The URL can be used to link to this page

1a. Lake Susan Hills West Preliminary Plat ` f;‘,.L C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: March 2 , 1988 CHANHASSEN C.C. ::E:7 :a;: 21 , 1988 , Y CASE Prepared by: Olsen/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Amendment to amend 41 Single Family Lots on 15 Acres (net) to 51 Single Family Lots on 22 Acres (net) z Q VLOCATION: West Side of Powers Boulevard, approximately one-quarter mile south of Hwy. 5 Cl- APPLICANT: Argus Development 18133 Cedar Avenue Q Farmington, MN 55024 PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 22 acres (net) Action cv '`ii ; '�-n.: . DENSITY: 2 . 32 units/acre (net) ADJACENT ZONING f;,,z le'c' AND LAND USE: N- IOP; Chanhassen Business Park S- RSF; single family E- Lake Susan & Chanhassen Hills W- RSF; vacant WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The proposed site has been farmed and contains rolling hills . 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential .......-..--.- '-- . 1... _. 1.J ..--Irrnill litrrie . vl :iir.4..s mu..631K OM R . k ' smiTh-e-rtror: Emil 01 , , F o 1 f I A , 1 .. . , . ! I =Pr MU' slow or. R 1 2 , MIHfti INOV:4 NMI I aL' ' 3 ; 1111111111111 :111/'1,1141 r4F1 .. 4 ..- ..... -mitt—i—m--m,munimil wivitrir-i-Li •. - ..- 1 1...... telr . , . 611'ilt mill Figfrileis.w. . :OULEVARD .-, : .. . I lifia _IZ I.,... • p IR D: i , - .. > cr_ op , * . . ...„, 10P 1 01 VY ......, i ■ 1 t ' I 1 : I _ — ..,44. ___ , . * cr.„..„- t _ __i C . R 1 2 .. ( ,_• ,. - - , J.I, - \; _ ._.k. ,, . v-- _ ' R s-- (,) LAKE SUSAN }kir, _;!:_ ,, RD LocArricutT -: . col-, - 1114-1/4'1ED. 0. AI L 0/ IIII 2, T1 WI ,•• 1%.0 u): . RSF ' cct- w . , 7 , I Of, ,A.p-. .-- --_. -___ III A . 86 TH ST. I -.. - 1.111111110 Ps ift.C21 .,. ,i- 111 R4 / .-- , 12 _ 1111 .,, RSF 7 I :vs; , _,- i , PUD—R cTj3 u,p z RSF s _- / ,. 1 1 -- y RSF . . . .. • , ,_ 1-... . , 1 .... i $ -: - . 1-- 1111 1 t ;3<° -• CC § ° 11 Illid 1-1 litiby t .111% AO. (-1 ,'._ R. 18 Illtiir LYN B t",x_EVARD c...._ f mil 611110 _ v . , A2 PUD— Lake Susan Hills West March 2 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The PUD Ordinance requires 50% of the lots to be 15 ,000 square feet or over with a minimum lot area of 12 ,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 80 feet and an average lot size of 13 ,500 square feet or more (Attachment #1) . REFERRAL AGENCIES Public Safety See Attachment #2 City Engineer See Attachment #3 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 #4) . The developer subsequently revised the concept 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. 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 (Attachment #5) . On October 5 , 1987, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for 76 single family lots on 39 . 4 acres (Attachment #6 ) . Thirty-five of the single family lots were located on the east side of Powers Boulevard and 41 single family lots were located on the west side of Powers Boulevard. ANALYSIS The developer has discovered poor soil conditions on the west side of Powers Boulevard, specifically at the end of Egret Court. The developer is requesting to amend the approved plat for 41 lots west of Powers Boulevard to reconfigure the lots around the poor soils and to add additional land. The proposed amendment adds 7 acres of land, shortens Egret Court cul-de-sac and adds a second cul-de-sac, Pelican Court. The approved 41 lots west of Powers Boulevard ranged from 12 ,374 square feet to 20 ,693 square feet with an average lot size of Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 3 15 ,420 square feet. There were 8 lots (20%) with less than 15 ,000 square feet and 33 lots ( 80%) with 15 ,000 square feet and over. The proposed amendment provides lots ranging from 12 ,374 square feet to 45 ,800 square feet with an average lot size of 15,261 square feet ( lots over 20 ,000 sq. ft. are counted as 20 ,000 sq. ft. ) . There are 15 lots (29%) with less than 15 ,000 square feet and 36 lots ( 71%) with 15 ,000 square feet and over. Attachment #7 shows the approved 41 lots . Attachment #8 shows the amended plan, highlighting lots that have been changed and new lots . The approved plat had a net density of 2 . 73 u/a and the proposed amendment has a net density of 2 .32 u/a. The PUD ordinance requires at least 50% of the single family lots to contain 15 ,000 square feet or more and that the average lot size be at least 13 ,500 square feet. The PUD ordinance also requires a minimum of 80 feet at the building setback line ( 30 feet) . The proposed preliminary plat amendment meets all of the PUD requirements . In his report, the City Engineer will review drainage, grading and utilities (Attachment #3 ) . Landscaping The ordinance requires one tree per lot be provided by the developer and, as part of the PUD approval, the applicant pro- posed increases in landscaping at street entrances and along the boulevard. As part of the preliminary plat approval for Lake Susan Hills West First Addition, the applicant provided a landscape plan showing additional landscaping along the western portion of the proposed plat. As part of approval for the plat amendment, staff is recommending that an amended landscaping plan be submitted which provides additional landscaping for the pro- posed addition along Lake Susan Hills Drive and Pelican Court. Wetland The applicant received a wetland alteration permit for develop- ment within 200 feet of a Class B wetland as part of the prelimi- nary plat approval for the first addition. The Class B wetland is located just north of Lots 7 through 11 , Block 2 , as shown on page 3 of the preliminary plat. The applicant is not changing any of the approved lots along the edge of this wetland. All of the lots provide the required minimum of 15 ,000 square feet and provide the required 75 foot setback from the wetland. Therefore, an additional wetland alteration permit is not required. Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that a five foot wide concrete off street trail/sidewalk be constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive which crosses Powers Boulevard and that the trail be placed on the same side of the street in both neigh- borhoods so as to match the Powers Boulevard intersection. The Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 4 Park and Recreation Commission also requested that a park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of Lake Susan Hills Drive on the west side of Powers Boulevard. The 50 foot wide outlot is being provided ( Outlot B) and the five foot wide concrete trail/sidewalk will be developed as part of the second addition. SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to add an additional seven acres (net) to the previously approved 15 acres (net) . The plan amendment increases the number of lots from 41 to 51 single family lots and the proposed lots meet the requirements of the PUD ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat amendment as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 12 , 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides for additional landscaping on the addition of Lake Susan Hills Drive and Pelican Court. 2 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County for the proposed access from CR 17 (Powers Boulevard) . 3 . A five foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk shall be constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive and the trail shall be placed on the same side of the street in both neigh- borhoods so as to match at the Powers Boulevard intersection. 4 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the financial security. 6 The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a street grade of 0 .5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 17 . 7 . Type II erosion control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be placed as check dams at 100-foot intervals in all drainage swales . Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 5 8 . All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. 9 . A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area with poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 10 . Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to construction. The revised plans shall address the comments contained within this report. 11. The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court shall be reduced to 50 feet in width. 12. A more-pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to con- vey backlot drainage to the proposed sotrm sewer. 13 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Once in place they shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the respon- sibility of the developer. 14 . Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction docu- ments as required by the PUD agreement. 15 . The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall be 35 foot back-to-back. 16 . A 20-foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided along Powers Boulevard for Lot 1, Block 2 . 17. Lot 4 , Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 shall take service from Lake Susan Hills Drive sewer and water. 18. A 20-foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plat amendment for Lake Susan Hills West subject to staff' s 18 con- ditions and added the following condition: 19 . The Public Safety Director shall determine whether a secondary access to Powers Boulevard is necessary. Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 6 The Commission was concerned with the long cul-de-sac servicing the 51 single family lots on the western portion of Powers Boulevard. They felt that a temporary or permanent secondary access should be provided at this time rather than waiting for the construction of a second access as part of the future phases . STAFF UPDATE The Public Safety Director has reviewed the Planning Commission' s request and has determined that a secondary access to Powers Boulevard is not necessary (Attachments #12 and #13) . CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat amendment as shown on the plan stamped "Received February 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1 . The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which provides for additional landscaping on the addition of Lake Susan Hills Drive and Pelican Court. 2 . The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County for the proposed access from CR 17 ( Powers Boulevard) . 3 . A five foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk shall be constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive and the trail shall be placed on the same side of the street in both neigh- borhoods so as to match at the Powers Boulevard intersection. 4 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the financial security. 6 The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a street grade of 0 . 5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 17 . 7 . Type II erosion control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be placed as check dams at 100-foot intervals in all drainage swales . 8 . All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 7 9 . A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area with poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 10 . Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to construction. The revised plans shall address the comments contained within this report. 11. The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court shall be reduced to 50 feet in width. 12 . A more-pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to con- vey backlot drainage to the proposed sotrm sewer. 13 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Once in place they shall remain in place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the respon- sibility of the developer. 14 . Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction docu- ments as required by the PUD agreement. 15 . The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall be 35 foot back-to-back. 16 . A 20-foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided along Powers Boulevard for Lot 1 , Block 2 . 17 . Lot 4 , Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 shall take service from Lake Susan Hills Drive sewer and water. 18 . A 20-foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1 . ATTACHMENTS 1 . PUD Ordinance. 2 . Public Safety memo dated February 18 , 1988 . 3 . Memo from City Engineer dated February 26, 1988 . 4 . City Council minutes dated June 29 , 1987 . 5 . PUD Agreement. 6 . City Council minutes dated October 5 , 1987 . 7 . Approved plat. 8 . Amended plat. Lake Susan Hills West March 3 , 1988 Page 8 Attachments ( continued) 9 . Reduction of plat amendment plans . 10. Application. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated March 16, 1988. 12. Memo from City Engineer dated March 24, 1988 . 13. Memo from Public Safety Director dated March 22 , 1988 . 14. Preliminary plat dated February 12, 1988 . D. Site shall be kept in a neat and orderly fashion; E. No uses shall be permitted in required parking or building setback areas; and F. Display shall not be permitted within 100 feet of jiiany residential parcel. 10. Truck, Auto or Boat Sales liA. No vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperative shall be stored on the premises: All B. All repair, assembly, disassembly or maintenance of vehicles shall occur within a closed building except minor maintenance, including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement; C. No outside storage or display except vehicles for - sale or rent; el D. No public address system shall be audible from residential property; E. Parking setback shall be applicable for car or truck ' storage or waiting areas; F. No test driving of vehicles on local residential streets; G. Shall maintain a landscaped buffer 100 feet from any residential zoning district; and \. H. All vehicle dealers shall be licensed by the state. SECTION 18 . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) 5-18-1 Intent. Planned unit developments are to provide for and encourage creative site planning and subdivisions of high quality through the use of: 1. Variety. Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land uses, housing types, and densities. 2 . Sensitivity. Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, and other minimum requirements, and performance standards associated with traditional zoning, planned unit developments can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics. 3 . Efficiency. The more efficient use of land and public liservices, consolidation of areas for recreation, -64- 4Ff Ireductions in street lengths and other utility related expenses. II 4 . Density. An increase/transfer of density may be allowed I at the sole discretion of the City utilizing the following factors: IA. The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. IB. Density transfer in single family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in Section 18- 3 (A) . Density transfer eligible for multiple family I areas are not permitted to be applied to single family areas. I C. Density transfer for other projects other than I single family detached development shall be evaluated based on the standards in Section 18-3 (B) . liD. In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the gross density ranges I identified in the Comprehensive Plan. il 5. District Integration. The combination of uses which II are allowed in separate zoning districts, such as: El A. Mixed residential allowing both densities and unit types to be varied within the project. I El B. Mixed residential with increased density • acknowledging the greater sensitivity of PUD rilprojects. C. Mixed land uses es with the integration of compatible � land uses within the project. 6. Parks and Open Space. The creation of a public open space 1,k may be required by the City. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and overall trail plan. 5-18-2 Allowed Uses. A PUD may include only those uses consistent II with the general land use category for the area on the official Comprehensive Plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development I plan. 5-18-3 Required Standards. The City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of I the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding uses. The City IIshall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, -65- 1 • JI Ili II li parking areas and other features topography of the area and existing natural features ;at the II efficiency, adequacy and safety ofgthe prop fedturyo , tof streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the of II adequacy, location and screening of noncompatible land uses and parking areas. A. In developments where single family detached areas are II proposed, the following standards shall apply: 1. The average lot size may be reduced below square feet if in the opinion of city staff, II commission and council, the plan includes features desirable to the City. A maximum reduction of up to I 10% below 15, 000 square feet may be granted if the 3 proposal contains items in the list below or proposes other features which are also above and beyond standard development requirements. In no II case, however, shall the average lot size fall below 13 , 500 square feet or the minimum lot size fall below 12, 000 square feet. II Items Housing variety including differentiation in housing II Itypes, housing exteriors and floor plans. * Preservation of natural site features, lowlands, wooded areas, etc. not protected by II DNR or City Ordinances. y Creation of park/public areas for active and passive II park use or other public purposes such as schools, III public buildings, etc. which meet the intent of the Park and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive II Plan. 1 Installation of public improvements desi gned to serve areas beyond the project boundary. II IInstallation of off-street pedestrian ways. A reasonable number of available 1 J for solar/energy conservation housing are designed g. Landscaping plan showing additional boulevard trees II, 1 rear yard treatments, buffering from existing developments, etc. , beyond required standards. III Preservation of historically significant sites. Other features deemed appropriate by the City Council. • -66- li ' . f II * Wetlands already protected by the Department of Natural Resources or the City's Wetland Ordinance will not be considered for density transfer. I2. The minimum single family detached lot width is 80 feet at the building setback line. I 3. 50% of the single family lots must contain at least 15, 000 square feet. I 4 . In calculation of the average lot size, each lot size in excess of 20, 000 square feet shall be calculated to contain only 20, 000 square feet. I5. Lot sizes adjacent to existing developments shall approximate in lot size and lot width. I B. In development where uses other than single family detached structures are proposed, the City may consider a density transfer upon proof by the applicant that I some of the following features are being provided: preservation of natural site features, wetlands, lowlands, wooded areas, etc. not protected by the DNR I or City ordinances; creation of park/public areas for active park use or other public purpose such as schools, public buildings, etc. which meet the intent of the Park and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive II Plan; installation of public improvement designed to serve areas beyond the project boundary; installation of off-street pedestrian ways; structure design conducive to solar energy features ; landscaping plan I showing additional boulevard trees, rear yard treatments, buffering from existing developments, ect. , beyond required standards. IIC. In any PUD, no clear cutting of woodland areas shall permitted. Shade trees of six inches or more caliper be I shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other feasible way to develop the site. The Council may require replacement of any removed trees on a caliper inch per caliper inch basis. At least one Itree per lot shall be incorporated into the plan, such tree shall be a minimum of 2 caliper inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height. This is I not to preclude the removal of diseased or dead trees. 5-18-4 Coordination With Subdivision Re•ulations. Subdivision II review under the subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the Isubdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat. I -67- • i ( , . l5-18-5 Control of Planned Unit Development During Construction and II Following Completion. l1. The use of the land and the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures shall be governed by the final development plan. l2 . After the certificate of occupancy Y has been issued, no I changes shall be made in the approved final development j plan except: J II A. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the City Planner if they are II consistent with the purposes and intent of .the final plan. No change authorized by this section may iincrease the bulk of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%) . lit { 1 - B. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved. : C. Changes in uses, any rearrangement of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provision of 1 common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the Planning ' I Commission and upon final approval by the City I Council. 3 . If in the opinion of the City, development has not progressed reasonably well according to the approved schedule, the developer shall be required to submit a statement to the City setting forth reasons 11"; ` lack of g for the i progress. The Planning Commission may initiate rezoning to eliminate the PUD zoning classification if '" it finds that the development has not occurred q according to the adopted schedule, it shall not be q necessary for the City Council to: find that the rezoning to a PUD was. in error. IV 4 . The construction and provision of all of the common ILI open space and public improvements and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development , plan must proceed at the same rate as the construction of dwelling units or other private. facilities. 5-18-6 Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development: 1. Preapplication Conference. Prior to filing an application for PUD, the applicant shall attend a conference with the City. The primary purpose of the 111 -68- II conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its conformity to the provisions of this Ordinance before incurring substantial expense. ' 2 . General Concept Plan. A. The General Concept Plan provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the City showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: 1) Overall gross and net density. 2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. 3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. ' 4) General location and extent of public and common open space. ' 5) General location and type- of land uses and intensities of development. ' 6) Staging and time schedule for development. 7) The tentative written consent of all property ' owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the City before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the City to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the ' following procedures. B. Schedule. ' 1) Developer meets with the City staff to discuss the proposed developments. 1 2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. 3) The Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations ' to the City Council . Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior -69- I Al II Igito the hearing, written notification of the II hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days AI prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the II property and an on-site notification sign erected. Al 4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission the City Council shall consider the proposal. If the Planning Commission fails to make a report II within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may proceed Eli without the report. The Council may approve the li concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a 4/5 L_. vote of the entire Council. II 3 . Development Stage. Following general concept approval, the applicant shall submit the development stage A application, preliminary because of the limited scale tofn the eproposal, the iate II all concept stage and preliminary plan stages may proceed simultaneously. I A. The applicant shall file the development plans and preliminary plat, together with all supporting data. IIB. With the appropriate notifications, the Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing on the preliminary plat and the rezoning and report its findings and make recommendations to the City II Council for their action. 121 C. The Development Stage shall include but not be II limited to: :gi 1) A preliminary plat and information required by the City subdivision ordinance. II 2) Approved development plan drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred II (100) feet containing at least the following information: a) Proposed name of the development. I b) Property boundary lines and dimensions of II the property and any significant iii topographical or physical features of the property. c) The location, size use a nd arrangement II including height in stories and feet and -70- II total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, and existing buildings which will remain, if any. • d) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. e) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for private and public open space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and recreational facilities. f) The location, use and size of structures and other land uses located within 200 feet of the property boundary. g) A natural resource analysis identifying existing vegetation areas consisting of forest and wood lots as well as wetlands and wetlands vegetation; the geology, slope, soil and groundwater characteristics of the site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, runoff settling areas, and flood plains must be identified; analysis of the relationship of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above. Also, a ro ose p p d landscaping plan, including location of existing plants, identification of species, caliper size and acreage. h) Location, type and size of all graphics and signage. 1 i) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. 3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. 4) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected population. i t -71- I 31 /- /- li Al5) A tabulation indicating the gross square I footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity. 6) Preliminary architectural "typical" plans II indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, x_ .;J4 including manufactured homes. II Lill 7) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topography and I natural site vegetation. The plan should LEA clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. I 8) A Soil Erosion Control Plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of Natural 111 Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly II illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. I 9) Protective covenants and Homeowners Association bylaws. D. The City may request additional information f nom the ' applicant concerning operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant II concerning operational factors. 4 . Final Stage. Following preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit the final plat and I execute the development contract prepared by the City. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the preliminary and final plats may proceed I simultaneously. The City Council shall then consider the submission for final approval and rezoning to P.U.D. SECTION 19 . FLOOD PLAIN OVERLAY DIST RICTS II 5-19-1 Purpose. A district to provide for the protection and ' preservation of water channels and those portions of the All adjoining flood plains which are required to carry and discharge a regional flood and are subject to inundation by II regional floods. It is the intent of this district to be applied to those areas which if left unrestricted could result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce, utilities and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for floodplain protection and relief and impairment of the tax base. This district is created and applied in accordance with II a - Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 104 and 462 . :I -72- II II i,� CITY OF = G CHANHASSEN \' . 1 f _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 MEMO 1 TO :JO ANN OLSEN , ASST . CITY PLANNER FROM: MADDEN , FIRE INSPECTOR4 - 1 DATE : FEBUARY 18, 1988 SUBJECT : LAKE SUSAN HIUS;,WEST 87-3 PUD 1 Upon review of the site plans for Lake Susan Hills Ii. havefound them to meet the requirements of the fire code. If you have any questions , please ask. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 0o- 1 CITY OF 1 \ 1 \I . CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer /7:1(1- DATE: February 26 , 1988 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Lake Susan Hills West, 2nd Addition 1 Planning File 87-3 PUD, Argus Development The applicant has submitted a plat amendment for the west half of Phase I of Lake Susan Hills West. The PUD was approved by the City Council on October 5 , 1987 . The plat received preliminary approval on October 5 , 1987 . The amendment which adds approxima- tely 10 lots to the subdivision and identifies the west 1/2 as the 2nd addition results from the extremely poor soil conditions which were revealed during soil boring tests in the rear of Lots 4 , 5 and Lots 15 through 24 of Block 1 . Use of previous plan would require that piling or other corrective measures be taken for construction of the proposed house foundations. The revised plan addresses the issue by adjusting the lot lines such that the poor soils are located to the rear of the above-mentioned lots. The soil borings report indicates that soil corrections for the proposed house pads may still be anticipated, however, the corrective action required will be less extreme and therefore less costly. 1 Sanitary Sewer Revisions to the sanitary sewer plan are limited to the extension of an 8-inch diameter sewer line into Pelican Court. The remainder of the sanitary sewer plan remains as originally pro- posed. Due to the close proximity of the watermain to the sani- tary sewer line along the common lot line of Lots 4 and 5 of Block 1 , ductile iron pipe will be required for the sanitary sewer in this location to meet the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health. Watermain As per the requirements of the preliminary plat approval , calcu- lations verifying adequate pressure and flow conditions were sub- 1 3 1 1 Planning Commission 1 February 26 , 1988 Page 2 mitted for approval by the City Engineer. The revised plan has adhered to these calculations by looping the proposed 8-inch watermain from Pelican Court to Egret Court to ensure adequate pressure and flow capabilities . The gate valve proposed at the west end of Heron Drive should be moved to just west of the proposed fire hydrant on Heron Drive to eliminate aAstagnant water condition. P0551 0,-E Revised plans and specifications which address details for ade- quately supporting the utility lines in the areas of poor soil conditions, should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. The revised plan should clearly delineate the areas ' where poor soil conditions exist. Roadway ' The plans propose a 60-foot right-of-way for Pelican Court and Egret Court cul-de-sacs . These right-of-ways should be reduced to a 50-foot width to be in accordance to the City standards for ' urban construction. Lake Susan Drive and Heron Drive shall remain as 60-foot right-of-ways and the street section shall be increased to 35 feet back-to-back on those two streets . ' The revised portion of the plat proposes a maximum street grade of 3 . 4% as compared to the City' s recommended standard of 7 .0% . A 0 .5% approach or a minimum distance of 50 feet will be required for the approach onto CSAH 17 (Powers Boulevard) . Sidewalks The PUD agreement calls for the installation of a five (5 ) foot wide concrete off-street trail sidewalk along one side of all internal streets except cul-de-sacs as a part of roadway ' construction. Drainage ' The drainage for the west half of the plat flows to the drainage swale which is to be constructed along the west side of Powers Boulevard and the proposed ponding site located north of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The drainage swale and ponding site meet the requirements for a 100-year storm event, however, since the ponding site is located "off-site" , proper easements shall be obtained by the applicant. A more-defined drainage swale should be created at the rear of ' Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 1 through 23 of Block 1 to keep drainage away from the proposed house pads of Egret Court. It is recommended that the drainage plan, submitted for final plan and specification approval, utilize the proposed storm sewer struc- tures in that area to drain these back lot areas . I 11 Planning Commission February 26, 1988 1 Page 3 Grading and Erosion Control The plan again calls for the majority of the site to be graded. The proposed grades appear to be reasonably within the 3 :1 slope criteria. Check dams (Type II Erosion Control) should be placed at 100-foot intervals in all drainage swales. In addition, staked hay bales should be placed in front of all storm sewer inlets . An accep- table grading and erosion control plan clearly showing a detail for Type II Erosion Control (staked hay bales and snow fence) should be submitted with the construction plan and specifications for approval by the City Engineer. Easements A 20-foot utility easement should be placed over the proposed storm sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1 . Similarly, easement documents over the proposed drainage swale 1 along the west side of Powers Boulevard and ponding site on the adjacent property to the north should be provided to the City for approval by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval . A 20-foot permanent trail easement shall be provided along the west side of Powers Boulevard, i .e. Lot 1, Block 2 . Recommended Conditions ' 1 . The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the financial security. 2 . The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a street grade of 0 .5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 17 . 3 . Type II erosion control ( staked hay bales and snow fence) ' shall be placed as check dams at 100-foot intervals in all drainage swales . 4 . All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. 5 . A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area 1 with poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 6 . Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to construction. The revised plans shall address the comments contained within this report. 11 1 Planning Commission February 26 , 1988 Page 4 7 . The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court shall be reduced to 50 feet in width. 8 . A more-pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to con- vey backlot drainage to the proposed sotrm sewer. 9 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Once in place they shall remain ' in place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at which time removal shall be the respon- sibility of the developer. ' 10. Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction docu- ments as required by the PUD agreement. Ill. The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall be 35 foot back-to-back. 12 . A 20-foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided ' along Powers Boulevard for Lot 1, Block 2 . 13 . Lot 4 , Block 3 and Lot 1 , Block 4 shall take service from Lake Susan Hills Drive sewer and water. 14 . A 20-foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm ' sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1 . 1 1 1 I 1 I 2412 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 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. —' — Mayor Hamilton: Do Council members have any problem with this? It's 1 adjoining BF District that we zoned. Councilman Johnson: It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. 1 Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning 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 II Fringe District. All voted in favor and motion carried. i'''S---PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL II SIDENTIAL UNITS, LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. (CR 17) 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF TH 5, DON PATTON, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST. — — I Barbara Dacy: The plans that were dated June 26th in your packet reflect the 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 II 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 was noted that there were a number of lots or I should say there weren't ill 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 feet or above. Therefore, their overall square lot size has increased also. Secondly, the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the overall II 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 R-8 zoning. This plan reflects, if you look on Outlot D, originally that was II designed as R-4 and now they are proposing that as R-8. Outlot D is approximately 10 acres in size. Another comment from the Planning Commission was to make sure that the recommendations from the Park and Rec Commission II 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 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 II the City. Also, the wetland area in Outlot A is also proposed to be dedicated 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 II 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%. A remaining concern that Staff has is location of the cul-de-sac at the end of II 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 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 0! reflects proposed landscaping plan. Another comment identified by the II 26 g i 1 i C f 249 II IF City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Planning Commission. They are proposing a rear and sideyard treatments II through to the site as it is existing as an open agricultural field. It is 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 II revised plan to attempt to address some of those concerns. The Council needs 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. IMayor 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 II this is the concept plan, put these in your file for this particular project. I belive these are comments from local companies. II Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council, as a part of the growth of Chanhassen you 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 I years back. The owners of the land are here tonight. Mr. Tom Reeves, Mr. 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 II Miller Construction represented by Ron Dahlen and Bob Count. We think that we have done a good job in planning this. We have met the requirements of the PUD Ordinance. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who will make a presentation. - I Jim Hill: The picture that is on the monitor now represents the original inal application. By the hanks to the partnership it is still 300 acres. Some 893 1 dwelling units consisting of both multi-family and single family detached. Approximately half and half. With the higher densities along Powers and adjacent to the Industrial Park and Business Park to the north. Since the II application and reviewing with the Park Commission and Staff, the partnership has made a modification of that plat. What we are reivewing represents the latest land use plan but this is a modification of the land use plan wherein the park dedication and the densities have been modified to reflect the R-8 I densities giving us about 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 I 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 1 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 It_ 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 IIvaried within a PUD if it meets their standards. The data that has been 27 r 244 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 PUD 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 PUD 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. Jim Hill: Park requirements of Chanhassen shall be the number of dwelling 1 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 PUD 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 POD, 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 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. 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 28 245 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 constructed during the phases of the PUD. In conjunction with the PUD, the II 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. 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. ' 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? 29 246 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I:- Don Patton: On which one? Councilman Geving: In number one. • 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 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. Jerome 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 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 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 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 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. [II This year that did not happen. We are fortunate but we are really trying to accelerate the addition in Little Falls because quite frankly gentlemen it is very 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 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 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. Mayor 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 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? Jerome 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 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 labor had been available in Chanhassen. That I can assure you because it's added expense to a facility that we've already committed to and we have no way 30 II 247 IICity Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 out of that. To the extent that labor becomes available Tom, down here, that II will directly impact the rate of growth in Little Falls. Councilman Geving: Jerome, have you ever done a market analysis or an II 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 I 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. 1 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 I bout here tonight I haven't seen any, what I would consider, affordable ousing. 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. I Jerome Carlson: Our primary concern right now, frankly because it is so 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 II 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 s we need in the coinnunity. Ili 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 I might do for our community in terms of affordability. I haven't heard that yet. Maybe you could address that for us. II 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. I 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 1 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. I Mayor Hamilton: Don, maybe you could address the Outlot, the one right along CR 17? You had at one time I think proposed to downzone that. I Don Patton: Yes, again that was what I was showing on this slide. I guess 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 IIthis area right here to R-8, we will accommodate that and we appreciate those 31 II 248 _ i City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 comments from Jerome on the housing needs. The buyer that we have right now 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 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 conclude it? , Al Klingelhutz: I guess I would agree with Jerome. The fact that Chanhassen 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 the truth. It really baffles me how in 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 adding 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 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 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 are going to be buying these lots what's zoned behind it is industrial or 32 . 249 A. II Ir- City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 zoned next to it is high density? If there is someway we can make it required 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 II believe as far as for single family housing, Chanhassen Hills and Chan Vista 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 3O's down with one kid or no kids and just getting married and the type of people that you're looking for 1 are moving into Chan Vista right now. 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 Ida 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 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 IL think it's a PUD. 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 II 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 I 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. IJim Mady: I don't believe they are ready yet. Councilman Boyt: I think you're an important body and we need to get that I sort 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 I 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 I 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 II1st phase of initial grading. Again, we would like to get that in the ground 33 25® City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 so the next sales will happen this fall yet. I:- 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? 1 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 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. 34 251 IICity Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 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 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. 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 ' 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 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 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 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 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 years later when all the phases are completed but now the multiples are being put in place and I would envision this being a similar type of situation. ' 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 are doing things with landscaping to make it very nice development. Councilman Geving: I think what we have to realize here is this development ' 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 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 ' 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 kids along, together, whatever, and they could survive. They'll make it go 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 1 35 1 252 II City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 lakeshore on the west side of Lake Susan. Not many developers 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 50o credit for parkland. Was that agreed on Jim? I 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 50°%, 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. 1 Councilman Geving: You might want to explain a little bit about the grading because I think this is the first time that the developer has done that for 36 256 C Y IICity Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 us. We've always asked for it but we've never gotten it. 11 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? 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. 1[1 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. It! 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 i 254 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Councilman Geving: That's something that you might want to come back to us 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. 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 condition of approval that when the site plan comes in that that site create recreational areas on the site. 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 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. Mayor Hamilton: I had some questions more on Staff's recommendations than anything else. I spent quite a bit of 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 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 all 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 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? Barbara 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 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. Mayor 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 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 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? Don 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 hill on the top of the slope is you can make that cut then build the house 38 11 255 II City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 ' U, 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. 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 1 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. a 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, I ! 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. 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. 39 256 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Mayor Hamilton: Then right at the cul-de-sac at the end of your pencil, if I:- 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 they've 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. EI 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 40 279 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 Iwe didn't want to see PUD's any longer. We wanted to see subdivisions, not PUD's. However, I think the developers have met the letter of the ordinance II 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. IJim 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 I have so many acres. We have stipulated that the POD 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 II 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 I 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 POD had some 30 acres of R-12. I 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 III 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 II 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 POD that site plan will I 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 POD. If it is the wish of the II 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 II 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 II 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 I 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. II 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 II 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, 2O's and 25% slopes and you will see I41 28() r City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 that there are very few, if any, in this area. than 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 1:- 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. I 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 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 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 42 li . f 261 II 17 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 affordable. We request from you tonight to give us PUD approval so we can IIcome 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 II 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, I 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 1 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 I 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 1 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 II say that you qualify for a full reduction under a PUD. _.r. C Vt. 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 II .-- with this item. II Councilman Johnson: This is definitely the biggest subdivision and most 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 I preparing the house pads for the builder as a part of your subdivision? Is that standard? II 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 I 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 IIhousing 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 IIyour $200,000.00 homes. Don Patton: That's the plan is to cut in the streets. ' ' . IICouncilman Johnson: That's not what you just said. II 43 II aa 2 6.y' 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 li- 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 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 ggtting 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 [11! development a lack of identity. A concept or a theme and originally this was 44 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 II 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 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. ' Don Patton: Lake Susan Hills... Councilman Geving: Lake Susan Hills is the official name. Are you planning 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 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. Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer has the comments that all of 1 1 us have made and is supplied with the Minutes so they can review those, it 4 would be helpful,to them I would think. . Councilman Boyt: As I understood what Barbara said, our motion has to include ' the areas that we want addressed. Is that correct? Mayor Hamilton: i think that's what we've been doing now. 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 a I job. 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 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: Cn the one hand, if I understand all those comments 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, then I'm voting against it. Mayor Hamilton: My motion included our comments. I stated clearly that our If 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. 45 I 264 I City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 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? I Roger Knutson: No, you're not rezoning tonight. Councilman Johnson: How much additional information do we have before we go to rezoning? I see a lot of changes to convince me this is a PUD. 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 I 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. 1 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 46 11 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the "Developer") . 1. Request for Planned Unit Development Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be ' known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PUD" (the "Development") on the land legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2 . Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit ' "B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage approval, a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Except as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be iamended from time to time. 3. Density and Use. The following densities are approximate and subject to change: A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified herein, single family lots shall be developed in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District. ' B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential) . The development shall provide a minimum of 21. 5 acres of high density multiple family residential units. The total number of dwellinclats:9f NOV 19i 1. 987 r11 /16/87 CITY OF CHANHASSEN high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, or a density greater than 17 .4 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the II R-12 Zoning District. C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The ' development shall provide a minimum of 23 .6 acres of mixed medium density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed , medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density greater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in ' accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. , 4. Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlot F (18 . 1 acres) , Outlot G (9.8 acres) , Outlot H (3.9 acres) , and Outlot E. A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlot E. Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed 11 by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be , furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City I ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- V 5. Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the ' trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan. (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard. (3) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk ' along one side of all internal streets except cul- de-sacs when the streets are constructed. (4) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail easement on the west side of Powers Boulevard. This trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will convey the easement to the City without cost, but the City will pay for the construction. Construction timing will be at the discretion of the City Council. 6. Additional Conditions of Approval. A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to ' the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, and setbacks from lot lines. B. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved ' by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means during grading and construction. -3- 11 1 C. Wetlands Nos. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit "C" shall be preserved in their natural state. D. The following shall be the maximum percentage of 1 allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlot C 31%, and Outlot D 27%. E. The Developer shall provide $500. 00 of landscaping per multiple family unit and $150. 00 per single family unit. 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5) years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding , anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the 1 City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating ' requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. 8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the , development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth moving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval 1 of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City. 9. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all applicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees to comply with such laws and regulations. 1 1 -4- I 10. Variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director. Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- ment to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work ' to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder ' if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith. 12 . Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility, drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including ' access, as required to serve the plat. 13. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, ' agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property rowners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and ' from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims. B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all 1 -5- II bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty II (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may II halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent , per annum interest charge. 14. Miscellaneous. I A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and II certificates of occupancy. I B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for I any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare II the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. II C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti- ' tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the I parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement II after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not II be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be 1 recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect II the public's interest. I II -6- II V ' F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this IAgreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth Iherein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their Iheirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is Inot of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact I statement is not required. However, if the City or another governmental entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse Ithe City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. I15. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in Iwriting and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or Iregistered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be Ieither hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by Icertified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 . I I I I -7- II / IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands II the day and year first above written. II CITY OF-'CAANHASSEN/ / S- /f ' BY: ∎ =�'; . / 47 Thomas . Hamil on, Mayor BY: _ Don Ashworth, 'City Manager II LAKE SUSAN HILLS II BY: (7,)n-71.4----e --4 AIrtner II JAMES A. CURRY II eadeAA-e- BARBARA CUR II RY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. I COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 II day of ,{,�A , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ,� ( _ti, .1 r; "ter SS. :�' s P.ol,t:,'r P 9LUC - .orA� COUNTY 0 v •-7',.,'- .c_-) ,\ CAS_ „ �1y COTIC:S::Or1 (`. 1 -!^-91 I - tom...+.....: IA • ,The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � `— day of �y/„2, , , , 1987, by -f 4neS /, ,,4.,c-7727c04/1 .,c-7727cO , a partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership n its II behalf. /- --> / � Ir� ” ., BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC tio ii*+k NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA i. fimy HENNEPIN COUNTY 'aN ..' My Commission Expires July 10 1E92' I I —8— , STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ' ) ywr.vJ„h :..:/J.. .JJ..Vy.:e Jb Jr'4♦ .�tri,ti�p, .� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of NQ E,,,,,b c , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. ' /NOTARY PUBLIC ' DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. ' 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 I I -9- II LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOCATION PURPOSE ONLY I All that part of the Southwest Quarter and the So I Section 14 and the north one-half of the NorthwestaQuar4tertand the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23 , all ' in Township 116 , Range 23 , Carver County , Minnesota lying south- erly of Outlot D, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK , according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County, and lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of new County Road No. 17. IF EXCEPT that part of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest Quarter lying westerly of the following described line and its I northerly and southerly extension: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter I of the Northwest Quarter ; thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 49 seconds West , bearing assumed , along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter , a distance of 790. 00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be II described ; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds West , a distance of 460. 00 feet; thence North 18 degrees 32 minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 330.00 feet ; thence II North 52 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West , a distance of 638 .57 feet ; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds West , a distance of 150.59 feet to a point on the north line I of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 156.07 feet westerly of the northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as measured along said north line and there terminating . II ALSO EXCEPT that part of the east one-half of said Northwest Quarter lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of said II New County Road No . 17 and southerly and easterly of the following described line : Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter II of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 23 ; thence South 1 degree ,50 minutes 17 seconds East , bearing assumed , along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest II Quarter , a distance of 675. 00 feet ; thence East , a distance of 305 . 00 feet ; thence North 40 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East , a distance of 270.00 feet ; thence North 2 II degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West , a distance of 200.00 feet ; thence North 19 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West , a distance of 323 . 00 feet ; thence North 69 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East , a distance of 130. 00 feet ; thence North 20 I degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East , a distance of 410.00 feet ; thence North 89 deg:ees 00 minutes 00 seconds East , a distance of 395 . 74 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of II New County Road No . 17 and there terminating . 1 • I II LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOCATION PURPOSE ONLY All that part of the east one-half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15 , Township 116 , Range 23 , Carver County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of old County Road No . 17 as travelled. • 1 1 I I I 1 I r City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 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. 1 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 :11 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 POD 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 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 POD 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 11 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, 31 100 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. This 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. 1 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. 1 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 I 1 ®1 ,City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 II- 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 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 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 ®2 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 ball 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. I 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 I 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 i 11 103 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 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 $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. Councilman Geving: Any additional. I guess the question I'm asking is, are we absolutely convinced that we need the trails that are being asked for from the Park and Recreation standpoint? Is your answer yes or no? ' 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 IRecreation, is that correct? 35 11 104 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 11 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. I 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 I 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 1 105 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. ' 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. di 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 a' 106 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. i Councilman Johnson: Are there any trails we could trade off? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, subject to Staff 1 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 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 fr 1 07 1 City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987 '1 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. IIPRELIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED ' PUD-R. IMayor 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: II1. The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an access permit from Carver County. II2. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for City approval prior to final plat approval. I3. 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. II4. 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 II bituminous trail be constructed on such at the time of construction of phase 1. I 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. 1 6. A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main street on the west side of Powers Boulevard. 1 7. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance of all conditions. II 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. II9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County Engineer. II 10. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water pessure/flow conditions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs Ill of Blocks 1 and 4. 39 I II• 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. 1 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. I 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. I 18. Subject to execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF 1 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 { 3-- 3 7 um �� ►'CS Y1L�L�J— — -1:-- ' 160.00 '° — 4B 9Z — \d lI 3 Vl 20,736 SF _ 8/. t \ / /��rl /\ % z-4- 30 00 \15.419 SF �TJ 96o°,s �\ 1 1 sa 2 «� 1\ :15,003 SF ,�7 / 1�� 13,314 S.F `3 q o e1 • \° 4 �� / 9000 a �• 15,000 'S .. \ ` �� \� �' o S F \1 15.152 SF a 2 C' f� \Imo, 1 8 / \50 0p a ro� /.°6 9'.y 6 15 i T\\\-- /�/l/\�'� a S. \ /. - 13.390 SF / 11 5 C \y3 •` / \ �\/ 29.y�2.465 SF o '� 571:: \ /4, r \ 4 .__e. .J 144.01 b \ I \..•••\--- 1--`•< \I - B , �'�\ 9+,47 20 557 SF °f 5,021 SF 10 `' ��° 14,566 SF 6 I e I 61 \ \ 5 "� I p /' \� /tot 9° 17.014 $F M r L \56 � sm � I \� 171,12 0 15°' s 152.44 '� A _ 7 '7,m 1 0 15,080 SF 9 0 8 \ 15.054 $F " F 6 m I Z/ ;�\�` �j / '/ M 160.31 Sp °� c •• pe 0`." 15,737 SF 5o' 18 SF '• �\ \V. \1 ,!/ ° Z /'2,< -5 ` • 15.073 SF ° \$ t64.t° i° N+ 16,420 SF \ \`5ye s3,92 �•OO, /_� 51 .61 ;)\ 5,', 939 °6• ` /\/' 1 \ o 162 i 15,058 s,1� /A' 20,693 SF 6 2 C �(\/ \J g y S.F �ssa 'f A�9 �• 110 0 /„,,3,‘, l 0 9 15 �.•A \ 17,486 SF ti Ma/ \ ,__ , 'V '°,\40 'Iy0a '+�1' 12o.es t •� aS.F 0ti tti Tt POR cr 15.100 SF / �J/ 9 ' 15,043 '0• .•504••04 'T 22 �q ARY ..>”. 110°°� ° • • ° \ S.F 15.26\ ' a`/2� � �/ CUI-QE-SAC \/y/ /10 °� 16 m�4 SF \\% 12O 6 • / \)....... �5e 15,168 9 21 / \ 1`^�J 15,099 °3 \ S F ; 15,659 S /'s, S F 5� \ e' 1 m 15,020 m 15,845 S.F 0' . �Q s .61-' e\ a S.F A S F 20 /0� / '�6• Y 19 p r 11 \ p2,s, n`18 /� 12.374 SF C (1� z°6� 15.205 SF oA e\ • `\ 165 1a�.s� 5� /, s X 0\6 1 9' S 12 `� 16.25 ' • - N 91 11 z, -- NI c's,• , -�\ m '9 cr. 0.� f5,020 SF e` e*>\.. ' aj \‘'6. •h /0s 13 „„ ,. ` 2p 15,063 SF o° a'� .. .. ash 4 4\ 9'i5 S r 14 y Q 3 17,269 SF / c d't c � , z ,> _ a° ° 2 a _ v��`� ° 15,554 SF 55 �y 1 12.563 SF ttg,t5 6 9.� 16 Z^ r 13,047 1p7.51 I '° 'O+ (Li f5,075 SF S F 3h o\ "� ...,'7'n .+I,.u•ix..i'Mu,. „ , i0'h� ,,.' , SOCK p9.35 °7i�00 ' i i1 1n'b ,00,00.1100 kMW1 0411 441 l {, i'C' t9 — — EN ow r NE — — i = ow = = — — — E , — , a •Now • . - • V VA/"6 N -.... - —1111.1410111ffp_ANN2-- i : 180.00 \_ 411_11___M___All 4: :1: ., — \ m.o '•• •••N.c5 9°18 0/*E. ,-•-•• „ Z 0- • '; 1 \ , \\, , ,' 1 4 , / 20,736 SF ..., ,g, ! q 1/4.,--..\ s ( ‘o°7 / 7 4. / ,- . / Cs ‘2 . • •ee , , \ 15,419 SF / I 0 - , , , 1 -•-• - -\. ',5, 2 . / 1 /,,,c \ CO . , 0„./ _ / (i3,300 S, . 400.- \ I 15,003 SF , / e *V' „ • /k I I o 9 a.. .? 4,0 3 // - 0. 2 -c0 1 \ 1,--\ ),- . 0, - •oo 415` / , . .r. .c, 15.000 '`.. v_..,\ 1100.0 \ ■ /9p., ■ .F ,,, \ z„.. iS,000 5, N, 15,152 SF / ./5-,/00 5X ( N ' t'''' I. X‘%. /5,500 S.F 4 :/ ,/,,J, os., \ . ,-)•• .0, 3 . ,-.. • 1s°•00 • ,,,, ----...7.?0,, 1 , ," : •,'.. / ,, ' 0 -- /Z..1:' '„ 0 5Y-. • . . ' >S., CO 13,390 SF / b a' .?). 26 \i. 5 17/ <. / .42.465 SF 0. / 4'. N ‘ . , -.' 144,01 ,,,.. 2 a SD°S.f : 23 ,°; ;: •%.. z ,:::.. , 2,,o :, ,,,,,,,?,,,,, '' ‘c \P\\\It` / :if i; 9 ti; -. ... 7 °I\ .0 • 4. /4/00 5. ' /2,700 5 F 47 6 ri 1 ' 15,021 SF r0 /3,6o,s.v. ..., . ..,.-45. .9-..-.0 - .........r 00-...,„., s if. 1, 27 .., 14,566 SF 14i.81 ...:>,iv) „_... ....2,,...„8, --- 7-••' $'''.8 \<\,•"' .4,,, 'o t-8°' ' 8,, - I \ 171.12 '°7 , •St-3-72--/ X . .. 'N•-' --( /5;500 5,7- ,0 , /3,050'5,,•■ , . A. , .,.. 28 . - N s\ 1 \r; r`u,' s \s 10 t 5 22 _, "'0 \°o - , 7 0 15,080 SF 6 4-5 800 S f A -' \ 2'5.° ".1., \6 1. o 7-- ... 15,054 SF CI\ ,$) .. . A • ct, cy. 6\T11 ' t60.3' A 36,,000 5.5- o, ,54:0 .,,,.,,,4,.., .c \ /,' ,7 c7- 7'''' 7- 15,020 SF ''. 1■ \TEMPORARY v, ,^.26\21 8 t !' 1 I NI--- : Vi r) &f 'OP- '' /7, C/7" 8°- . CUL DE SAC 0.0 0 4 7,,-1 , ..- \-4 •. t°1-12.. A • _,..-\ 7\dj'.' ,,:. ..,., 8 ° l'• 15,073 SF \ t \if• ..‘c, ,, . Olt . ' ,Ix X ,;(' ° -5 \ -,-, .: ..-- 'fft•C . . ‘' 1 0... 0 , - 20 .y V b , 5 iol' . -'\ 4, .%<4, / L., ' 0 o 0 .. \ 15.058 • ---.9. 1 19 00 .:450 2) •1•\ • 9 '6 . ,\o, 12 S.F 5°.° PC ' \ 20,000 5f• ,/ 1 4 .0 il 00 --- \ - - - \ -;., ' <1''' . 18 ..,,,,, ' 4 73,,zes.,,, • \ sn 15 100 SF 7---- cr• -- . \ ..3. \ 15,043 ' /6.3 00 'o 16IY '‘. - - ,5 10.o0„.„..--- A ' . S.F i , 0 , 3 -, 14 S F w• . -- ' ". -- \ 13 17 t!, . , /7 •,.. ---- 10 x •P• .. . \d'e. -, 15.168 15 16 . / , /0 4' o /8,300 o/ . ' 5 \skt7 '0,p 0 '''', 1 S.F ; , ,.,.:,..5-,, --- •? ' ' 2 15,099 lo' ' N I /4/00 O, S.F .i°I / 2 ir..f-•• - '1' ,41 . ' 0 / , / •:.'''I . I 15,020 S.F S.F • c. \ 'Po, •e>,5\ N 10 i ,5 - ' / •' .004.4' 1 s".. A 11 : , ,..„ ,,,,/\\ ,1 2.374 SF 7 ,••. __ 15 205 SF 0.' ' sll. 12 ''''. , - . -1. 105,, • . ' V .------ •9 \ -'3,\'''‘, ., - , . , ... ..s tiiii-S ---- 5 .''. °,1, s\ 4_ \ 15,020 SF 4' IbIl>II`•-• -------.-- -----I- _____. ,:‘,„<„."!,./. \ ....,;, ../I •!!' .1' \ , 60\s -.' - .,. e. . . 13 1?` . ., 70s.„0 0 '0.00 /8 .,*----. '-•! 4 ckt\ 15.063 SF ? • -.N..■ i FL .. 1' 1 0.-0 ‘,. •oo 7 d• ,..... ry„ k- 4?0 1 4 . 1-0-17 g 2 ...: 3 ,. 15,554 SF !--°:2C/),5 .17— — " ":c4 1.2.518037'SF: 17.26:Ser.t5 I- ,0 - ,.... "8.a, 1 01,11-1 I?: 13.047 ..... -, •.,. ,, ,,,J 1'', .ht.. ,' 15.075 SF S.F 383 , ,..ai..A34,4.,;70‘0-:.,q,,ivtiot,414,14144,1640111611liiiiki",, 444,., I ... 1_,r PREZ 1-fr/IN,4 R K PL A T OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 2ND ADDITION - *Cr ..,. „ , . , i LI ., ... .. ... ......"-:„.„._ • Pow,-;-- --- 1! ;. PS BLVD. _._.. -- _.. _ ----.._ RD. ----,4,• NO. I‘ 17 ,::,•ti„,., , _. .• 441.I. ' \ . , ' a m.s j; /• i / ' , '''. 1\ 0 2 ' . I 1,>c 1. . .1 ••''' / • /lam s. ism• ' ,.. , , \ I i. ., I 0 SITE DATA :;7'. /.;... / s, ”... ri". • s•',"‘I'if.' '\ :.... - a.1 sena 11.1101, .,/ '"70, \‘‘. t.• ' I ,..../.,..,! An.fa•...mt.lry.a.........,. 4. . • ,.,,,:\ ''4`./- --• 24 .....,..... ..,.... I, / . •. ■••‘,0• e•,„ N, , ,,, .i,;„ no.1, , , 10. ...A....-.a,....a.a,... ;a 5 : i / . '' '-, •‘1 4 ""'"': 23 i ' Fa..at..11 i.. ,... \,..i.; a.,a.P.•1.7=,0.1.,a5. AM 1..M.N V,SI :........•..a.us. ,,,,,„..,.,,•,, rs.sse s.r. .. ...„.. 0...1...an kn. . ' ‘;\ •.. . -, , 5 .. 25.,•., 1 1 .•1111 6 1 iIPT•i A , 22 ,,. f , S I 7 s'' TEMPORARY l' AL:...-..1 lf i.ne s•.a lava t % 't..110 C. 1 •• S": 21 • '-••.. s 5:.‘,..... A0/00•02, \ , ... C.M..''AC • 11r2.1 1 la:NMI,.Mal MM. re.,....e, :1.1........e. r•*roe,. \ I • .. „....: e 4,, 0110',Ma,.4...,Anscrnm LOT • 'Twee.;•,,,/ ...e, —..,„SIZICATC.1.PLP.MING 770.1.1.413 Pi Hr.09:1141 KAT. •tra al ,t1s sr. ? es . • IA / '0'4 , - . ,..,..,... x..,■ , •2 ,,.. # '" • 4X" ,, 11,05•, `....4 ......„ I.'''. . 10' • •:" • .:., . ....-... ......_____2111„1.1,.../0 .,„, .1.\ •,„..,.,1 •<. \• 4'91., e . 13 • moo• .."..." ..„ ' _ „c ., 4, LOCATION MAP „2„ 14 •MS V / •Zd„, . 2 ,,,.. '' ,c, • •I1N sr 3 It 73 V 0.0,0 . . 3, 4 ' •,..; -- .... ;se°.N. 5..,,,,t. ....■••::1 — 7,!. 'P" ,,t © • .r srrE -- . ....,..41,w•-.2....- :L.i.....1 i ...-. . IS (- c.„• ...Z..-.i • ' i -100 0 100 200 300 CHANHASSEN nQn; ■;T=n 1 ; F.-----' - ..,,,. f•'-',- .: - ,-. - • ... .•- „. ,, .- --..... ,. --a „. 1:.0 . .. .01 er••■•■ 'NA. r•OS RAM SIMI PREPARED FOR-CONSULTING ENC111114111, PRELIMINARY PLAT ROBEPLANNERS mad LAND SURVEY°I'S ..7u7.7.Z.......477...r.°7,17 , ,,,,„„,,.,. ,,,,,,,,,„„„,„,,,„,„„„ . • .,.•,r, ••■••,.....,........."..,......■-• ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.INC. -ENGINEERING . . . ,.. . . _.... ...„ ,...,„, 16133 CEDAR AVE.S. " ..." ". 1 C LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION . • COMPANY INC. •01.•1 s0 •, • JO ••-1 30,0 FARMINGTON.MINNESOTA 5502A .. HANHASSEN. MINNESOTA , 3 ...,, L..._.00 EAST I4IIN STREET. BURNSVILLE,MINNESOTA 55337 P/1 432-3000 a .■ \kc.. —— •- _ - ----- ---- - — 111111 1111111 ME ME MI 11111111 ..11 MN — OM — 1.11 — 111111 111.0 — • 11111111 Mt MI • w i • NM - ME - - MN - ME Mil MO MI IP r COUNTY ROAD 17 (POWERS BLVD.) 3 J'�jv a• tit? fi�� 0 100 200 b0 y g`rG ,...,,,,.:.\�} SCALE 1N PCCT S I xr�� J c �•''. 1 4 23 • to \ 6 s 22 . ,S._„± • r: • 1t T n ri ' 2 4 \.ry y .✓r ig!.)., 1s 16 , �' .. /j1 //• •- ..r.N . r,la 1a�/ �11� `� .1.4'..,....c. \��• ,m•• LEGEND 13 r, \\y4 ,..•. ••••. . 14y. E' I w 2 9 •.« !AMINO 6AWUnY SEWER de i, •^r-. EXISTING ATE HYDRN \� EEMfNG FNE HYDRANT f • EMMTNG GATE VALVE [ EXISTING MANHOLE ' —.—•—.— PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER -A—"— PROPOSED WATERMAN xr•♦ PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT • PROPOSED GATE VALVE ON• PROPOSED MANHOLE • r CONSULTING ENGINEERS. • PREPARED FORS ROBE PLANNERS Sr.r.`••°x,AA+.`os"r •Iw.P •ad LAND SURVEYORS HH.HA• • •• AN, PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN N 11.11 2 ENGINEERING ""°''"' •tA,• �•' " ARGUS DEVELOPMENT,INC. LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION *aim CEDAR AVE.S. COMPRNY INC. ° o w' F x or.r...........M. , �!r— FARMINGTON,MNNESOtA 560211 '° 3 t_______1100 EAST Mt*STREET, BURNSVILLE,MINNESOTA 35331 PN 432-3000 wr'L�111••A •EY1510N2" CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA _ --,- . taw --, -- \ / . -,- , .,. • \ ' z.------:--- ,.---"A \ • ::.•;::.••••,..... •7.7., ....., L-_-, ...._, , -.--....____,./,1",” :14,1•01' \ >.---.--'--C ".jf 6. '\ \ 1,-11 ,fi •-1,-A, ,rt tillve,PI 1,1 ■ "-F.7"'",- I I Ite0,,,LIN, ---,se ---,,,ex• — f. I - 0,1,11,WAY tOCATAIA, + 5.:A-E •,. FEET erra,t,O,46fie0( '.6 I 0 ..1.----4 o r wunge m . • :, 1:;:. : / - .._. N 1 . ' ••••••, , Ilet/St 7,,Ill . LEGEND %.,,,, ,, ( 4,.. orio...,,, imir„. -,-;1•2- - ' - mrt„t' ••• -_____.111,6,,,f 6/1.,I I . ..' , 00.0/...44.....rew..• ,". • .1......f.":::`,V.Z.! ..7.■::::7".,:`:‘,I.I",.!:-.I ..aaa INDICATES EN711110-FENCE \ : \ ,'72::...\ A1611/416 covereor • . ....-..INDICA TES DIRECTION OP SURFACE DRAINAGE •.. ...... .‘. I 07 LEGEND '. 4 -.,...9,,-, 44 ,,,---.._,: ',"-,,'Itt=r-t.T.=v.::::::,.,--, , i . , , ; . - too ITes,o..•.4:1.24,., • . -7. ..71„....::_::::.:'"••...--■,•...„,_ 1 .1 •,--,-,-.....::,,- .-s-v.-.:•F.-t-..7,,.:.-...-----•:-.7 •- ..--• ... m aokik , .-..... .... ,:s.4.....4:-•., -...:.......'...............___!-.....-, -- ......----17-:.-t.:X...,,.-r........•.....•_....:...... ..--........,..., .,... , ,- T •-..-:- ._ -* SOT lO -— ii■------.. (POWERS.iiiLVDJ if: .__-:-L--_...,_• . , ---_ " 2.4.',I.A.A71,ki, t--•,' -'-,..:-•-%:-..„___„,_'-f,---..4.7.-14:-::=,--z-‘•'''.'••___`.;4- ---4...-..=.1z.2.----.2.:Cnstr:.i,....)::.._:_l._...7.9.:„%_,AP___.t10„-.,.:-...„......._._......7,.. ._____,....„__ ...., 0 ...-2, *.7,,, c , :1•0. 1.,' ..... .0- , ,.....,.... AA. • (r:".:,.':',V$•,\,'',' 'V‘h__•11 . -.. .-. ....."--.. '..... to .__ , ,„ c.-:"._....„ ... .4:-:-••••••"•-.-.;.'-- ...... ...........::. .=.. --.. .....:::- --'' .\\At',\‘',','•'• ---.....--- ..,. ."---"--i'•:',•,--.--,,,.5 -.- '. •----.......'"•.^ .';'"'"'-!.""'" ... • . --•-•-----= .:7:.--------r'.7---2.-:-.;•- --_-_----., )_-_._-_,..-----_--•(•,...,....--,..........7 .--..,..,m1.-- .,,,,,,,,,..... \ '•' :•\. , ''•--..,..',7.,,_____.•-,.> ..1'..44,7;--•- " '•• '.' '---... - •-: -.-._--,,...,...,,,--.--.----•-7,---___-__,-----. =;—:.:--'""•' .? ,• ,--":--.;-'....--_-,,--• •-•-•-•• !2:- .1.7-5-;;-=;-"-----,../.:-: //'?7"7: 741-5-(?i.7,4fTSVg4T4.5-FR----i15. -!??=7.--'";`!•1?,••!.•'.:;',• l'.'s.,', -;:-...... -••=_,.. :,-, ---- ,.. ,.,..:-..-:-4-...;:„-.g-_-.,- ------,, ' - ...-3--- - " - V,..,•;..-:.\:-.--,-,---_-..-------:::-,-- -.•:----:-.:'•-•- -,--": ;--.•-•,-...--t--7-'- - ,%-i,,•,--_.•::: , _-_-„---.- --.::-:7----',•„ .-4---,F;,-.1-y-,....0 SP '\ i ) „_----_. -..,, (-,, ''„'s-,:---- --------------- -------------- -......::••---;-- : _ --'722:7----- ----- .;•:-. 1 1,17,1/7(.1..'.. ■ill i..3•_1;)2!--- ‘\ _......-„---------.7::::-.----------_--:-2,-,----,:r-------,-_-_----;;;;K:: .--::-----—-----... ---- -.'--- .I.1;1...:-.-■;!;i•;,-e-,:;..;,..-,.., :--7+-:--77-2:;: :-.--:%1'::: --1-.f'fr,•,,,,c......- :;.44 , ---" 1 '; •;!:::: -.'..: -1'---''------ :':--..:::--- :-:::::•:7:::%-_-_----:::--------,...-- 5- A-- - -- - - . ,„: ,,,,s,--, ,, li-r-r-,-;; ,:.y. / fyi,,,,,;;;.....:.:....,::......:-..:::,___,___-;:,,,,)::,,...----2,.:.-'-„,if...,-,,,,..„.;_,...=-:,..t.;;:.-..:..:,,,_zz7-_,..:_...-4_,.:_,,..,..:::.,-:=7-3-,:77_,--__,.,$).,,,,,,:-....,rj.....,-,-,:,//71,,--_----------------------:---„..1---,:-..,1 i):'// --....--;;p,:,-.7:-.7,-)':‘,\,';•;,...:• %.,"'-'7-- .'M''‘. •* 440ts‘i / -. .:/,''1:.'\‘‘.--%/%, I/ ,.:- \ ' „04111 ,1■4.,' 'I(I I':i;I Il•-"=‘•---";',-------------% :-----;:":.---'=".---;-•%,.-----?,-;:.---7-f-----'-i'',...■,:7------•'"',/•)',•:::-Z;V:7:----:-----...//(/'----:7-t1-7--:---:-:----.....:----ts.s--,N,;%i il{-iff-'z <=:1',",z=:::-"::".:: \\',.' • ;' / ;/,;I; I,._ -:,--',- - o e:401216.,_•ftkei.o' :if:!,,1!;:,,,,,,..,-:::: ::.::::;-:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ,;,..:.::;::,:;,•:,-;.,-.:.-...„.-..-.:,::::::::.:::":;;;;":"-___.:=::::--..-,:_:,z,z....-2:::::•:_.22‘,,::::,,U.:...-_?,..1.,,,,:,:;.'sf:..z7..1:::-.E-s,11;21zzI:Lt...,6...‘,:,;: ...../ ; (..-•'I//• I - .....-',• ! A ,• • tiko 400...pt,,,,-,14—,...... .;.!,;•,;.,-,-:,-;_-..,-„,.4. _-_-.,--- _--..,-,:,.;•,::-...,i--,_:_,.....:••;,-.-,-.:•--_-_-_---.--;.,,-..,-,.--R,,,,,,/...-- ....‘;:mi...-- ,-.7.----//;•-;:;--------:-..-.,--'---:-.', •:\•••••.:-.......-:-...,;:‘,:-.::::.---2.-:„.-\\Q:...1,1-..:-.N. --.. f--., .„. ,•• ...----.,:-.-:: 1 14,■>,,, /A- e ,, .• .4/. . ' ;;;,',: ,,..:,- ..-._i?.--f.:Ac _-----,/.--:-.-,,,t.'....---../r ,,,- ,-•---.."--- i ; :1 ;c' ____--. -:'....;;'...--,•;,',N...::,-- ,,,s. :--<•--,---:.---,.:-....-4(::.ii.-.:•.-- ---- ---- ,, ,/ :..____ _..,_...„,._ irt ,",. ..,,:\ ''. ....... .- .',1,1,1, '...\..1.'.. -e••''''---"'-. _--'..--lio., .- .---' ,.. ---,. '. , -.\\-:::,-- ....„----,----,:=,-:--..:---.-._-,7,-2.',/7:,--- __ -,,--:,,,\\z.:-_-.-A=-_-_-,-,,-.:-.- -::.------11----,;.:- .-k:- .,t€:'' ''• i 4-'''-'-''-'•"7---;- I :11Wr` '1.0ZN't' .\ r‘e .1 .11i:\'I I I' (.' ...... 'li NA'k-.:_______=-7-f ' \ ''. \ ---/,/ .---a -'',///---;---'------- •r,'. /'-- ‘` .‘-- -:- ::: : _,,--.,....',,..:'-'...,,:-,',===-;::','*k.... i/ ------.-\ v---- -----------------, -,-',-::::--,,, -',:--A‘ ,, / ' „--._,--: \ ‘s -- --- ----2-- -:: -:::----- ,, ,:- .... iriffiltt 1:,.,a""'" '.. . 't;,.,, :X\ •1-...„,./1;‘. I.:.;t?..-:o..-,.,.. stt., . 1., t„..,:,t..-- ,b. '.-"1";=:.:"----2-1 • 4101°I,A s ' II. 1--'1'..I -- . e /-‘•••■:..`•-- •:••5*. ‘ ; ,.. 11:\ ,1 , , .. .: , ---__ si•...„, • ,, ,,,. ; „ 11, • \._.\• .r. , ,- . . ,.,) .,...... , ..,. ,„.,.. 11 ., . . , .. __. ••••..„. - , --••••• :,. . ,,,s, , , , ,. 1 ,,, ,•.____......--, -- sz.....„-,,-,,,s,,,,s,,,;,:: • • , .. . •; , • ,,• ,,,, ,,,. . . , A.,. ..:7',-,::-!::-_-_-•. • .--„'•,•,`, •-;• 1 t t;'`,1 I 1 , , , ..." t s■ . 1 ,.._-i•-",. ,' --- .S :. 1 --. - - >--111 . SO . -•,,,„:■ .;.<, .),,., '•• .4' 7-. 111:‘'....:"..-.:;"" --:::,,; :-/ ,..::----:_-_-1:•.\\ 0,1:I, .,,,. \ _,.‘ .,Itti: • ' • . '‘ '', '‘I' ( :. -1 * \ ., .1 .-"-"' -- ----.1V :'..3';' ' 440'.'••-- N; IOC' ;';-..'" -- 7----1-'. --- ',2t.\:..--:.•=z--..---:/'; ''•Is...,11;;;t,\•::: .''---,--,---., :\ t, , f • . •,,, --_- ..-:.:, ...,„.,•:,..,• .1 d., 4 , . • -- . -::-_-_-_-j__,:- ,... . ----••••••-„ .,-,•;',;;;0.2.A; :If;'s ,::',„;, I..N •-..--- I I . \- -\ 4k$. /..'.. > '/'.• -• -,--:..-' '-'. ' . :, >:// \\ 7------:\'.. ---:-.2'----7:: `=.';•-z -Zz.,:z.,`,\---• ',. // a' - \ . --- ------- - • ,` •-• -..••-•'••••---,... T----------IL:Ala,,,,..,..,.. t \ t •., ')•‘ki.:st" 43;,7,- - it ,:- t--: ,-,Agek..,.,.-' .•. . '...• ; ( : / .---,. ----..---..--z=-----',.-,.:.:,.;;-\ •,r,',v, ,s,',',- .:.-.--,-..:::-.: f, • ,,, •-- ,‘ %.-;-__., ,,-. 1 ■• ••.., • , -.4,„1 _...,.Not ea. vr i e•-•,'• ,. • ..._-„\.,-„ ..-....----- _--2.•:::::-------.1' i ', ‘,,\, ''' ;‘,.\•••!z.:--.:fE-::=Ja•:--i.'..':: ..., -, ,, . %,\• • • , -••-•-•-•,..... ......01119.__Iii. ••.•.'„, • \ -...._• •. ,.t -- -.:„.---••••- ::-% ' V.,'‘.,C, \ ' 1 \4'. . ." "'".1:7',..,,,,,. Mill ---..--%.',./ .... As -------'*-:.7'-:-•. ‘ . *. ; 1 ---•. \ 1' I 'II tt‘....,:----::::::---It'e.:-:"-:''''''; IN Bart 4r9 a.Pat of To... ..,, •_ ,, j '\:.\i'''' ; *C42 ..\-' .‘27 PGPf.7.", IC ..,.-'• ' ' i :1 : l' ‘;. ‘1% \, ..... -.."''' \\ '. ''' ' if4111El."‘ ' . i''.'i 1 '- '' '-.--::-..,) 1‘'....:.\ ''' 11 DESIGNATED WETLAND '--... .---,...) • ' \..••\''•\ 0 -'NM 1 I •N / ....., ( \ , .. • •';',/,--;,---....T... I..,t.' \ t I 14-06 . , PROPOSED TOP MG BOTTOM 924 0 1 , ... 1 I \ I, _.....:, : i \ •. . • t . • -• '', •••.. ‘.._...../ ‘ ..-• / 1 '' ., \''• ( 1 I \ ,_,... „, HOUSE TYPES - -. . -----' • - % 1 ‘ ‘. '--------- ---- ; J . ■ I PREPARED POR• CONSULTINO ENOINIESS N::::::.,..",,*.-,.....,•....„„ - --- ....------- PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ENGINEERING -• LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION i ,•-,,,,. — 10133 CEDAR AVE.S. 4 ....a•Tv c....a.pa,.......4....,..4......a an . , COMPANY INC. - , ------, -,.. ..----- ,.. ., -' FARTRNGTON,MINNESOTA 55024 •• sal 22.4.311-.4 No yeTs- 3 IL__. ...._1000 EAST 14:19 57REE7. BURNSVILLE,1.11/01ESOIA 53337 1171 432-3000 7 Of 215100i ..CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA -, - — -•- _- ._ _. _ _ OM Mill 0111 111111 OM 111.1 1111111 IIIIII 1111111 1111111 OM ME NM MI IIIII 1111111 IIIII IIIIIII 1111111 LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 r APPLICANT: PAct5C C ChjJ .tj- CU WC OWNER: A}k6u5 -JE ►" er.1r- ADDRESS f6z�9 x -31-- A/47 .- ADDRESS 1g133 ? qv U` I up J ,Jru J 7/ ,h S3-337 M1.06rr 07/&.J Zip Code - _ Zip Coll TELEPHONE (Daytime) �3 -3 � TELEPHONE � 3 f - REQUEST: Zoning District Change )1( Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan -7- Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision r Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review 11 Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME 1.../2 ju 4 Ai . 4/L-4-5 G1/45"7,r- PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION t JV 2cs oc- -n.�� REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Pt )D �c5;t�evn,�L r • PRESENT ZONING ,eFS REQUESTED ZONING r 5 r USES PROPOSED 51�c ue FA-mtul E.6;D j-n fi SIZE OF PROPERTY 2 LOCATION (,Ve-sue 5,A5 rzo ,u, /7 /. S' ' ) c;, "/- //Y,.,-.,, r REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST 2 U ra �� «5 ��cr. �r 'rD 14,E RC--o r7.--'6 A 127 i e_ ADJV57"WI TZ /-7/E �f'C'n✓� ��EUin�nJ /-2.4r- 5 • LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Al • r r ' City of Chanhassen Land Development Application ' Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS : ' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or y printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application , you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . FILING CERTIFICATION: ' The undersigned representative of the aplicant that he is familiar with the procedural requirementsbof callifies ' applicable City Ordinances . Signed By I . ` AL--/ Q • Applicant Date e0, The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described . Signed By Fee Owner Date • 1 ' Date Application Received Application Fee Paid • ' City Receipt No. * This A " pplication will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . 1 'LU *: 1! Tt !1 zw. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 2, 1988 I Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7: 45 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad and II David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart , Brian Batzli and James Wildermuth II STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: II PRELIMINARY PLAT AMENDMENT OF 41 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 18 ACRES TO 51 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 23 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOUTH OF HWY II 5, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. I Chairman Conrad opened the meeting up for public comment. 1 Emmings moved , Ellson seconded to close public hearing . All voted in favor and motion carried. II Headla : Just as a philosophy first , if they go ahead and build those homes and then a decision is someday, I want a fence or a hedge ' between our property lines right next to a road, do they have to come in and get approval for a fence? Olsen : They have to get a building permit for a fence. II Headla: They do have to get a building permit for a fence? Olsen : And if it ' s over 6 1/2 feet they have to get a conditional use II permit. Headla : I was just thinking like a 4 foot hedge or 4 foot fence , they II would have to get a permit? Olsen : For a fence . I Headla : So if there ' s any type of sign that they'd put in, they'd have to get approval so they'd fall under the regular ordinances for II that? Olsen : Yes . I qj U IIPlanning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 2 Headla : PUD doesn ' t go around that? Okay. The first thing when I was looking at the plan and we' ve been driving that direction and once in a while we bounce back to it but we go ahead again . We ' re going to have 50 homes on one road, a deadend road, and I see Madden didn ' t ask for it, is there any reason why we shouldn ' t ask that that road be continued back to Powers Blvd . ? I could just see an emergency vehicle couldn ' t get back to an emergency because something was jammed up near Powers Blvd. . Olsen : Again , that was reviewed by staff and they did not feel that was necessary at this time. But the road will be extended in the near future with the additional phases . Headla: What' s the definition of near future? ' Olsen : In the next 5 years . ' Headla : In the meantime we' ve got 50 homes that could be in jeopardy. I feel that we should ask that the road be extended , just for safety sake. There' s agreement they were going to put in a park right? What 's the schedule for that park? Are we going to let him get ' everything built in the park that ' s the last item or what' s the phasing of that? ' Olsen : No , the park will be developed as a part of the future phases . The necessity for that park would really be determined upon the number of homes once it reaches a point . We have it specifically in that PUD ' contract. Whenever the Park and Rec Department wants that park, they can have it. Headla : You' ve got that pretty well . . . ' Olsen: Yes, it ' s up to the city to determine. ' Headla : The roadway that goes through there , it ' s 35 feet wide? Olsen: The paved surface is . Headla : It' s 35 feet . That ' s curb to curb? Then a 5 foot sidewalk is going to be in addition to that so it would be 40 feet? ' Olsen : It would be off-street sidewalks so it won ' t be on the street. It will be a separate sidewalk from the road. It will be outside of the curb area . ' Headla : But there will be a place for the sidewalk but that will be within the 60 feet right-of-way? Olsen : Yes . Headla : What side of the street does that go on? The sidewalk? 1 i . Planning Commission Meeting 1 March 2, 1988 - Page 3 II Olsen : I believe it ' s going to be on the north side. The Park and Rec Commission didn' t determine which side. They just wanted to make II sure that it was on the same side on either side of Powers Blvd. . Headla : You know, a while ago we talked about it and then we backed II away. We' ve got over 50 homes now but we' re going to have a lot more homes there and when we go on the east side, there' s going to be an awful lot of homes. We' ve got a park and can you imagine in 10 years I the traffic on Powers Blvd. , people crossing that? I don' t know if we backed away from a tunnel or a bridge. I don' t have a position but I 'm concerned about that . Do we look forward to a stop sign there? II Is that the practical thing to do or should we be asking for something else? I ' ll give the rest of you a chance to think about it. Do they put in street lights? Olsen: Yes . II Headla : I didn ' t see that spelled out. II Olsen: That' s in the development contract. Headla : On item 18, if you look at the 20 foot utility goes between I Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1. Was that to be a continuous line down to Susan Hills because the next easement is over between Lots 17 and 18 . It looks like it took a jump shift. I 'm looking at page 1. I Emmings: On the third page down. Headla : You know I looked at that page and I didn' t even see it. II Okay, that ' s the answer . That looks fine. On item 6, I don ' t understand that compared to the engineering memo where they talked about the 7%. I Olsen : This is just a landing area . They want a level area where the cars will be waiting. I Headla : No , I 'm talking about the engineering memo where it says roadway. Olsen : A typical standard for a road itself is a 7% slope . II Headla: I didn 't understand that. I Olsen : That' s our maximum slope of the road i.tsel f. Headla: It said to the City' s recommended standard of 7% and that II didn ' t seem right . Go to the Engineering memo, page 2 about the middle paragraphy. See where it says, as compared to the City' s recommended standard of 7% . II Emmings: Should that be recommended maximum? II II Planning Commission Meeting March 2 , 1988 - Page 4 Conrad : It ' s maximum is what they intended . Headla: 7% maximum. Alright, then this other one makes sense. If we approve what you 've got here, and then I look at a note on the drawing on page 1, and we talked about this before, all dimensions are preliminary and subject to change on the final plat. Doesn ' t that just open up a can of worms? When we approve something, don ' t we ' approve it based on the date of this print? Olsen: Yes , but they come in with their final computerized calculations . Instead of 92 feet wide it might actually be 92. 5 or ' something. The actual dimensions really don' t change. Headla : Where do you draw the line on changes? Olsen: If it 's a major change, if the lot comes in with a totally different area . ' Headla : But your opinion of major and somebody elses opinion can be different. How do you control that? ' Olsen: We review when the final plats come in to make sure that they conform with the preliminary plat. It ' s always very, very minor . A couple of feet . Headla : You' re saying with this note , you ' ve never had any trouble in the past and if somebody shifted stuff that you hadn ' t . . . ' Olsen : If it was a 90 foot wide lot which was required and it came in at 89, then we wouldn ' t permit it. It wouldn ' t be acceptable. It' s usually just minor . ' Headla : Alright , so you haven ' t had a problem with that? ' Olsen: No . Headla : Okay the last one then is , where you have on here page 4, just above your recommendation, could you just explain that a little ' bit more . On the very top where the Park and Recreation also requested. ' Olsen : Okay, the 50 foot for the outlot? Headla: Yes . Olsen : Outlot B is leading into where the park area will be developed in future phases so they are preserving an access for the subdivision . That was a part of the first plat they had in . rHeadla: Okay, that ' s all I had . Planning Commission Meeting I March 2, 1988 - Page 5 Ellson : I had a quick question on lots per acre, units per acre . Is that the same measurement? In here we write units/acre net density of ' 2. 32 and on the blueprint it says net density of 2. 68 lots per acre. Olsen: When you' re talking single family then yes , it' s the same . If I it's multiple or two homes on one lot. We always go by units . Ellson : There ' s a discrepency then. II Olsen: Right, it' s real close. I went through and calculated it . Ellson: I just have another question on the type of landscaping that II you recommended. I wouldn' t begin to know what you ' re talking about. Olsen : They provided the detailed landscape plan for the other II preliminary plat and what that is is additional landscaping along the intersections Lyman Blvd . , along the main streets and it tells you what kind of landscaping it is and what types of vegetation so we can approve that. Normally that is presented as a part of the preliminary II plat. Ellson: I didn' t know if it was that detailed or if it was up to them II and I thought, how can that be? Olsen : What happens is normally with subdivisions , all they do is the II development contract just requires one tree per lot. With this PUD, as a part of the PUD approval we got additional landscaping so as you turn into the subdivision there might be an arrangement of trees around the sign or something so it' s added vegetation rather than just the one tree per lot. Ellson: They have their streets , I think it was like 60 feet wide and II we wanted to change them to S0 and the reasoning was because of our regulations for that? Olsen : Right , the urban street is only 50 feet wide right-of-way. I They are providing a wider road along Lake Susan Hills Drive because it is such a major roadway. The shorter cul-de-sacs really only need to be in 50 foot right-of-way for urban standards. 1 Ellson : I disagree with Dave about another entrance. I think that it ' s when you get all these entrances onto a main road like Powers Blvd . that you get more traffic problems because everyone is trying to come out at once and if there were development on the other side they could share one intersection but if there ' s an intersection here and then someone ' s got to stop again later on. I think that 's where you II get more problems with people pulling out rather than having one designated area. If they will eventually extend it, I would be satisfied not to expand that entrance. II Conrad: Just so you know Dave ' s concern is that for emergency purposes . We have a standard and staff inforces it in all cases that as Qua Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 6 II there be two entrances to anything for fire , for police. I think that I was Dave 's main point on this one. We don ' t know when the rest of this will be developed and therefore you have 50 houses that have one access which can be closed off by one tree. So the point is, are you II comfortable with the safety for the end of the cul-de-sac basically or do you think anything temporarily should be done to provide a second access? Staff ' s recommendation is no. IEmmings: Has staff looked at whatever these poor soil conditions are just to see if it impacts any other aspect of the development or any other future developments? IOlsen : The Engineering Department really looked at them closely because still the utilities were going to be going through there. He has some certain stipulations to help protect that . I Emmings : I ' ll jump in on the road issue because there 's no doubt in II my mind that we would not approve this and that we have specifically not approved others on the basis of not having a second access. Five years is an awful long time to me and I think there should be a second access here. I guess maybe one way we could handle it would be, the II Fire Inspector said that there is no problems with this meeting the fire code and I don ' t think that 's what we' re asking. I think it ' s a different question and there ' s no indication that that was considered, either by the City Engineer or by the Fire Inspector. Maybe what we I could do is just ask that the appropriate person look at it between now and Council and come back with the reasons why we should or shouldn ' t require a second access but I certainly think we should . IThat 's all I have. Olsen : Do you feel like just having a secondary access going . . . 1 Emmings : Back to Powers Blvd . . Olsen : Right but coming back here and swinging back to Powers or would you. . . Emmings : Whatever is easier for them to do . If they want to put a Itemporary roadway back out there, I think that would be fine. Conrad : I agree with the road issue . That ' s my only comment other than clarification of one issue. I The engineer Larry Brown says , under drainage, a more defined drainage swale should be created. Staff says a more pronounced drainage swale . In terms of how the developer takes those comments, what does that really mean? Are there engineering I aspects to what we' re asking them to do or are we talking about digging it a little bit deeper and there' s no standard for digging it a little bit deeper? We ' re just saying dig it a little bit deeper? IOlsen : I believe that ' s right . They just have an ida it to be more pronounced . I don ' t believe that there's anytspecificnt IIstandards between swales . I could double check. They work closely I Planning Commission Meeting I II II 2, 1988 - Page 7 with the developer when they go into the detailed plans and I think that's when a lot of those are figured out as to exactly what they mean. Emmiings : Does it sort of go without saying that if we put something I like this in that it has to be done in a way that satisfies the City Engineer or should we put that language in there? Dacy:. In his paragraph, Larry refers that the final plan and I specification approval . That is approved by the Council and that plan is the construction drawings. That would show the depth of the swale and Larry was referring, based on the calculations of the amount of II water going through there, they use that to determine how deep a pond should be or how wide it should be and the volumes going through that so it's one of those detailed items. I Conrad : So those calculations by the developer , get reviewed by Larry Brown? Dacy: That ' s correct . I Conrad : I don ' t have any other comments other than I think we should II put in a point 19 that staff should advise City Council as to the safety of having a cul-de-sac this long without a secondary access . Any other discussion? II Headl.a moved , Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat amendment as shown on the plan II stamped "Received February 12, 1988" subject to the following conditions : 1. The applicant shall submit an amended landscaping plan which I provides for additional landscaping on the addition of Lake Susan Hills Drive and Pelican Court . 2. The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County II for the proposed access from CR 17 (Powers Blvd. ) . 3. A five foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk shall be I constructed along Lake Susan Hills Drive and the trail shall be placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to match at the Powers Blvd. intersection. I 4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and shall provide the necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 5. The applicant shall enter into a revised Development Contract with the City to reflect changes to the platted area and update the II financial security. II 11 J -4 11 I . Planning Commission Meeting March 2, 1988 - Page 8 I \ 6. The plans shall be revised to include a landing zone being a II street grade of 0. 5% for a minimum distance of 50 feet prior to the intersection of CSAH 17. 7. Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be I placed as check dams at 100 foot intervals in all drainage swales . 8 . All utility and roadway improvements shall conform to the City' s Istandards for urban construction. 9. A revised grading plan clearly delineating the limits of area with I poor soil conditions shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer . 10. Plans and specifications indicating details for installation and II supporting utilities in poor soil areas will be required prior to construction. The revised plans shall address the comments contained within this report. I11. The proposed right-of-ways for Pelican Court and Egret Court be reduced to 50 feet in width. g shall I12. A more pronounced drainage swale shall be created at the rear of Lots 1 through 7 and Lots 11 through 23 of Block 1 to convey backlot drainage to the proposed storm sewer . 13. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. Once in place they shall remain in I place throughout the duration of the construction. The developer is required to review erosion control and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced at I which time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer . 14. Sidewalk/trails shall be included in the construction documents as Irequi red by the PUD agreement . 15. The road section for Lake Susan Hills Drive and Heron Drive shall II be 35 foot back-to-back. 16. A 20 foot wide permanent trail easement shall be provided along Powers Blvd. for Lot 1, Block 2 . II17. Lot 4, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 4 shall take servi Susan Hills Drive sewer and water . ces from Lake I18. A 20 foot utility easement shall be placed along the storm sewer pipe which runs between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1 and Lots 17 and 18 of Block 1. I19. Lake Sugar Hills Drive shall be continued unless the Public Safety Director can show btokthe City rCouuncilvard I II • Planning Commission Meeting I March 2, 1988 - Page 9 II that a secondary access is not necessary. All voted in favor and motion carried. II II APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Emmings moved, Headla seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 17 , 1988 as amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 6 and 37. All voted in favor and II motion carried. DOWNTOWN SIGNAGE CONCEPTS . I Dacy: While Jim' s setting up I ' ll just start. For the three reasons II that I stated on the first page of my memo, staff wanted to look a little closer at the issue of signage in the downtown area and for the reasons of the aesthetics issues for downtown redevelopment and improving the streetscape of downtown and the visual image as well as trying to create a consistent form of signage in the downtown area we thought we' d put this before the Planning Commission to see what your ideas were because you have in the past expressed opinions about II signage into the community and into the downtown area. As we began looking at the downtown and the redevelopment projects that were occurring , we noticed that the developments were taking shape into smaller areas which we have labled on here as districts. Retail West right across from the new bank, the Kenny' s building over on the east side, the proposed Medical Arts Building Center, the whole area on the west side of Market Blvd . side. So these little nodes started , appearing and we thought, what a good way to use that to our advantage and create what we' re calling district signs to focus traveling motorist into what that particular node or commercial development is doing . The first part of our proposal is to create these district II signs . They would not have any advertising or business names on them but they would just state a name . For example, Chanhassen Square or Chanhassen Government Offices . II Headla : That would be where the red stars are? Dacy: No. The district signs are those located and proposed as the II small black dots to identify that node and what ' s occurring there but not necessarily saying Q-Suprette and Domi.noe' s Pizza, etc . . What II this means is that in creating district signs , what happens to the other signs by individual property owners so a couple of issues are there. One is , this means not allowing anymore new pylon signs . For example, not allowing Kenny' s the ability to have an individual pylon II sign of the Daycare center to have another pylon sign. It would mean solely that these signs would satisfy what we call street level identification of that node. There would be a lot of wall signage of II course and we ' re looking at some performance standards with that to act as a compliment to the district signage. Down on the West 79th Street area, that poses maybe as a bigger issue because we do have II II r CITY OF \ CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 11 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer DATE: March 24, 1988 1 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Susan Hills West, 2nd Addition Planning File No. 87-3 PUD, Argus Development The proposed plat amendment which designates the west half of the original plat as the second addition, calls for a temporary cul- de-sac (pending subsequent phases of the PUD) of 2 ,170 feet in length supporting 51 lots. The previous preliminary plat which was approved by the City Council on October 5 , 1987, proposed a l temporary cul-de-sac of 1, 865 feet in length with 41 single family lots. The second addition yields a net difference of 305 additional feet of cul-de-sac length and 10 additional lots . r The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat amendment of Lake Susan Hills West requiring a secondary access onto Powers Blvd. , unless the Public Safety Director can show the City l Council that this "back door" access is not necessary (Condition 19 ) . Discussions from the Planning Commission also included the possibility of constructing a 20-foot wide unimproved gravel road l from the south end of Lake Susan Hills Drive to Powers Boulevard for this secondary access . The Planning Department has requested that the Engineering 1 Department investigate the feasibility of a temporary access as mentioned above. 1 The Public Safety Director has indicated that the proposed road- way width of 35 feet back-to-back of curb (as per condition No. 12 of my previous memo - see Attachment #3 of the Planning Report) of Lake Susan Hills Drive is sufficient to maintain 1 emergency access during inclement conditions . The City' s stan- dard road section is 31 feet back-to-back. In his March 22 , 1988, memo ( see Attachment #13 of the Planning Report) he sees no 1 public safety need for a secondary road access. 1 r • Don Ashworth March 24, 1988 1 Page 2 The extension of Lake Susan Hills Drive to Powers Boulevard at this time would necessitate a proposed street grade in excess of 11.0% as compared to the City' s recommended maximum street grade of 7 .0% . In addition, the Carver County Engineer has verbally indicated that they would not support a temporary access of this type onto Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17 ) . Based on the considerations, the City Engineer supports the Public Safety Director' s position to not require a secondary access. 11 1 CITY O - CHANUAEN ■ 1 CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 1 111 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director 1 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills West, 2nd Additio DATE: March 22 , 1988 I have reviewed the revised plans for the Lake Susan Hills 1 West, 2nd Addition, and I can find no significant public safety concerns. In Summary, there is not a public safety need for a secondary road access. 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 r 413 1