the
comprehensive trail system for Chanhassen with Staff and we have tried to make
our planning as close to that trailway system that is recommended in the '
Comprehensive Trail System.
Bill Goers : I live on Lyman Blvd. and I'm in the process or I think I'm in the.
process of purchasing some property adjacent to that on the west side of that
development. I'm concerned because the zoning of that property is the same
lirectly to the property that I'm in the process of purchasing. I'm not real
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 6
r
I ' knowledgable about this but I'm concerned as to whether I can tie into that,
if they are going to develop that higher density, then I wasn't originally
aware of, is it possible to tie my property into a higher development also and
I gain access to it? If not, I'm not as interested in the property and I'm sure
the existing owner would have the same concern.
Conrad: You are outside what we call the MUSA line and they are abutting
Iright up to that. Within the MUSA line it's a higher density area and there
would not be a great chance of including your property in this particular
development. The Metropolitan Council governs where that line is and it
I doesn't move without a great deal of energy. It's always your perogative to
try and change the MUSA line along with the City but realistically speaking
it' s would be really tough.
IBill Goers : What would be the possibility of getting approval for this to be
like 2 1/2 acre sites?
IConrad : Normally what you would have to do , if the MUSA line moves one way
the city has to take out some other property in exchange for the part that
they just put into the MUSA line. They are going to have to take some part
I out of the MUSA line which means you and the City would have to persuade
somebody who's already in the Urban Service Area to take their property out of
that service area. Most people don ' t want to do that.
Bill Goers : So in other words , it ' s really a long shot .
Conrad: I would say it's a real long shot unless Barbara, I'm just speaking
Iand saying a small parcel like that may be , by chance they wouldn ' t care .
Dacy: You summarized the process very well. I understand that you spoke to
IJo Ann about that and the Commission tonight really can't address his issues.
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All vot ed in
favor and motion carried .
Conrad: Just reminding the Planning Commission, some of you who have not gone
I
through this stage on a sketch plan, the point of a sketch plan is to be real
Iupfront before the developer does a lot of stuff and be able to advise on our
opinions of how a big parcel should be developed. In the PUD process, this
was important because we found in the old method a lot of plans came in with a
Ilot of energy and by the time they got to us, they were real firm. They had
done a lot of engineering and if we didn' t like what we saw , there was a lot
of wasted energy. I think tonight it's a chance for us to get some comments
in on this. I guess if we could focus on two issues for sure and then
Ispecific questions or comments about the plat that we see in front of us. But
question one is, is this a PUD? Question two, if we down zone basically, and
that's really what the developer is asking us to do. He's putting less units
in the area where we thought there should be high units. More units in.
I
Where should the City of Chanhassen find other land for high density? They
haven't totally taken the high density away as you know but still, Chanhassen
f is obligated in the future and if you've been around for a while you will
ir
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - page 7
remember that we look for high density areas. There aren't a lot of areas in
Chanhassen that are well suited for high density. We have earmarked a few
around the core city but I think you have to consider the impact of this PUD
in terms of how it effects the Comprehensive Plan and our zoning and where
future high density areas would be placed. I give you that as my thoughts as !!
we review that and a little bit of background.
Emmings : As far as a PUD goes , I guess it appears to me or maybe I should ,
say, the way I've been accustomed to looking at this from another one we've
looked at, the question always seems to be, is the City getting something
for what it's giving up? Giving up in terms of allowing smaller lots. It
would appear that they are proposing a variety of housing. They are working
to the extent that they have gone actually a long way towards preserving the
natural site features to the extent there are any but they haven't done
anything else. They haven't done anything extra in terms of creation of
parks and open spaces then what they are required to do in a subdivision.
I'm not sure we're getting much to make it a PUD. It's a huge project.
I've never been here and looked at something this big. It's really hard for II
me to do. As far as specific questions on this, I don't know why we're
looking at this without looking at a specific plan for the high density
development. It seems like all the emphasis is on the single family and one
of the things that we're interested in is a variety of housing. I don't
know why they don't have a specific plan for the other lots. That bothers
me. It almost makes me feel that they're not as serious about that as they
, are about the lower density areas. I was sitting here looking at this and
'Laondering if they are planning to do the higher density last and I'm just
wondering if they're going to come back later on and ask us to change that
area to single family because they are going to tell us at some later time
that that's what the market will bear and that's all the market will bear.
Conrad: There's a good chance of that. Obviously the single family is what's
moving in the market right now and that's why I posed the question. If we
consider this , we better know where the high density is going to go in
Chanhassen. We are obligated to Met Council to have areas for high density.
Emmings : The other side of that is , if we would go along with this plan , I
think they should know that approval will be contigent upon them building
that and then I wonder if they'll ever get it. If they get done with their
first 3 phases and phase 4 is high density and they preceive no market for it. ,
So are we getting anything at all for allowing this to come in as a PUD? Like
I say, it doesn't seem like they've done much in the categories that we've got
and where they have done one , in terms of at least laying out where an area of
housing would be, I really question whether we're ever going to see it.
Someone mentioned a 3 to 5 year period to build this up. Are you saying
that the whole thing is going to be built, all four phases, in 3 to 5 years? II
Is that your plan?
Don Patton: That would be our plan if interest rates stay where they are. We
can ' t predict the interest rates and the affordability of the buyer .
_
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 8
ICEmmings : But when you say 3 to 5 years , what did you mean? Is that your lan
today? P
I Don Patton: For the land that we have sold at this point. That is, projected
absorption rates based on fair marketing approach.
Emmings : I don ' t understand that . The land you have sold?
IDon Patton: The single family. We have a buyer who I introduced earlier .
IEmmings : The builder?
Don Patton: If I could say one thing, by approving the PUD, you've really set
those densities. Mr. Hill actually asked that those densities transfer in the
I additional land that the Park people asked be given. Be transferred into
those higher density areas. We're actually trying to keep the density.
That ' s our objective.
IEmmings : Do you see a market for the high and medium that you've proposed
here now?
IDon Patton: I think probably the medium yes. As we've indicated, the high
density, the R-12 could not be developed because of the access so we feel like
something is being given up in that by having that built were it be developed .
p-
Emmings: I'm not following that either. Outlot A is proposed for high
density. Do you foresee their being a market, at this time do you foresee
Ithere being a market for high density in that place?
Don Patton : That ' s the only place in the project for high density.
Emmings: That ' s not the question. Do you see a market for high density?
Don Patton : I guess I don ' t see that much market for it .
Emmings : Then my question is why are you proposing to build it if there is no
I
market?
1 Don Patton : That ' s the zoning for that area .
Emmings: You are including this in here simply because we're requiring the
Izoning?
Don Patton: We have tried to accomodate your zoning ordinances in this plan
I yes .
Emmings : As market conditions stand today, you wouldn ' t build it right now?
IDon Patton: No we wouldn't and we couldn't because of the access to that
drive.
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 9
f-
3
LEmmings : I don ' t understand that either . '
Dacy: The street has to be built .
Don Patton: The access for C and D are to this road here. Outlot A access,
again we didn't want the high density coming through the single family. The
access to that would be onto this road when it ' s built.
Emmings: When is that supposed to be built?
Dacy: Hopefully within the next 3 to 5 year period also. '
Jim Hill : There was a feasibility study done last year .
Dacy: It depends on, Opus owns the land now. First phases of the business '
park is to build it up. They are marketing lands on the north side of Lake
Susan. They are also marketing this land and we would anticipate that as the
PUD is developed obviously we would have to construct a road. Given the past
industrial growth that should occur very quickly.
Emmings: Do you have any comment Barbara? To reserve an area of high
density which doesn't make any sense in terms of the marketplace today.
What they are proposing is to build a bunch of small townhouses and the only
reason there's a blank space up there at the top of the map is because they
- needed to do that to get lower density and that's seems to be subverting the
'., whole notion of the subdivision Ordinance.
Dacy: To address your first issue about the R-12. From a land use standpoint "
to have a higher density there adjacent to the business park would make sense.
I think they are recognizing that and saying , yes we want to keep that there
also. It's not so much the R-12 is the issue really. In looking at the plan,
you can see that there are more R-4 areas being preserved and really what's ,
being eliminated is the R-8. Just rubbing it out is approximately 32 to 35
acres. You multiply that by 8 units per acre and you get roughly 240 to 300
units. So, when we did the Zoning Ordinance review we anticipated that these 11
types of land use patterns could exist on this pattern and they are coming
back and saying we would like to rearrange that but as Mr. Hill said also,
what's being reduced is the amount of R-8 zoning. Now, the Commission I
potentially 2 or 3 options that we could investigate with the developer. The
first option would be to look at some type of redesign of the left side there
to hold out an R-8 area and work with that Outlot B contains very steep
slopes. Look to reserving some additional area there. The second option for
the Planning Commission would be to look at other areas within the City to
zone as R-8 because the Met Council will come through the Land Use Plan
Amendment process and say, Chanhassen you have responsibility to keep the
percentages between single family and multiple family fairly reasonable to
provide a multiple housing choice. The third method that we could investigate
also, which has not been done before in Chanhassen, is for example shifting II the R-8 to the R-12 so you have a density of 20 units per acre. Transferring
that density up to that Outlot A. You make up those units in that development
( but as I said , that high of a density has not been proposed in Chanhassen .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 17 , 1987 - Page 10
I Em mings: There probably is some value in preserving areas for high density
whether they are being built now or not.
IDacy: Like Mr. Patton said, it's very hard to predict the American
marketplace and right now it is leaning toward the single family but on the
other hand, there is demographic information, there are smaller household
sizes coming on. You've tried this for single family homes to become mother-
' in-law apartments. More families within single family homes so I think there
is a need out there for attached units and so on.
IEmmings: I was wondering what the Staff's reaction is to the notion of
allowing them to the stuff that they're losing by having a park on the
Outlot A.
IDacy: It ' s an option we can discuss .
Emmings : You ' re not adverse to that?
IDacy: That ' s the purpose of this meeting .
IEmmings : It looks to me when we had this done before, and he was showing
why he had the cul-de-sacs, that appealed to me as a matter of common sense
what he was saying. What do you think? Why are you opposed to the cul-de-
sacs?
Olsen : Just what it did to the utilities and servicing that many and
emergency access a lot of times can take a lot of turns in dead ends.
ITypically we prefer to have a less number of cul-de-sacs but as we point out
in the Staff Report, they are preserving some of the site features by having
these cul-de-sacs. We just wanted them and it sounds like they did, look at
it to see if there was a possibility of extending or connecting some of
Ithose cul-de-sacs and still preserve the site features but they said they
couldn ' t.
IEmmings: The trail system, one part that I don't understand, unless on
Powers Blvd. it shows the trails they are shown with dashed lines on the
streets . What are those?
IOlsen: They will be all street trails .
Don Patton : Those will be concrete sidewalks .
' Emmings: Every bit of it is off-street?
IOlsen : Yes . Even on Powers and that will Probably be bituminous .
Emmings : The City, as I understand it, will allow them what's called a
1 public open space along Lake Susan?
i
Olsen: Yes .
I
i
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 12 '
Siegel : Is there any indication of where that transfer... ,
Olsen: I'm sure in the high density and the amount of single family that is
being proposed , with the higher density that can be accomplished . '
Siegel: Okay, but this is not in relationship to us losing the R-4 zoning?
Olsen: Part of that would be more within these higher densities than the
high densities. So in a sense yes, if they were to develop it to the
potential of all the high densities that exist there, they wouldn't have the
capacity to transfer that unless they gave up some open park area within the I
development .
Siegel: How does that relate to, ...the points of getting density transfer
for the forfeiture of parkland areas. Outlot A and Outlot D as sort of a
density transfer situation too which would not be related to the MUSA line
at all .
Olsen: I really didn't look at that closely about that loss of density
also.
Siegel : In other words, we ' re not really getting anything there.
Olsen: Initially they requested something within the site and as a
- compromise we accepted some of the higher density instead of giving up
--„ single family.
Siegel : I guess I'm not really that concerned anymore with the point 3 on
the plan showing lots designed for solar housing. That's sort of a loaded
question as a requirement. If they are amenable to it, fine. Having to do
with whether the points were the looping requirements of the City Engineer
on the watermain, the looping requirement because of the number of cul-de-
sacs in this plan, I guess I wasn't firm in whether that was addressed in
his recommendations firmly enough about them meeting those requirements.
This is a premiere example of extensive use of cul-de-sacs and of course a ,
lot of people think that possible use and opportunities it provides for land
use but there is an incredible amount of cul-de-sacs in here and it does
pose problems I 'm sure with watermain and utility service. ,
Olsen: That will be addressed as a condition as part of the preliminary
plat. We were just pointing out some of the items that will have to be
addressed with the preliminary plat. Show a detailed utility plan and now
the applicant is aware of that and I 'm sure they will provide looping out to
the cul-de-sacs.
Siegel : I get the impression that this is another one of those computer
actuated housing developments for maximum amount of useage made utilizing
cul-de-sacs as the culprit to do that because of the configuration of some
of the cul-de-sacs. Some of them are real short. The access is just an
access off a primary road and maybe those are easier to address from a
utility standpoint than the bigger ones but it does seem to pose some
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 13
.r-
1
I problems from that standpoint , utilities .
Wildermuth: I agree. Particularly in the western, Phase 3 area. I think
Isomething has to be done about the number of cul-de-sacs there. It doesn't
appear that the topography issue is quite as critical there. I would hate
to have to look for an address in that area. I think it would be a real
problem for emergency services. I just don't share some of the other
ICommission members concern for the density issue. I guess my feeling is
that despite the Met Council, lower is better. So as far as I'm concerned
and the fact from a commercial standpoint, the higher density units aren't
Ivery attractive from a business standpoint right now, that's fine. I don't
have any problems with deferring the plan for those outlot areas. Or even
decreasing it a little bit. What I do have a real strong concern for, and
I'm not throwing stones at what I see in the handout, but I'm very concerned
I about the quality of housing that's going to be in the area that is the
western Phase 2 and western Phase 3. We've seen a number of subdivisions
come to the City in the last few years, well let's be generous and say that
the housing quality, construction quality is less than desirable. I would
I hope that's not going to be the case. I would really like to see this be a
subdivision rather than a PUD. Conferring with Ladd, the subdivision would
Irequire the 15,000 square foot minimum and I think that would be appropriate
here because I don't think the City is getting very much for the PUD
concession.
If you could relate to me, the parkland on the southwest, 25 acres
Lon
, ..)r 18 or whatever it is, because the MUSA line comes in there, is there a
park on the other side of the MUSA line or do we have a park? I see Summit
ITrail coming up into the park. What are we left with? I 'm sure the Park
Commission looked at that but we basically have a park that narrows to 50
feet in the middle of it. Is that the way I read that and is that useful
park?
' Olsen: We went out to the site and it's outside the MUSA line so it could
not be developed but it can be used as parkland. It's going to be split.
There will be a baseball field in one area, a sliding hill and then the
II other area will have a softball diamond and soccer field.
IConrad : So on the other side of the MUSA line though we do have residential
areas and those might be 2 1/2 acre parcels so we sort of have a park
situation around those people. If you want to go from one section to the
other, you're kind of funneled down to a little shoot there. The park
conceptually has not been planned I assume .
I
Don Patton: It ' s a planned park.
Conrad : Are parks generally better on the fringe of the community or do you
like to see them in the center of a community?
IOlsen: From what Lori Sietsema was saying, they would prefer a park right
in the center .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 14 ,
■ Conrad : So what we've got are some parks that are on the southwest and
fringe outside the MUSA line or close to it and we've got a park on the
fringe again on the northwest so we've got people walking to get to the park
which I supposed is okay but it looks like a park inconvenience. I don't
know that the park's really been designed at this point in time into this
community and that's what a PUD does. To me it designs things and features
into it. This kind of looks, at this stage, that it's tagged on to some
fringe areas . ,
Olsen : The Park plan has been accepted .
Conrad: By the Park Commission? Jo Ann, you comments you talked about
wetland alteration permits and I'm not sure how I heard those words. Is
that just forewarning the developer that there are wetlands or did you see
something that said we' re already planning to alter a wetland?
Olsen: I didn't go into details but there are wetlands throughout the site.
Class B wetlands and they will be using a pond area. So because of them, '
they will have to receive a wetland alteration permit.
Conrad: At this point in time, is that our consultant's opinion that that's ,
good use of those wetlands for ponding areas?
Olsen: She visited the site and yes, she agreed. There are four wetlands
on the site. Actually there are five but when we visited it, it was gone
.Ind Elizabeth agreed that it was not there. But the four wetlands are
located by blue. This larger wetland was the nicest one on the site and
they are not going to be altering this at all. It's adjacent to a Class A
wetlands, Class B wetlands so this is the one that they really should not
touch and they are not going to. The other three were more meadow, low
areas, drainage areas. ...a need for meeting the Fish and Wildlife
regulations on level bottoms with open water. Elizabeth Rockwell agreed
that they could be altered that way.
Conrad: Just my thought. We've got a lot of acreage here so I don't see II any reason we can't do things with the wetlands that are the right things to
do. We don't have to compromise on the wetlands. As long as Dr. Rockwell
is recommending the use this way, I'm comfortable but I'll be looking at
her report to see what she's saying and again , when we have this much
property, it's not like we're trying to eek out a few extra lots. We have
enough room to take care of the wetlands and to do it according to ordinance
so I really don't see any reason to alter our ordinance or compromise our
ordinance as it stands unless I hear Dr. Rockwell talking to us about the
good reasons and apparently she has already seen some of those things.
Bottom line for me, in my opinion this is not a PUD. It's a subdivision.
We're getting exactly what we have gotten in other subdivisions so I would
prefer to see this come back as a subdivision rather than a PUD unless the
developer can persuade us there are things beyond the typical subdivisions II that we've been seeing but I don't see it yet in this particular sketch. It
looks like a subdivision to me. When we decided what would be good to get
for the PUD, it doesn't mean we need all 7 of those things. We're just
les
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 17, 1987 - Page 15
f
Ilooking for things that would assist in this community. Make it work
better and I do not see things that are significantly beyond what we are
requiring in our subdivision ordinances right now.
IEmmings : As I sit here, I basically agree with you in that this is just a
way to get small lots but we are getting that space. One thing we wouldn't
be getting is the space set aside for higher density.
IConrad: No, that's already there. It's zoned already. You look at the
park, and they would have to have the same parkland in a subdivision. The
I35 acres of wetland, they can't build on anyway. They're not donating that.
That 's protected.
Emmings: Basically what you're saying, if they brought in a subdivision on
Iit the way it' s zoned now, we would be getting all that stuff?
Conrad: We'd be getting the same thing unless they can tell me we wouldn't.
II appreciate the way they are preserving some of the features of the site
but to tell you the truth, I don't think because, especially in the western
part, there aren't that many features to preserve. When there's a PUD with
Ilots of wooded land, then I can see making it a PUD. The nature of this
site just doesn't tell me it's a good candidate for PUD. We've already
zoned the land for high density and medium density and low density and
again, it sort of takes some of the impetus for a PUD out of it. The land
zoning is already there so therefore , I guess the bottom line for me in my
comments to the developer and to the City Council would be, it sure looks
like a subdivision candidate. I don't mind the cul-de-sacs as proposed yet
II do think, because I think the developer is looking for land features, they
are sensitive to the land features and I appreciate that. I think there
might be a few less cul-de-sacs in the Phase 3 part of the western portion
Iof this and I suggest that they look at that to see if they could minimize a
few of those. It didn't look to a novice, which I am, that the land
characteristics were that tough to deal with in that Phase 3 area to
eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs but it's not a real concern to me at this
Itime. I'm not overly concerned but I would recommend that we take another
look at that and see if we could minimize a few of those. The last comment
that I would have is that to approve a PUD or subdivision like this, I
Ireally would like to know where the R-8 zoning will be in Chanhassen. In
other words, because the developer is down zoning and generally know how we
feel, I'll guarantee you there will be pressure for us to put in higher
density and before I could vote for a plan that's close to this, getting rid
Iof that R-8 area, I would really have to feel that we have another area
identified for higher density because it will happen. Right now I don't
know of too many neighborhoods that are willing to stand up and donate their
Iproperty as potential zoning candidate for R-8. We worked a great deal of
time to come up with the current zoning and the Met Council was appreciative
of some of those high densities that we had there. This looked like a good
Iplace for it. I appreciate the developer wanting to do what they want to do
here. There's a market demand. I understand that. I understand that. I
guess it's a concern I have however that we find , if we allocate or we
( identify other parcels that could take over where we are tempted to allow
it
1
ma
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 16
&down zoning like this and I don't think I've ever said anything like that
before on the Planning Commission where I was concerned with densities
getting low but I think that's appropriate. Any other comments? I think
what I would like to do with the developer is at least to leave them with
some kind of consensus or some comments here.
Wildermuth: I would like to get back to my original statement about housing
quality. It's very difficult to legislate quality but one of the ways in
which that comes about is with larger lot sizes. More expensive lot to a
degree dictates a larger, hopefully better quality home and I think in going
from a PUD back to a subdivision, we're requiring all lots to have a minimum II
of 15, 000 square feet . We' re going to encourage that.
Emmings: I think it looks like a subdivision to me. That's why I started
and particularly this last point that you made clear. The zoning is already II
there. We're not going to lose anything in the zoning. I am concerned
about having the higher density but that's already in the zoning so that
takes away my last concern. I agree it should be a subdivision.
Conrad: Bob, is that a consensus? Do you feel it should be a subdivision
versus a PUD? Speaking for four planning commissioners at this time, it ,
looks like a subdivision to us. There are three missing tonight. My guess
is that they would probably follow suit. I think it's worthwhile taking it
forward to the City Council and seeing if that's their perspective also. I
think it would also be appropriate for Staff and the developer to talk about
zoning and the R-8 void the city has so we get a feel from them whether
they're concerned that we don't have right now a replacement for that R-8
zone and I think we need direction from the City Council in terms of if they II
are comfortable with this particular density' arrangement then I think they
should also make some recommendations as to what we should do with the
higher densities that we're losing and giving up in this area. Along with
the Staff Report , I think the comments that Staff had in the report in terms II
of what you would like from the developer , I agree with most of those
comments. If some other commissioners doesn't agree please jump up and say
that but the only one I 'm not totally positive about is the comment of Staff II
with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs . I think I would like you to look at
that again with Staff, especially on the western side. It doesn't bother
me, as long as we're all comfortable that it's good planning and good design II
using those cul-de-sacs , I could go along with that but I guess I would
prefer to see that we try to eliminate a few of those in the western part of
the plat that we're looking at. Any concerns Steve on cul-de-sacs? You're
neutral 'on that?
Emmings : It looks like a lot and I would prefer to see fewer but if they
can show the same kinds of justifications through site features or
elevations like they've done more to the east, than I wouldn't have any
problem with it.
Wildermuth: I really like the development on the east side of the
boulevard. It looks very good along Lake Susan.
I
NIB
Planning Commission Meeting
IIJune 17, 1987 - Page 17
r
II ` Conrad : Mr . Patton, I guess those are our comments .
Don Patton: So mainly it ' s the downgrading of the R-8?
IIConrad: In my opinion and it's not that what you've done is bad, it's just
that I'm looking at Chanhassen saying where are we going to get that? Where
are we going to have the R-8 area when that particular market comes back and
I we need it. We don't have a location for it right now. I think that has
to be a factor in how we look at this.
I Don Patton: One thing that I guess was hard for me to follow, I recognize
the R-8 I also kept hearing that you didn't want to keep the density up to a
certain level and you do achieve some of that with the PUD, have a little
I more free style planning of the lot sizes and configurations rather than
cookie cutter style.
Conrad: But in the developments that we're seeing coming in to Chanhassen,
1 we're not seeing the cookie cutter type. A lot of our developments are
coming in that our subdivisions are looking very similar to this and we're
saying, because that's what we're seeing, we're not seeing a change from
Ithose subdivisions in this particular plan. At least that ' s my perspective.
Wildermuth: With the topography on that big parcel there, you probably
couldn't use a cookie cutter if you wanted to.
Von Patton: Actually you really can't because if you walk the line, one of
the reasons, if you walk this, this is a natural ridge line that goes all
Ithe way down here and if you look at your wetlands plan, the break goes
right through here with this part going to Lake Riley/Purgatory and this
part going another way so you really end up, as we mentioned with the
IIphasing, this is a natural phasing area for this. There are some very
critical things, because of this, this being much higher than this, that's
the other reason the PUD is so important. This is lower and you have
IIcritical points in here and here and here and in through here to get back to
the sewer line that goes across there .
Conrad: I don ' t understand why, is the PUD so important to that?
IDon Patton: Because there is a substantial cut that has to come through
here to achieve gravity pull for the sewer into the lower area .
IConrad: I still don't follow. The same would be true for a subdivision
wouldn ' t it?
IDon Patton: If you came in with an individual subdivision, there's always
the opportunity that that might not be put in at the right depth to be able
to service all of this. You've got to go to the extra depths to achieve
these other areas. It's really important especially for the sanitary and
drainage that you ' ve seen here .
iii_ Emmings : Why can ' t you plan them together as a subdivision?
IN
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 18
II
P
Don Patton : A 300 acre subdivision with a phasing plan. That ' s possible. I
Emmings: I think that's what we're saying. Whether it's done as a PUD or
as a development, those things should be done. I agree with you so you do
II
get it at a depth the whole area would need.
Conrad: I would just make a recommendation that when you go to City
Council, again, when we do a PUD we're looking for things a little bit in II
exchange. PUD's in my mind are a little bit creative. There is a variety
of density in the PUD and you cluster and you have open spaces and you do a
lot of different things. You put parks in central parts of the community.
You put in trailways and I think you're getting that with the
recommendations of the Park Committee but some of those things are required
in a subdivision as well as a PUD. I think when you go to see City Council,
you should really be focusing on what the community is getting other than II
the depths of the sewer. I guess you should be talking about what
Chanhassen is getting or that community is getting in terms of creative
approaches. We've listed seven of them in our ordinance. Whether it be
II
improving solar housing or additional parks. If we require one acre for
every 70 people, I would guess a PUD in my mind might come in with 2 acres
for every 90 people but we give you greater densities or whatever. I don't I
think we're looking at a density issue here. At least I'm not. I think Jim
is. You're going to hear a little bit of difference in strategy but again,
if you do some creative things with the land and get more park and then I
r think I would be tempted to give you greater densities if you wanted that II
aut you're not. I think those are the things I'm looking at in a PUD and
this is a straight subdivision in my mind and I 've looked at quite a few of
them. I
Jim Hill : Under the PUD ordinance we have an opportunity to vary lot sizes.
We've done that here. We've done it because we have given 62 acres of open
II
space.
Conrad: No you haven't. You haven't. The 35 acres, you haven't given
that. The 35 acres you can not build on. That ' s wetland.
II
Jim Hill : I accept that but if the City of Minneapolis took the same
attitude 100 years ago, we would not have the city of lakes. j
Conrad : I miss the point but go on.
Jim Hill : Lowlands are acceptable as open space . I
Conrad: They are but you haven't given it. They are there and they are
protected right now. You couldn ' t develop on it. 1
Jim Hill : Surely the person who is paying taxes on it . . .
Conrad: Very minor taxes .
II
( Jim Hill : That ' s a difference of opinion .
II
1
Mb
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IJune 17 , 1987 - page 19
IConrad : No , it ' s absolute . Taxes on wetlands are quite a bit less .
:Emmin s 'r
g You're not saying in your opinion they can build on those
wetlands?
I
Jim Hill : I 'm not taking that position . We ' re saying the PUD is there.
IConrad: What's the range of densities and sizes of lots that you've got
here . You said you had a variety of lot sizes . What ' s the range?
IJim Hill : It 's in the handout.
Conrad : But what's the range? Is it something than what we have seen in -
other?
1 Jim Hill : It meets the PUD ordinance .
IConrad : It meets it but we see that kind of range in all our subdivisions
too. Most of our subdivisions .
IOlsen: You answered my first question. I just wanted more clarification on
what it was that you were looking for so we could tell the applicant when he
asks. Then also, just for clarification, if they came back in maintaining
that R-8, it would still be the straight subdivision. You are asking also
, for additional open space, creativity, clustering .
Conrad : In a PUD.
Olsen: Right. If they came back in showing R-8, maintaining that, that's
not necessarily what you were meaning as you would accept that as PUD. I 'm
afraid that the applicant might be thinking that if they maintain the
existing density that is there now, then it will be accepted as a PUD.
Conrad: I think they are sort of separate issues. The first issue is it
Idoesn't look like a PUD to me. It is not a PUD. The second issue is a
broader issue that the City Council and Planning Commission has to deal
with. If we agree with down zoning, then it's our job to find another area
' to designate for R-8. The developer has all the right in the world to
continue the direction of changing our zoning .
IOlsen : So he can come in with it down zoned but with the PUD clustering ,
open space and then they would just have to provide for that higher density
elsewhere?
IConrad : Then it would be my direction that we find it elsewhere. The logic
for where this zone is, the R-8 and the R-12 is excellent. We worked those
over for a long period of time but I also understand that it's hard to
Iforecast where things should be and we're certainly not rigid in that area.
We don't know that many things about trends when we do comprehensive plan
and zoning, we're guessing and when a developer comes in with a specific
proposal I think we should be sensitive to that proposal so I'm ruling it
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17 , 1987 - Page 20
Cout that we can' t down zone but we do have an obligation to find that land
someplace else and do something about it immediately. Met Council is going
to force us to do that anyway.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATES TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER I
OF THE HWY 212/169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE.
PUBLIC PRESENT: I
Name Address
Tim Thornton 1221 Nicollet Mall #700, Mpls . '
Bert Noterman 1520 West 10th Avenue , Shakopee
Dennis Coyne 1221 Nicollet Mall , 44700, Mpls.
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Rezoning Request .
Tim Thornton: I represent Bert Noterman, the owner of the property. If
you are familiar with this parcel it's the old Tri-Y Drive-In down on TH 169
in Chanhassen. That's a front view of it. This is what it looks like from
r the back. This is looking across TH 169. This is looking down TH 169
'..� zowards the Drive-In from the motel. This is looking back towards the Super
America. Here's looking at the Drive-In from the Super America and this is
looking north up the road. Significantly, we like the Staff's
recommendation for the rezoning. I think it's important to remember this
has been a commercial use for 35 years as a Drive-In. To suggest
agricultural zoning doesn't make a hell a lot of sense. Nobody is going to
grow soybeans there for example. We're mindful of the constraints, the real
constraints that are associated with the wetland situation here but the
actual uplands, the lands that could be built without a lot of permits from
Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers, are a little different than the
use that was there. The owner is not aware of any acquisition by MnDot.
MnDot has talked to us from time to time about acquisition but so far there
has been no acquisition. This we think is about 170 by about 160 but the
uplands that has been the result of some filling and some natural uplands
goes about like this. It seems to me to be very spot zoningish, if you
will , to suggest that you're going to only zone 20,000 square feet. It
seems to me that if you're going to zone, you have to zone the parcel.
Mindful that the use or any use in the Business Fringe District requires a
conditional use or specialities permit. At that time you will have a lot
more details as to exactly what use is proposed or not proposed. What
barriers, if any, you need between the wetlands and concerns with fillings
and things like that. We were talking about a 400 acre zoning project the
last time and now dropping down to 20,000 square feet. What we would like
to ask is the recommendation of the entire 2 acre parcel be zoned mindful
that when we come back, we wouldn't be talking about using any of this
wetland or lowland but would have a specific plan to use the uplands and in
L.
1
97
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
i
4. Range be restricted to business use relating to the sale of bows.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDE OF POWERS BLVD., APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, ARGUS
DEVELOPMENT:
A. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN/PUD AGREEMENT.
' Barbara Dacy: If I could just speak to item a. The City Council, as you
recall, had a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to consider this item
and what the intent of the Planned Unit Development Agreement was was to
include in that agreement all of the items of concern that were brought out
from the Planning Commission and the City Council that would guide the future
phases of this development. For example, there would be the recommendation
from the Park and Rec Commission, language as to what outlots should be used
' for multiple family density and at .what density, how much acreage should be
given to parks, etc.. Unfortunatley we were unable to meet with the applicant
in time to discuss and really have a good discussion as to the terms of the
agreement so the recommendation is that the other items of approval here be
subject to execution of that agreement and that will be brought back on a
future agenda.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything we need to go over? We've done all this so
many times and maybe we should just get into discussion and express our
questions. On (a) I know Bill had questions on (a) apparently. Why don't we
just do that. Bill you can start seeing as how you probably have more
questions than the rest of us.
Councilman Boyt: I may well be able to satisfy everybody's concerns. I guess
I'd like to ask, first Barbara, is what you just said, that item a is going to
come back to us again?
' Barbara Dacy: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: When item a comes back to us again, it needs to have the
' following. One of the things is that you'll notice on the map that there are
several loops. All of those loops need to have a trail system on one side of
the road. That means the Park and Rec has already asked for a trail on half
of that. My discussions with Park and Rec and Lori, they do support my
- request for trails throughout the loops. The other item is that I feel the
Park and Rec fee of 50% is going to be required to provide the necessary
equipment for those parks. I certainly think the developer deserves a 50%
reduction. He may deserve more but I think we have to protect enough money
in the Park and Rec fund to be able to fully equip these parks that we'll be
building. The other point I want to see included in that is, I want to see
some definite figures about the maximum amount of surface that will be
covered with hard surface in the high and medium density outlots and the
activities that the developer is proposing to take to blend those high density
lots into the high and medium density lots into the single family residential.
29 •
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Those are basically the concerns I have. I think there are several there but
I tried to be concise. '
Mayor Hamilton: Clark, do you have any you would like to add there?
Councilman Horn: No, my only concern was, from this body trying to eliminate
the cul-de-sacs.
Mayor Hamilton: Trying to eliminate cul-de-sacs? '
Councilman Horn: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: We tried that. Dale, did you have any?
Councilman Geving: No, I'm very pleased with the development. I do want to
ask Lori, since she's here, if the 50% park dedication reduction fee was
passed on by the Park and Rec Commission.
Lori Sietsema: Yes that was. 1
Councilman Geving: That was your recommendation?
Lori Sietsema: That was my recommendation to them and that was their
recommendation to you.
Councilman Geving: Okay. I have no other comments. I
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to go wholly in favor of everything just said
there. Trails throughout the loops make absolute sense. To put trails
halfway down the street and then the other half of the people don't get them
is ridiculous. Because in order to create parkland we've done density
transfers to make some of the high density more dense, I don't think there's
any need for any more than a 50% reduction. It would take a lot of talking to
get me above a 50% park reduction fee. Your hard surface on the outlot, are
you concerned that we don't have enough water retention? Is that what your
hard surface question is about? I need to understand that one a little bit.
Councilman Boyt: In discussions with Mr. Patton, he has agreed that they
would provide underground parking and I think in the discussions he's had has
demonstrated a definite willingness to make a good transition zone and to
provide a good bed of non hard surface in those high density areas and to me
that's one of the best parts of the plan. I think he's probably going to say
something about those in a few minutes and I want the PUD approval to hinge
upon those being appropriate.
Councilman Johnson: I guess this probably gets into wetlands that is later on
with this but are they calculations for our sedimentation basins and
everything? Do they take into consideration the impermeable surfaces to be
built in the high density or only the surfaces in the single families? I
guess Larry's not here.
Barbara Dacy: Just the single family.
30
MD
II
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Councilman Johnson: Is there room within the outlots for the high density to
put settling ponds and etc. or should we be looking at those at this point?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, there is acreage available within the multiple family
outlots. As a comparison, the sites that are zoned R-12, for example the
northern half of the James piece, the zoning district lists a maximum lot
covering 35%. Building and parking area can not exceed the 35% of the lot
' area. That dictates really 65% of the open area. In Mr. Jacobson's
development on the James property, he did include a small retention facility
along Kerber Blvd. Some of the outlot areas in the PUD development will be on
a larger scale as far as density, 15 to 16 units per acre but again, staff can
easily work with the developer to establish a ratio of 40% to 50% of the lot
so there will be, if needed...
' Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you want to respond to some of those points on the
concept plan?
' Don Patton: In response to the coverage, what we've done is taken each of the
outlots you see this. We've combined C with D and shown a layout. As you can
see on Outlot C, it's zoned R-8. With the density we're looking at, the
design would be 32 units. The acreage would be 35. We're not quite achieving
' that with this plan. Again, it's kind of an odd shaped piece. The coverage
including building and parking is 31%. In Outlot D below, again the same
zoning and again this did have the density transfer as you mentioned. The
parking is down south of here. Is the medium density R-8, 96 with what was
planned for the area and the density transfers from the park, we're getting 96
I and we're zoned for 95 so we can achieve that fairly well with underground
parking. One per unit. The coverage on that is 27%. I guess the way I'm
approaching these is probably the way we see it be developed also. This is
the outlot B. This is a little more difficult site to deal with. It's zoned
R-8. 48 units is what we can see going in to it at this point with this
design. By the acreage, we're looking at 91 units. A little over half on
' that. The coverage is 30%. This is the multiple site. Outlot A, high
density R-12, we're looking at 378 units on there. The design of the PUD
' based on acres is 375. The coverage on this is 31.5% so I think all of the
density coverages.
Mayor Hamilton: Are your questions being answered Bill?
' Councilman Boyt: They are being answered. I have a question about the
greenery on those. Can you tell me if those represent trees?
' Don Patton: Yes they do. The thing that we would anticipate, and I think a
normal standard that I've seen in development that you would see with each of
these would normally be $400.00 to $500.00 per unit landscaping for greenery
in all of these.
Councilman Boyt: Are you able to provide that sort of tree coverage with that
amount? $400.00 to $500.00 per unit?
Don Patton: I guess we haven't cost it out. That's some of the job I'm doing
right now. One of the things that this doesn't show here, as you see here,
31
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
there is some natural greenery that goes through some of the areas. I know
that's a concern on this. We talked about on single family that would be 150
per unit with the single family PUD. Again, I think $500.00 is a reasonable
figure. Again, your concern was coverage, transition, I think the
landscaping, berming and design will really help in transition. Again, each
of these outlots will come before the Council again. We understand the
Council and as a part of our negotiations with this, when density will open
this, that will be achieved with this so I think that that would answer those
questions. With regard to blending transition. . . '
Councilman Boyt: May I ask a question? You indicated berming. Could you
tell me a little bit about that or show what you mean?
Don Patton: The thing, as you look like this, this is a pond here. This will
be collecting water from streets over here and also from this area coming down
here into the settling pond. I think you're looking at probably some berming
in through here. With the park being here you might want to do some berming
separation on that at the top of the road. Thi,s is a very steep slope going
down. It's impractical to do that. We've gotten into some of the designs
with the engineer. We're looking at another ponding area right down this way
so that slope here, I would see some possible berming here. Again, I don't
want to profess to you that this is what will be built on the site. These are
strictly possibilities of what could be built.
Councilman Boyt: Mr. Patton, I don't want to confuse you about this but if
it's not this good or better than I'm not going to vote for it so that's what '
I want a commitment to is that we're building this or better. By better I
mean that you're going to have this or less hard surface. That you're going
to have this or more greenery. I think that's what we've been talking about
right along.
Don Patton: I realize that. My point is the buildings may not be exactly
this design. They may have more bend. That's exactly my point. I don't want
to try to decide that. I don't think you want to at this point.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any other issues? '
Don Patton: I guess the other issue I wanted to address was the looping of
the walkways and park credits. We've been through the Parks Commission.
Their recommendation was one side. Sidewalks on the major streets. Access to
the parks. This is really what has been settled on. That recommendation was
that the 100% trail fee be credited to the developer as a part of that.
Again, as a part of developing the parks in through here, it had been
recommended as 50%. I guess the thing that we would like to see, there's
really three things that I see the park people. One is to buy land. One is
to grade parks and the other is to buy equipment with. We already talked in
our discussions and made a commitment to you that we're donating land. We've
already said we will grade the parks down. Again, the demand here is to
provide economical housing. The more burden you put on that is going to push
that thing out of sight and if anybody has been trying to buy a house
recently with interest rates going up, the market is going down dramatically.
I would like to see the Council give us a greater percentage of the park fee
32
u 101
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
IlL__
to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 50%
I'm suggesting. 30% to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis
courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still
looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at
substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think
that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need
to talk about and Gary Warren and I have had several discussions on, as a part
of the original design it had been indicated to us that there was strictly a
gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request
that's coming out now and in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I
guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. The thing I guess
I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will
be changes as this, we're talking about a PUD and we're talking about a
development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, depending on what
' the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that
there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm
sewer. If it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I
think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also need some
flexibility because as we get into.things, we had shown you a phasing diagram.
If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've
got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift
station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With
the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live
in Chanhassen. I think you've given a wide enough income range from densities
here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess
111 in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the
looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the
standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it
' later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other
questions?
' Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here,
one of the questions that I asked Lori to research for me was do we need
$200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the necessary
equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that
' really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's
already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also
respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops.
' Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about
half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty
confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I
can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not
because the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council haven't decided
what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want
' to keep it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of
that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that—with what
we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and
11 Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the
loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they
did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a
consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was
33
1
•
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 ,
conversation about, at least some of the commissioners about getting trails
along the loops as well. Especially going down to the 18 acre park.
Councilman Johnson: On the loops and park reduction. My feeling, after
listening to all of this and saying we don't trails to the parks, that's
essential to me. I wouldn't be willing to look at it, the cost for the trails
along there and look at another 20% off of the, additional 20% up to 70% if
that is dedicated to the trail cost. If that trail cost doesn't cost that
much, $100,000.00 or whatever it is, if the trail cost is going to be
$50,000.00, I'd say we could pull that off of it. I don't have a feel for
what the trail cost is going to be. What we're talking there. That's the way
I would like to approach that is yes, the park has said we've got that...
Don Patton: One thing I think we need to deal with on this thing is not the
numbers but percentages because construction costs today is going to be
different from some of these things develop in 1995 and that's the reason that
I guess I'm suggesting. The same thing for whatever the parks are. You're
still going to have a tennis court or tall diamond. Those are fixed costs
today but as you all know, the sidewalk cost is $225.00 right now and that
will proably be $250.00 or $300.00 or $500.00 by the year 2000. All those
could go up and I would like to see percentages rather than actual costs.
Councilman Johnson: You're telling us you're not going to develop this until
the year 2000? As far as the single family residential? I disagree. I would
like to see what the numbers are in today's dollars and if today's dollars '
comes out at $25,000.00 and you're wanting another $100,000.00 above and
beyond the 50% that we've got right now, I'm against that. I would like to
look at today's dollars and what today's dollars buys for trails along those
loops including the loops into the park and have that apply out.
Mayor Hamilton: I think that was already done wasn't it Don?
Don Ashworth: Staff did do a calculation based on a previous recommendation.
Our finding was that, as recommended, it did break even in comparison to total
charges for trails but again, that's a different number to estimate. We could
have 20% to 25% error.
Councilman Johnson: Well, I would like to at least see the numbers before I
make a decision is what I'm saying. If the numbers come out, I may feel like
adding 25% to the numbers but I haven't seen the numbers. I have nothing to
go upon. They're asking for $100,000.00 to complete these trails. I want to
know if it's going to cost the developer $100,000.00, that may be reasonable.
If it's not going to cost him $100,000.00, I don't think it's reasonable to
deduct $100,000.00. I think there is some room for compromise here. I think
it's definitely no good having a park if you don't have trails to get to the
park. We can put all the equipment we want into it but if the kids get hit in
the street going to it, it doesn't do us much good.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask Lori, in the original concept plan you asked '
for a 50% reduction and no trail. You had asked for no trail dedication be
paid for by the developer. Was there some reasoning for us to change in the
middle of the stream here and now ask for the trail loop? Did you ask for it
34
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
7—
to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 50%
I'm suggesting. 30% to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis
courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still
looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at
substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think
that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need
to talk about and Gary Warren and I have had several discussions on, as a part
of the original design it had been indicated to us that there was strictly a
gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request
that's coming out now and in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I
guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. The thing I guess
I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will
be changes as this, we're talking about a PUD and we're talking about a
development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, depending on what
the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that
there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm
sewer. If it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I
think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also need some
flexibility because as we get into-things, we had shown you a phasing diagram.
If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've
got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift
' station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With
the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live
in Chanhassen. I think you've given a wide enough income range from densities
here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess
in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the
looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the
standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it
later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other
' questions?
Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here,
one of the questions that I asked Lori to research for me was do we need
$200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the necessary
equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that
11 really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's
already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also
respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops.
Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about
half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty
confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I
can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not
because the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council haven't decided
what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want
' to keep it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of
that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that—with what
we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and
I! Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the
loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they
did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a
consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was
33
i
r
.r_
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
4 or was that something that the developer brought back tonight and you haven't
seen before?
Lori Sietsema: The trail fees were recommended at 100% credit be given. That
was recommended by the Commission along with 50% in park dedication.
Councilman Geving: So now if we take $100,000.00 away from the original
$200,000.00, we're down to $120,000.00 roughly. Can you still develop the
parks the way you had envisioned?
Lori Sietsema: Again, not knowing what exactly we're talking about going in
there. I know that two tennis courts on one location cost right now roughly 111$25,000.00.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you again, if we were to go back to your
original position and we put in the trails ourselves, the loops ourselves and
went for the original 50%, wouldn't that be a better situation for you?
Lori Sietsema: If we put in the trails and ask that 100% trail fees be paid?
Councilman Geving: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: The additional trails. U
Councilman Geving: Any additional. I guess the question I'm asking is, are
A we absolutely convinced that we need the trails that are being asked for from
4 the Park and Recreation standpoint? Is your answer yes or no?
4
Lori Sietsema: The understanding that I had gotten from the Commission that
those trails are very important.
Gary Warren: I think the point that keeps coming up in these developments
also, is whether we're talking bituminous or concrete and you're talking twice
as much roughly for concrete versus bituminous so when you start talking
credits, I get the feeling that we're leaning more towards concrete as you
recognize the expense for maintenance on that down the road.
Councilman Johnson: Are we talking 5 foot concrete?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. ,
Councilman Johnson: Because you're not talking 8 foot concrete?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: Because this is through somebody's front yard here. Some
will be bituminous.
Councilman Geving: And that was the original recommendation from the Park and
Recreation, is that correct?
i
35
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: We have a Park and Rec Commissioner here, perhaps he can
clarify that.
Ed Hasek: I think originally when we looked at this particular project, we
were going on the basis of the things that we had looked at in the past and I
felt being a new commissioner, it had been suggested that perhaps all we
needed in this project was the main road be taken care of. On closer
examination, in realizing that we've got a fairly intense development as
compared to other areas of the city, we felt it absolutely necessary that we
get a more intensive trail system to serve the people that will be living
there. That's why we have... Not only that, I think probably that decision
came after the results of that survey was sent out as well. The City as a
whole is interested, the people are interested in trails so there's no point
in not taking care of that problem... I didn't see the topography on this
particular study but just in looking at the topography, just the way it's
proposed, I heard comments about the number of cul-de-sacs. Did the developer
come back with a plan?
Councilman Geving: You're looking at it.
Ed Hasek: This is the revised plan?
Councilman Geving: I don't think it's been revised a great deal. I think
this is pretty much the same in terms of the number of cul-de-sacs.
Don Patton: We've taken some out. One of the things that you've got here is,
it's really basic what we did here. We did save the current loop for one
street up in through here. This could possibly be done if we would eliminate
this drainage down through here but again, the topography is very tough. We
had a contour or if we want to study this, you can see the very steep
contours. Again, this hash mark is 15% slopes which is really dictating.
' Again, we've got a ridge that runs like this with a flat area in through here.
Again, your slopes, you're just going to eliminate or necessitate the cul-de-
sacs.
' Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think we've reviewed that pretty extensively in the
past. Thanks for your comments Ed.
' Councilman Horn: If I heard right, what we're hearing is that the
recommendations we're getting now for additional trails and the fee are not
the original recommendations that we received when we reviewed this from the
' Park and Rec. New things have come up in the meantime.
Lori Sietsema: The fee is the same. The fee recommendations are exactly the
same. The only thing that is in addition is to build trails along those loops.
' Those are the only additional things coming from the Park and Recreation
Commission.
' Councilman Horn: You said 100% for the trails without the loops initially.
Now you're asking for the loops and then 100% for the trails and 50% for
parks?
36
051
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
Councilman Horn: I guess I have a concern with changing the rules in the
middle of the approval process. We went along with the original
recommendation and I don't think that came to us via Park and Rec.
111
Lori Sietsema: No, I wanted to emphasize that Park and Rec did not make a
formal motion with this addition. They just merely mentioned it. That they
had seen an oversight on their part. That they didn't ask for that at the
beginning but there was no motion made and maybe it should have come to a
motion and then would have been brought to your attention earlier.
Councilman Horn: I guess that's the only concern I have. I don't like to se
the rules change as the progress happens on the development.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that to say something in defense I guess of our
Park and Rec Commission, we have many new members on the Commission. This is
their first PUD and I don't think they really understood the PUD concepts of
what a PUD was and the negotiation processes of the PUD and I think that as
the group has matured now. They're fairly new.
Mayor Hamilton: Can we talk about the issues rather than the Park and Rec
Commission.
Councilman Johnson: I think they've come to grasps with the issues because
they now have much more experience in their job and they are now giving us a
recommendation that I think is very appropriate.
Councilman Horn: What was the dollar amount due to the change in the
recommendation?
Lori Sietsema: I don't know that the Park Commission.
Don Patton: $75,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: Do you have something additional Ed that we haven't ,
discussed?
Ed Hasek: I guess my question is, the body that makes the decision on this
thing, the governing body is you folks. We send you these recommendations.
If we are recommending that we created an oversight, certainly it's within
your power to change anything that you've done in the past. Councils do it
all the time. '
Mayor Hamilton: You're right. I think we're well aware of that.
Councilman Geving: We try not to though.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make one summary point here. I think we're
# being reasonable in saying the trail fees cover trail development and I think
the Park and Rec Department has said they would have asked for all of those
trails and wish they had. The most they would have given, had they asked for
37
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
all those trails, is a 100% reduction in the trail fee. I don't think we
should be taking money out of the park fee to build trails. They are two
separate fees. We set them up with a trail fee sufficient to build trails so
now what I'm suggesting is that this is a good development. I'd like to see
it go forward but to get my vote I'd certainly like to see a 50% reduction in
park fees, 100% reduction in trail fees. Thank you.
Roger Knutson: May I suggest, since as Mr. Johnson pointed out, this has not
been written up. I would suggest that your approval would be appropriate, if
that's what you want to do, subject to us writing it up, meeting with the
developer and going over the specific wording and bringing it back to you.
Perhaps putting it on a consent agenda.
Councilman Horn: I still have a concern with requiring additional trails.
Mayor Hamilton: That seems like a good idea. If we're going to do it, we
might as well do it right the first time and get it finished rather than
wishing we had.
Councilman Johnson: Are there any trails we could trade off?
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, subject to Staff
review, the Concept Plan/PUD Agreement for Lake Susan Hills West with the
coverages mentioned by Mr. Patton in terms of impermeable surface in the
medium and high density areas not to be exceeded. With underground parking to
be provided as stated in his remarks with $400.00 to $500.00 per unit being 1_
provided in landscaping and berming efforts to make a transition in those
areas. That the park fee be reduced by 50% and the trail fee be reduced by
100% with trails completed through the loops and subject to the execution of
the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried.
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
TO INCLUDE 15 ACRES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDESIGNATE 40
ACRES AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 37 ACRES AS PARK AND OPEN SPACE, AND 75
ACRES AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
' Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to have discussion of this?
Resolution #87-108: Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
' adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment #87-3 to amend the MUSA boundary to include
15 acres for low density residential development and to redesignate 44 acres
of high density residential, 33 acres of parks and open space and 31 acres of
low density residential to land uses shown in Attachment #13 subject to
' execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried.
' REZONING OF 29.9 ACRES FROM R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R-8, MIXED MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL.
38
TIN
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the first reading
of the Rezoning Request #87-3 to rezone 299 acres of RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 to
PUD-R subject to approval of the final plat and execution of the development
contract. Also, subject to the execution of the of the PUD agreement. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED
PUD-R.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary plat
#87-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 16, 1987 with the
following conditions:
1. The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an
access permit from Carver County.
2. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for City
approval prior to final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan and shall reforest
lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as recommended by the DNR forester and approved
by the City Engineer.
4. The linear strip of land along the west side of Lake Susan be
obtained as shown on the concept plan #3 and that an 8 foot wide
bituminous trail be constructed on such at the time of construction
of phase 1.
5. A 5 foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk be constructed along
the main street that crosses Powers Blvd. and that the trail be
placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to
match at the Powers Blvd. intersection.
6. A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main
street on the west side of Powers Boulevard.
7. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance of all
conditions.
8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
and provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement
for completion of the improvements.
9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by
the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County
Engineer. ,
10. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water
pessure/flow conditions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs
of Blocks 1 and 4.
39
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
11. An additional gate valve shall be added to the 8" watermain in the
vicinity of the southwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1.
12. An intersection landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a
distance of 50 feet shall be used at all intersections with CSAH 17.
13. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all
slopes greater than 3:1.
14. Type II erosion control (staked haybales and snow fence) shall be
added along with the proposed silt fence adjacent to wetland areas
14-06, 14-07 and along the east ends of the development which are
adjacent to Lake Susan. A floating siltation basrrier shall be
considered as part of the final erosion control plan to protect Lake
Susan.
15. All utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for
urban construction.
16. Clearcutting of trees will not be allowed.
17. Completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
18. Subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. .r
All voted in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND.
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking primarily at the wetlands next to Lake Susan.
The discharge into Lake Susan from the ravine that is in Block 1 running
between Lots 23 through 28 and 20 through 15 of Block 1. As I reviewed this,
and I went over looking at what the existing wetland basin is discharging
through that ravine and the changes that are being made. The number of houses
going in and without doing a whole lot of sophisticated math on this, I
' believe that the rate of water going up that ravine is going to be increased
as far as a cubic feet per second type of rate which is what causes erosion
and sedimentation to Lake Susan. I have some real concern on that ravine.
While the total flow of water into that ravine may be somewhat reduced because
' there is a slightly smaller watershed area now. Because there is much more
impermeable surface, the water will get to that ravine much quicker causing an
increase in erosion to that ravine and a detrimental effect to Lake Susan. I
think that issue must be looked at very carefully. We may have to put some
sedimentation or some kind of float control in there to protect Lake Susan
from that ravine. So far I haven't seen much about that.
Gary Warren: I guess we're looking at a number of areas. Specifically in
that area I'd have to look, again I don't have my plan with me on just what
we're providing. Maybe Mr. Hill could address that. I see he's here but as
far as the plans and specifications reviewed for that area, I guess we'll be
40
r
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
s given the details on the final design.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so approval can be conditioned.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, the next one is that pond that you were pointing
to. Currently at the Class B wetland, an area of dubious uses and benefit,
where we're going to fill part of it in and extend another part a different
direction. I personally believe there's a lot of uses for a Class B wetlands
primarily in nutrient uptake. Removal of nutrients. Ground water
infiltration and things like this. I haven't seen a lot of information
addressing whether when you redo this wetland and the primary design as I see
so far is to make sure that the water outflow out of this wetland is the same
as what it is presently or I believe it sould be less than what it is
presently. I don't know what happens to the infiltration that's going on now
and if you now create a pond instead of a Class B wetland, do we decrease the
amount of phosphate uptake? We're going into a very phosphate sensitive
system. Now we're going to have more gallons of water per pound of
vegetation. Right now we have a lot of vegetation for what little water goes
into this Class B wetland. A lot of grass and a little water. Now we're
going to have a lot of water and a little grass. We're going into a system
that the Osgood Report.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a specific thing that you would like to see done ,
with that particular wetland that you can point to with some conviction and
say they should do this or that?
Councilman Johnson: I'm foreseeing a problem and I'm not the engineer to
create the problem. I don't think we as a Council should be doing engineering
and not create the problem but fix the problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Then you must have a problem with the wetlands in general and
if Gary is going to review these and work with the developer, that will be
satisfactory for you I presume because they will come back to us anyway. I
Councilman Johnson: Right so the wetland alteration permit, I want this one
reviewed in more detail on phosphate uptake and the overall wetland issue. ,
Mayor Hamilton: Is that to review these with the developer and have it back
on the consent is something.
Gary Warren: We can do that. In fact it's important for Councilman Johnson
to recall, I guess the Osgood discussions is that the impacts to Rice Marsh
Lake, the phospherous impacts and such, he's saying even distilled water is an
impact because of the excessive amounts of phosphates that already exist in
the area there so it's pretty difficult to rely on a Class B wetland such as
this to have any benefit as far as phospherous uptake. Plus it would take a
research study in itself to probably identify what is happenin in the wetland.
I guess we certainly will review it and we'll apply our standards that we have
in other developments to see that they're not aggravating the situation
1 anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: We could have Dr. Rockwell go out and look at it. That's why
41
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
we have her on the staff as a consultant to review these things and if there
appears to be a problem, to point those out to us.
Councilman Johnson: I must disagree with what you just said on your quotation
of the Osgood Report because I spent a lot of time this weekend reading it
again. Or reading it for the first time I should say and he does say,
consideration of the entire basin for eliminating phosphates before it gets to
Rice Marsh Lake should be a consideration in this entire watershed district
and that just because distilled water will cause harm is no reason to put
distilled water plus phospherous down into the system because that will cause
more harm.
Gary Warren: I'm not saying that we want to add anymore than we have to but
likewise he doesn't give us any solutions to how to eliminate the phosphates.
Councilman Johnson: I agree. His report is very short on solution and very
high on problems.
Councilman Boyt: Cn page 2 of the report on the conservation district, he
indicates concern about building sites being evaluated to make sure that there
is not going to be flooding. I hadn't thought of this area as a potential
flood area but he makes that comment. I know in our building code, or at
least I think in our building code we indicate that you can't build a basement
unless it's 2 feet above the water. Is that clear there? It has to be 2 feet
above the water table.
Gary Warren: Above the 100 year high water mark. ?
Councilman Boyt: So really they can't build there anyway?
Gary Warren: Right.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
' Permit #87-13 for the alteration of Wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 as shown in
Attachment #16 subject to the following conditions:
' 1. A drainage easement shall be provided over the wetland area and all
structures shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland
boundary.
2. The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established
by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and
resting birds.
' b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to
[::
20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
42
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
III
r-
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contours for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of
wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) III
encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow
water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with
emergent vegetation.
III
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (much from an existing
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
II
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. II
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
II
3. Subject to approval of the PUD Agreement.
IllAll voted in favor and motion carried.. -
Don Patton: If I could address one other thing and Barbara if you can help me II
with dates on this. The PUD will be published as of today, is that right?
a There is a 30 day period for that to be advertised for the EAW which will come
I back November 3rd I think. As I recall, the time to the Council will move out II to the 19th which means that grading of the site couldn't start until next
year which is going to be awfully hard to get through. The thing I'd like to
ask the Council to authorize the City Engineer, is if there are no negative
I
comments, if you would authorize a grading permit to be issued as soon as
possible with your authority to him based on approvals of the EAW.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that previously. Are we in a position to
II
do that now?
Gary Warren: We've done it in the past with the contingency that a I
development contract be executed and a letter of credit as security be on file
with the City.
Councilman Johnson: I think we can put that on our October 19th agenda to I
consider that. Kind of call it a preliminary review of the EAW.
Mayor Hamilton: What the developer is saying is he'd like to start as soon as
II
possible and if he can meet the City requirements and satisfy the City
Engineer and City Manager, he should be able to begin grading.
Councilman Johnson: That's November 3rd before he clears that period so II
October 19th is plenty of time.
. Barbara Dacy: October 19th may be a little premature on some of the EAW II
icomments.
II
43
II
INE
{ 2
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
1
Councilman Johnson: We're not doing a final EAW approval.
Barbara Dacy: Even if the Council wanted to do kind of a preliminary review
of the EAW, it's been our experience that a lot of the agencies wait until the
last minute to submit their comments. There is a meeting on November 2nd that
we could look to the development contract evaluation but to get those other
steps in line prior to the grading authorization, we have to wait for that 30
day time.
' Councilman Geving: Let me ask, how soon, what is the soonest we could allow
them to do the grading? When is the first date we can go ahead and tell to
go?
Barbara Dacy: Technically the City Council has to make a finding of negative
declaration meaning that an EIS is not necessary. What Mr. Patton is saying
is that the soonest that that would occur is November 16th, the second Council
meeting and what he is requesting is the ability for staff to allow the
grading permit after the 30 day cycle is up but prior to your official action.
' Councilman Horn: I think you've got that.
Councilman Geving: I would say we should authorize that.
' Mayor Hamilton: I don't see any problem with that.
Gary Warren: Prejudging the need for the EIS.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, based on the site I can't see that would be a problem
' there.
Councilman Geving: I think we should just poll the council and let him go
ahead.
Councilman Horn: Wasn't what Jay was saying is we can do that at our next
meeting. Put it on our consent agenda with your recommendation as to how that
' should be worded and that would still give us time. That's what I heard.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe by the November 2nd meeting we'll have a better idea of
what the comments will be.
CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
Mayor Hamilton: This is one of those things that we see every year
unfortunately. Some of the same ones but you see some new ones on here that
' kind of raise your eyebrows. People like Jack Barnes and the Richliff's and
Jim Congdon so it's a little discouraging that we have to do this. I'm all in
favor of shutting their blasted water off and letting them come up here and
pay their bill but apparently we can't do that. Some towns do that I know.
Why can't we do that.
44
so
sF
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
•
(612) 937-1900 II
APPLICANT: r` ""J f. �}
OWNER: P-t j)s D IE J PIA EM-
I •
ADDRESS ,!7)`"• ' 1 1`1.c)! •— „•�
ADDRESS 18137 (- -r AP A' f . It
Zip Code Zip Code I
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) TELEPHONE � L t
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change _ Planned Unit Development
• Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan II
Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan
•
_ Final Plan II
Zoning Text Amendment '� Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting I
Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds
Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation II
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME r/' ' ' . ' ,i { .. __ C„r-' )'.' . is 139,.-. y I
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Tr-' ` : - /!1' ' ` './
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION P , • Y" 'J I
PRESENT ZONING >') ,1 ( ) ,°,
r
I
• REQUESTED ZONING )
USES PROPOSED ' . to 11 ;`f/ Q y ' :-'
SIZE OF PROPERTY II
LOCATION r —
'���7'' °-- - � ,._ - ,#..,!':< . ° _� ' ,t .
• REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST '” ' /1! I+ ' 1 C'-' , ' 4 1
II
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if ' ' ''�-- ;\ ' II
g necessary) �_ / �. .-_. ,)
1
in
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance
filing this application Provisions . Before
to determine the specific ordinance andfproceduralerequirements r
applicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies
that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all
applicable City Ordinances .
Signed B y ; r � A
J '
Applicant _ Date A LEL
The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
Signed By � `
Fee Owner Date
Date Application Received
•
Application Fee Paid
City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at the Planning Commission/
meeting, their
•
,_,.„• ,- .. ._.. .,, - :...._. .-': .._.-,--., . -._.,_ • , _,,,. _ . .- .
. 3.-- . •- .
s•-
.„,„......
. ,
„...,
„...„,,, 1 ,,''7:-.'''...- e' ...-';',?.'-'-''' ' -.:-''-'-':--''''::-,-•.--.-''.-,-; --1:
.... .• .
l „....„...... „...„,
1 ........
'-e._, •
II •
. C
.3
xi
„........
--,,„
„..
„...
..„.
--,
.
*.
...,,i.
-.
•
_... r
,
1
4/0 „
',...,.... ._ .
Is
J 0
II
,zAt
1 1 • .
_...
„......
„ .
, ..-
01 C4 1
\‘'-'"'''
,.? 0
...:...
, k ...
\co _
5
t
... „:q
4
, \ ..
el •
0 ri-11 '-•--;•/`','
4- / .---_,
o
° 4... Z. •-• /..4 V
0_ k : ..,, , ,.. ... ,:_.....,•
it
F ,
/-
....7 \''''• .
r it .,:.:
/2
o' , S ji• co
4.0°.
„. / -'', ...,
-....„ , ,, \ _.
a / ,
:I'V ....
--,.. / --________ \
/ - ., ...... (.,
........, t,./., . ., -
0 , ....„
.04 .
•:;-: ''''.,,,es..„-:.2 a n 07,
',....,....
i"
; -,...,.
._________--- --—--_____ . 7-'.•":"..
''''',..N......„.„,-)
\ __.
---....-.... - -:: ',./C'' ,,,.
tn / .......>"-.. --- ":1'''' ......„..„:-''''9' 414 7
d• Ci / .
..
'..f./ ..r ..., /
_.. .
1''
• /5 9, '5' 1
,■74. /
..." . ..■:' N. ,./c' sPn A' 6.,,,b.
o
. '', ,:i,■.• /..
• n• .n
1-,...,..s.
0
:.:.• (.0 .-‘, & -
X11- N,,n s.,b. -:•. , 4.
.• ," A ',.
. JI-69
7, / ' (•••
1 •>•4:i:z s 7,"
---N,„
,i(... • ,...X,,
• N.' / i N.
'7'•;•
1 0 ' .11
(()) N''7•.,..,.
/ ••;" /
/1 •
.., -- , l',I,.._..'-1-2:.,-71 •-■.___ .---s.. • -.. .-r.
,
Ma
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
V APRIL 19 , 1989
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli and David Headla . Jim Wildermuth arrived during discussion
on item 2, Oak View Heights and did not vote on item 1.
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen , Asst .
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD
APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HWY. 5, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, ARGUS
DEVELOPMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order .
Ray Brandt: Ray Brandt with Brandt and Brandt. I prepared the plans . If
you were concerned about moving this around, I would think from the
( developer ' s standpoint , if they needed to move, I think we would probably
rather just have the street run across here . . . I would think this would
be a better situation if we did. . . This is just graded . In the dry
weather it ' s alright. Otherwise I don' t have. . .
Emmings moved , Headla seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla : This whole packet . . . the most incomplete packet . We get a sketch
tonight. If I can ' t have 24 hours to look at it, I can ' t. . . I 'm not
going to look at it tonight. I looked at these drawings and trying to
figure out what in the world, where are these 21 lots . I couldn ' t figure
out where in the world those 21 they were talking about .
Olsen: You don' t have the plan?
Headla : No , this is what we got . I couldn ' t figure out where the 21
were. And as I went through and looked at . . . Take a scenario like number
7 where . . . , supposed you have a fire there on a cold and icy night .
You 've got a lot of people coming in. That curve out there, off of Powers
Blvd . . If we have one truck that has a collision there , you 'd block that
access to the whole thing. You aren' t going to drive up on the lawns to
get there . Now you ' ve got something . . . I think the Fire Department . . .
what in the world are they talking about? They' re talking a tree falling
down . I 'm not talking about a tree falling down. I 'm talking about a
r blockage that could be extremely serious . I think you have to have a
;,� second access with anything that large . If you ' re talking . . . I don ' t have
a problem. . .comi.ng in from Powers Blvd . , I think that' s got a lot of
merit . I 'd like to see it permanently. That ' s my philosophy. . . I think
that secondary access is just mandatory. I also think that the. . .a check
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19 , 1989 - Page 2
C
list . A checklist that many of us have a chance to go over to say yes,
this is the checklist they should have. Then when something like this
comes up of this magnitude and later on. . . then we check it off saying if
it' s appropriate or not.
Batzli : I guess I had a problem understanding what lots we were talking
about as well . . .perhaps it would be appropriate to table it. The
question I had was. . . the amended landscaping plan prior to the Planning
Commisison meeting. Do you have that?
Olsen: I have that . I assumed you had the plans.
Batzli : Okay, so this is just the landscaping plan and not the actual
plan?
Olsen: Right. It was supposed to go out in the packet . Obviously it
didn' t. '
Batzli : Is the watermain ever going to be moved? The watermain that ' s
going into the project. Are there plans for looping it or is it going to
dead end?
Olsen: Yes . . .
Batzli. : Is it appropriate to say it in here somewhere that they are going
to eventually loop it?
Don Patton : That ' s part of the PUD plan.
Batzli. : That' s part of the overall plan? When would it be appropriate to
dedicate the park? Do we typically do that in a preliminary plat?
Olsen: As long as it' s approved as an outlot . . .
Batzli : Without that being a condition?
Don Patton: Jo Ann, that' s part of the PUD already. Outlot H is part of
the public open space and dedicated for . . .
Olsen: That' s one of the ori.gi.nal conditions of the PUD. They would have
to provide those outlots for park.
Batzlj : But you said there were changes on this that we ' re looking at now
from your ori.gi.nal plat PUD. ,
Olsen: The outlot itself is . . . You can make it a specific condition.
Batzlj : If you don' t see any problems, I don' t want it in here. The only
, other things I had were some technical . . .
Elison: I don' t have anything new. I was kind of confused on this too '
but from what I see . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19 , 1989 - Page 3
C
Emmings : I guess I don' t see any real reason to table it . I think it
probably fits within the overall plan for what was approved here.
Actually it appears that the area . . . is actually reducing the number of
lots . . . As far as the conditions are concerned. . . Number 2, the
applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed District
and I did see a letter from them in here. Also from Carver County.
There' s a letter in here that would seem to indicate that Carver County
wasn' t requiring anything.
Olsen : They want that secondary access.
Emmings: Okay, and then what does etc. mean?
Olsen: Any other conditions from. . .
Emmings : We either want to tell them which ones they have to get or else
just eliminate that because that tells them nothing. So if we don' t know,
if there' s nothing there , then let ' s just take it out because it doesn' t
mean anything anyway. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the through
street shown as West Lake Drive. Now I take it that' s, if you look at the
landscaping plans, since that ' s all we've got, that' s the road that' s
coming out that says West Lake Drive on it? Which side of that street is
this concrete sidewalk?
Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission did meet to determine which
side. . .
Emmings : I guess I ' d change number 6. It says prior to assigning street
names , the applicant shall consult with the Public Safety for
recommendations . I think that ought to say, proposed street names shall
be submitted to the Public Safety for approval . Then it says on number 7,
revised plans that address the conditions and discussion contined in this
staff report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. That
one came out of the City Engineer ' s report . Is that right? So shouldn' t
it say that the revised plans that addres the conditions and discussion
contained in the City Engineer ' s report will be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval? That ' s all I ' ve got. Otherwise, I guess
I wouldn ' t have any trouble moving approval with those changes.
Erhart: In the handout there, it ' s designated as outlot H and. . .
Olsen : Again , I assumed that you had those lots which showed that as
Outlot B. The concept plan. . .
Erhart : That is basically just a dead end street?
Olsen: The cul-de-sac? No.
Erhart : This street just comes to a dead end .
Olsen: There will be a temporary turn around there but it will be. . .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19 , 1989 - Page 4
r
C
Erhart : Is there anything on the end that ' s suppose to show it' s a turn
around?
The tape didn' t pick up Jo Ann Olsen' s answer .
Erhart: . . .a major portion of our pollution problem with plastic seems to
be erosion barriers and not removing them after the area has been
revegetated.
Olsen: The development contracts now cover that. . .
Erhart: What about on the City projects? It really is . . . If that' s part
of the process , then that' s great . Since most of this has been, I assume
this whole plat was all part of the PUD and what we' re really seeing
tonight is . . .
Olsen: They had to come in for each--phase of the project . I
Erhart: I understand but as far as the overall plan, this has already. . .
so I guess in that respect, not having the plan. . .
II
Conrad: Normally when things are missing or late I assume that means that
staff hasn ' t had time to look at it and give us their opinion. In this
f particular case, that' s not the case. They' ve responded with their
II
\- comments . . . I think we have to come to some kind of resolution on the
secondary access . . . Have you reviewed the two, has anybody reviewed the
two and what ' s the reason for the grading of the other street versus this
II
one?
Olsen : When we were always discussing this during the PUD concept plan ,
II
the temporary access through the park to Powers was what we were always
looking at in the second access so that ' s what we were looking at when we
first met with Engineering and Public Safety. That' s when Public Safety
felt well what they' re proposing is okay. We don' t have to necessarily
II
have that second access. Then the engineering department saw that they
were going to be, that some of the street had already been put in. That
they could rough grade the rest and have a secondary access that way. As I
far as one over. the other , the only difficult is getting a temporary
access to Powers from Carver County. They don' t like giving those.
Especially when it ' s in a location that ' s not so, I don ' t know if that' s a
good location but anything along Powers there, it ' s really tough. That
II
would be one of the deciding factors I believe. And then when the park is
planned to be improved .
Conrad : Any directions on this particular one Tim? Do you feel that we II
should continue along with the staff report or look at a different access
off the cul-de-sac or what do you think?
Erhart: The Public Safety Director indicated that he was satisfied II
ai_thout the second access .
Conrad : The Safety Director said no secondary access . Engineer said to II
provide secondary access. The access of the cul-de-sac, can you eliminate
II
MI
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 19 , 1989 - Page 5
C
Ione of those . . .
Ray Brandt: I don' t know what rough grading this would do. If they
wanted a second access . . . I did this one place in Burnsville where we
have an access that ' s graded but you at least can drive on it . Put a
chain across there, a break away chain so an emergency vehicle would just
II run right into it and break. You don' t want people driving in ther_e. . .but
if Public Safety says we don' t care, we don' t need another access , my
point is , I don ' t have any idea what this or what benefit of having this
Irough graded if that' s . . .
Batzli : How long are we talking for temporary? Is that next week,
tomorrow or next year?
IIOlsen : The next phase is coming in from the west side . . .
IBatzli : So if we put it through the -park, it may be there for a while?
Conrad : It appears that cul-de-sac serves . . . the access for the
cul-de-sac. . .
II
Ray Brandt: Also , the secondary road . . .doesn ' t own this land . That ' s
another consideration. He doesn ' t own that land.
FErhart : We ' ve had developments in the City that have cul-de-sacs that. . .
and it seems to me that it ' s arbitrary. . .
IRay Brandt: There have been several people that. . .
Erhart: I know we have. I 'm just trying to think . . .
IConrad : We should be debating this . This isn ' t on our shot . We ' re
making a recommendation, or planning staff is recommending one alternative
I and another branch of the city government , they' re not concerned about
this situation.
IBatzli : I pesonally can ' t believe that it said that after listening to
the Public Safety Director stand up and talk for 15 minutes to my
neighborhood and the whole neighborhood showed up and they decided to put
an emergency exit. . . I couldn' t believe it when I read his recommendation
here so- I will definitely vote to put it in.
Conrad: It' s inconsistent and that really makes us confused. At least I
Iam. I go back to the days when cul-de-sacs were 500 feet . I guess Steve
and Jo Ann, is it still your firm belief what control do we have in the
adjoining property to grade it when we ' re dealing with this particular
plat?
IOlsen : . . .access to the property. . .
you' re Okay, you' e comfortable that we could say at least explore that ,
at least to the tune of whether Carver County would accept a temporary and
then at least we have a secondary? I think we ' re all , well I 'm not sure.
II
i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19 , 1989 - Page 6
I think most of us believe a secondary access , I think it' s, especially on
a real , some longer cul-de-sacs that it' s just a risk that I don' t think
we want to take. The one thing that maybe you could help us with in the
future is why we got the recommendation that we don' t need that. Maybe if
we could understand that, we could apply it. We need a standard and
that' s what we' re looking for so we' re not arbitrary in dealing with one
developer versus another . So I guess in our tickler file we better look
into that at least so we can understand. . .secondary access and maybe
there' s rationale for it. Anyway, with what Jo Ann said, I guess it' s up
to whoever makes the motion. Jo Ann said they find it acceptable having a
secondary access through the cul-de-sac if Carver County would grant a
permit so that' s an option for somebody to make a motion that we really. . .
Again staff is saying that the developer can make a path, make a graded
road a secondary access. The comment would be, that road won' t solve all
the problems if we do have a blockage.
Erhart: I think clarification. . . Ie- your report on streets it says , I
think it reads the . . . Public Safety felt it not necessary to have it. . .
Olsen: Right. It was after we had our meeting and . . . 1
Erhart : What did the engineer ' s comments say?
it Olsen: . . . to have that there and their option was to grade that road.
Again, all during the. . . that' s why he brought it up.
Conrad: I 'm sure this will be resolved by the time it gets to City
Council . Is there somebody that 'd like to make a motion?
Emmings: I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat stamped
"April 12, 1989" with the following conditions . Number 1 would be
deleted . Number 2, the etc . would be removed unless there ' s something to
put in there. If there 's some other body. . .specifically named . 3 , 4 and
5 will stay the same. 6 would be changed to read that , proposed street
names shall be submitted to the Department of Public Safety for approval .
7 would be changed to read that revised plans that address the conditions
and discussion contained in the City Engineer ' s report shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval . Then there will be a number 12 added
that states that there should be a secondary access going off of the
cul-de-sac out to County Road 17 and that if that ' s not an item that
approval may 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 as it gets to the
City Council . I would like to delete number 10. My thinking there. If
we just rough grade that road, I don' t think it does that much number one.
Number two, it ' s going to sit ther_e . . .and just cover it however it is now.
Erhart: Second .
Batzli. : In the Engineer ' s report it talks about that . . . Is that covered
by your rewording that that will be taken care of or we should write it
within the City Engineer report?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 19, 1989 - Page 7
f
Emmings: I hope so.
Batzli : The other question is, would it be thinkable to include as a
condition the . . .or is that a given?
Olsen: That' s a given but. . .
Batzli : If they have to follow that, I 'm confused because they didn ' t
follow it. They adjusted it from what was already. . .
Olsen: The contract is still the same. It still applies and there are
certain conditions in there and they always use that. . .
Batzli : . . . if that ' s not correct , then that ' s the way it is.
Conrad: Any other discussion. Tim, --let me get this straight. Were you
concerned about the turn around?
Erhart: Yes .
Conrad : Are you going to let it lay there or?
jr Erhart: Jo Ann explained it to me. . .
Conrad : Normally on temporary dead ends, we do have a turn around . We
don' t really have a turn around but when you say it ' s being taken care of,
I don' t know what that means .
Emmings : Let cut this short . I want to amend my own motion to include
that if West Lake Drive is not looped but comes to an end as it' s shown on
the preliminary plat we ' re looking at here , then there will be a temporary
cul-de-sac at the end of that.
Erhart : I ' ll second the amendment .
Emmings moved , Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD as shown on the preliminary plat
stamped "April 12, 1989" with the following conditions :
1. The applicant shall receive any necessary permits from the Watershed
District and Carver County.
2. The applicant shall install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the
through street shown as West Lake Drive on the plat.
3 . The applicant shall provide an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the
east side of Powers Boulevard.
4 . The applicant shall receive 50% credit on park dedication fees and
100% credit on trail dedication fees .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 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 .
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, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET,
CENVESCO:
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 .
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . 11
Mil
I