Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-7-93 Agenda and Packet
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 7, 1993, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Preliminary plat of a Planned Unit Development and site plan to create 27 townhome lots on property zoned PUD, and located directly east of Powers Boulevard, adjacent to Lake Susan Hills PUD, Prairie Creek Townhomes, Jasper Development. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT CITY OF 101°11# 11 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner LPC, _ DATE: March 30, 1993 SUBJ: Prairie Creek Townhomes On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and site plan for the Prairie Creek Townhomes. The Planning Commission recommended tabling action on the item until the following issues could be addressed: 1. Impervious coverage. Planning Commission Comments: The majority of the Planning Commission stated that the impervious coverage should not exceed 35%; and if the applicant wants to exceed 35%, they must convince the Planning Commission why. Ladd Conrad thought that the impervious coverage was originally limited to accommodate affordable housing and that the proposed site plan had too little open space. Other Planning Commissioners felt we would be setting a precedent for the other PUD multi-family outlots by allowing this site plan to exceed the permitted impervious coverage. Applicant's Comments: The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which removes one additional unit for a total of 24 townhome units (3 less than the original proposal), and an impervious coverage of 40%. The applicant has submitted a letter explaining their position on this (see attached). The type of units that the applicant is proposing are similar in floor plan to a single family residence, which results in more impervious coverage than if a "stacked" unit would be proposed. The applicant has explained that this proposed style of unit fits the needs of the user they are building the units for and _ for which there is an existing demand for. The applicant has stated that they are not going to propose the "stacked" units and they do not believe a higher density housing type would be acceptable to either the neighbors or the City Council. They are requesting the Planning Commission to act on this most recent submittal--either approval or denial-- so that the item can go on to the City Council. t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 2 Staff's Comments: As was pointed out by Ladd Conrad during discussion at the March 17, 1993, Planning Commission meeting, the multi-family outlots were required as part of the PUD approval. The original zoning for the PUD site (prior to the Lake Susan Hills PUD) contained multi-family zoning (R-4, R-8, R-12), and the city did not want to lose the opportunity for provision of a variety of housing types in Chanhassen. Therefore, we required multi-family areas to remain. The outlots for multi-family which were created as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD were tied to a total number of multi-family units permitted for the whole site. Detail review of the outlots did not take place, as far as applying the proposed densities, setbacks, etc. This detailed review was left for the — process we are going through now. When staff first reviewed the proposed submittal, it was clear that the plan was not — intended to result in "affordable" housing, but it did result in a clustered unit which is in demand by certain types of our population. It also met the definition of medium density housing. The proposed dwellings were of unusually high quality, were attractively designed, and located on a site plan that could, with improvements, be acceptable. Therefore, staff took the position to work with the proposed site plan. As a result, staff required the applicant to reduce the number of units and impervious surface, but allowed the same type of units as proposed and allowed increased impervious surface cover. In replacement for the higher impervious surface coverage, we asked for increased — landscaping and architectural design. The proposed units, which are directly adjacent to existing single family units, were a design which was compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. In fact,the residents were — very pleased with what was being proposed. The residents, after leaving the Planning Commission meeting, were adamantly opposed to higher density housing being located at the proposed site. The revised site plan results in an impervious surface coverage of 40%, which meets _ staff's original recommendation. This does not meet the Planning Commission's recommendations of 35%impervious surface coverage. The Planning Commission should understand that 31% or 35% impervious surface coverage does not permit the type of _ housing proposed, and that a higher density unit is all that will meet the conditions. If higher density housing is what the Planning Commission feels is most suitable to this site and necessary to provide, then the Planning Commission should recommend denial of the — proposal. Staff will continue to recommend approval, with conditions, because we feel the intent of the original PUD is still being met. A few years ago, Lundgren Brothers applied for a change to their Near Mountain PUD, which had created a high density outlot on the Summit. Lundgren Brothers requested permission to change the high density units to single family units because the housing — Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 3 demand was for single family development, not for higher density. Staff recommended against this proposal because the city was loosing an area designated for higher density housing, and because that higher density outlot was one of the reasons the original Near Mountain PUD was approved. Both the Planning Commission and City Council approved _ of the change from high density to low density because they felt single family units were suitable to the site. Staff's position in this current case (Prairie Creek), is to recommend approval because an alternative housing type is still being provided. Thus, our goal of providing a mix of housing opportunities in Chanhassen is being met. 2. Apply new PUD regulations. Planning Commission Comments: The Planning Commission requested staff get a legal opinion as to whether the new PUD regulations can be applied to this proposal. Staff's Comments: The answer to whether the new PUD regulations can be applied is yes (see attached letter from Roger Knutson). The PUD contract has a 5 year grace period, after which new regulations can be applied. Applying the new PUD regulations results in an increased setback from 25' to 50', and 30' along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Drive. Minimum lot sizes down to 5,000 square feet may be permitted, but in no case shall the density exceed the comprehensive plan. The new PUD regulations also require increased landscaping/buffering and architectural design over the earlier ordinance. — When staff first reviewed this submittal, we compared the new PUD regulations with the existing PUD contract and the proposed site plan. Staff understood that we could apply the new regulations, but also that we cannot pick and choose from the new and old regulations as to which regulations we want to apply. The choice was to use the PUD contract in its entirety or the new PUD regulations in its entirety. We believed that the proposal could meet or exceed all current PUD landscape and architectural design standards, and use of the new PUD ordinance was not required to obtain compliance. Furthermore, we noted that the applicant has made a good faith effort to comply with the terms of an approved PUD contract and are reluctant to use a technicality to void it, particularly when there appeared to be little or no net gain for the city or area residents. The increased PUD setbacks will substantially reduce the amount of buildable area of the outlot. The increased setbacks will also result in more open space and reduced impervious surface coverage. Applying the new PUD ordinance, the type of proposed units would have to be reduced, and the provision of an internal private street, which meets fire code, may not be possible. The current proposal does not meet the 5,000 square ft. minimum, but it does meet the density as stated by the comprehensive plan (up to 8 units/acre). If the Planning Commission/City Council recommends reduced Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 4 — impervious surface coverage and higher density, the lot sizes will be even less than what is currently proposed, and the density would exceed the comprehensive plan (4-8 units/acre). Therefore, the new PUD regulations may conflict with the direction the — Planning Commission is taking. The current proposal meets, if not exceeds, the new PUD landscaping regulations, and the — architectural design is of very high quality. In summary, staff felt that we were getting essentially the same using the PUD contract and R-8 regulations as what we would have gotten with the new PUD regulations. The only major difference was the increased setbacks which would have resulted in more open space. The outlot was created with the old regulations in mind, 25' setbacks, and applying the increased setbacks to an existing lot of record results in the use of the lot being reduced. This, in addition to having to apply the other new PUD regulations (which further reduced density and lot area), was the reason staff chose to apply the existing PUD contract in reviewing the proposal. 3. Architecture of the buildings. Planning Commission Comment: - The Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide more architectural features on the rear of the townhome units. Applicant's Comment: The applicant has provided increased window treatments to the rear of the units and has drawn in the decks. The result is a more attractive elevation (see — reduced plans). The applicant is not proposing trim boards, stating that this is not consistent with the architectural style that they are proposing. Staff's Comment: The proposed rear elevations are acceptable to staff. We continue to believe the units are of high quality and are in favor of the proposed design. MISCELLANEOUS The revised site plan has removed one additional townhome unit for a total of 24 townhome -' units. The applicant had previously agreed to remove two townhome units. The applicant has removed three townhome units from the originally proposed 27 townhome units. The units that _ have been removed were adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard. The applicant has also provided four (4) visitor parking spaces as recommended by staff. The revised site plan has broken up the expanse of the townhomes along Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan _ Hills Drive. The applicant has also shifted the alignment of the townhomes adjacent to the existing single family residences to provide increased separation. Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 5 The applicant has provided a revised landscaping plan to meet the conditions of the staff report and comments made at the Planning Commission. The revised landscaping plan provides details on the proposed berming. The berming will contain extensive landscaping which will be 3'-5' in height, with the potential to increase to 15' in height. This will provide additional screening where necessary. The applicant has added an American Linden to Lake Susan Drive and some berming. Berming and landscaping has also been added to the interior lot line. The PUD contract stated that $500 worth of landscaping had to be provided for each multi-family unit. The applicant has stated that the proposed landscaping greatly exceeds this dollar amount. The overall landscaping plan is equal to, if not greater than, what would have been required with the new PUD regulations. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Prairie Creek Townhomes as shown on the revised plans dated March 25, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. Change Lot 25, Block 1 to Outlot A. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of Outlots A, B, C and D cannot exceed 40%. 3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right-of-way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative dated March 24, 1993. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed within the development in accordance to the City's typical 8-foot wide bituminous trail standards, unless it is to be relocated within the County right-of-way by Carver County and City. 7. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet in Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 — Page 6 — size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo&Associates,will determine the cash contribution amount. —' 8. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer,watermain, street — access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County — Highway Department. 10. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. — The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 11. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 12. A cross-access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 13. Fire Marshal conditions: — a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief [pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w)]. See site plan — submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted site — plan [pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy 4106-1991 (copy enclosed)]. c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP — transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre-Fire Plan," pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #07-1991 (copy enclosed). e. Add and/or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site, pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3. Planning Commission Prairie Creek Townhomes March 30, 1993 Page 7 f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specifications, pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(f). g. Premise identification Policy #29-1992 (copy enclosed). 14. Building Official conditions: a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval. b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests,limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval. d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final plat approval. e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated March 24, 1993. 2. Letter from Roger Knutson dated April 1, 1993. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 17, 1993 4. Staff Report dated March 17, 1993 5. Reduced Plans. 6. Front and Rear Elevations 7. Plans. Jasper 'Develo me t p �, 235 W. 1st St. • WACONIA, MN 55387 443-2181 Metro • 442-5611 Local • 442-4934 Fax March 24, 1993 Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Prairie Creek Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Ms. Olsen: We are hereby requesting that the Planning Commission review of this project that was tabled on March 17th be placed on the agenda for the April 7th meeting. _ In response to the questions that were raised at the March 17th meeting, we are herewith submitting a revised site plan reducing the proposed - number of units from 27 to 24. We have attempted to address the ques- tion of the resulting impervious surface coverage in the comments that follow. Except as noted in our comments, we concur with and agree to abide by the 18 recommendations for approval as listed in the staff report. The comments are as follows: 1. We believe that the type of units proposed are compatible with the adjacent single-family home neighborhood. The proposed units, while not responding to the "affordable housing" market, do respond to a known market, that of the empty-nesters and young professionals. The units are not intended to attract families with children, thus it is likely that the average number of people per household will not ex- ceed two. To meet this market requires 1 level units with attached two-car garages which tends to increase the land coverage. We have calculated that multi-story, affordable housing meeting the land requirements could be built on the site yielding 40 units at 35% coverage and 35 units at 31% coverage. Considering the proximity to the existing single-family neighborhood, we do not believe that "affordable" housing is compatible. 2. Our engineers have calculated the resulting run-off at the various percentages of land coverage. They are as follows: 31% coverage = 16.7 CFS 35% coverage = 17.5 CFS - 40% coverage = 18.5 CFS March 24, 1993 Ms. JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner Page 2 Our understanding of these figures is that the differential is not significant and has little impact on the ability to successfully control run-off. 3. As was stated at the March 17th meeting, the construction of the temporary detention pond will not adversely affect existing trees and its size will not significantly change with a higher surface coverage. The pond is to be located on park land that currently is not used for any other purpose. 4. In response to questions raised about the exterior appearance of the back side of the units, we have modified them to include some additional window treatment. The suggested addition of trim boards, etc. , is not consistent with the architectural style we are pro- posing. Additionally, we believe that the landscaping will signif- icantly soften the simple lines of the units. The units adjacent to the single-family lots (specifically units 1-4) have been re- positioned to increase the distance from the rear property line. 5. The amount of landscaping proposed for this project exceeds the re- quired amount by approximately 100%. It is our understanding that the landscape designer has satisfactorily clarified the amount of landscaping to be done on the proposed berms. 6. In lieu of standard street lighting within the project, we are pro- posing to provide a residential type post light, controlled by photocell, for each unit. Experience with other projects has proven that this type of lighting is ample and eliminates the objectionable intense light from standard street lighting. Further, we believe that the proposed lighting makes identification of the units easier. 7. We have added the recommended visitor parking to the revised site plan. As a final comment, it appears that the reasons for the density and imper- vious surface standards in the 1987 PUD agreement are unclear. Perhaps they cannot be reasonably applied to this proposed project which may be quite different from what was envisioned at that time. Since the devel- opment of the adjacent single-family land in now complete, it is in this context that the appropriateness of this project should be considered. Sincerely, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF WACONIA t .j//)014r- James E. Jasper President JEJ/prr 04/01:93 11:29 V612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON - - CHAN. CITY HALL 002 003 — CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. Attorncr> at Lav (: i_1 452.5C': ' R ;tcr N.Knur. T, FAN (61:)45:-5550 T! ma;V.S0.rr C:i:uy..3 Fuc:;. I:nig;R r, April 1, 1993 BY FAX AND MAIL Ms. Jo Ann Olsen Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Lake Susan Hills West PUD Dear Jo Ann: In 1987 the City Council rezoned the Lake Susan Hills West property PUD in accordance with a Planned Unit Development Agreement dated November 16, 1987 . Preliminary plat approval is now being sought for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, single family, and the Prairie Circle Townhome Addition. You asked me to comment on the effect of paragraph 7 of the - PUD agreement which provides: 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 City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement. - Since five years has passed since PUD approval was granted, this provision is applicable. It means, for example, that if the City has new design standards for streets the City can impose the new standards on the PUD. The City could also rezone the property from PUD to some other classification. The provision does not mean that the design elements in the PUD as approved in 1987 are superseded by the new PUD design criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 179 adopted on November 23 , Su;rc 317 • Ea�,,Indale Office Center • 1360 Corporate Center Curve • Ewan. NAN 55121 04,111/93 11:30 $612 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNtTSON 4>-4 CHAN. CITY HALL 10003;003 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen April 1, 1993 Page 2 1992 . Lake Susan Hills is zoned PUD in accordance with the PUD Agreement. That agreement continues to be the basic zoning regulation for the property as to the issues addressed in that agreement. The City has the authority to change the agreement by a rezoning action. Unless this occurs, both the City and developer are bound by that agreement. Although the City is bound by the PUD agreement, as to issues not expressly addressed in the PUD, new regulations generally applicable throughout the City are applicable to Lake Susan Hills . Amendments to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20-1179 , and subdivision ordinance, City Code Section 18-61, concerning tree preservation adopted in 1991 are applicable to Lake Susan Hills. These Code provisions require development "to retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands. " The phrase "as far as practical" is not defined. Because the PUD only granted concept approval , the City has some discretion to require modification to take the new tree regulations into consideration. r.---VerrY—truly yours, CA44PBELL, SON, SCOTT , P.A. BY4.- �. Roge N. Knutson RNK:srn �r Planning Commission Meeting _ March 17 , 1993 - Page 26 Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that gives— us time to come back with what you want . If the reports have to go out next week , you won 't get it . Krauss : That 's a fairly short turn around . We also should contact the , speak to the developer . Why don 't we agree that we will re-notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know . Batzli : Okay . So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in April? Krauss : Which is the 21st . Olsen: It most likely will be . Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don 't know what I would get the answers that you want . As far as like the tree inventory . Wayne Tauer : We 'd like to comment on that . We would like to have it done-- in onsin 2 weeks . You know we 're on a , we 're in Minnesota . We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring to get it done . So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in _ this thing , we 'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be back on the April 7th , or whatever the date was to get back and go . Batzli : Okay , what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo — Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we ' ll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting . Okay , thank you very much everyone for coming in . - PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD , ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD , PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES , JASPER DEVELOPMENT . Public Present : Name Address James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development Greg Holling Jasper Development Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape Don Patton RCI Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive - Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 27 Thomas A . Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Name Address Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No . David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Greg Holling : I 'm Greg Holling , representing the applicant , Jasper Development . James Jasper and Jay Jasper are also here if there 's other questions that come up . As far as this plan , what 's been done is there 's two units that were dropped out . If you look here , there was a 4 unit building in the center of Powers Boulevard . Close to Powers Boulevard we took one unit out there and spread these apart . And then we also took one unit off from the 4 unit building which was closest to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard . And in doing that then we pulled the drive over approximately 20 feet to give more green space between the units that were tight between units 22 and 3 is what 's shown on this plan . As Jo Ann mentioned , that reduces our coverage down to actually we figured 42 .9% or approximately 43% . When we first submitted these plans we had somehow gotten our information twisted as far as how much coverage we could actually have and thought we were meeting the Code when we submitted our initial plan . And when Jo Ann notified us after we had submitted them , well then it ended up being just too tight as far as the timing to get revised plans . Get all these plans revised . I think the report covers pretty much most of the other things fairly well . It is very important for us to get these number of units to make the project feasible and essentially what 's being proposed I think makes a much nicer development than trying to get a larger number of units and having to stack them up . This is a typical , this is a 75 foot berm . . .from 1 to 3 feet high and as you can see it 's planted very heavily . I also have a list of plants that will go on this berm . Would you like to see the list of those plans? Batzli : Sure . Greg Holling: So if you have this , this is a deciduous tree on the berm _ right here that rolls into these 3 evergreen trees . And this is somewhat typical of berms around the project as is this one . Even though they 're all a little bit uniquely different , I think it gives you a pretty good picture of what . . .project . So there will be substantial screening all the way around this project . . .and we need some sight lines into the project obviously but most of these berms are very close . Sometimes . . .deciduous trees we ' ll be able to see under to see the project and other times the _ sight lines will be pretty much restricted by the berming and the planting . The plants generally on the berm are large , ranging from 3 to 4 feet to as high as 15 feet at maturity . Batzli : What do you think about salt spray? Greg Holling : From roads? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 28 Batzli : Yeah . Greg Holling: Well that 's always something that can happen to plants . . . Batzli : So the Amber Maples and those kind of things are hardy enough to withstand that? Greg Holling: I don 't know how close we are to the road . How close are - we to the road? This is kind of arbitrary as to where that path is going to be so all we have to work with was putting that path inside the property line and there 's a fairly small area inbetween buildings and the_ path to get it landscaped so . We 're taking all this into consideration . . probably works the best . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions in the staff report? Greg Holling: Yes . Batzli : And do you have any disagreement with any of those conditions? Greg Holling : I guess as part of the original report , the main objection we would have would be the losing of the 3 or 4 units and I think . . .did address that . Staff felt comfortable dropping out 2 units . Otherwise I believe . . .that was a real problem . I guess the one thing would just be - tabling the project . If that 's a consideration , when we had originally been talking with Jo Ann , we were led to believe there would be another Planning Commission meeting in 2 weeks . And from what I understand , there isn 't going to be now so we 'd certainly appreciate it if it would be possible for you to consider the project . Batzli : Would you prefer a negative recommendation to table? Greg Holling : I guess it depends . I guess we 're really in a sense expecting a negative one on how the plans were originally submitted . As - far as if you would consider a recommendation on going down to 25 , would that be what you 're referring to? Batzli : Well I 'm not sure how the other commissioners feel but I 'm just saying , if you need us to act on it tonight , would you prefer that we give_ you a negative recommendation than to table it to study it? Greg Holling: As far as the 27 units , I guess we would probably prefer tt be tabled . I guess either one of them we 'd prefer to be tabled rather than turned down because we do feel that we have a project we can work - with and that the staff supports the project and that we can work that out . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Greg Holling : Thank you very much . Conrad : Before he sits down , can I ask him a question? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 29 Batzli : Sure . Conrad: Thank you Mr . Chair . Really our district standard for R-8 is 35% impervious surface and you really haven 't made a compelling argument to change it other than it 's not financially feasible but I think in the PUD you should . So I think why don 't you take a few seconds here and tell us why we should change it from the 35 . Even though the contract says 31 , I think we could all rationalize a 35 because that is our standard . You 're coming in at 45 . I think you should be telling us why we should consider that . Greg Holling: Essentially what we are doing is building a project that we feel is a very high quality type project . The types of units that we ' ll be building are in the range of 1 ,200 square feet per floor and we 're looking at 2 floors but not 2 stories so we 're still looking at a lower type building . The basic units that are being proposed are in the $150 ,000 .00 type range for the sale price and these are units that are to be lived in . They 're not rental type units . They will be , I 'm sorry not lived in . Of course they 're all going to be lived in but owner occupied . And I think perhaps history would show that these types of projects , townhome type projects are better maintained when they 're owner occupied than a rental unit . So we are looking at building very nice units that are we think fit in quite well with the neighborhood . Each unit will be individually designed . They ' ll have different textures on the front of the buildings . Stucco , brick and some cedar . We are . . . I don 't know how much more landscaping . Do you know how much we 're exceeding the minimum standards? Mark Jeffries: It would be at least 2 1/2% . . . Olsen: That 's commercial/industrial . Greg Holling: A big reason that we 're exceeding the minimum percentage of coverage is because of the size of the units . Each individual unit that we 're building . And so in order to build a nice , larger unit that 's very attractive for the type of people that are being marketed , it takes on _ more coverage . And as was mentioned by Jo Ann , it was allowed to go up to 9 .3 units per acre but with a lesser coverage essentially the only way you can do that is by having 2 story above the normal grade in order to get that and try to get your square footage stacked on top of each other . And — so that 's why we 're at the percentage that we 're at . I would say that 's basically the compelling reason that we exceed that percentage . Conrad : Thanks . Jay Jasper : Excuse me , I 'm Jay Jasper with Jasper Development . Could I just make a clarification of that? Batzli : Sure . Why don 't you come up to the microphone . Jay Jasper : When we were looking at this piece of land initially , it has a very unique shape and we were looking for a piece of land not to do starter family or entry level townhomes , because there are a lot of builders doing that out there and obviously you could stack them in there Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 30 and do that . We 've done this project before in other communities and there 's a strong demand for professional people and empty nesters . I think the trade-off between higher coverage is lower number of units and the higher selling price . The overall value of that project . You 're not going to see rental units . You 're not going to see lots of cars outside . - You 're going to see well maintained improved projects and you 'll see over a period of about 3 to 5 years that these projects typically improve upon themselves . They ' ll be adding landscaping . They ' ll be keeping up the painting . They 'll be doing all those sorts of things . I think you ' ll find that in the long run the trade-off for coverage or number of units , lesser number of units will be well worth while . Mancino : Jay , I have a question . You said that they won 't be , you won 't be able to rent these units? Jay Jasper : We can 't prohibit someone from doing that but because of the market price , we 've not seen any of them that we 've built previously rented out . I suppose if someone 's living here 6 months out of the year , __ they could rent it out to somebody for 6 months out of the year . We 're not targeting investors . We 're not keeping any of them as rentals and the past sales history on the other projects we 've done has been professional people and empty nesters . Mancino: Okay , but your covenants do let the owners know that they can rent? Jay Jasper : They can rent . The rent would be awfully high on a $150 ,000 .00 townhouse . Scott : Jay , have you developed properties similar to , not the land but built townhomes similar to this in this area that we could take a? Jay Jasper : Actually with the neighborhood meeting I went through this , we could all maybe get a bus and go out there . We did a small 10 unit version identical to this in Waconia . Scott : Oh where? Jay Jasper : Where in Waconia? Scott : Yeah . Jay Jasper : It 's on East 2nd Street . If you come up from Main Street , you go over 1 block and you go as far east , it deadends at this project . And it 's a combination of single family and multi-family . We had both these types of units . We have the small and the large and it was a mix o1_ them . We sold just as many small as large . And it 's virtually , they 're all sold out . Half are completed . You could see color schemes and all those sorts of things . We 're going to be duplicating that identically as - far as exterior , floorplans . There will be more landscaping because Waconia 's ordinances doesn 't have as much requirements as Chanhassen 's does and the market 's a little bit different . But we 're going to be using_ those actually as , after the project is approved to help us with pre-sale because most of those people will let us in . We do have a model left Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 31 that 's sold , or on contingent that we can use and so that would be a good project to go look at . I don 't know if anyone in the audience went to look but that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting that I 'd be happy to meet anyone out there to take a look at it . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Did you have anything else? Greg Holling : No . Thank you . Batzli : This is a public hearing . Is there someone in the audience that would like to address the Commission? I ask that you come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record . — Pat VanAsh : Are we allowed to do this as a team? Batzli : Sure , you can tag team . Tom VanAsh : My name is Tom VanAsh . This is my wife Pat . We reside at 8320 West Lake Court , and if I can show the map here . We 're one of the more affected homeowners in that this is our property right here . So you can see that the back side of our property lines up with 3 townhomes . Well 3 complete townhomes and a fourth one right behind it . One of the proposals that was set forth at the neighborhood meeting was that this was - going to be done in two phases . With the initial phase being done out there towards Powers Boulevard and the second phase to be completed in approximately 2 to 2 1/2 years , and that being the phase that adjoins our property . We would ask that that proposal be reversed to allow the homeowners , especially along here to see a more gradual change and not such an abrupt change in the landscaping . And that we would be under total construction for 2 1/2 years . With that proposal reversed and this would be completed right away , which by the way we were told the townhomes would begin at about $110 ,000 .00 and go up to $150 ,000 .00 to $155 ,000 .00 . We 're assuming that those , all those in the back here that are walkouts . Which are right at the 25 foot setback , so they 're very close to our home . But with these to be completed originally at the outset , we feel it would give anybody becoming a potential homeowner , a townhome , a better idea of what the flow will be between neighborhoods . So that is one of the things that we are concerned with . Overall I 'm very comfortable with the developer and the builder from what I 've seen in Waconia . I do think they did do a nice job over there . We do have some cosmetic ideas that we 'd like to suggest by some of the other neighbors . Jay Jasper : Just a clarification on two points he made . The ones in Waconia were $110 ,000 .00 to $150 ,000 .00 . Not a representation that the Chanhassen ones would be $110 ,000 .00 to $150 ,000 .00 . And the other ones , the 2 1/2 years represented the other outlot that is available across the road in Lake Susan Hills and that is a future possible development . . .two phases but that would be 2 to 2 1/2 years down the road . Just a clarification . Batzli : So you envision constructing this all this summer , if it was passed? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 32 - Jay Jasper : We didn 't . . .doing it in two phases because by the time we get- roads and grading and all that stuff done , we 're going to be , to start work our goal would be to have a unit ready for the Parade of Homes . I mean that 's pretty optimistic but we 're not going to get it all done in a year . So we would probably try to split our construction . . . Batzli : You 'd be splitting it right now with the one that isn 't approved yet that you haven 't brought in front of us? Jay Jasper : No . This , we would just split into two kind of phases of construction . Batzli : Oh , okay . Pat VanAsh: Okay , so then . . .how long expect for this particular development that 's before us tonight from beginning to finish? How long do you expect it to take? Jay Jasper : Probably one year would be realistic . It could take a littl longer and then it could take a little less than that . It depends on how long it takes to put the improvements in and what the . . .conditions are . But the comment was 2 1/2 years for the parcel across the street . Pat VanAsh: Okay . So then what you 're saying is that at this point you would expect to have this entire development finished by the end of the - construction season this year? Jay Jasper : No . Next year . Because we 're not going to be able to barely_ start construction . . .until probably July . Pat VanAsh : So basically what you 're saying then is if you start this spring and go through until the fall , or whenever , that next spring you 'l _ begin again . Batzli : Well I think what he 's saying , if you can try to address me a little bit so that we don 't get into an argument back and forth here . I think I ' ll paraphrase what I think he 's saying and then I 'll give him an opportunity later to clear it up if I 'm saying it wrong . By the time they_. get done grading and putting in the improvements , they 're towards the fal of this year . They would expect then to in 1994 to build the units . The majority of the units and then be completed by the end of 1994 . Tom VanAsh : Excuse me . The original model home that he talked about was to be out towards the front of Powers Boulevard . . . We 're asking that they reverse that and build that back in here instead of this area , and develop. between the existing homes . Batzli : You want them to build in your area first? Is that your major concern there? Tom VanAsh : . . .two phases that he was talking about . The first phase was this portion and the second phase would be this portion . We 're just asking them to reverse that since the streets and the grading all have to be completed prior to the first units going in . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 33 Pat VanAsh : Basically that will allow us to have the property , their property that adjoins our 's , that area would be finished first so that from our point of view we wouldn 't have to look into the entire development and see the entire construction process starting in the outlying areas and working towards us . Instead it would be reversed and that would provide somewhat of a buffer between us and the construction zone if it were reversed . If they started on our property line and . . . Batzli : Okay , anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yeah . As far as landscaping , that was somewhat addressed and that was another concern that we felt the landscaping between their property and our 's on the lot line wasn't heavy enough . That it didn 't provide or because if the 2 story walkout . . .are right across the back of our house , that we felt the landscaping wasn 't heavy enough there to provide a buffer . I also was concerned that the type of landscaping because it isn 't , they are 2 story , that the type landscaping that they do in there would provide for some , instead of the smaller evergreens and what not , to provide taller trees that eventually would provide a nice -r deep umbrella . You know further than 15 feet off the ground . That was another thing . As far as the number of units . Our initial reaction was the number of units was too high . And they have proposed to lower that but at the same time , you know it may be something for whatever is down in here but it doesn 't help us out any . We 've got a solid wall . . . Farmakes : Excuse me . Could you place that . We 've got too much of a berm here . We can 't see that . Pat VanAsh: There 's a solid wall of units right across our back yard here and if the number of units is to be lowered , which I personally would like to see that happen , that one be taken out of here . Originally my suggestion was to take one off of here and one off of here or something . Or somewhere , somehow or in other words they did rearrange a little bit but if did that , it may have allowed these units also to be moved in further because they are . . .back yards , which I thought was awfully close . _ . . .awfully close to the back yard . I mean not only for us but for the people who are going to live in there . Batzli : Okay , anything else? Pat VanAsh : Yes . I had another question concerning the exteriors . With the stucco exterior . The solid , and he addressed the front of the units , which we personally did go and view them . Everything always looks great on paper , which your initial sketches did , but when you see them in person , you know like reality check . They were attractive from the front . They were , I felt they were not attractive from the back . The back is solid stucco with no detail . They basically on the four units that are connected that I saw , they all had basically the same decks . And then I also had a question concerning the stucco material itself . That it requires higher maintenance . My experience with any stucco that I 've ever seen is that it looks great when it 's freshly painted . After it 's weathered for a year or two , it ends up looking dingy and dirty if it isn 't maintained . To me it seems to be a high maintenance type thing and I guess I 'm also questioning does the stucco and what not fit in Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 34 - aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood . That 's another concern . We also have a question concerning the drainage pond . It seems that it was unresolved exactly where that was going to be . . .and I think that need! to be determined before the plan goes any further . We need to know exactly where that 's going to be placed . Whether it 's down further in the swampland or whether it 's going to be done on the . . . Olsen: It 's definitely in the parkland , not on their land but Dave can _ give you more details on that . Hempel : Staff is recommending that with this development that a temporary sedimentation pond be constructed just to the north of this development within the city parkland on a temporary basis until the permanent regiona. pond is developed further on downstream in the Lake Susan Hills Park , which is further on to the north in an area that is yet to be designated exactly . We 've got to go out and look at the areas so we 're not destroying any wetlands or removing any trees . So our overall comprehensive storm sewer guide has shown a regional pond in that area to the north of this development in Lake Susan Hills Park . Timeframe is unknown at this time though . But there will be a small sedimentation pan( at the end of the storm sewer that they 're extending to the north property line of this development . Pat VanAsh: And then a point that was brought up in the previous meeting was that . . . - Hempel : All the retention ponds in the city are maintained by city maintenance , public works crews so they do take periodic cleaning and there are easements for access for ponding areas for city crews to provide the maintenance . Batzli : Is there anything else? Pat VanAsh : I think that 's it . Tom VanAsh: Thank you . Batzli : Okay , thank you very much . I ' ll let you comment after everyone 's had their say . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Please - come up to the microphone . Give us your name and address for the record . Andrew Olson : I 'm Andrew Olson , 8298 West Lake Court . I live 3 doors down from VanAsh 's and I 'm the one that took the pictures of the Waconia townhomes . They look nice from the front . I don 't like the back and the back side is what we ' ll be seeing from Powers Boulevard , from Lake Susan _ Hills Drive and from our homes along that West Lake Court . I would like to see something changed for color or material or something in the back sides because then it 's not as attractive as they might be from the rear . It 's just a solid wall of stucco with a few colors in for deck . If something can be done . And then I would also favor that less density . I don 't like the 27 . I don 't like the 25 . I would favor 23 or 24 . Just for that little more greenspace to get that greenery in there and a buffer_ between existing townhomes and trails and whatever in there . And the pon( is also an issue for me . I don 't want to have a temporary pond there and Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 35 then find out that there 's no way to get that water to a permanent pond someplace because of the creek going through there and I don 't know how you can legally change the course of a creek or how would you get water downhill and over that creek to another pond without a culvert system or something . That creek is in the way . So getting it to a regional pond is something I 'd like to see covered here before any permanent approval is given . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . I 'm almost afraid to ask Dave but , we 've had a couple comments about pond and I know you responded to that . Do we have , can you put a map up . Can you explain to us where the temporary pond . . . sedimentation basin is going to go? Hempel : As a part of this development , or I should point out first . There 's an existing storm sewer line that discharges approximately 75 feet north of Lake Susan Hills Drive . It . . .runoff from the wetlands across the street . That pipe would be extended as a part of this project to outlet to the north end of this development . The developer would be extending a line off of that proposed storm sewer to serve the internal development , the storm runoff from the interior streets and housepads , and that would be conveyed then through the pipe system down to the north end . And we felt that some sort of treatment needed to be done to try and collect some of the heavy sediments that would be collected throughout the year from the sand on the roads and so forth , instead of just discharging them into the grass meadowland . It 's much easier for us from a maintenance _ standpoint to clean out sediment traps than try and collect sediment as it is washed further downstream . On top of that , without sediment traps there , it could also lead to future erosion problems like . . .washout condition all the way down to the stream that was spoke of earlier . As far as the regional pond , the permanent regional pond in the area , again we do not have the specific location of it . I have a feeling that the existing stream area and some particular area may be modified and widened _ to adapt for the additional ponding . We also want to treat the stream and water coming from the upstream into this regional ponding before discharging into Lake Susan . Again , once our comprehensive storm water plan is developed . . .will be taken care of but in the interim measures , we felt that a sediment trap would be very useful for collecting sediments from the street . Batzli : Who owns the property that we 're dumping the water on? Hempel : That is city land , it 's the park property . Batzli : And will it affect the neighbors ' land? Have you taken a look at the impact? Hempel : It is somewhat treed and wooded up in this area . . .sediment trap is a dry pond system . Within a few days after a rain it becomes dry . Batzli : But you 're going to be taking whatever the size of this development is and right currently it has over 40% impervious , if I 'm not mistaken . You ' ll be dumping a lot more water over there . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 36 Hempel : That 's correct . That 's another reason for the sediment trap . To also disperse the energy generated in the storm sewer so you don 't have - the washout and erosion problems . Batzli : What 's the impact of going from 43% to 35% coverage on the amount of water being dumped over there? Hempel : I 've not seen the overall drainage calculations yet but it would reduce it somewhat in the rooftop area and in the driveways so it would b a small percentage of the overall impervious . . . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Would anyone else — like to address the Commission? Before you start talking , can you take that down? Thank you . Tom Rasmussen: Again , my name is Tom Rasmussen . I live at 8531 Merganse' Court . The reason why I 'm interested in this property is because kitty corner from this lot is another strip of property that 's zoned exactly the same way . And I guess what I don 't want to see come happening 2-3 years - from now is someone saying , well gee you allowed them 43% impervious . What are the current standards? Gee , are you going to let me do that? So on and so forth so I guess my main point is , I would like you to be consistent from setbacks , percent impervious or whatever because otherwis( if you allow this development to do it , what 's to stop another developer from coming in and saying hey , they did it . I want to do it too . On the other hand , I did live in a townhouse for 5 years and I agree with what they said concerning the market value . The market value of our homes wer( about $100 ,000 .00 to $110 ,000 .00 . My next door neighbor to us , it was rental . It turned into a HUD . It was a disaster so I came out to - Chanhassen to buy a single family home . So I agree with what they said and they are going after the proper market for that and stay away from the $100 ,000 .00 townhomes . You 're asking for trouble . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? I: there a motion to close the public hearing? Oh , I 'm sorry . One more . Gary Kassen : My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and I just wanted to expand a little bit on the temporary holding pond . There are several trees in the area and I 'd like to see a little bit more _ information on how many of those trees we lose and the size of the holdin5 pond . . . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , members of the Commission . That was staff 's recommendation for the developer to incorporate the sediment trap pond . We did give him an approximately size of the pond that we would need and it 's based on the amount of contributing drainage area . That pond size ir— between .3 and .5 acre feet . The sediment pond that we intended , we don 't foresee removal of any of the existing trees . The Park Department won 't I 'm sure let us do that . So it will be an area that 's pretty much void of significant trees . There may be some underbrush of course that would be removed in those areas outside the major tree areas . Gary Kassen : How long is this temporary pond going to be there? - Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 37 Hempel : I knew he was going to ask that . Batzli : You danced around it very nicely up til now . Hempel : Well , part of it would dictate on the development pressure around the areas as it becomes developed as it slowly but surely is . That would be a priority area to look at . Part of our surface water task force , or course we 've prioritized some areas in town to construct storm water improvements . We are limited , very limited in funding . I don 't know where this area plays in the order of storm water improvements however . As this area develops , the developer will be providing the city a cash contribution to put towards this regional ponding area . So this developer and the developer across the street and upstream will also , if they cannot provide on site a necessary retention pond from both the quality and quantity standpoint , will be required to pay a cash contribution into the surface water utility fund to help pay for the downstream ponding . Batzli : But that money that they donate is not earmarked for this particular problem . It goes to the overall surface water quality fund . Hempel : That is correct . Batzli : So the time is indeterminate . Gary Kassen : Alright . I guess the second issue I wanted to talk about a little bit more is the appearance . I guess I do like the front of the townhomes . I think they look very nice . What I 'd personally like to see is maybe some of the cedar or maybe even some of the brick be added to the back side because that 's the side most of us will see driving by on County Road 17 and driving on Lake Susan Hills Drive and also from the homes . . . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . I promised you a moment of rebuttal . Did you have something in response to some of these comments? _ Jay Jasper : More clarifications than anything . To address the concerns , one of the evils of having people look at a project to see what units are going to look like . The project in Waconia is very new . The landscaping in the backyards hasn 't been developed yet . Some of it isn 't in and so to take a look at 5 or 10 units and say gee , that looks starks . Well yeah , we don 't have any landscaping in there . It 's in a totally different setting than this is and so I don 't think that 's really a fair analysis of that project . When you look at single family back , the backs of single family houses , we don 't talk about brick and extra cedar and those sorts of things . I don 't see why this project 's any different than that . If anything , we 've got a consistent , well maintained , uniform , color coordinated backyard as opposed to 10 or 15 different colors in various states of repair and if anything , that 's going to be an improvement . The other thing is stucco is very maintenance free and it isn 't painted . It 's just more a point of clarification . Batzli : Let me ask you two questions though , because I think they may be _ fair criticisms and you can maybe convince me otherwise . But you have a self contained development here so that the entire , and it looks nice from Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 38 - the internal side but the people driving along Lake Susan Hills and the county road there , they 're looking at the backs of every unit . They don 's see a single front of a unit . Jay Jasper : If that were single family , you wouldn 't either . You - wouldn 't put fronts along Powers Boulevard because I 'm sure you can 't put driveways there . You wouldn 't put fronts on Lake Susan Hills Boulevard because that 's I gather a collector street . I don 't think there 's _ driveways allowed on there . So what you would see with single family would be all different backyards . Batzli : But you don 't see the mass . Jay Jasper : But these are broken up into small groups . I mean we could do 2 story manor homes , vinyl siding , crank the density . Don 't worry - about the impervious surface . Batzli : I don 't think you could crank the density anymore but , okay . But so you 're reply is really that you 're no different than single family . We 're not worried about it . We 're going to sell these babies . Jay Jasper : No , it 's no different than single family and you 've got a controlled maintained backyard and back of the units . Color schemes all coordinate . Not house x , house y , house z where it 's pink , orange and blue . You 've got something that all blends . I think we 're going to be _ very attractive . Plus we 've got a lot of landscaping . Batzli : Thanks . Okay . Pete Kurth: My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive . This addition doesn 't come as a surprise and I 'm not opposed to townhouses being put there . I guess I would like to go on record as beinK- opposed to the density and I 've got a question as far as , we 've talked about runoff water . That 's a real wet area out there . I know that we have got a drainage problem in our back yard . Of about 4 or 5 properties _ there on Lake Susan Hills and on West Lake Court there 's also a water problem there . I notice that they did some cordingly out there in this area that 's going to be developed . Is there something subterrean there as far as a higher than average water table or an underground stream or , is - there something in that area? I mean it 's between two lakes and there 's lot of water problems that we seem to be addressing per addition . We talked about it in the other addition earlier and now we 're talking about it again . Is there something there that is affecting the entire area? Hempel : Mr . Chairman . Chanhassen in general has very wet conditions _ sporatically all over . There 's a lot of draintile systems . This particular site did have some soil borings taken on it . There was 3 borings that did show a very high water table and whether they 're seasonal or not , I think that 's part of the reason why the low area to the north uc- there is why they 're filling 5 to 8 feet of material . Also to build walkout type houses but also to build the house pad up above the water table enough so they avoid any kind of future water problems . Yes , that _ is a low lying area . There 's a natural drainageway . The ag fields used to drain that way forever . There is a drainage system on the west side of Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 39 Powers Boulevard that conveys drainage via a culvert underneath Powers through the site which they ' ll be addressing with the site grading . Further to the north is the major I believe Bluff Creek tributary . Or excuse me , it 's a tributary stream anyway that goes into Lake Susan so it is , the surrounding neighborhoods all drain to this way so it just was that characteristic will give you the wet soil conditions . Pete Kurth: My concern would be that we address maybe the worst case scenario for drainage . Maybe put in some kind of drain tile or mandate some type of drain tile to handle let 's say the worst case scenario . I know we had a lot of problems in our back yard after it was landscaped and everything else . Bringing it to the attention of the developer was kind of like well , too bad . Batzli : One of the conditions in the staff report currently , and you 're _ at a disadvantage is that these things need to be addressed and run by our engineering department . I don 't know that we can do anything else right now because we don 't have the data . We have to do that but that type of information will need to be given to them and they ' ll take a look at that . Pete Kurth : Okay . Again , my concern was I guess is that , are we looking at this as an individual project or are we looking at it globally for the whole area? It seems to be , and again I was a resident out there for 3 years , the whole area has got a drainage problem and so the water table is very high and maybe we need to take a look at something other than just surface drainage for the area . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Yes sir . Do you have something new that hasn 't been discussed? Jim Domholt : I do . Batzli : Okay . Jim Domholt : Jim Domholt , 8251 West Lake Court . Just a comment . The comment was made that the reduction as far as the units , part of it was going to be at this end and shift everything . It was just a comment that . . . look at in the placement of this road in terms of where it empties right onto the . . .so it doesn 't empty right on a curve and might become a hazardous entrance out there onto Lake Susan Hills . It sounds like it 's going to move closer towards the crown of the curve . I don 't know , I 'm not an expert on road designs but I 'm concerned of moving that outlet right on the curve . Batzli : Okay , thank you . And that would be looked at as well . These plans are so new , I 'm not sure that our engineering department has had a chance to look at that . But that would be one of the factors looked at . Does anyone else have any comments for the Planning Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 40 Batzli : Ladd , you 've had a long history of looking at development of this particular PUD . Conrad : I can 't remember any of it . Batzli : What do you think about the late breaking developments and what do you think about the overall density and the water problems here , in no particular order . Conrad: In no particular order . Jo Ann , the 31% density . Why was that there? Olsen: I don 't know . I went back through the whole file and we 've got different percentages for all the other outlots . They 're unusual . Conrad: Impervious surface . Olsen: There 's 29% and some , to be honest where the 9 .3% came from , I can 't answer that . That 's one of the few things I went to look at . Conrad : The higher density on this parcel , was that based on a comprehensive plan that began and the developer incorporated it into thei - overall PUD? Or was that based on the developer coming in here many year: ago and saying here 's our PUD and we want some higher density areas? Olsen : You mean the 9 .? Conrad: Yeah , when we put in the three outlots . We knew they were going to be higher . Olsen : Well we knew that these were going to be medium density and we had another one higher density but yes , because it was part of the PUD , they - were also looking at it having higher than the normal density within that R-8 district . Conrad: But was it our initiative? Was it our lead or was it the developers? Olsen : I 'm sure it wasn 't our lead . Don Patton : Jo Ann , can I address that? . . .me to give the background? Olsen: Sure . Don Patton: My name is Don Patton . I worked , I remember Ladd was on the Planning Commission when we brought this thing through in 1987 . The plan - was done incorporating a comprehensive plan with , the comprehensive plan usually uses some common sense . You don 't want single family up against a road if you can help it . You want higher density . That was R-8 in this - case , which is the case really of both sides of the road . The single family , again you 've looked at the comprehensive plan . It 's really a very abstract guideline . The plan that we took on that , there were several _ things . As a part of the plan we could have had lake lots . We could hav( taken the lots down to the lake . There wouldn 't have been lakeshore . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 41 There wouldn 't have been a city path along there . We chose to go with the PUD to accommodate the city . When I went through the numbers , again I realize tonight we 're looking at two projects . This was 300 acres that was planned in conjunction with city park and the people that were here at the time . As a part of that we gave over 50 acres of the 300 to the city for parkland , which is certainly a lot more generous than is normally requested . We thought that we had worked out issues to give the city pathways along the park , to get densities . As a part of this particular project we , at the time of that , one of the , you 've got to build what 's going to sell . At that time manor homes were very popular . We were looking at stacking . If you look at the other outlots , as we 've called them on the PUD , they 're 2 and 3 story units that were planned with a lot higher densities . Lot lower coverages . The thing that 's happening today , and if you ' ll look at your market , the society is aging . People are going back , rather than two story units , multi-story units they want one level living . I think we 've got to live with the time . I think the proposal that 's been made tonight with 25 is reasonable with the market and the intent of the PUD that we worked out with the city and the staff back in '87 and I think it 's reasonable that you approve it . Conrad: So Don , was it your lead on the high density or was it the City 's lead on the high density? Don Patton: The City 's . Conrad: Basically we 've always been trying to find , and when I say high _ density , it may mean medium density or high density . It 's just greater density than single family . We 're always looking for a place to put it . This area seemed to be a likely place to put it and we were , I really don 't have a problem with higher density as getting , it 's closer to the city . Downtown area and I think we were probably leading the way in terms of finding some places to put medium and high density housing . But always thinking it was to satisfy needs for affordable housing . Affordable is a real key word . Always under pressure from Met Council to do that . And I think we all feel in Chanhassen to some degree that it 's good to have affordable housing for the mix of people that we want in our city . This , I 'm looking at , I see some contradictions of the 31% obviously versus what they came in at with what our standard is . And I also know that we don 't want to set a precedent unless we 're willing to set that precedent . Whatever we do here will be done on the other outlots . There 's no doubt about it and I think what Mr . Patton is saying is they 're responding to market conditions here . It 's probably not achieving what we originally thought would be achieved on this parcel . So anyway , who cares? Well , I _ guess we 've got to , I have some reactions to it . I like the design of the units . I think the stucco is just fine but I do have a problem with the density and I do have a problem with the impervious surface ratio . I 'm looking , I would really like the developer to persuade me , they didn 't - come in and really do a very good job tonight in persuading me . Not at all . If I wanted to go beyond a standard that was in a development contract , which was 31 , which everybody knows you 've got to come in and tell me why , and I didn 't hear that . We kind of said we 're going to upgrade the units . It wasn 't a compelling case so until I hear that real compelling case , other than profit , I really have to , I can slip a Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 42 development contract but I can 't really at this time slip our zoning standard that we have . I don 't have any comments on the drainage . Batzli : So what would you like? Conrad: Well I guess , I look at this and it just looks like there is no open space . It looks like we 've got a lot of pavement and that bothers me . That 's not what we 're trying to do . And again , I 'm guessing and I 'm not looking at numbers and sometimes little sketches are deceiving but it 's just , again I think the density is , it seems like a contradiction . : wanted higher density but I guess I want higher density with open space or where we 're not really cramming people on top of , you know I 'm looking for— areas that people can go and be and I don 't see that in this . So again , : think the developer to me didn 't make that case tonight and maybe they 'd like the opportunity to make a better case for it but I guess the only thing I see right now is to reduce the density . Farmakes : In 1987 was there an issue made with the , the claim is that higher density is what was being asked for that was adjacent to single — family homes . Conrad: And we were thinking stacking . We were thinking of putting , we were thinking affordable housing . We 're thinking put more units up but we 're thinking , make sure there 's some green space around . Now I can 't . Farmakes : . . .affordable housing at $150 ,000 .00 a unit . Conrad: Well it 's not . $150 ,000 .00 a unit . Farmakes : That 's what the developer just said . Conrad : Right . Farmakes: But in 1987 that wasn 't part of the presentation , is what you 're saying? Conrad: I don 't know what the presentation was . All I can tell you is that back in that time we were concerned with where can we put some higher density housing and how can we make housing more affordable . Batzli : So you don 't like the fact that there 's a totlot going in down the street at Dove Court here , that doesn 't count for open space? You _ want open space on this site , not as part of the overall PUD concept? Yoi. know what I 'm saying? We 're looking at this under a microscope as opposec to the larger overall PUD which is what this gentleman suggested that we 're not really doing here . We 're focusing in on the tree rather than — the forest here . Conrad: And it 's a real valid , yeah . Absolutely . We 've got to look at it in context of the overall thing but then if we are doing that , then we hold to the 31% impervious surface that we had in the development contract . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 43 Mancino : Well also across the street from it 's going to be high density so it will even be more dense plus you have industrial on the north side of the high density . So we 've got park , medium , single family and a lot of high density there too . Batzli : See I guess I 've long possibly been the strongest advocate of open space in the most nebulous use of the term on this commission for the last several years and yet I didn 't get that feeling looking at this that that 's what I wanted more of . It doesn 't help me to put 3 units on there with 3 stories and having a little bit of grass around there . You 're going to end up looking at a parking lot or something . Conrad: Back 5 years ago we negotiated a development agreement and the developer has the right to go up to 9 units per acre here but also has to stay in at that 31% impervious surface . Batzli : But do you want to see , you know assuming there 's a market for a 3 story townhome deal , if there is such a thing or 2 stories and you cram them close together and get some grass growing around the edges . Is that what you 'd rather see? Conrad: Brian I don 't know but I do know that when you want to change the agreement , I think a key . All of a sudden , when you do want to change = what the agreement is , I think you should make a compelling case and all of a sudden we 're focused right on this parcel . So again , if we want to change it from a 31% impervious surface ratio , then I think the developers have to persuade me that this is a much better plan and that we 're getting something for going up to a 45% . So in other words , I think I don 't have to look at the rest of the parcel right now because that was already negotiated and they have their rights to do a high density . Batzli : So you would kind of make this equivalent to Lundgren Bros coming in and saying we don 't want condos up on the Summit area . We 're going to put in single family and make a compelling case to change the development agreement , because they 're changing it on this particular lot . Conrad : And I think in Lundgren 's case they did and we listened and we changed it . But here it , I didn 't hear a good case . Batzli : Would you like to address the Commission? Don Patton : Well if I could just , Don Patton again . If I could just ask . I think the homeowners , ask them . Would they rather have a 3 story unit with 31% coverage in their back yard or what 's being proposed like this , which is one story . Which , most of these I think they could probably see over because of the change in elevation . Pat VanAsh : I ' ll respond to that . When we were talking about this earlier and we said , if I understood you correctly . To start with , that you were proposing to lower the number of units or that you were agreeing with the fact that the number of units should be lowered . Conrad : Because , to open up the space . To get the impervious surface ratio that we agreed on . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 44 Pat VanAsh : However , lowering the number of units , I guess somewhere along the line you lost me . When you were talking about lowering the number of units yet you 're increasing the density . Conrad: You increase density by going up . You increase density by either making houses smaller or putting them on top of each other . So this land , absolutely when this was thought , when you say this is zoned for up to 9 units an acre , that means they go up because only 31% of the land could be— covered by impervious surface . So the intent 5 years ago was to go up . That was the agreement . You know there 's a mix . When you put in a PUD there 's just a mix . As Mr . Patton said , they gave up some rights to put _ some things on the lake and the city gave them rights to go into smaller lot sizes so it 's a whole combination of stuff . But now they 're asking us to change that . And then it gets kind of . Pat VanAsh : So what was good 5 years ago , good today? That 's the question . . .as far as Brian saying that he felt that they should . . .become more aggressive as far as saving those trees and more aggressive on — whatever pushing the law or whatever it takes to do that . Okay , that same point to me would hold true in this case . Just because it was good 5 years ago . . .5 years ago we decided this . It 's too much work to change it or whatever , and just streamroll ahead with it regardless of whether it 's good for us or who it 's good for . That doesn 't make sense . Conrad : I don 't know that we 've changed our impervious ratio . In — Chanhassen we kind of like open spaces and we sort of strive for that so that 's a standard that we have set for the entire city . So that one kind of is something that I don 't like to give up a great deal . Yeah , there 's — a negative out there and you 're obviously approaching it . Instead of having 27 families as neighbors , you could end up with 45 families as neighbors , you 're right . Pat VanAsh: Right , and that 's what I 'm saying . Conrad : And you don 't want that . Pat VanAsh : Exactly . No . Conrad: And I 'm not willing to set a precedent to change a zone . I guess that 's the other thing . There 's a potential to set a precedent here , especially within the PUD . It would be hard to tell the next developer no . Pat VanAsh: And there 's also another point to make here as far as if you go higher you know and less land coverage or whatever the term was that — you use the 31: , whatever that was and start going up . Okay , that 's goin< to reduce the price of each individual unit or whatever . That is not in keeping with the property values in that surrounding neighborhood . In our_ neighborhood . Batzli : Okay . Your point is well taken . You need to keep in mind also , and think about this , in case we table it , that your comments earlier were- directed towards forcing them to do what you 're now saying you don 't want . That 's something you 've got to keep in mind too . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 45 Pat VanAsh: No , I understand . I understand what you 're saying . However my comment was , that we would like to see less density . I did not say that I wanted to see it go up . Batzli : But by reducing units you 're going to end up increasing density , reducing impervious . Pat VanAsh: However that part of the point was not being discussed in my previous comments . As far as the units going up . You understand what I 'm saying? Batzli : Yeah , I know . Farmakes : Is there a height limitation in medium density? Batzli : I don 't know . I 'm sure there is . Mancino : Do you know what it is? Batzli : We 've closed the public hearing . These were all Ladd 's comments . Ladd , are you done with your comments? Conrad : I 'm done . Batzli : Okay , Diane . Harberts : I 'll give it a shot . Self contained is a very good word for this development . You know I guess as long as the developer feels he knows his market , he 's going to bear the risk in terms of if he 's going to sell this . My former residence , I came from a zero lot line . I didn 't care for it and I 'll never live in there again . In a zero lot line . I guess my comments are going to be directed towards , in looking at the _ landscape , it looks like there 's trees on each one of the front yards . Is that correct? Olsen: With the individual ones? Harberts : Yeah . That 's how I 'm interpretting that . Olsen: Yeah . Harberts: We 've got signage going in . We 've got evidentally some lighting will go in . It 's quite a bit of stuff for this area . I guess I question , you know trees are nice in the front yard but are we getting too much? I have a concern with some of the site . Sitings you know with the 2 way traffic . If you 're putting trees all over . You 've got your light poles . You 're going to put your signage . Are we getting too much in something like this? Olsen: Within the park and drive area . . .? Harberts : Yeah , for the internal traffic control . I have a little concern . Evidentally Safety must have looked at it . This one driveway . Let 's see over by unit number 25 . I 'm trying to envision how a car will Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 46 - back out trying to maneuver itself if at the same time we 've got a car coming in . Making sure again the sighting so I guess I 'm really concernec with the amount of landscaping , our signage , our lighting . All of that that 's going to be put into this contained area . My other concerns again with the internal traffic flow . If you look at units number 7 and number 18 , from the fire safety and I guess I 'm looking at it from the transit perspective . . .goes down the wrong way , how does it turn around? I 'm guessing they 're going to have to back it up around . Olsen : They designed that so the trucks don 't even have to go down it . They can back around in there but also that 's why they have the loop street now . . .so all are within 150 feet where the truck can be 150 feet away and still service that . Harberts: Okay , so there 's not the concern about the . . . I guess it 's just really directed towards everything that 's going to go into this area with landscaping , signage , lights , of that nature . This is getting , are we going to start affecting some of the siting for the internal traffic . - Some of the safety things . Trees are nice but maybe a bed of flowers is just as good considering how tight this is . Oh , one other thing . I 'm sorry . With regard to item number 15 . They talked about the revised site plan shall include one visitor parking space per 6 units . Boy I 'd like t< know where you 're going to put that 1 parking spot per 6 units . Olsen: Their revised plan has shown 4 . - Harberts : Is it on there? Olsen: Yeah . Harberts : Oh okay . Okay , I missed that one . Sorry . Olsen : Well you obviously haven 't seen it since we just got it this afternoon . Harberts : Well I can tell you that the coloring of the , I guess the open space provided me a little bit more comfort level . You know I came to Chanhassen and I live just off of Frontier and I have 3/4 of an acre and _ as far as I 'm concerned it 's not enough space for me . But I guess it helped me with the comfort level but if this is zoned for medium density , that 's what it says and I guess I like the plan from that perspective . But again , my issues are really run along the internal circulation and - safety with everything that has to go in there from the city perspective . Batzli : Okay . Matt . - Ledvina : I 'm going to be brief here . I agree with Ladd 's assessment and I would support this proposal if we reduce the impervious surface to 35% . _ We could move it along if we changed condition number 2 on the recommendations to read that . And the other thing , as far as the conditions are concerned would be number 3 . I think that is really not the developer 's issue as it relates to our interaction with Carver County - and I would suggest that we handle that on a separate basis . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 47 Batzli : Has anything been done about that? Olsen: Well we 're hopefully going to meet with them next week . The reason we added that as a condition was just so as this goes through the process we could see if the Council and Planning Commission is in support of petitioning that . We 're going to meet with Carver County again hopefully next week . They 're going to discuss whether or not even just the trail can be located in the right-of-way . How much right-of-way is necessary and if the unnecessary right-of-way can be vacated . So nothing 's been done at this time . The City has the ability to petition such a request . Batzli : What does it do to their impervious coverage if they either vacate some of it or remove the trail? Olsen: Oh it helps . Batzli : How big of a percentage? Are we talking 1%? 5%? _ Olsen: Well you 'd have to measure it by the length . I think I asked you to look at that didn 't I? You were going to work that out . The trail has already been removed from the impervious coverage percentage . It began at 49% so we 're not including that . Batzli : Okay , so they 're not going to gain anything? Olsen : As far as the trail , no . But if they vacate right-of-way , then that land that 's vacated becomes , they have the potential of up to 15 feet time , whatever it is . The distance on Powers Boulevard . Batzli : Is there a likelihood that that 's going to happen? Olsen : I don 't know . You know nobody 's ever very anxious to give up right-of-way that they might use . Batzli : Okay . Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina : That 's it . Batzli : Joe . Scott : I think the points are well taken and I would concur with the other commissioners . One thing , just to comment for city staff is that , I don 't particularly like to see the negotiation situation where it 's , a developer says this many units and the city staff says no , this is what we 're looking at and then they come in here . I mean you 're in a situation where you say hey , this is the deal . If you want the deal , this is the number . And if you can 't get the number , it 's no deal . Okay . And I 'm seeing this over here , over here . I mean but anyway , no more comments . Olsen: So you 're saying 35% max or 31% max? Scott : What I 'm saying your recommendation which was not 40 but 35 . Actually it was stated at 32 in the original PUD but 35 I think is , I Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 48 think 35 will work . Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: First question I have is , this is part of the 5 year agreement like on the previous development? Olsen: Yes . Farmakes : The major question I would have again is , it would seem to me that we certainly should be consistent on how we treat that . If we get a legal opinion whether or not we 're dealing with 1987 , which I am very uncomfortable with , versus 1993 which we 're all here and now . I do not understand why we would enter a development agreement of that length . If we look at the city , 50% of our population has increased in that amount of- time . Certainly the world is a different place in half a decade and our standards have changed . We 've held elections . Several elections since then . I 'm sure half of our commissions have changed since then . We have _ a difficult time remembering the history of these projects and what the motivation at the time was . And certainly from the aspect of real estate . I think the applicant himself said that what sold then isn 't what sells now . Times change and so do governments and so do applicants . I would - certainly recommend that we get that sorted out as a first block and unti . we do that I would recommend tabling this . It seems to me that we would not want to soften our position on that until we know what that is . By _ selectively approving a part of the PUD on '87 's terms versus '93 's and vice versa on another part of that development . I am going to continue the basis that we 're going on '87 on my comments , just to give you my opinion . The level of density that I 'm looking at here , whether it 's fitting or not , seems to me to be more high than medium . At least from al appearance of an overhead . . . I would certainly expect at least if we go ahead with this to follow Ladd 's comments in regards to the impervious - surface . I also am uncomfortable looking at these plans with a couple of units scribbled off on my plans that I 'm looking at and so on . It 's difficult to assess that . I 'm also very concerned about what the thinking_ was on the part of the property units , I believe they 're listed as 4 , 3 , and 1 . Possibly 5 that are adjacent to the single family homes . It seems to me that very little thought there in softening the connection there was given to the adjacent property owners and they have legitimate concerns - there . It seems to me that if you 're looking at softening that type of thing , the detail on the back of these homes , flower boxes , shutters , awnings , da , da , da , anything would at least conform to help these homes - in the rear which there 's a lot of in these type of developments . Would help them conform better to the front of the home . And I don 't think it 's our place here to start specifying what that is but I think that if you _ can soften those issues where it looks like the front of your building is well developed , well thought out , and you get to the back of it . Well , that 's supposed to be where nobody 's supposed to see it or that 's next to the trash dumpster and not a penny goes into that . Certainly the consideration against the properties that face the single family homes and I believe actually following all the way around , the properties that would face to the rear along the walkway of Powers Boulevard , certainly _ would be a visual impact of the development . And coming back again to the philosophical question here . I was not sitting here in 1987 and when I Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 49 look at PUD 's and I ask myself , what are we gaining here . And it seems to me that I 'm having a hard time buying the argument , although it may very well be true , in 1987 that we wanted more higher density homes . That hasn 't been my experience sitting here . I can 't recall ever sitting here and hearing the Commission saying , we really want more density . Give it to us . It 's always been the opposite . And in looking back at that , I 'm asking myself what are we gaining here from a PUD? We aren 't saving any trees . We 're not , we 're perhaps offering an alternative form of housing which is being brought forth . The older population , although the average age is going up into the 40 's I believe which is certainly not immobile yet . At least that I know of . And the other issue of course is addressing the price of the home . Now we 're looking at the price of $150 ,000 .00 for these houses so I don 't see us serving , that 's above the medium price home I believe in Chanhassen . So I don 't see that we 're serving any range there . So I 'm asking myself over and over again , what are we getting here and although it may be frustrating for the applicant that in 1987 he heard something else , the world changes . I 'm looking at this in 1993 and I think that 's the way that I should be looking at it . =. Batzli : If it comes back , what do you want to see? What do you want to see addressed? _ Farmakes : The issues that I listed . I believe I categorized which ones that if this does go ahead , which ones we 'd be looking at . I think there should be less density . Less impervious surface but in the end result I 'd have to say that I have a real problem seeing the need for this as a PUD . As part of that PUD and that commitment and I go back again , is this a commitment that the city has still made because I think if it hasn 't , we should take a long hard look at this in 1993 . Conrad : Excuse me Jeff , but just remember when this is part of a big project . Farmakes: No , I understand that . Conrad : And we negotiated other stuff that the city got , including parkland and things like that . Farmakes : I understand that but it had a finite commitment as I _ understand it . I 'm awaiting a legal opinion on that . Certainly in real estate you do have finite contracts and the issue of performance , we have a lawyer here and I 'm not going to get into that with my standpoint but the question is , how open ended is that commitment? 20 years from now do they come forward and haven 't developed a chunk of land and are we still going to be developing by '87 standards? I 'm not suggesting that we be unreasonable here but it seems to me that that requires a legal opinion here before we start doing that . And how this affects the other development . Mancino: Mr . Chair I have nothing new to add . Batzli : Okay . Tom Reese : Mr . Chairman? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 50 - Batzli : Yes sir . Tom Reese : I appreciate the house and I 'd just like to make a comment . My name is Tom Reese and I 'm with Lake Susan Hills Partnership . I 've been at this since 1972 and I 've seen a lot of different faces . I recognize - Ladd . I appreciate all your volunteer work . Believe me . I think I can add something of credibility that might help some of you with your thinking at the moment and that is very basically , this could have been a single , total single family development . That 's what the mode was in the 70 's . I could go back and give you history , which I won 't for time but at one time U .S . Homes had a contract on all this for single family homes . And part of developing , Al Klingelhutz , and I can go back but for the sak€ of conclusion , the PUD was put together with the city in concert and they insisted on high density . I underscore insisted high density . You probably remember some of that . So this land was planned accordingly so - the City of Chanhassen would have high density . They were emphatic about it . There was no two ways about it so this planned unit development has been progressing for a good number of years . Revised again in 1987 and as_ each addition to the Planned Unit Development continues you see what happens . We 're tonight talking about a unit that has a density requirement far greater , as you know than what 's being proposed tonight . Now once the single family 's put together and you 're trying to bring together something that would form continuity as best you can . You 've talked about what could be zoned . If someone were to bring a project here that would be 36 unit density with the proper space and stacking and so - on , you would approve it correct? Given it met all the rest of the requirements . Is that a correct observation? Batzli : We 're not going to say yes for fear that we might see it next week . Tom Reese : . . .with threatening discussion , it 's hopefully enlighting somE- of the folks that are asking for what happened in the past . Is that understood? Batzli : Yeah . Tom Reese : Okay . I don 't think that that has in continuity with what the neighborhood as it was developed . When it was developed and while we 're trying to put it together so I 'd like to consider some of the history . I 'd be happy to talk in detail at another time if anybody would wish . But it 's difficult to work in a partly cloudy scenario and I think that 's what- some of what we 're hearing tonight is bringing up all those partly cloudy 's when it was really emphatically demanded by the city . The concessions given to the city to go along with it to make the PUD as it is_ today . I hope , I 've tried to enlighten a bit about it and then you . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Farmakes : Could I make a quick comment to that? Batzli : No . _ Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: Real quick? Two seconds . I think that the issue that I was talking about was with several points that weren 't relevant to what you just talked about . Although I agree with what you said . I think that the points that I was making went beyond that . If you want me to clarify it further I will , otherwise I ' ll withdraw it . Batzli : No . I think we need to move on here . I have several comments but I ' ll agree with what Ladd said and that was , they 're changing what 's in the contract currently . We can argue whether we should look at that contract or not . I personally believe that we need to take a look at what was done in the overall scheme of things and not focus so intently perhaps on one density . But the fact of the matter is , they are changing the density here . I don 't believe they 've made a compelling case to change that and the fact that they 're changing it means , that 's why we 've focused in on this particular piece of property . So what I would like to see done is bring this back and give the applicant a second whack at it to tell us why they should increase the impervious from what was agreed originally . And they may be lowering the density down , whatever , but the impervious is really I think what kind of bothers me . Going from the 32 or whatever it was agreed , up to I don 't know where , somewhere in the 40 's . 35 's our current standard . We 've not really heard a compelling reason other than profit motive and this is what 's going to sell . Well , you know , we 're concerned here about setting precedence in other parts of this PUD or perhaps in other parts of the city and we 're trying to do what the residents want around us want . We 're trying to get a good development . We 're trying to do something that will sell because it doesn 't help us to build two units and then it just stops right there . But the problem is that we 're faced with a couple of different issues and one of those things is in fact setting a precedent that we 're , the next guy comes in , we can 't _ stop him or her from doing the same thing . So what I would like to see is potentially a motion to table this . I know that we just spent an hour and a half and it seems like we 're putting off the decision but I think we need a couple of things . One is , for Jeff I think we need a definitive answer from the attorney regarding whether we can just start from scratch and use '93 standards . I think probably a majority of the people on the commission maybe don 't feel like they need to impose the brand new standards but they would at least like to hear a more compelling case as to why this development makes sense and it 's not in compliance with the agreement from '87 . So is there a motion? Ledvina : I move that the Planning Commission table Case No . 87-3 PUD until a later date . Mancino: I second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD for Prairie Creek Townhomes , Jasper Development for further review . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 3/17/93 �, cHANHAssEN CC DATE: 4/12/93 t v.� CASE #: 87-3 PUD By: Olsen/v _ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat and site plan to create 27 townhome units on 4.5 acres of property zoned PUD-R Z _ 4 () LOCATION: Northeast corner of Powers Boulevard(CR 17)and Lake Susan Hills Drive J a Q- APPLICANT: Jasper Development — 235 W. 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 — PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential — ACREAGE: 4.6 acres DENSITY: 5.9 units/acre ADJACENT ZONING Q AND LAND USE: N - IOP; Lake Susan Park S - PUD-R; outlot for medium density, Lake Susan Hills PUD 0 E - PUD-R; single family lots, Lake Susan Hills PUD W - PUD-R; outlot for high density, Lake Susan Hills PUD 1.1.1 WATER AND SEWER: Water and sewer are available to the site. 7 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has sparse vegetation and topography which goes down to the north. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density • BOULEVARD I 00. WI . > 7 kiziLti..., Li `g / `--T - !� 03? ••-t. 14i41.1. ‘111LZ4____,.4ri.cC _.......„\'--;". I 111171 v • • p \ • v06" 'fl::- iT_;:;- ta tt. _ SUS • .. As 'le : PARK %\ 06,10.01'1E. ��� ,�m711 :11. , \t.; i :.: 6 tre- 6`. Mft: Allier; ,.. %oli 40111,4, `+� Zak ' ' 1 .,1. l��t6Ata!+�^� �L �' , LAKE SUSAN ,.r i I` _ v aP �9�► m EMt NB ' ,o '..\, 1-6,,kiwillia: � s 0 y��. ��o, R�,..,,,,. OM 1 ik., • ,,-.--,_ * figs -1 ' 'liff.,101.44,0' •u•tP W PARK , ''� Ille ,'Q+'nalP II i_,.. • - a Pub 9 1a FE 6TM ' -- ' ' 1 411111 P''' ; Frew,gift -9-p! ) a" J�, * .���•is. A :. ..ak:y4 _ RS F J -c' * p.k.\ ---i ; p _,.. % . ‘, #11 4 I '- *. i• 1 IMPri ass <7.0' ,.... .'') IP J tr4AN I 1 4 *c ,gl:'/c44. t Mil . ,• 1 a laili % LV M T L^ E VA R 6--! (- . ' ' I % 45:07 Qom,. , PUD--L.1‘ BAND/MERE" HEIGHTS sii Q , �O/ P.. . 1 — --- .► ----r-- 1 BAND/ME' _Mak 111111 1 : COMMON/Tr .� / N,„j / IPARK 4, ' 1 av 74 / \ 1 _ Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 2 BACKGROUND In 1987, the city approved a concept PUD approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD permitted up to 411 single family units, created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high density units (Attachment #1). The single family lots have been platted in 9 additions continuously since PUD approval. The medium and high density outlots have not been developed. A PUD contract, adopted as part of the approval, listed the outlots and their proposed uses. Outlots B (11.3 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.9 acres) were designated for medium density development . The PUD contract stated that 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/acre. Except as modified by the PUD contract, the development shall be in accordance with the used, standards and requirements of the R-8 Zoning District. The only regulations concerning medium density modified by the PUD contract was that the impervious surface coverage could not exceed certain amounts: Outlot B - 30%, Outlot C - 31% and Outlot D - 27% and that the density could not be greater than 9.3 units/acre. The R-8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8 units/acre density. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Jasper Development, is proposing to subdivide Outlot C into 27 townhome units. Outlot C was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The tow nhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 27 zero lot line parcels. The townhomes will be serviced by a private drive and the community property will be designated as an outlot and owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Outlot C contains 4.6 acres and is serviced by Lake Susan Hills Drive. The property abuts Powers Boulevard (CR 17), but will not receive direct access from this street. The proposed townhomes are attractive and high quality units. The townhomes will be single story with walkouts to the rear. The architecture of the townhomes will be traditional with exterior siding materials of stucco and brick. Each townhome will have its own facade with different colors of muted, earth tones. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. There are two regulations which influence the development of this site--a PUD contract and R-8 zoning district regulations. The PUD contract was recorded as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval (Attachment #1). The PUD contract has specific conditions which must be followed with the development of each phase of the PUD. The PUD contract states that the mixed medium density sites of the PUD, which the subject is, must meet the regulations of the R-8 zoning district, unless otherwise specified in the PUD contract. Within the PUD contract there appears to be a conflict. The PUD contract states that the medium density sites cannot Prairie Creek Tow nhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 3 exceed 9.3 units/acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot C cannot exceed 31%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units/acre with an impervious surface coverage of not more than 31%. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density that the applicant was not guaranteed this density. The proposed 27 units result in a density of 5.9 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is just over 45% (this does not include the city trail which is going through the property). Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage greatly exceeds the PUD contract and even the R-8 zoning district standards (35%). Staff has explained this situation to the applicant's engineer, but we have not heard back from the applicant. When staff spoke with the engineer we requested that he calculate the following densities, 45%, 40%, 35% and 31% and determine the number of units which could be developed with these density parameters. The following are the results of those calculations: 45% - 27 units 40% - 23-24 units 35% - 20-21 units 31% - 17-18 units When staff first reviewed the submittal with the 27 townhome units, we felt that it was too dense with too little open space. The townhome units that are being proposed are large upscale units which are single level that take up a lot of open space. The 31% maximum impervious surface coverage results in the loss of too many units and this could also be argued for the 35% — maximum. Staff feels the removal of three to four units, bringing the impervious coverage up to 40%, is reasonable. The applicant has not adjusted their plans and has chosen to keep their original submittal to receive comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff will be recommending continuing action on the original plan with 27 units until that three or four units are removed from the site plan, whichever is necessary, to maintain a maximum 40% impervious surface coverage. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide on-site retention ponds. Some of the residents adjacent to the subject site are concerned about the use of city park land for ponding areas and the potential removal of trees. The city will take existing features into consideration when locating the ponding area. Staff is working with Carver County on the required right-of-way for Powers Boulevard (CR17). Currently, there is 150' of dedicated right-of-way. Depending upon the final design of the road improvements, 150' may not be necessary. If the desired 4 lane undivided urban section is — — Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 4 chosen, than the right-of-way could possibly be reduced to 120'. This highly impacts the subject site in terms of additional land being converted back to the applicant, thereby reducing the impervious coverage and allowing more room for the required 20' trail easement and 8' wide bituminous trail. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council formally L request that unnecessary right-of-way be vacated by the County. Similar to the Windmill and Lake Susan Hills 9th subdivisions, it is very tight for the placement — of the 20' trail easement and the 8' bituminous trail. The trail and trail easement can be accommodated on the subject site, but if there is excess right-of-way (which may not be vacated), it makes sense to locate the trail within the right-of-way where grading and landscaping of the site makes it difficult to fit in the trail. The proposed landscaping needs to be improved. Staff requested that the applicant provide extensive landscaping and berms to screen the development from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the single family residents east of the site. There should also be increased internal landscaping. The proposed landscaping plan does not meet these requirements. The proposed townhomes will result in a very attractive medium density development. The townhomes appear to be well designed and of high quality. Staff is very much in support of the proposed townhome development, but cannot support such a high lot coverage. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table action on the proposal until the applicant submits a revised plan which removes three (3) to four (4) townhome units and does not exceed 40% impervious surface coverage on the basis that the current proposal results in too high of an impervious surface coverage. Should the applicant wish to continue the review process in front of the City Council with the present plan, staff recommends that the Planning Commission pass the application on to the City Council with the recommendation of denial. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lots/Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.6 acres of property zoned PUD-R into 27 zero lot line parcels for townhome units. The property is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Medium Density (4-8 Units/Acre). The subject site is Outlot C from the Lake Susan Hills PUD and was created as a mixed medium density site. The PUD contract for Lake Susan Hills PUD stated that the mixed medium density sites (there are three such outlots, B, C and D) could overall not exceed a density of 9.3 units/acre, and specifically, Outlot C (subject site) could not exceed 319c impervious surface coverage. The proposed 27 lots are located in clusters of three and four. The lot sizes are as follows: Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 5 Lots 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27 - 3,010 square feet. Lots 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 26 - 2,940 square feet. The gross floor area of each unit is 3,200 square feet. The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Lot 28 on the preliminary plat. Lot 28 contains the private drive and open space. Staff is recommending that Lot 28 be changed to Outlot A. This is consistent with any community property which will be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Also, if it is an outlot, it is clear to all that it can never be developed. The density of the site is 5.9 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private drives and mutual open space, the density calculated was gross density, rather than the typical net density. The impervious surface coverage of the site is at 45%, not including the public 8' bituminous trail. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units/acre and that the impervious surface coverage could not exceed 31%. As stated previously, a compromise — should be made to allow increased density over the 31% and under 45%. The proposal with 27 units is too dense. The site plan contains very little open space after the area for the townhome units, private drive and trail are removed. The site is so tight that there is not enough area to locate the type and amount of berming/landscaping which is required. The applicant has stated that they would have to lose up to 10 units to meet the 31% impervious surface coverage. Staff has stated that we would support increasing the impervious surface coverage to 40% with the removal of 3-4 townhome units, but that we would recommend denial of the current plan with 27 townhome units and 45% impervious surface coverage. Removing 3-4 townhome units will result in a density of 5.2 - 5 units/acre. If the percentage of impervious surface coverage is permitted to be increased, the PUD contract shall have to be amended to allow the impervious surface coverage of Outlot C to be 40%. The townhouse units are maintaining a 25' setback from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the east (which are part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD). The 25' setback is from the R-8 zoning regulations which the PUD contract states to follow unless otherwise amended. There are no internal setbacks since the site is serviced internally by a private drive. Architecture The townhomes are proposed to be single story at the front elevation with walkouts to the rear. The townhomes are expected to house 2-3 persons. Each unit will have a 2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The architecture of the townhomes will be traditional with exterior siding materials of stucco and brick. They are attractive and high quality units. Exterior trim will be cedar. The applicant has stated that each townhome is given its own distinctive facade by the use of bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 6 treatments, etc. Color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. A homeowners association will be established and a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions will be adopted (attached). Grading and Drainage The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and is pretty much devoid of trees. The site drains northeasterly towards Lake Susan Hills Park through overland drainageways. The grading plan proposes, for the most part, to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Based on proposed contours, the majority of the site will be filled except for the southwesterly corner. The easterly portion of the site (Lots 1 through 10) is proposed to be filled with 5 to 8 feet of material to facilitate walkout-type buildings and avoid the high water table in the area. The existing storm sewer system which runs along the east side of the property is proposed to be extended into the City park property (Outlot C) north of the subdivision. In addition, the applicant proposes to extend storm sewer from this existing system into the development to convey surface runoff from the proposed service drive and building pads. The proposed roadway system throughout this development is considered to be private and therefore will not be maintained by the City. The proposed storm sewer extension on the easterly side of the development, however, will be considered a public improvement since it conveys storm water runoff from the upper pan of the Watershed south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, detailed construction plans along with storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval. An existing drainage system underneath Powers Boulevard also drains through the parcel. The grading plans propose on realigning the existing drainageway outside the development into a ditch along Powers Boulevard (County' Road 17) to convey runoff from the culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. The applicant should be aware that all work within Powers Boulevard right- - of-way will require approval and a permit by the Carver County Highway Department. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond north of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the _ applicant to provide on-site retention ponds. In lieu of the on-site ponding requirement, it is recommended the applicant pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management plan. The City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution based on contributing drainage areas and land use. Even though staff is not recommending on- site retention ponds, we do feel it is necessary to provide for an interim sedimentation pond at the downstream discharge point of the storm sewer. According to Bonestroo & Associates, a 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet sediment pond should be constructed until permanent ponding facilities are Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 7 constructed downstream. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, is open to the idea of using the park property on an interim basis. Erosion control (silt fence) is proposed around the perimeter of the site. The plans also propose a temporary rock construction entrance to minimize tracking material off site. Staff also recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer service and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive located near the easterly entrance to the site. Both sanitary sewer and water service appears to be adequately sized to service this development. The applicant is proposing to loop the watermain system and reconnect to Lake Susan Hills Drive near Powers Boulevard. In an effort to limit disruption to Lake Susan Hills Drive, it is recommended that the applicant connect on to the existing fire hydrant lead and the hydrant relocated to eliminate cutting into Lake Susan Hills Drive. Specific design modifications such as this will be addressed during the plan and specification review process. Utilities throughout the development will be considered private utilities and not maintained by the City. Since the utility improvements are directly related to the City's overall infrastructure, detailed construction plans of the utility improvements should be submitted to the City for review — and approval. All utility construction should be in accordance with the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since a majority of the utilities will be private, the _ City's Building Department will be overseeing the inspection responsibilities. As-built construction plans will be required upon completion of the utility installation. Streets The proposed street system is fairly well laid out. The site plan proposes a 24-foot wide two- lane service drive with concrete curb and gutter to serve as access to the individual townhome sites. The road proposes two access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The street system is not being dedicated as a public street and therefore will not be maintained by the City. A cross- access easement should be granted to all of the lot to guarantee access through the private street. Both access points on Lake Susan Hills Drive will intersect an existing concrete sidewalk. It is recommended that pedestrian ramps be installed at both access points to facilitate pedestrian and — bicycle traffic across the curb cuts. The site plan also proposes an 8-foot wide walkway within a proposed 20-foot wide walkway easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The walkway should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8-foot wide bituminous trail section. Staff is — recommending that the city petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right-of-way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 8 Street lighting and parking in and around this development may be of concern. Since the streets are only 24 feet wide, most likely the Fire Marshal will impose "No Parking - Fire Lane" on the interior streets. Thus, staff foresees potential parking problems along Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, parking should be restricted along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The plans do not indicate provisions for street lighting. A street lighting plan should be prepared for staff review and approval. = Since the site will include public improvements such as driveway aprons, bituminous trail and storm sewers, it is recommended that the applicant enter into a development contract and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the _. conditions of approval. The applicant is providing 2 enclosed and 2 exterior parking spaces/unit. This exceeds what is required by the City Code. The City Code requires two parking stalls, 11/ which shall be enclosed. Since the units are serviced by a 24' wide private drive, there will be signage for no parking over most of the private drive(see Fire Marshall memo). Therefore, on street parking will not be possible. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide visitor parking in the amount of 1 visitor parking space/6 units. — Landscaping The applicant has provided a landscape plan which proposes landscaping on all exterior sides of the outlot and for each townhouse unit. In reviewing the grading plan, no berming is being provided along the exteriors. The applicant has used the suggested trees from the city's landscaping list (white oaks, sugar maple and american linden). The proposed landscaping is a good start, but definitely needs to be increased. Staff understands the area is tight between the townhouses and Powers Boulevard with the trail and trail easement, but berming must be added where possible and additional landscaping must be added. The landscaping along Lake Susan Hills Drive should be clustered more with berming and smaller landscaping. Also, all of the overstory trees along Lake Susan Hills Drive are American Linden, which is a preferred tree, but the applicant may want to replace some of these or add to the plan with the Sugar Maple/White Oak. The landscaping along the existing single family lots to the east needs to be increased. The topography is such that berming will not do too much in the form of screening. The applicant has stated that they could work with the residents to the east with the possibility of providing landscaping on their property. In either case, the landscaping needs to be expanded PARK AND RECREATION As part of the whole Lake Susan Hills PUD, a significant amount of park land was dedicated to the city and trails were to be developed by the applicant. Therefore, the PUD contract requires no trail fees and 'h- park fees. The applicant shall have to provide a 20' trail easement and Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 _ Page 9 construct an 8' wide bituminous trail, and the park fees will have to be paid at time of building permit. No park land will be required with this proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission table action on the current proposal of 27 townhome units, until the applicant submits a revised plat reducing the number of townhome _ units from 27 to either 24 or 23, whichever is necessary to reduce the impervious surface to 40%. The following conditions will be made part of approval with the revised plans: _ 1. Change Lot 28, Block 1 to Outlot A. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 40%. 3. The city shall petition Carver County to vacate any unnecessary right-of-way along Powers Boulevard (CR 17). 4. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. — 6. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8-foot wide bituminous trail standards. — 7. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. 8. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer,watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. _ 9. The applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, _ approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 Page 10 retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 11. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 12. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 13. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 14. A cross-access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 15. The revised site plan shall provide 1 visitor parking space/6 units. 16. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping which provides the following: a. Additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), Lake Susan Hills and the easterly lot lines. b. Sugar Maple and/or White Oak shall be added to the landscaping along Lake Susan Hills. 17. Fire Marshal conditions: a. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w). See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. b. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted site plan. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). c. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers, telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. Prairie Creek Townhomes Jasper Development March 17, 1993 — Page 11 d. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre-Fire Plan". Pursuant to Chanhassen City — Policy #07-1991 (copy enclosed). e. Add and/or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site. Pursuant to 1988 — UFC Division 3. f. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and — during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specs. Pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(f). g. Premise identification Policy #29-1992 (copy enclosed). 18. Building Official conditions: — a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval. — b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests,limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. c. Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building code prior to final plat approval. _ d. Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final plat approval. _ e. Submit proposed street name(s) for review prior to final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Concept PUD. ._ 2. PUD Contract. 3. Narrative from the Applicant. 4. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 2, 1993. — 5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 4, 1993. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated March 3, 1993. 7. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated March 11, 1993. — 8. Letter from Carver County dated March 4, 1993. 9. Covenants and Restrictions. 10. Development Review Application. — 11. Reduced Copies of Plans. . o • - 1-7=:(1.-14 i 6 i r A �1 pp\J / / CITY 1:).161Z be_ > OuTl_OT A 11 i/t..,>E1r: i/> w.f... t.75 .TV OO 4Lircc.n�.w RA x 1 Rl 0671-1-CIT c % - '/ ."........ y - LOT d 3rd 1 . / ��S vflv� ./:_..--7.-la�O....- 42.4. ..,• oo �-. asa� //� .• 1 /A.; �--�� . 011 ©©a� aWrie gla • ;At�� , � - e bh:.7''S.tip, 1.1.1 NIL Vila.p a � dkm y072 2 „ \• -- ./ .,Iiir mini NG so 4010mug # 11111111111P V11 .4116.1%1p0q a �1SI!L. slipiti 3 ....... ...goo1 al ‘1110';..i4111111 'ALIA Ii. " me •04111 ... , , vimdr,4, ..ire ;.% . I, l• :A lap •-.4111, , a.m. awil ,..., - 4ighl,-.4%, riiesiv„ , " /. _ _ 110A„.,444,1, ,,,,A„, , . „ AIWA �. .� , rl 1� ----- - -- �� », Vii.. Vere/10,, ,±:/ .._ ) ; ee26 �� v . • 40 et •40 111111 110ANW __ • Illf pl+a`.c S 7 A / J n pn ` \ Q C "'�'r• J 111145 I.1.. .wr .•a•r••111,6•1t.r! \,\ S` e M,MIITI. 1.•r LC K.r. fl ni M•.+f 0.•1.11*OltQ \ ` `` 0 n aall an.at. *negate tGal 51.•at. •••••4....I• .o•••• )-- W.Ww f.. r » www Q\.... y Malt Mw!•.t! of.,K. Umm • •. «w.•,• Irr J' • y • I•,••w•I.I.•••1 ••r•t•••he..•.••.•r•••••w••y•lI•w,.• IFI //� _ �� **.k1 J ON.,.,.r.ur w•.un u.r IOW • .... • F I .............» .•.. r.w.:�c..w. °I ----moi .` ...r[.,.I,..•. I I , 1` n•w a••ua of ww•.wast. n J. ...•w .u•i:::�.••.«!.. �J 1 ...w...r.wn uru,.r•r wn. •••••...«..«. 6,...,AA Ai ti 6.•A.,1:::6 L��� \ ++'MAC.••r•.••.r aarr.w tau twines 1l:+1J••..!K. •»V•••�••••a...,..r S. Vaal stuu•.•• •1.•••.•• ME= •1»[.r.«W»••:••ww•. r•.w 11.••1•• _-., / i�5- w•!M'•.•.•./•r••a•a I.• r u!-•u.•r ATTAcmtlEtiT d- I •_ ,l 41::7717i James R. Hill, inc. LAR[ Mika P•(� Klllf rAKtwtwfNl• LAK[ SUSAN KILLS +• moi` 77.•77=7;7 PLANNERS /ENGINEERS SURVEYORS f��l o+�•LM•Awl. • 41711.CA.1047 Za 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 _ amended 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 dwelliniy 'ts2f NOV 1 J i?di r11 /16/87 C1TYOF CHANHA�SE,y 5 -' 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 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 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 ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved. -2- ii 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- iy as 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 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 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 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. -4- /S . ,mss 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 owners, 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 - -5- bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may 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. A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, and certificates of occupancy. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for 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 the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development Plan shall thereby be revoked. — 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 parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council . Any party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement after expiration of time in which the work is to be completed shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office. E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. -6- 17 5 - F. Due to the preliminary nature of many of the exhibits — and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendums to this Agreement may be required to address concerns not specifically set forth — herein. G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors or assigns, as the case may be. H. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that a state environmental impact — 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 the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable — attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 15 . Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in — writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, their employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina, _ Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by — certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following address: P.O. Box 147, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. • •, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor BY: Don Ashworth, City Manager LAKE SUSAN HILLS By: �-:r"Z•�vti-X1,1 A partner JAMES A. CURRY Q'/1�S/LGt. C BARBARA CURRY O STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 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. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (-)// ' ( ss. COUNTY C 2;7.;'il.( •C:.':.<_ / The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i .- day of� ;Y/� 1987, by .�;?-;7 <4. ;�-���'--(•I ' partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnershi, . on, its behalf. � '�• S NOTARY PUBLIC �.. BARBARA FISHER ,f• ! .• NOTARY FU2L1;— MINNESOTA HENNA?1!v r;CUi��TY — �1�•• r +v Comm�stoon Laooros t.92 -8- F STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ,t — ( ss. . COUNTY OF '�+..:��r ) ..v ...... .. . .. .... The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I — day of Dtct ,\L- ,.: , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. ‹pOTARY 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 -9- 0 OWNER/DEVELOPER Jasper Development 235 West 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 442-5611 SURVEYOR/ENGINEER REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Narrative for Prairie Creek Prairie Creek will be a 27 lot single family downtime development. Standard Family sizes of 2 to 3 people are expected. Each unit will have a 2 car garage with 2 exterior stalls in the front of each garage. The outside parking areas will have a gentle slope flatter than 1:20 and acceptable for use by the handicap. The architecture of Prairie Creek will be traditional with a decidedly European Country character. Exterior siding materials will be stucco and brick. Exterior trim will be cedar. Every effort is made to give each townhouse its own distinctive facade by the use of appropriate architectural features such as bay windows, shutters, porches, beams and brackets, garage door treatments, etc. To further individualize each unit, color selection of stucco, brick and trim will change from unit to unit. Colors will be muted, earth tones. The Sanitary Sewer serves the site from an existing 8" stub in Lake Susan Hills Drive near unit # 25 at an elevation of 897.1. Location of the stub requires that the majority of the sewer must be installed to serve the southerly units which are expected to be the first ones built. Each unit will be sewered separately with a 4" P.V.C. service. Water service is provided by an 8" stub in Lake Susan Hills Drive near the unit # 25. 6" watermain will be looped through the site tying into the 10" watermain in Lake Susan Hills Drive near the intersection of Powers Blvd. Lake Susan Hills drive will have to be opened up to tie in. 1" copper water services will serve each unit. Hydrants are spaced approximately 300' apart. Storm Sewers will be used on the site to collect the runoff from the street and the front half of the units. The 18" city storm sewer on the northwest corner of the site will be extended down to the northeast — corner of the site and be connected to the site. All storm sewer will be RCP. Minor grading will be required within Powers Boulevard. Right-of- Way to direct drainage through this ditch rather than across the site. This must be the first grading done after a sedimentation pond is in place. Additional design work must be done by the City's Consultant on the overall drainage plan to determine if the use of this ditch is temporary or if a storm sewer line is required along Powers Blvd. Permanent Sedimentation ponding is anticipated to be combined with the city's water quality ponding a short distance downstream from this site. The City's consultant has preliminarily recommended that this ponding be combined with the city's but the drainage study is still incomplete. If ATTA-GHinNT this ponding is not in place when this project starts temporary ponding can be located at units 5,6,and 7 in the northeast portion of this site. These details will be worked out with staff prior to final plat. Details on costs and if the developer can construct this off site permanent ponding must be addressed. Grading must take place over the entire site at this time to better balance the excavating and dispose or make use of existing materials due to the relief. The site varies from 892 on the north to 922 on the south. All silt fence and ponding must be in place prior to starting grading operations. Topsoil varies from l'to 4' in depth with poorer soils being encountered in the lower part of the site. Soil correction is required 7 ' below existing grade the worst boring location. Soils cut from the upper part of the site and lower levels of the units will be used as engineered fill in other areas of the development. It is estimated that 11,000 +/- cubic yards of soil will have to be hauled on to this site. Actual quantities will vary depending on soil moisture, working conditions and how much poor soil will be encountered. Grading is expected to start as soon as City & Government approvals can be obtained. Building construction would begin after - grading, utility, and Class 5 placement is completed. Buildings will be built one at a time as sales are made. Buildings are expected to be built in a one to two year span. Temporary seeding and mulching will be placed within two weeks after the Moss grading is complete. Sodding around building will take place as each building is completed. Silt fence will stay in place until final sodding is complete. MPCA Health Dept. County and Watershed applications are expected to be submitted within two weeks of preliminary plat approval. Permits are expected within three to five weeks after submittal. I CITY OF toopr,, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 410,.._ DATE: March 2, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Prairie Creek Townhomes Located in the Northeast Corner of Powers Boulevard and Lake Susan Hills Drive File No. 93-2 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat and site plan for Prairie Creek prepared by Rehder & Associates, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site is currently used for agricultural purposes and is pretty much devoid of trees. The site drains northeasterly towards Lake Susan Hills Park through overland drainageways. The grading plan proposes, for the most part, to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Based on proposed contours, the majority of the site will be filled except for the southwesterly corner. The easterly portion of the site (Lots 1 through 10) is proposed to be filled with 5 to 8 feet of material to facilitate walkout-type buildings and avoid the high water table in the area. The existing storm sewer system which runs along the east side of the property is proposed to be extended into the City park property (Outlot C) north of the subdivision. In addition, the applicant proposes to extend storm sewer from this existing system into the development to convey surface runoff from the proposed service drive and building pads. The proposed roadway system throughout this development is considered to be private and therefore will not be maintained by the City. The proposed storm sewer extension on the easterly side of the development, however, will be considered a public improvement since it conveys storm water runoff from the upper part of the Watershed south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, detail construction plans along with storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event should be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval. I' t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER AT rA H ME/Lr t� }� Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 2 An existing drainage system underneath Powers Boulevard also drains through the parcel. The grading plans propose on realigning the existing drainageway outside the development into a ditch along Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) to convey runoff from the culvert underneath Powers Boulevard. The applicant should be aware that all work within Powers Boulevard right-of-way will require approval and a permit by the Carver County Highway Department. Staff has been working with the applicant's engineer on downstream ponding facilities. The City's comprehensive storm water management plan proposes a regional storm water retention pond north of the site within Lake Susan Hills Park. Therefore, it is not necessary for the applicant to provide on-site retention ponds. In lieu of the on-site ponding requirement, it is recommended the applicant pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management plan. The City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution based on contributing drainage areas and land use. Even though staff is not recommending on-site retention ponds, we do feel it is necessary to provide for an interim sedimentation pond at the downstream discharge point of the storm sewer. According to Bonestroo & Associates, a 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet sediment pond should be constructed until permanent ponding facilities are constructed downstream. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director, is open to the idea of using the park property on an interim basis. Erosion control (silt fence) is proposed around the perimeter of the site. The plans also propose a temporary rock construction entrance to minimize tracking material off site. Staff also recommends implementing the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service and water service is available from Lake Susan Hills Drive located near the easterly entrance to the site. Both sanitary sewer and water service appears to be adequately sized to service this development. The applicant is proposing to loop the watermain system and reconnect to Lake Susan Hills Drive near Powers Boulevard. In an effort to limit disruption to Lake Susan Hills Drive, it is recommended that the applicant connect on to the existing fire hydrant lead and the hydrant relocated to eliminate cutting into Lake Susan Hills Drive. Specific design modifications such as this will be addressed during the plan and specification review process. Utilities throughout the development will be considered private utilities and not maintained by the City. Since the utility improvements are directly related to the City's overall infrastructure, detailed construction plans of the utility improvements should be submitted to the City for review and approval. All utility construction should be in accordance with Jo Ann Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 3 the City's 1993 edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since a majority of the utilities will be private, the City's Building Department will be overseeing the inspection responsibilities. As-built construction plans will be required upon completion of the utility installation. STREETS The proposed street system is fairly well laid out. The site plan proposes a 24-foot wide two-lane service drive with concrete curb and gutter to serve as access to the individual townhome sites. The road proposes two access points onto Lake Susan Hills Drive. The street system is not being dedicated as a public street and therefore will not be maintained by the City. A cross-access easement should be granted to all of the lot to guarantee access through the private street. Both access points on Lake Susan Hills Drive will intersect an existing concrete sidewalk. It is recommended that pedestrian ramps be installed at both access points to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic across the curb cuts. The site plan also proposes an 8-foot wide walkway within a proposed 20-foot wide walkway easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The walkway should be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8-foot wide bituminous trail section. Street lighting and parking in and around this development may be of concern. Since the streets are only 24 feet wide, most likely the Fire Marshal will impose "No Parking - Fire Lane" on the interior streets. Thus, staff foresees potential parking problems along Lake Susan Hills Drive. Therefore, parking should be restricted along Lake Susan Hills Drive. The plans do not indicate provisions for street lighting. A street lighting plan should be prepared for staff review and approval. Since the site will include public improvements such as driveway aprons, bituminous trail and storm sewers, it is recommended that the applicant enter into a development contract and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. 2. The proposed walkway along Powers Boulevard shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical 8-foot wide bituminous trail standards. Jo Arm Olsen March 2, 1993 Page 4 3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event for the City Engineer to review and approve. 4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for sanitary sewer, watermain, street access points and storm sewer improvements for the City to review and approve. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 5. The applicant shall construct an interim sedimentation basin at the storm sewer discharge point (Outlot C). The basin shall be sized based on contributing area and land use, approximately 0.30 to 0.50 acre/feet in size. In addition, the applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's storm water management program in lieu of constructing a retention pond on site for water quality purposes. The City's surface water management consultant, Bonestroo & Associates, will determine the cash contribution amount. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department. 7. Parking shall be prohibited along Lake Susan Hills Drive adjacent to this development. The City will proceed in preparing a resolution restricting parking along Lake Susan Hills Drive. 8. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 9. The applicant shall incorporate the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for site restoration and additional erosion control measures during the construction process. 10. A cross-access easement should be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. ktm c: Charles Folch, City Engineer CITY OF 01 4:1 I I r4CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: March 4, 1993 SUBJ: 87-3 PUD, Prairie Creek Townhomes I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed Prairie Creek development and have the following requirements: 1. The marking of fire lane on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Sec. 10.207(w). See site plan submitted by Fire Marshal for exact location. 2. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed as per indicated on submitted _ site plan. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #06-1991 (copy enclosed). 3. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP transformers,telephone, cable boxes, all landscape trees and shrubs. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance. 4. Submit a Fire Marshal approved "Pre Fire Plan". Pursuant to Chanhassen City Policy #07-1991 (copy enclosed). 5. Add and/or relocate fire hydrants as indicated on submitted site. Pursuant to 1988 UFC Division 3. 6. Fire apparatus access road shall be designed, built and maintained before and during construction of the townhouse units. The driving surface must meet Chanhassen Engineering specs. Pursuant to 1988 UFC 10.207(f). 7. Premise identification Policy #29-1992 (copy enclosed). tPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER A77A :Pine.-A.i CITY of ._.„ ,ip, „ .e..,. ..,.,.. . ,k4 CHANHASSEN '''''''- '2.41,:_o_41A-F7 '•_; E, � 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ..�i` (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal . Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. _ ' r.,- I.. Other Re iirernents-General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the background. 2 Numbers shall not be In script. 3. if a structure Is not visible from the street,additional-numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4". However, requirement *3 must still be met 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Resldentlal Requirements(2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4". 2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department. Commercial Regedrements ...- 1. Minimum height shall be 12". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. . %, Y.• 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992 - - Date: 06/15/92 _ Revised: Approved - Public Say Director Page 1 of 1 t0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER •• CITY 4 F .41/ . , ir .1\tali -n CHANEASSE 'NO690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 l CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18" . NO 2 . Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3 . 3M or equal engineer ' s grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 4 . Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7 ' 0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7 . Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - 8 . A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. - ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES . Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #06-1991 Date: 1/15/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 is S4' .1PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF ..4.) CHANHASSEN 44 1;9r> 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �s" (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE-PLAN Prior to issuing the C. O. , a pre-plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or deadend 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P. I .V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut-off) , NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior Doors 13) Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz . Mat. storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls/roof 19) Standpipes Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #07-1991 - Date: 01/16/91 Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 is ���• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I `r z $a r 1 z s Pi i s 176 . ! s z� -..1)-..;;,21"e•v g. 4 ' S r ! 6 . = c i ! b i i E '_i • '.7'..=4 U:V el. 10 — t - ! I .- 6eI E . - - ° te . t3 / •• _ tr - - `I U! sum .'"\:.. ' : .. 1.2 li* c° .0- • YSa ilm Z2,1 ,s ./ i 1 • CY"'i =::-.1 i=1 / I4': 3i.' r' gas f I. 1. 1 'c' iYF °° I f � 8 ? 1 I ,r:- " i . "/ • 1 . . . • • • f ai its 1 1 r ! Ii F s - • .,' ' • �•• f t \ n. . . ... \` WP 514 /: /• moi. , / _.: . __....„,...-.1.k':-, a oN ------ O 5. 1.1 .4,,. .7,,,n ;\.ii‘i' lipe: — ". / . \ r, /• ,g ,� AFF ___ O ; it , j / , / a" M �, i:' • Q / • 4 / / i /. • / * / • 1 , is , / ! H__I—T' r T • '1 / ; 9 I f 1> I, . / 9 a i / / el. N Se N........., %, I oa II FI. •//�� /ii‘ ' . \ v!ik.,,1\ •••• r` -f I.: / t/ / tis \ ‘*t.,,_{ r • s ;% O q fie, — I O ��° • I S �•,/ // .., a .1, © v,�,Y — . ter.• ri 4— //7 `+. so .es l s j x' (� .tI .. G 1..• i ib • 0 o •T • • v. ....: • W• ' 7 11 \ \- _. i , / /4 ,. 1 y1,�• i . /. ; — -- ,,,• - ,•„„..,.,1�� V s� / c.; /?::;%,-; ,I / _ / Pr T /krIL !i • T , Iis ! % i IY A ' / / r, ,.M t, / t J p i.•; F. _ / ^ C �e l� O , e' 7 'D n p I I 1 _ /��} w \/ F r ��� O .I —L to `/ ; i f O t F R . . n !..k. %-. O f _ _ t I r –fl• i -n ` 1 1 CHANHASSEN1111011,11111' ., CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Ti MEMORANDUM — TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official I�a•f` DATE: 03/03/93 SUBJECT: 87-3 PUD (Prairie Creek Townhouses, Jasper Development) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for the pad or missing the pad. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected at the time the streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City _ acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected may be submitted before the certificate of occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the - drainage plan to insure an adequate plan review by the City. The sides and fronts of the buildings appear to be on the property lines. Table 5-A of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) prohibits openings in walls that are within 3 ' of a property line. Projections (decks, overhangs, etc. ) must comply with UBC 504 (b) which generally permits projections to extend a maximum of 1/3 the distance to the property line. This provision would - prohibit projections on walls that are on the property lines . Access to a public way must be provided from each dwelling in order to comply with the building code (UBC 504 (a) ) . Private easements for driveways and private roads would meet code requirements. Is, ` i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 11-- ^ - ^'`n tf(._ Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 03/03/93 Page 2 No street names are shown on any of the submissions. Streets names need to be reviewed to avoid conflicts with existing streets. Recommedations : Staff recommends the following be included in the conditions of approval: 1 . Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan prior to final plat approval. 2 . Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This must be done prior to issuance of building permits. 3 . Adjust property lines, building sizes, wall openings or a combination of all three to comply with the building codeprior to fianl plat approval . 4 . Provide easements for driveways and private roads to a public way prior to final plat approval . 5. Submit proposed streets name (s) for review prior to final plat approval . i CITY of 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 It 10- CHANHASSEN (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: March 11, 1993 SUBJ: Prairie Creek Townhomes The Park and Recreation Commission will not review this land development proposal until March 23, 1993. The following comments are being forwarded to you to enable your report to be submitted to the Planning Commission. The development of Prairie Creek Townhomes is subject to the following conditions in regard to parks and trails as listed in the Lake Susan Hills West PUD Agreement. Parkland Dedication of land for park purposes is not required of this development, in lieu of land dedication. Park fees will be assessed at one-half of the rate in force upon building permit application. At present, this fee is one-half of $600.00, or $300.00 per unit. Trails As specified in the PUD Contract, the dedication of a 20-ft. wide trail easement parallel to Powers Boulevard, and extending the entire length of the property, is to be dedicated to the city. Further, that the applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail per the attached city standard within this easement. The placement of the trail may fluctuate within this easement. Landscaping may be installed within the easement, but only on the east side of the trail and not within 10-ft. of the trail surface. Final alignment of the trail must be field staked for inspection by the city prior to construction. Is �4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ATTACNmE:►rT -- 7 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE i` . .1- • 600 EAST 4TH STREET PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318 — I612!4481213 N � � COUNTY Of CAQVEQ — 'ITY 7F C.1-12 March - March 4, 1993 — To: JoAnn Olsen, Chanhassen Senior Planner — From: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer Subject: Site Plan Prairie Creek Townhomes Comments regarding the subdivision and site plan for Prairie Creek Townhomes transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated February 19. 1993. 1. Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways functionally classified as Minor Arterial (Class II) are: Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 110' 120' 150' Urban Undivided Rural Undivided 4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended 100' 120' 140' 170' County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 is functionally classified as a Minor Arterial (Class II) roadway in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. A 150 foot corridor has been established for a potential 4 lane divided highway. The city may wish to consider an even wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to accommodate public utilities and landscaping. 2. From the information provided by the developer, it appears that lots abutting the right of way will have townhomes constructed as close as 25 feet from the right of way line. It appears that it is again necessary to determine a proposed future road cross-section through this area to determine the allowable or necessary excavation through the proposed subdivision to complete the future road construction. The County would recommend meeting with the City to determine the future cross-section of CSAH 17 before final approval of the proposed site plan. 3. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CSAH 17 right-of-way are subject _ to the utility permit requirements of Carver County. Affirmatizr Acton/Equal Oppon2mih Empb iti Pimtrd tin Rent-/rd Palm AT ACHlrl�ti I • 4. Any proposed grading and installation of drainage structures within the right-of-way of CSAH 17 is subject to review and approval of the county highway department. 5. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right- of-way (including turn removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition" than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the city. 6. As this area develops, the traffic on CSAH 17 will increase. The increased traffic will generate an increased noise level. The County would consider any type of noise abatement project, if necessary. to be the responsibility of the City or developer. 7. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the County. When locating proposed shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed development. 1st Draft 2-10-93 U/trish/prairie DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF PRAIRIE CREEK THIS DECLARATION, made this day of February, 1993 , by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called "Declarant ' ) , and Bank, a Minnesota corporation, WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of the real property described in Article II , Section 1 , of this Declaration and desires to create thereon a residential neighborhood with permanent open spaces and other common amenities for the benefit of said neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Declarant has caused the incorporation of Prairie Creek Townhouse Association of Chanhassen under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a non-profit corporation, which shall own the Common Area and to which shall be assigned the powers and duties of maintaining the Common Area and certain other portions of the property, administering and enforcing the covenants and restrictions herein, and collecting and disbursing the assessments and charges herein created. WHEREAS, Bank holds a mortgage on the subject property and for the purpose of passing clear title does hereby join in this Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that the real property described in Article II , Section 1 , hereof and such additions thereto as may hereafter be made pursuant to Article II, Section 2 , hereof, shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the following covenants , restrictions, easements, charges and liens , which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and shall run with, the real property, and which shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the described properties or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof . 1 ATTALi4 m NT ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following words when used in this Declaration or any Supplementary Declaration shall have the following meanings : Section 1 . "Association" shall mean Prairie Creek Townhouse Association of Chanhassen. Section 2 . "Common Area" shall mean all of Lot , Block 1 of Prairie Creek, according to the recorded plat thereof . Section 3 . "Common Expenses " shall mean expenses of the Association for maintenance, repair, operation, management and enforcement; expenses declared common expenses by the provisions of this Declaration; and all sums lawfully assessed against the Lots by the Board of Directors of the Association. Section 4 . "Declarant" shall mean Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, a Minnesota corporation, and its successors and assigns if such successors or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot for the purpose of development. Section 5 . "First Mortgagee" shall mean any person owning a mortgage on any Lot, which mortgage is first in priority upon foreclosure to all other mortgages which may affect such Lot. Section 6 . "Home" shall mean a residential dwelling constructed on a Lot subject to this Declaration. Section 7 . "Unit" shall mean a Home and its corresponding Garage . Section 8 . "Member" shall mean a Member of the Association as provided in Article III hereof . Section 9 . "Owner" shall mean the record Owner, whether one or more persons , or entities of title to any Lot subject to this Declaration, including contract for deed vendors and vendees , but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. Section 10 . "Property" shall mean the real property described in Article II , Section 1 , hereof, and such additions thereto described in Article II , Section 2 , as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. Section 11 . "Lot" shall mean each numbered lot of Block 1 , Prairie Creek, according to the plat thereof, excluding Lot 2 ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION Section 1 . Existing Property. The real property which is and shall be held, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows : Lots 1 through _, Block 1, Prairie Creek, according to the plat thereof on record in the office of the Carver County Recorder. Section 2 . Additional Property. The Declarant reserves the right for a five ( 5 ) year period from and after the date of the execution of this Declaration to add additional property to the Countryside Townhouse Association and make such property subject to this Declaration of Covenants , Conditions and Restrictions, which property is located in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver and State of Minnesota, and is legally described as follows : [Legal Description to be determined. ] ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN THE ASSOCIATION Section 1 . Members . All Owners of Units shall automatically by virtue of such interest be Members of the Association. When more than one person is an Owner of a Unit, all such persons shall be Members . It shall be the duty of each Owner to register his name and the nature of his interest with the Secretary of the Association . If an Owner fails to register his name or interest, the Association shall be under no duty to recognize his ownership. Section 2 . Voting. The Association shall have two classes of voting membership: Class A. Class A Member(s ) shall be all Owners , with the exception of the Declarant, who shall be entitled to one vote for each Unit owned. When more than one person holds an 3 interest in any Unit, all such persons shall be Members . The vote for such Unit shall be exercised as they determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Unit . Class B. The Class B Member( s ) shall be the Declarant who shall be entitled to three ( 3 ) votes for each Unit owned. The Class B membership shall cease and be converted to Class A membership on the happening of either of the following events , whichever occurs earlier: (a) when the total votes outstanding in the Class A membership equals or exceeds the total votes outstanding in the Class B membership, or (b) on the expiration of three ( 3 ) years from and after the date of execution of this Declaration. Section 3 . Transfer of Membership. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of a Unit. The share of a Member in the funds and assets of the Association cannot be assigned, pledged, encumbered or transferred in any manner, except as an appurtenance to his Unit . - ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE COMMON AREA Section 1 . Members ' Easements of Enjoyment . Every Member shall have the following rights and nonexclusive appurtenant easements over and across the Common Area for the following purposes : (a) Ingress and egress . (b) Utilities , water and sewer. (c ) Enjoyment for recreational purposes . Every Member shall also have an exclusive appurtenant easement over the Common Area for the use and enjoyment of the sidewalk, steps and entry way adjacent to his Lot. Section 2 . Title and Improvements to the Common Area. The Declarant shall convey and record marketable title to the Common Area to the Association prior to the conveyance of fee title to any Unit . The Declarant covenants and agrees with the Association 4 that it will make and pay for all improvements on the Common Area as set forth in the plans and specifications on file with the Association, and delivery of the deed to the Common Area shall not constitute a release of Declarant from the obligation to perform such work . Upon the Declarant having fulfilled its obligation to improve the Common Area, the Association shall file in the office of the County Recorder a release of the Declarant. Until the Declarant has completed the work as set forth in said plans and specifications , the Declarant shall have the right to enter and to store materials and equipment upon the Common Area for the purpose of completing such work. Section 3 . Extent of Members ' Easements . The rights and easements of enjoyment described herein and the title of the Association to the Common Area shall be subject to the following: (a) The right of the Association, in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws , to borrow money for capital improvements on the Common Area, and in aid thereof to mortgage the Common Area. The rights of any such mortgagees in the Common Area shall be subordinate to the rights of the Members hereunder. No indebtedness authorized by this paragraph shall exceed twice the sum of the annual assessment levied against all Units . No such mortgage shall be given or other encumbrance of the Common Area permitted unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees representing seventy-five percent ( 75% ) of the Lots . (b) The right of the Association to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to protect the Common Area against foreclosure. (c ) The right of the Association to suspend the enjoyment rights of any Member for any period not to exceed sixty ( 60 ) days and to impose a fine not to exceed Ten Dollars ( $10 . 00 ) for each infraction of its published rules and regulations . Nothing contained in this paragraph, however, shall be deemed to deny an Owner easements for access and utility purposes . Furthermore, any such fine may not exceed $50 . 00 for all consecutive infractions arising out of the same violation of published rules and regulations of this Declaration. (d) The right of the Association to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use of the Common Area. (e) The right of the Owner of each Unit to an exclusive appurtenant easement over the Common Area for areas occupied by bay windows, roof overhangs , air conditioning compressors, flower boxes and other appurtenances which are part of the 5 original construction of any Unit or which are added pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Article VI hereof . ( f) The right of the Association to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purposes and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to by the Members . No such dedication or transfer shall be effective unless first approved in writing by the Owners and First Mortgagees of one hundred percent ( 100% ) of the Units . Nothing herein shall preclude the Board of Directors of the Association from granting access to the Common Area on a temporary, non- exclusive basis to any public agency, authority, utility or cable television company for construction, maintenance or repair of any utility delivery system. Section 4 . Delegation of Use. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance with the By-Laws , his right of enjoyment to the Common Area to his tenants who reside on the Property and to Members of his family and his guests . Section 5 . Taxes and Special Assessments on the Common Area. The Association shall have the right, power and authority to collect taxes and special assessments levied against the Common Area as part of the annual assessment, if such taxes and special assessments are not collected by the governmental body from the Owners or paid by the Owners to the governmental body when the same are due and payable. Section 6 . Use of the Common Area . The Common Area shall be used strictly in accordance with the easements granted thereon. Except as herein provided, no Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the rights and privileges of other Owners in the Common Area, and nothing shall be planted, altered, constructed upon or removed by an Owner from the Common Area except by prior written consent of the Association. If an Owner shall violate this Section, the Association shall have the right to restore the Common Area to its prior condition and assess the cost thereof against the Owner who violates this Section, and such cost shall become a lien upon the Unit of such Owner which is due and payable upon demand. The Association shall have the same right and powers to collect the cost of such restoration as provided in Article VII hereof for the collection of delinquent annual assessments . If any Owner interferes with the right and privileges of another Owner in the use of the Common Area, except as provided herein, the Association or the Owner may commence an action to enjoin such interference, and the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover such reasonable attorneys ' fees as the court may allow, together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. 6 ARTICLE V RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION Section 1 . Common Area Maintenance . The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair and for the exclusive management and control of the Common Area and the Lots and all exterior improvements thereon, and shall keep the same in good, clean, attractive and sanitary condition. The Common Area and lot improvements shall be deemed to include such things as driveways, sidewalks , trees , flowers and shrubs , patios and decks, and docks; together with all lines, pipes , wires, conduits , systems or other R utilities which are installed on or across the Common Area or the Lots . The Association, or its contractor, shall have the right to enter upon the Lots to perform the maintenance and repair outlined herein. Section 2 . Exterior Maintenance . The Association shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the exterior surfaces of each Home and Garage, including painting, repair, replacement and care for roofs, gutters and downspouts , exterior building surfaces , overhangs and other exterior improvements . Such responsibility for exterior maintenance shall not extend to glass surfaces or doors, screens or screen doors , or exterior door or window fixtures . Section 3 . Incidental Damage. The Association shall be responsible for the repair of all incidental damage caused to a Home or Lot by any maintenance, repair, alteration or improvements of the Common Area or the exterior surfaces of the homes performed by or with the authority of the Association. Section 4 . Services . To the extent it deems advisable, the Association may obtain and pay for the services of any person or entity to manage its affairs , to fulfill its obligations hereunder, or to enforce this Declaration or the By-Laws . The Association may arrange with others to furnish water, trash collection, sewer service, and other common services to each Lot . Section 5 . Personal Property for Common Use . The Association may acquire and hold for the use of all of the Members tangible and intangible personal property and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise . Every Member may use such property in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other Members . Section 6 . Rules and Rectulations . The Association may make reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of the Lots and the Common Area, which rules and regulations shall be consistent with the rights and duties established in this Declaration. 7 Section 7 . Access at Reasonable Hours . For the purpose of performing the Common Area and exterior maintenance authorized by this Article, the Association, acting through its duly authorized agents or employees , shall have the right after reasonable notice to the Owner to enter upon any Lot at reasonable hours of the day. ARTICLE VI OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS Section 1 . Architectural Control . From and after the completion of construction and sale of any Lot, no building, fence, wall or other structure shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon the Property, nor shall any modification to the exterior of any Unit, whether to the structure or appearance thereof, be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing as to harmony of external design and location in relation to surrounding structures and topography by the Association or by an architectural committee composed of three or more representatives appointed by the Association. The Association or the architectural committee shall not approve any alterations or structural modifications which would jeopardize or impair the soundness, safety or appearance of the Property. In the event the Association fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within thirty ( 30) days after said plans and specifications have been submitted to it, approval will not be required and this Article shall be deemed to have been fully complied with. The prevailing party in an action brought by the Association pursuant to this Section shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable attorneys ' fees together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. Section 2 . Use of Lots . Each Lot shall be used for residential Unit purposes only, except that the Declarant shall be entitled to maintain model townhouses on the Property. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, tent, shack, or other building shall be used on any Lot or the Common Area at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. No improvement or structure whatsoever, other than single-family dwellings or garages or other structure appurtenant to a Home and approved as provided in Section 1 of this Article may be erected, placed or maintained. No noxious or offensive activities shall be carried on upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or a nuisance to the neighborhood. Section 3 . Use of the Unit . The Units shall not be rented by the Owners thereof for transient or hotel purposes , which shall be defined as rental for any period of less than thirty (30) days . Each Owner shall otherwise have the absolute right to lease his Unit, provided that any lease is made subject to this Declaration 8 and the By-Laws of the Association. No Owner shall subdivide any Unit or sell or lease only a part of a Unit . Section 4 . Interior Maintenance . Every Owner shall maintain and keep in repair the interior of his Unit . Every Owner shall perform promptly all maintenance and repair work within his Unit which, if omitted, would adversely affect the Property in its - entirety or in part belonging to other Owners or to the Association, being expressly responsible for any damage or liability that his failure to do so may cause. Every Owner shall be deemed to own and shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of all lines , pipes , wires, conduits, systems or other utilities , together with the fixtures and equipment served or supplied thereby, which are installed within his Unit or upon his Lot, commencing at the point where such utilities enter upon his Lot . Section 5 . Responsibility for Misuse and Negligence. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair of the Common Area and improvements thereon or the exterior surfaces of any Unit is caused by the misuse or negligence of an Owner, his family, guests , tenants or invitees , the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be assessed against such Owner. Such cost shall become a lien upon the Lot of such Owner which is due and payable on demand, and the Association shall have the same right and powers to collect the amount so assessed as provided in Article VII for the collection of delinquent annual assessments . ARTICLE VII ASSESSMENTS Section 1 . Creation of the Lien and Personal Obligation of Assessments . The Declarant for each Lot owned hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association ( 1) annual assessments or charges and ( 2 ) special assessments for capital improvements , such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided . The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys ' fees , shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the Lot against which each such assessment is made . Each such assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys ' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot at the time when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to his successors in title unless expressly assumed by them. Section 2 . Use of Assessments . The assessments shall be used exclusively for the benefit of the Owners , to promote the health, safety and welfare of the Owners, to preserve, protect and enhance 9 the value of the Property, and to ensure the enjoyment of rights, privileges and easements with respect to the Common Area. Section 3 . Method of Levying Annual Assessments . Annual assessments against the Lots for Common Expenses shall be levied by a majority vote of the Board of Directors of the Association. The Board of Directors shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty ( 30) days in advance of each annual assessment period and send written notice thereof to every Owner. All Units shall be assessed equally. The annual assessments shall be due and payable in monthly installments on such dates as are established by the Board of Directors . If an annual assessment is not timely made, there shall be an assessment in the amount, installments, and on the due dates of the last prior annual assessment . The Board of Directors may require each Owner to deposit and maintain with the Board of Directors an amount equal to one quarterly estimated annual assessment for use as working capital . Section 4 . Commencement and Maximum Amount of Annual Assessments . The annual assessments herein authorized shall commence as to all Lots on the first day of the third month following conveyance of the Common Area to the Association. Until January 1 of the year following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment shall be $ per Lot on which there is a completed Unit. (a) At the time each Unit on which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy is sold by Declarant the Purchaser (Owner) shall pay a capitalization fee to the Association of (b) The Declarant shall, after the commencement of the obligation to pay assessments , pay to the Association for each Unit which has not been awarded a certificate of occupancy reduced monthly assessment payments in the amount of 25% of full monthly assessment payments . No assessments are due for vacant Lots . (c ) The Declarant shall pay full monthly assessment payments as to each Unit which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy but has not been conveyed to a purchaser. (d) From and after January 1 of the year immediately following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment may be increased each year not more than 5% or a percentage equal to the increase for the immediately preceding year in the Consumer Price Index established by the United States Department of Labor for the Minneapolis area, whichever of said percentages is greater, above the maximum assessment for the previous year without an 10 affirmative vote of a majority of the membership approving such an increase . Section 5 . Reserves and Surplus . Annual assessments for Common Expenses shall include an allocation to maintain an adequate Replacement Reserve Fund for maintenance, repair and replacement of those elements of the Common Area and the exterior surfaces of the Units that must be repaired or replaced on a periodic basis . Such elements include, by way of example and without limitation, roadways and driveways , sidewalks , roofs, common utility lines, decks and outdoor lighting systems . In addition, the Board of Directors may establish and fund as part of the annual assessments a General Operating Reserve to provide a measure of financial stability during periods of special stress and to be used to meet deficiencies as a result of delinquent payments and other contingencies . The Association shall not be obligated to apply any such surplus to the reduction of the annual assessments in the succeeding year, but may carry forward such surplus from year to year as the Board of Directors may determine to be desirable for the greater financial security and the effectuation of the purposes of the Association. Section 6 . Special Assessments . In addition to annual assessments, the Board of Directors may levy special assessments for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconstruction, unexpected repair or replacement of capital improvements on the Common Area, exterior surfaces of Units , or utility lines serving more than one Lot. Any such assessment, however, shall first be approved by a vote of Owners representing seventy-five percent ( 75% ) of the Units at a meeting duly called for such purpose, written notice of which shall be sent to all Owners at least thirty ( 30) days in advance. Section 7 . Uniform Rate of Assessments . Both annual and special assessments shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Units . Section 8 . Record of Assessments . The assessments against all Units shall be set forth on a roll of the Units kept by the Secretary of the Association and available for inspection at reasonable times by any Owner or his authorized representative. Such roll shall indicate for each Unit the name and address of the Owners , the assessments levied for all purposes, and the amounts of all assessments paid and unpaid. Section 9 . Delinquent Assessments : Interest and Liens . Any assessment or installment thereof not paid within ten ( 10) days after becoming due shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent ( 8% ) per annum from the date when due until paid. All sums assessed by the Association but unpaid for the share of Common Expenses chargeable to any Unit shall constitute a lien on such Unit commencing on the due date of the assessment and prior to all 11 other liens except only tax liens and liens for special assessments on the Unit in favor of any taxing and assessing unit of government and all sums unpaid on a first mortgage of record. The sale or transfer of any Unit shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Unit pursuant to foreclosure of any first mortgage shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which become due prior to the foreclosure sale and transfer. Any such unpaid assessments shall thereupon be spread over and become a lien on all Units in equal shares . No foreclosure sale or transfer shall relieve any Unit from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof . A lien for assessments may be foreclosed by suit by the Board of Directors of the Association in like manner as foreclosure by action of a mortgage on real property. The Board of Directors shall have the power to convey the Unit so acquired. In addition, the Association shall have the right to pursue any other remedy at law or in equity against any Owner who fails to pay any assessment or charges against his Unit. Section 10 . Ineffectiveness of Waiver or Abandonment. No Owner may exempt himself from liability for his contribution toward the Common Expenses by waiver of the use or enjoyment of any of the Common Area, by waiver or protest of the need for maintenance or repair of exterior surfaces of any Home, or by abandonment of his Unit . ARTICLE VIII INSURANCE Section 1 . Casualty Insurance on Insurable Common Area. The Association shall keep all insurable improvements and fixtures of the Common Area insured against loss or damage by fire for the full insurance replacement cost thereof, and may obtain insurance against such other hazards and casualties as the Association may deem desirable . The Association may also insure any other property whether real or personal, owned by the Association, against loss or damage by fire and such other hazards as the Association may deem desirable, with the Association as the owner and beneficiary of such insurance . The insurance coverage with respect to the Common Area shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association. Insurance proceeds shall be used by the Association for the repair or replacement of the property for which the insurance was carried. Premiums for all insurance carried by the Association are Common Expenses included in the assessments made by the Association. In addition to casualty insurance on the Common Area, the Association, through the Board of Directors, may elect to obtain and continue in effect, on behalf of all Owners, adequate blanket casualty and fire insurance in such form as the Board of Directors deem appropriate in an amount equal to the full replacement value, 12 without deduction for depreciation or coinsurance, of all of the Dwelling Units, including the structural portions and fixtures thereof, owned by such Owners . Insurance premiums from any such blanket insurance coverage, and any other insurance premiums paid by the Association shall be a Common Expense of the Association to be included in the regular assessments of the Owners , as levied by the Association, but such assessments for insurance premiums shall not be subject to the limits on percentage increases recited in Article VII hereof . The insurance coverage with respect to the Dwelling Units shall be written in the name of, and the proceeds thereof shall be payable to the Association as Trustee for the Homeowners . Section 2 . Replacement or Repair of Property. In the event of damage to or destruction of any part of the Common Area Improvements , the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. If such insurance proceeds are insufficient to cover the costs of repairs or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed, the Association may make a reconstruction assessment against all Lot Owners to cover the additional cost of repair or replacement not covered by the insurance proceeds, in addition to any other Common Assessments made against such Unit Owner. In the event that the Association is maintaining blanket casualty and fire insurance on the Units on the Lots in the Properties , the Association shall repair or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available. Section 3 . Annual Review of Policies . All insurance policies shall be reviewed at least annually by the Board of Directors in order to ascertain whether the coverage contained in the policies is sufficient to make any necessary repairs or replacement of the property which may have been damaged or destroyed. Section 4 . Waivers of Subrogation. All policies of physical damage insurance shall contain waivers of subrogation and waivers of any reduction of the pro-rata liability of the insurer as a result of any insurance carried by Owners or of invalidity arising from any acts of the insured or any Owners . Provisions shall be made for issuance of certificates of physical damage insurance to mortgagees . Section 5 . Notices to FNMA and FHLMC . All policies of physical damage, fidelity and comprehensive liability insurance maintained by the Association shall provide that the policies shall not be cancelled or substantially modified without at least thirty ( 30) days ' prior written notice to the Federal National Mortgage Association ( "FNMA" ) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ( "FHLMC" ) , all of the insureds and all First Mortgagees of record. The Association agrees to notify FNMA and FHLMC in writing whenever damage to the Common Area exceeds Ten Thousand Dollars ( $10 , 000 . 00) 13 from a single occurrence, or whenever damage with respect to any Unit covered by a mortgage purchased in whole or in part by FNMA or FHLMC exceeds One Thousand Dollars ( $1 , 000 . 00) . Section 6 . Individual Owner' s Insurance . Insurance coverage on the furnishings and other personal property belonging to an Owner and casualty and public liability insurance coverage within each Unit shall be the responsibility of the Owner thereof. Each Owner may obtain insurance at his own expense providing coverage on his personal property and for his personal liability, provided that any such policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation comparable to that referred to in Section 4 of this Article. Each Owner may obtain additional fire and extended coverage insurance at his own expense on his Unit, provided that any such policy shall provide that it shall be without contribution as against the fire and extended coverage insurance maintained by the Association. If a casualty loss is sustained and there is a reduction in the amount of the proceeds which would otherwise be payable on the insurance maintained by the Association due to proration of insurance purchased by any Owner, such Owner agrees to assign the proceeds of this latter insurance, to the extent of the amount of such reduction, to the Association to be distributed as hereinafter provided, and such Owner shall be liable to the Association to the extent of any such diminution or loss of proceeds . ARTICLE IX RECONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR Section 1 . Casualty. In the event of damage or destruction by casualty to any part of the Property subject to this Declaration, the determination of whether or not to reconstruct or repair the same shall be made as follows: (a) Any portion of the Common Area which is damaged or destroyed by a casualty otherwise not affecting the Units shall be restored to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If insurance proceeds are insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment as provided in Section 6 of Article VII hereof to meet the costs thereof which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots . (b) If a Unit is damaged or destroyed by a casualty it shall be restored by the Owner to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If insurance proceeds are insufficient to pay the costs of such restoration or reconstruction, then the Owner shall be responsible for the difference needed to complete such restoration or reconstruction, except that in the event such loss is covered by blanket casualty insurance carried by the Association as 14 provided in Section 1 and 2 of Article VIII , then the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment to meet such deficiency in costs , which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots . (c ) Partial destruction, which shall mean damage or destruction which renders less than sixty percent ( 60% ) of the Units, collectively, unfit for occupancy, shall be reconstructed or repaired unless this Declaration is revoked within ninety ( 90) days after the date of such casualty. (d) Total destruction, which shall mean destruction which renders sixty percent ( 60%) or more of the Homes and Garages, collectively, unfit for occupancy, shall not be reconstructed or repaired unless at a special meeting of the Members which shall be called within ninety ( 90) days after the date of such casualty or if by such date the insurance loss has not been fully adjusted, then within thirty ( 30 ) days thereafter, Owners representing eighty percent ( 80% ) or more of the Units vote in favor of such reconstruction or repair. Immediately after a casualty causing damage to the Property, the Board of Directors shall obtain reliable and detailed estimates of the cost to restore the damaged property to substantially the same condition which existed prior to such casualty. If the proceeds of insurance are insufficient to pay the estimated cost of restoration of the Property, or, if at any time during reconstruction or repair or upon the completion thereof, the funds for payment of the cost of restoration are insufficient, the Board of Directors shall levy a special assessment against all Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the Common Area and against individual Lots for that portion of the deficiency related to damage to the particular Unit constructed thereon. If the cost of the restoration of the Property is less than the insurance proceeds received by the Association, the Board of Directors shall pay the balance remaining to the Owners and their First Mortgagees , as their interest may appear. The Association and any contractors or other persons engaged on its behalf in reconstruction or repair shall have temporary easements in and over the Lots , Units and Common Area to allow such work to be completed. In the event of reconstruction or repair of damage to any part of the Property, all Owners agree that minor encroachments on parts of the Common Area or on adjacent Lots shall be permitted and that a valid easement for said encroachment and the maintenance thereof shall exist . Section 2 . Condemnation. In the event of taking by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or by an action or deed in lieu thereof, of all or part of the Property, the monies awarded shall be used and the obligation to rebuild shall be determined in a manner substantially similar to a case involving damage or destruction by casualty. 15 ARTICLE X PARTY WALLS Section 1 . General Rules of Law to Apply. Each wall which is built as a part of the original construction of the Units upon the Property and placed on the dividing line between the Lots shall constitute a party wall, and to the extent not inconsistent with the provisions of this Article, the general rules of law regarding party walls and liability for property damage due to negligent or willful acts or omissions shall apply thereto. Section 2 . Sharing of Repair and Maintenance . The cost of reasonable repair and maintenance of a party wall shall be shared by the Owners who make use of the wall in proportion to such use. Section 3 . Destruction by Fire or Other Casualty. If a party wall is destroyed or damaged by fire or other casualty, either Owner who has used the wall may restore it, and if the other Owner thereafter makes use of the wall , he shall contribute to the cost of restoration thereof in proportion to such use, without prejudice, however, to the right of any such Owner to call for a larger contribution from the other under any rule of law regarding liability for negligent or willful acts or omissions . Section 4 . Weatherproofing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, an Owner who by his negligent or willful act causes the party wall to be exposed to the elements shall bear the whole cost of furnishing the necessary protection against such elements . Section 5 . Right to Contribution Runs with Land. The right of any Owner to contribution from any other Owner under this Article shall be appurtenant to the land and shall pass to such Owner's successors in title . Section 6 . Arbitration. In the event of any dispute arising concerning a party wall or under the provisions of this Article, each party shall choose one arbitrator, and such arbitrators shall choose one additional arbitrator, and the decision of a majority of all arbitrators shall be final and conclusive on the question involved. ARTICLE XI MUTUAL EASEMENTS The title to each Lot shall include an exclusive appurtenant easement over and across the adjoining Lot or Common Area for encroachments created by construction, settling and overhangs for all Units originally constructed by the Declarant or improvements 16 which are added pursuant to Section 1 of Article VI hereof . A valid easement for said encroachments and for the maintenance thereof, so long as such encroachments stand, shall and does exist upon each Lot in favor of the adjoining Lot or Lots . ARTICLE XII RIGHTS OF FIRST MORTGAGEES For the protection of First Mortgagees and their assigns, the following provisions shall take precedence over any other conflicting provisions of this Declaration: Section 1 . Notification of Default . A First Mortgagee, upon request, shall be entitled to written notification from the Association of any default in the performance by an Owner of any obligation under the Declaration or the By-Laws which is not cured within sixty ( 60 ) days . Section 2 . Exemption from Right of First Refusal . Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit by foreclosure of the mortgage, by deed or assignment in lieu of foreclosure, or pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage, shall be exempt from any right of first refusal contained in the Declaration or By-Laws . Section 3 . Liability for Assessments . Any First Mortgagee that obtains title to a Unit pursuant to the remedies provided in the mortgage or by foreclosure of the mortgage will not be liable for such Unit ' s unpaid assessments or charges which accrue prior to the acquisition of title to such Lot by the First Mortgagee. Section 4 . Books and Records . First Mortgagees shall have the right to examine the books and records of the Association. Section 5 . Approval of Certain Acts . Unless at least seventy-five percent ( 75% ) of the First Mortgagees of Units, based upon one vote for each first mortgage owned, or 75% of Owners other than the Declarant have given their prior written approval, the Association shall not be entitled to: (a) By act or omission seek to abandon, partition, subdivide, encumber, sell or transfer the Common Area. (The granting of easements for public utilities or for other public purposes consistent with the intended use of the Common Area by the Owners shall not be deemed a transfer within the meaning of this clause. ) (b) Change the method of determining the obligations, assessments , dues or other charges which may be levied against an Owner. 17 (c ) By act or omission change, waive or abandon any scheme of regulations, or enforcement thereof, pertaining to the architectural design or the exterior appearance of the Units , the exterior maintenance of Units , the maintenance of party walls or common fences and driveways , or the upkeep of lawns and plantings on the Property. (d) Fail to maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on insurable common property on a current replacement cost basis in an amount not less than one hundred percent ( 100% ) of the insurable value (based on current replacement cost) . (e) use hazard insurance proceeds for losses to the Property for other than repair, replacement or reconstruction of such Property. Section 6 . Liens . All taxes , assessments and charges which may become liens prior to the first mortgage under Minnesota law shall relate only to the individual Units and not to the Property as a whole . Section 7 . Reserves . Assessments for Common Expenses shall include an adequate reserve fund for maintenance, repairs , and replacement of those common elements that must be replaced on a periodic basis . Such routine and foreseeable assessments shall be payable in regular installments rather than by special assessment . Section 8 . No Priority Over First Mortgagees . No provision of the Declaration or By-Laws shall be construed as giving to any Owner or to any other party priority over any rights of First Mortgagees of Units pursuant to their mortgages in the case of a distribution to Owners of insurance proceeds or condemnation awards for losses to or a taking of Units or the Common Area, or both. Section 9 . Contract Terms . The term of any agreement for professional management of the Property, or any other contract providing for services of the Declarant, may not exceed two (2 ) years . Any such agreement shall provide for termination by either party without cause and without payment of a termination fee upon ninety ( 90 ) days ' prior written notice. ARTICLE XIII ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS Section 1 . Declarant Rights . Notwithstanding any provision of the Declaration or By-Laws to the contrary, the Declarant may operate and maintain upon the Property during the period of construction and sale of the Units such facilities as may be reasonably required or convenient to the construction and sale of the Units, including without limitation a business office, storage 18 area, construction yards, signs , model units and sales office, and shall have easements for access to and enjoyment and use of such facilities for itself, its employees, agent and prospective purchasers . Section 2 . Keeping of Animals . No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot or in any Unit, except that dogs , cats or other household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. The Association may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the keeping of pets . Section 3 . Signs . No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any Lot or in the Common Area, except that the Declarant shall be permitted to erect and maintain upon the Property such signs as it deems appropriate to advertise the development until the Declarant conveys the last Unit. Section 5 . Miscellaneous . All sporting equipment, toys, and other equipment and supplies necessary or convenient to residential living shall be enclosed or shall be screened from view. No boats or recreational vehicles shall be stored by an Owner unless stored inside a Garage . In addition, no television or radio antenna shall be erected or placed on the exterior of any Home. ARTICLE XIV GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1 . Duration and Binding Effect . The easements created hereby shall be permanent and the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall run with and bind the land and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or any Owner, their respective legal representatives , heirs , successors and assigns, for a term of twenty ( 20 ) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time said covenants and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive periods of ten ( 10 ) years . Section 2 . Amendment . This Declaration shall not be amended or revoked unless at least seventy-five percent ( 75%) of the Owners agree to such amendment or revocation. Section 3 . Enforcement . Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain such violation or to recover damages , and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants . Failure by the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. 19 Section 4 . Notices . Any notice required to be given to any Member or Owner under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly given when personally delivered or when mailed postpaid to the last known address of the person who appears as Member or Owner on the records of the Association at the time of such notice. Section 5 . Severability. In the event that any provision of this Declaration shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof . Section 6 . Singular and Plural; Gender; Joint and Several Obligations . When required by the context of this Declaration, the singular shall include the plural, or vice versa, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine or neutral gender. Any obligations of the Owners or Members shall be joint and several except where the context clearly requires otherwise. Section 7 . Governing Law. This Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written. JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONLA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation By: James E . Jasper Its : President [BANK] a Minnesota Corporation By: Its : Vice President 20 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February, 1993 by James E. Jasper, known to me to be the President of Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of February, 1993 by , of [Bank] , a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin & Willemssen 121 West Main Street PO Box 150 Waconia, Minnesota 55387 (rlh) ( 612 ) 442-5155 21 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia OWNER: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia ADDRESS: 235 W 1st Street ADDRESS: 235 W 1st Street Waconia, MN 55387 Waconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 612-442-5611 TELEPHONE: 612-442-5611 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. XX Subdivision fziC,C 2. Conditional Use Permit 12, Vacation of ROW/Easements 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Wetland Alteration Permit 5. X Notification Signs 5' /-' +` 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 7. Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost - (Collected after approval of item) 8. Sign Permits 18. Consuttant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. XX Site Plan Review /' TOTAL FEE S A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ATTPTC-M61 E 07 (u • PROJECT NAME Prairie Creek LOCATION NE Corner Lake Susan Hills Drive & Powers Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot C. Lake Susan Hills (Exact legal attached) PRESENT ZONING R-8 REQUESTED ZONING no change PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Medium Density Residential REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION same REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Intended platting of townhouse Proiect This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the _ Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best- of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded- against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. r�Lt vi L� &f 1/ pre S. 2-12-93 Signature Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner ? Date - Application Received on 4,947 1J Fee Paid $«05 Receipt No. la 1 g This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on That part of Government Lot 2 and the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows : Beginning at the most westerly corner of Outlot C, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK THIRD ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County, thence on an assumed bearing of South 58 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds East, along the southerly line of said Outlot C, a distance of 141 .50 feet to the most westerly corner of Lot 3, Block 7, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County; thence South 14 degrees 58 minutes 37 seconds East, along the southwesterly line of said Block 7, a distance of 308. 11 feet to the intersection with the northerly right of way of Lake Susan Hills Drive as delineated and dedicated on said LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST; thence southwesterly, a distance of 272.59 feet, along said northerly right of way line, along a nontangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 52 degrees 03 minutes 42 seconds, a radius of 300.00 feet and a chord bearing of South 48 degrees 59 minutes 32 seconds West; thence South 22 degrees 57 minutes 41 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, tangent to said curve, a distance of 166.46 feet; thence south— westerly, a distance of 186. 18 feet, along said northerly right of way line, along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, having a central angle of 66 degrees 40 minutes 20 seconds and a radius of 160.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 38 minutes 01 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 71.38 feet to the intersection with the easterly right of way line of C.S.A.H. No. 17 per corrected highway easement per book no. 157 of deeds, page 6; thence North 0 degrees 21 minutes 59 seconds West , along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 24.91 feet; thence northeasterly, a distance of 588.77 feet, along said easterly right of way line, along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 31 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds and a radius of 1070.92 feet; thence North 31 degrees 08 _ minutes 01 seconds East, along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 244.66 feet to the pct of beginning. ci - — C _ I 1 iii -1 I J It f ! ! , --- . ? 1 LLJ O 1 1.L1 1 t 1 i i 0110 tin;Atty.3._ - 91131.11.A1 _g_ cN O 3t I / I4 4 i 1ll I . -c LLI 1 .., .' -. AO ot I o ...... / .4 Illt '11 (4- eialaftIlltilliQ11111 3 ii /4.1ft? - -1 '-- 0. :. illttl lif T / if v' . .0 -1 0 / ,,p., .! ).61... „,„.„.„ 1 , 4. 0 _ %01, 1,...er y= •- 2 1 et / NI .z i 0 .rOf • P. il _ / ...? 46.04, , , , Awl•, � . • .*/( / 4gy __ LPA j43,06$ ,:e , 0 :�. 4 .. ..: . fa. AMU *V . '!. • 1 , - - It; toall 1 . . cli-) 1 -t.:;: t 0 1000 0*V:id?' v 1 .. O / ke 4il i ,a Woo 0 i k .i , - ett 0 . Ti] --' , , bio f; 0 '17107,...://i :, : t e , W. / . , i _ • / : ''' 4011$1111°) f li il /,i" czc) //1 • - Aitgi. / 7 ...,..* 4-4..,. ,, 1 2 I ,r, 1 / . / li. _ 1' _ I / 1 / A 404 MB=A-77- /I " Li iL 1 ._ 3 ism' y X 11 f 0 i t p 0,,7 ii • 0 S . O� Y f,'~3 . -.* . "4/ _ •felt* Y /*.%, 1111.1 , 1 1 _ 1,IJS * I !it 1)0k 1-; rilYi gig J4 * ILI ti y li Mardi y ti t101 V I a4 �k#I 1z- - * I1½ w milliiiiiiii --e-,--. .1.111 -. ' •-...:::-.::ig.::.-.4-. ___ ... :.-. . _ ..... , I • ,i .. J • . . .! 1 Op 7.:.:,...z.....i...,..1 _ 41 all EIE .B e 11000 _ 4h iI'D00 IINI tilD0 ---\(/ \\ :* ll'IC0D.'0.° I I _i:-. \ . ________ ,,,. ,1 1 r-r : )1I I 1 ri 1•, I, '-\ ; I i I ! ! ' Ill .... ‘"?\....___....,je•-\...r, 1 . /7/A r 41 •: i , \ '-' ki 0 . . i's .cr . Z Ililii:11 __.... ''. Lau \A. \........c,_ ..?„.., ' _,. ...., 1MIN 111§ — 1...--7 H I Llt WI 1'100 I j ' I ii001 I'm1 4 • 1. 91, ,... . z _ li 12009 c:o 31:1, I • 1 li 11, i_, , _ I \,-'"In :0'9 ir _ . 1 ii , I -- . I U. . a ISI � FM-1.- =III — lel ill 00 4 I I_ � - A MI 1.0 0 mil - J w 1 z -I r I. OM 1 J W W or C KITCHEN DINING -. - i z ,J 10-0 i 17•• MASTER BEDROOM ' 1 BEDROOM ' 11-• i 77-0 10'0 a 17.0 ---INIIMI i' • 7 , ---' '��-- �' ^` LIVING ROOM JI HALL ., »•o . n•0 3I I BATH -- LAUNDRY OY)R J i -- 11. Issi — ro o GARAGE 21.1 i 21•• ft I I I I I I I I I • 4.0.1,1 �► CHERRYWOOD 1150 FIlitSHED SQUARE FEET MAIN LEVEL FLOOR K.AN a--- ■ ---■ I 1E- � I � I • FUTURE FUTURE ,'' FUTURE BEDROOM BEDROOM--- RECREATION ROOM _ 1 • I - � Ir., - - �, i1,11 .. - itr II -11 _ oII MECHANICALHI / I ;i; FUTUR `, ,1, II 1LM II JI----J ♦ l UNEXCAVATED • i CHERRYWOOD — t»o UNFINISHED SOUARf FEET LOMB LEM PLAN n - I - �DEfK -- DINETTE % II `\ / i I \\ -��/ �KITCHE DINING MI�STERi BEDROOM - BEDROOM 1...1M-111 1114 1 1s-t I ,, 1 1 ii r - /Tam r/ 'C ' a _ i _ *TASTER DRS430 E.' CLOSET NUM. ii% i\II �. HALL1 ad g1'MASTER '0 LIVING ROOM BATH . LAUN E• ,•°••O 0 Mk : alk , di% r J _ % . . ..: :• ..J• . . . . .,l GARAGE 21-4 ata-1 4 _ I � �— 1.I ... - ROSEWOOD - 1313 FINISHED SQUARE FEET MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN IIIIMIM -- MNIMI- -- Y 1 1 I 1 1 1 L--1! I. -.. r° 11 • imi. . TI UM II r \ FUTURE �; FUTURE _ • BEDROOM BEDROOM _ FUTURE • 1 I •`'. �� RECREATION ,1�: S� ^'t;' ROOM , -- ------ �' i L__ Irr=��lr--- Nom > i; IJ v-•-41 r> - L__k' r rU FUTU . •- 5 314 BATH MECHANICAL of 2_,--'-- • • • i1� \ v . 1111 ,I II Il i! • • UNEXCAVATED . • •• r 1 i. .a 1,,--. a. ROSEWOOD 1294 UNFINISHED SQUARE FEET LOWER LEVEL PLAN z ii a u o ._ _ z ! � > = x ; E 3 Lq z rzi WU f V : :• ; :,1 ' •i• I I I I i I I i`T 4�r~� /-f 1 F .. — /* di& 1 ' I 1 Vii v. gg 111R I .. . • ,, k vii, = II lit iii / 1 e,_ i. , : 0 a ce / /11,;:'• i ' . • \ i.: ar. , , t , i I i. .: I all" ,; i i i . , ce it S+� / fri / k a ib/ V 7 / i ..... .. • ..,ii " - O ,„,.; , 61. i,Li i1 rr f^ rjil; , hi ..,2 .: _! S .,4 � =j t .9" I! .,/ � ;Iii - r F C l s ; � f !L,rii / rl.- 1" e - -' • ". 4#* rr . i la" / , -, -..--...-11 ' ..., .:. ,e, 4** W 0 a N \1 01_1. ✓ II. in o10! 4,„"/ .,,,,ill / _ IS 1 1N _ 100: / --_il ',. r.'if A ,,f: 4 / / / ,� .` / 3 a l''= • / "i'/ 4,7/ /./' //11.:11' ).‘ 1.44711‘ r°464411*(1 /' .... .11111111RAir / �/ / F / // .n.../ x i..k... 3 a / / i 01 o • Si 6 Wo ii3i } 0 YN i Q $w= _C , Y ig s zzm_ - OU rl yy [5 `111 ;1 (p�. a -< Ct // ,.........,./:„..........e'. _ 1 / /// ./ /' ' 1 Q 1 i+ i I c, 9 f o • ,a la 6 I i o -! ,, ! �; SQA / A. 4t0•0104, ; //// 7 / ' . - , -.1--,, 4F,i = ///i //-fik,-- 2 f .1 1 i f / , "'"IIMMft.,,vilikrili". 0 / /- '• k I l' / i ! t ' / ,�?: ' =i// ill I / ' l'. : _ / A . . \ .S1140110 h 1 : 7 ! ; ,_; `�/ , v i ' .i _ i i , 46._, /...... ,i'" ": : . 1 i ' -;qZ 1 / ,�'�j't r :, let IL �,rr ,,fie ! r B. _ r ..g..N : ,-, ! .. -. -\cto.s,-es ,,„.___,a-.--,,ioric*' d44_6_._________._..•.1,4. A.. A; 0 i/'r_./.i ! / 'i: /_I_T/", ,` '2• .\,...„ cI;/,t .: ,1 A, auP7 i / I A'` ,1 '/ // / / l' 110;111'' -- elrallialliPIA-AT\ IS ` �•�Ai,i � 1,/ ,, _ 1� 3>- / is /al], -' * i''CI IC / , - // V / / ',-.3,... ) 7,7 '.- ' )- •_..—" %, ' 1 ' / // / !:-.;-,- /A: * i - ,441,,,,A,* 1* o „ . / / -,.,7: // /r(--' '-'" , .‘A / / ,, F ! — \ ( A te,,,,,,e. 1 61,/ .0. 4, / \ \ ,. (i- ,,tim&graf' , .r , ; / / ) 1 k 1 bx.:. ,,f 4.w,,,,4,0 r4 // ,../ . / , , . .. ]---, 0., ,/, , _: ,- E , / / ,/y,, , ,,,.. m , ! W 41.111r 1 / ° 7 : .''''.F., / IV-Tr--7..er XI'. 7— 1-'''': t! f...:„. j -=-.* :4 / 1 11 )c. / //1 J !/ Vtd j N ' 9.1 ;y�/ / �. z > W i v in Z 55i e Zaw a / J / / r .4001, / - ..." ..e.r .. / ie:/'' . 4 . , :,„ _4 f.4.,* , s,. ,,,,, i , ri-1: . 2 f t.,/ 444470, in. ...,..,.. I � — ' 3 I 40: n \ Alit .„. i . , c,.. • , 0,,, , ii, , . _F. / ,_,,, ...„ / 7 • J 15! ice. vi i+1 o / ." /I diep cc cl- f. . 1 i { .12 / f I IJI I b i p/ / / O; i - `'" - 1 i 1t r o 7 _ e}- 3 i. --deo.47:. %`, 1 4i$ , 4 lir / ',/ 2.1: . 411 1 - -7,- 4 P/1 ..4_,., : . 11100, �; o� N to< —i 41 ; ,r" \„, \o 0, , V / 1,/ `7,& / 111?‘ 1 , ,/ , / /% / • .tel A- \ /' /----- ----, it ' "•-r-\C.."-\\414110k , ,, , ' 1 ,..,./i ., C VI / - _ --- _ _ ;I, O ;/ r / sem = ; ,_ 1 i I / / 'I t. 4111P Y / T I F.' -ax 40 / I I iI ,,, _,.,... y �. / I W p 1.61I / Z i 410,..„ I / ,a � Ii / / .%.. //, / �r - / 1 It \ g II t 13111,ili o 1 ii IISII 1 / ii, ; ; .- 1iiiii ill it � o -4-a77-1-1,4- I V 7.1 a r. 3. �— r it+ / - .e�'�-"'a`'"''''°"y`'`� ' F. — 2 i ,SII /f _'rr''--- -- �1 • 1 .,.� O l ( 'Orr k I !/ /) I 13 ii lI ' I • I i ^ , 1 I �L i �� //�/' • of 9 ,i; ' 1 ! / ` 1.411 lit ' / .* k 'ss • 144'6 II tI , r 1 di d ! /` ` '‘ - ------ / t 1 I N \� i 1i ". / _ i i I. / f' I. '"- ..., / / / „,, ,••• ,, / ts, ii - / O;li '`s --,r J i t / J ..,— 4I /,/' 's . .4 ,v 1 +, 1. 1 �J y-, /' 4::, J „„. ,.. ...... ...., / ,,,,,,, : , rvi ,./ .... . ,,,• -- , //,' - #- -- 7/ , , , ...___ , .., z I f ,'Li>> i f i • i /,, „, 4 1 i , 1 i/ R" ?Sill! Pill ' : 1,1111111111 • l-- - ow - • '. Citi., I . IIIRSICT . a ! ;1 't-00 ' IIIIIIIIIP ai 371:i-! p`p;� _ ill I 1 i -. 400b .. x:00❑ ry ' I ARBH _ h111 4 010 0 ill:, . 401E1_9., ADiem i, : i i rt..„ . \,)-_,--,_. ! , , :,=,.:,:::, :.....„: , ,_ , .__,,,_:_..., , . I -c- I ' 1 • I/ .:•:::Y47:7:-.:-4141 Vii, r -rel / ' \. •• _ ...V .\'..‘'- , •, 10111. . -: •_.f.. z I i IT: 1 �� Iy 1-R im ,�,., " . Q i® 1 W ►g:., J _ / •.. la . °°poop _ F- ii 0000 Z 0000 o - 0007.0 00111'D �C lig ,; = : _ Imo illi •I11 .�I,h1I.q� l,iIII!1 = ;1,.il I , F.,,11IX,i..IIIyPIII. ° i 1 1 I : 1 1.;1111.,•..:Ii111:a1F 1 ill' f -iii I F F ��''I'a'!1 3 III -MTI ;I:.!fil. t I. l• 1 rl = l1 ' ' 'ILS=1 !.I 11! ` igiiH;it 1 II;lq _- ,,: y i , l.ii , i,`1:1111 `II;,ill ;,I _.. , .- {I�h1°i,� .'''i, ill 1111.11 11 ,lilj i1 14'!ll l i 111111 = , , i �i Mi .1..0.1 Iliil 11111 � _thi 1.. _, — •11."...; 1 IIII II1�1.1'.I.i'-- -__- � 1I� III, , 1'1,i _ - - I. !1!; Ik ial�lI t - _ ;I/,I., .'i 111�1I1''lr. 4,.'. - —'—. II 1 li,li;i,;Il' '1';,111 .t. �_ ;� it _ II iii oil r iq lip I I i1i q,G -:—i_: :�i1,:41111!1.1I,I��:I141. 111 ,�:� tl II ,1;!Il.l:.I p1 II 1U '''1 1 1,1 ,111 :'.I, . _ C I' i,;�'•i'li.,,i'?I. lijl 1IIll;j, .• 1 i' 'IIll;i1 Ioli„ii�I'Iq 4 llli= : lam :...L1� ' 6ll 114 dill! :-„ .11:.1:1,1,;1 iltlI i!;i li Iiilil 1,111.1 - 1 1 f ri 711 I 1 I - 7— j z i 0 a 7-7 1 >� - --I I W .1 I 1 W 1 I 1 i Ce a W Ce 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli , Ladd Conrad , Nancy Mancino , Jeff Farmakes , Matt Ledvina , Joe Scott , and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner ; and Dave Hempel , Assistant — City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 76.47 ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE HOLDING PONDS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD , AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address Riley F . Kopp Argus Development Don Patton RCI Ron Isaak Argus Development Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering Phil Jungbluth Argus Development Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Randy Koepsell 1110 Dove Court Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Ron & Ann Kloempken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Don & Annabelle Diamond 1131 Dove Court Randy Marquette 1101 Dove Court John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chan Hills Drive No . Thomas A . Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No . David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive Tom Burns 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jim Pehringer 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive Robert Smithburg 8651 Chan Hills Drive No . Dave Dummer 417 Santa Fe Trail Rod Annis 8625 Chan Hills Drive No . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 2 Batzli : Does anyone on the Planning Commission have any questions they want to ask Jo Ann or Dave before we ask the applicant for their presentation? Harberts: I have one . Could someone just explain the rationale with regard to the front yard setback reduced to 25 feet . This is number 1 in — the recommendations . Olsen: It 's adding flexibility . It 's not a requirement . We 're allowing _ them to do that and what that does is , along what 's shown as Mallard Court is that it can pull the house up 5 feet closer and a lot of the trees were. in the rear of the lot and so that would help . Harberts: Okay , so it 's a matter of saving the landscape . Olsen: Right . — Ledvina : Do we want to restrict that 25 foot setback or allow the 25 foot setback to a certain number of lots? Olsen: You can do that . Ledvina : As you 've written the recommendation here , this applies to the — entire subdivision . Is that correct? Olsen: Right . — Mancino: On page 6 Jo Ann , you talk about the City can require caliper replacement of tree . Staff is recommending that the applicant work with — staff and the DNR Forester to develop a reforestation plan . That is not put in the recommendations . Olsen: Yeah , that was a mistake . Is that page 6 did you say? — Mancino: Well , yeah . Olsen: Right , okay . Mancino : So did you mean to leave that out of the . Olsen : No , I think I just forgot to put that one in . Mancino: Because I think that 's . . .is that we will be asking for _ reforestation of the lost trees . Scott : Excuse me Jo Ann . On this Mallard Court is the longer cul-de-sac _ that 's on Block F? Olsen: Right . Scott : I just took a look , I know we 've got a new cul-de-sac length ordinance . I think it 's 600 feet . Did someone calculate the length of that cul-de-sac because if it 's non-conforming with the new cul-de-sac length ordinance , that has to be pulled up . And I just took a look at it . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 3 Olsen: I think the 600 foot minimum is . — Scott: Or maximum . Olsen: Maximum , right . Is if it could be connected with another street or if it should be a thru street . It 's not necessarily saying that you have to pull it back to that distance . What the ordinance is saying is that there 's a reason , a physical reason why that street cannot be connected to another subdivision , to another phase , then it can be a — longer distance . I don 't know that we 've ever used it to require that cul-de-sac to be , you know that has to be a cul-de-sac to be reduced . — Batzli : Okay . Would the applicant like to give us a presentation or talk to us about the conditions? Wayne Tauer : Good evening . My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering . I 'm representing the Joe Miller Homes . Argus Development tonight . We have a couple people from Joe Miller Homes here tonight who can also answer questions . I think before we move on I 've got some -' literature that I would like to probably hand out just to expand on a little bit as to what I 'll be talking about tonight . Maybe I could ask Jo Ann or somebody to take these . Okay , everybody got one? Jo Ann , maybe if you could rotate that to the left making kind of north up . Maybe we can just get a better feeling making Powers Boulevard go , yeah . Well , back a little bit more . Well I mean rotate it . Doesn 't Powers kind of run north/south there? Something like that . Now we 're getting close . Okay . — Generally speaking , running through the points on page 11 I guess . The conditions of approval . We have basically no major problems with that . Jo Ann touched on a park problem that we will have to go back to the Park Board and talk about . I think an assumption was made in a preliminary drawing that possibly shouldn 't have been made and I guess maybe that 's about all I need to talk about it tonight . Where we were putting a pond on city park . Well , we didn 't think it was city park . We were just going to be basically nice guys and give more park away is what we were going to do but we are going to give all the park that the PUD and the preliminary concept program did recommend so therefore , everybody 's going to be happy hopefully , after the Park Board meeting . Just talking , a couple of minor exceptions or revisions , possibly typos in the staff report . On page 5 , I believe , it talks about average lot size . In the middle of that larger — paragraph , about 2/3 of the way down where it says the average lot size is 13 ,658 . Actually it 's much larger than that . It 's closer to 17 ,500 . Between 17 ,000 and 18 ,000 based on how you figure it out . So we are above the average or the minimum lot size by far . That City requirement is of course 15 ,000 square feet . Farmakes: Is that taking into account the setbacks and the land areas and — so on? Wayne Tauer : Well that is the lot specific . Farmakes: The average size . Wayne Tauer : The average size of every lot , right . Not including streets . or . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 4 — Farmakes: Where you can 't build? — Wayne Tauer : No . I don 't know . Now Jo Ann , is that a . Olsen: When I did the calculation , I just did the lot areas themselves . Farmakes: So what you 're saying is that there 's a 4 ,000 square foot discrepancy here on the average lot size? — Wayne Tauer : Well it depends on how you calculate it I guess . We 're talking about the boundaries of the lot here . That 's what the boundaries — of the lots area . 17 ,550 square feet . Olsen: We can recalculate that . Conrad: Why is there a difference Jo Ann? Olsen: I don 't know if we know why there 's a difference . — Conrad: A lot size is a lot size . Wayne Tauer : Yeah . Yeah . Yeah , I went back actually through each number on one of your handouts here and averaged those up . Actually it came up higher but that 's what we have on our preliminary plat is 17 ,550 so I 'm going to stay with that . But no , we are not under 15 ,000 for average lot — size . We are above 15 ,000 and that 's I guess the only thing I wanted to point out . Okay , one of the other things I wanted to talk about a little bit was the landscape plan along Powers Boulevard , County Road 17 . There was a recommendation in there that we should abide by the City 's primary deciduous tree list . One of the problems we had with that , and we knew of the list when we did it but the thing that we have a problem with is the — fact that virtually every tree on that list is not salt tolerate at all . Either they 're very sensitive to salt spray or very sensitive to salt in their root structures . Therefore that 's why we changed some of the tree types along County Road 17 . Anytime you have a major thoroughfare where — speeds exceed 40 to 50 mph , you 're going to have a problem with that , especially a county road where they salt quite heavily . I can see that primary list being a good list for anything that is residential in nature — where it 's 30 mph or less and not a major amount of salting is done . In the handouts that I gave you , maybe just for your own information , I did some research . Actually I 've had it in my files for a long time and that 's where some of the design work that we do was based on . On those — particular recommendations by the University of Minnesota . So maybe just for your own information you can walk through those and see the trees that are salt tolerate and salt sensitive . And that 's why we 're changing it . — Now again , we can work with the city staff and work out a reasonable solution to this . Maybe not all primary trees . Maybe some on the secondary list are more appropriate . Also I know one of the problems or — one of the things that people who are here tonight are going to look at , as far as the plat goes is the tree removal process and how much we are actually going to remove . We have an exhibit that I think most of the neighbors have seen at the neighborhood meeting Monday night but for the — Commission 's viewing , we 're going to pull it out here . Where would be the best place to put this? Right here? North is being that way of course . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 5 The trees that you see in green here are the ones that are being saved . Unfortunately I guess I didn 't highlight the ones that are being lost . The major , there are some being lost right in here obviously where the cul-de- sac is and where the house pads are ultimately going to be . This is where we worked with the staff to move the cul-de-sac to the west basically . We 're moving this road over . We 're asking for a 5 foot front yard setback here . That allows you the 5 feet . We 're asking for a 5 foot setback here . That allows you to . . .we 've adjusted the grades in here so we get down and match the grades better . So the trees there were in the backyards are now being able to save . The ones that are actually on the pads are real hard to save obviously . We did pull this cul-de-sac back , therefore most of the trees on the pine knob are being saved . And then a nice band along here being saved and virtually every tree , except for just a few right here , are being saved along Lake Susan . So there 's a major band here . Major group here and a band here that are being saved . And a group that are between the two groups . . .are being saved . We worked up the numbers and that 's on the handout that we gave you . There 's a total of 938 trees . . .specifically shot from here over . And out of those trees we 're leaving 279 , which turns out to be 29 .74% . Of those trees , you can see the breakdown . 30 are oaks and 30 are elms and 27 basswoods and so on and so forth . Now amongst that group we did not go down to this area and count these trees at all or this group in here . We have no idea I guess basically as far as what count is down there . But as you can see , it 's a fairly major group and it 's trees that obviously are the parks but we 're not taking them out . So if you 're talking about an overall average , I mean probably 29% is not a real number based on what trees on the entire — project that we 're saving . It may drop dramatically . I supposed we could go out and get a count down there . We didn 't think it was necessary . In fact we are saving 70% of the trees on the site I think is probably pretty _ good for a residential development . I guess basically that 's about my only concerns that I had about the staff report . Was those minor changes in the square footage and to let you know what we 're doing as far as tree removal , or saving trees , as far as that goes . I 'll be glad to answer questions . Batzli : Let me ask one about your issue with the primary versus secondary list . In the conditions what staff is asking for is 50% from the primary species list . You want to change that from 50% so that you can choose more than 50% from a different list? Wayne Tauer : No , I don 't know if I want to do many from the primary list at all because those trees will be dead in a few years . I 'm saying that they are not salt tolerate and maybe for a year or two they might survive or until such time as the . . . You know they may survive for a while because of the fact that there 's only 2 lanes at this point in time . But as soon as 4 lanes go in and the salt tolerance probably comes into effect when the high speed develops . I mean I 'm not saying that we 're not going to put in nice trees . I just don 't , I want to kind of get away from the primary list a little bit so that when we develop , trees that will ultimate survive in this area . Batzli : So you 're thinking about landscaping along the road there and not internal to the project? That 's where you 're concerned? Planning Commission Meeting — March 17 , 1993 - Page 6 Wayne Tauer : We will also put $150 .00 worth of landscaping per lot . That 's also part of our program . It 's hard to show any kind of a landscape plan due to the fact that you have no idea where the trees are really going to be . Once you determine where the houses are going to sit ,- where it ,- where the driveway 's going to be and where these surfaces are going to go , it 's just a condition of approval we prefer and we would put that $150 .00 per lot into each lot yet . That 's not a problem . We 're not disagreeing with that . Batzli : So do you have a problem with putting species from the primary list internal to the development? — Wayne Tauer : No . Internal 's fine . Batzli : Jo Ann , on this condition , were you thinking that all of these species were going to go along the county road there? Olsen: No , not necessarily . They have to provide additional landscaping within the subdivision itself . You know with the boulevards plantings one so no . We do not want Russian Olives and trees like that . Wayne talked to me about this and we can look into that and I 'm going to research to — see whether those trees are salt tolerate or not also . But the 50% can easily still apply within the plat itself . Mancino: Is this $150 .00 for landscaping just include plant materials? Olsen: It doesn 't state what it 's really going towards . I mean the $150 .00 doesn 't buy you whole lot . — Scott : It 's like one tree . Olsen: That was '87 . Ledvina : That 's a question that I have . Is it appropriate to adjust that for inflation which has occurred over the last 6 years? I mean that woulc be about 25% or 30% over that time to get a comparable landscape or tree or whatever as was originally intended with the PUD contract . Olsen: Today we require $750 .00 . It 's $500 .00 for sod and $250 .00 for trees . Scott : Especially since a major issue of this development has to do witF trees and reforestation , that appears to be quite appropriate in this instance . Batzli : What 's the ramification of adjusting that Paul? Any? Krauss : Well as long as we 're allowed to do it within the PUD guidelines — which I think we may be . Olsen: Well , the PUD contract stated it was $150 .00 per lot . There was a 5 year grace period for the PUD contract that stated that any new regulations you couldn't apply but that 5 year grace period ended on December of 1992 . So we can look into that but technically I think you Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 7 can now pull in any other regulations that you wish to do . Or else you could even just recommend that the PUD contract be amended and go that — route too . Krauss: I should also pointed out that the way the $750 .00 is applied elsewhere in the city is it 's , if you already have mature trees on your property that are being saved , you 're not obligated to put any more in . So at that point you just have the $500 .00 for seed and sod . . . So you — wouldn 't be getting more trees in that area . . . Scott: Yeah , because that looks like at least 50% of the lots don 't have any trees on them , or won't have any trees on them . Batzli : I thought it was a regulation that the developer had to either seed or sod all disturbed areas . Krauss : We put that into the development contract . The developer is obligated to do that with the major grading and such but what happens is — oftentimes , it probably won 't happen in this case because . . .but a lot of • times lots are sold off to other builders and they 're brought in 2 , 3 , 4 years from now and we typically have that $750 .00 provision in there to make sure that each individual home as it states is taken care of . Mancino : Mr . Chairman , I have a question . — Batzli : Go ahead . Mancino : 67% of the oak will be removed . Where is that on your drawing? Where is the bulk of the 67% that will be removed? Wayne Tauer : 67% of the trees being removed are oak . Of 30% . Well , I don 't know exactly where every one is . Mancino: Okay , so there is no one major place? Wayne Tauer : Well , I suppose generally most of them are right in here and I suppose there 's a few over here . We do have a plan that typically points out where every tree is . We have a number . We actually went out _ and counted a tag on every tree out there has a number and it corresponds to a list . I believe that 's in your particular handout . But I guess I didn 't memorize it . I don 't know exactly . Ron , you went through that a little bit . Generally , can you tell me where most? Ron Isaak : They 're generally scattered all throughout but the more bigger trees are up on the hill . Farmakes: I have a question also . What type , on Block 1 , Lots 1 , 2 and 8 , what type of house do you plan on putting in there? That would be a lot area of 12 .6 , 12 .8 and 12 .7 . That 's your smaller lots . Particular 1 has a fair amount of contour there . Wayne Tauer : Okay , which number? You 're in Block 1 you say? Farmakes: Block 1 , Lot 1 , Lot 2 and Lot 8 . Planning Commission Meeting — March 17 , 1993 - Page 8 Wayne Tauer : . . .not a major amount of contour in there . Farmakes: It looks like 1 has a fair amount . More than 10 feet . Wayne Tauer : Well existing , there might be a definite break there due to the fact that I think some of the artificial grading has gone on when Lot 3 over here was built . It looks like a very definite slope . We 're going _ to come in and probably flatten that out a little bit but generally the lot will be flat except for . . . Farmakes: What square footage house do you estimate that you 'd be puttinc on there? Wayne Tauer : . . .what square footage house will go on the lots on this encl.- building ncsbuilding right here . Phil Jungbluth: Well there 's architectural controls which we have yet to set . And one deals with developing this . . .square footage , whether it 's a multi-level house , single level house . . . At this point we can 't really say what the square footage of any particular house is going to be on any particular lot . — Farmakes : Is there a structure on Lot 3 at the moment? Is there a structure on Lot 3 , the adjacent lot? — Wayne Tauer : I guess I 'm not sure . Probably . Those lots . . .are sold out: Phil Jungbluth: Oh yeah . Farmakes: But is there a home on that lot? I didn 't view that particular lot when I went out and looked at the property . . . That lot is how many square feet? That 3 , the adjacent lot next to 1? Do you have any idea? Is it scaled off? Wayne Tauer : I suppose we can get a comparison . How big is Lot 1 . . .? Olsen: Lot 1 , Block 1? Wayne Tauer : Yes . Olsen: 12 ,600 . Wayne Tauer : 12 .6? I suppose that might be about 14 ,000 then . Farmakes: Is that homeowner here tonight by any chance? That 's you? Resident : Yes . Farmakes: Can you tell me , what is the square footage of your property there on 3? Resident : About 135 feet by . . . Batzli : I don 't think we have a definitive answer . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 9 Farmakes: Depending on how fluid the land is there isn 't it? Batzli : If you asked me , I 'd have no clue what mine was . Farmakes: Alright . I 'm assuming that we 're going to hear . . .vague as it is . Mancino: His house is 2 ,000 square feet . t — Farmakes: I didn 't mean your house , I meant your lot . Batzli : Did you have anything else? — Resident : No . Ledvina: I had a question . Regarding the stockpiles of soil that are on — the site . Will those just be graded in overall? Ron Isaak: My understanding is that 's part of our . . . Ledvina : Okay , so those topsoil stockpiles will be completely removed? I guess what I 'm concerned about is the possibility that those areas haven 't — been , if they 're going to remain , that they haven't been adequately compacted . So those would be cut out entirely and back to the native ground and then compaction as necessary would be done and if there 's fill in that area? Ron Isaak : If it 's in a controlled fill area , yes . It will be compacted . . . Batzli : Okay , thank you very much . We ' ll probably have questions after we close , get done with public comment . This is a public hearing . If anyone would like to address the commission , please come forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record . Do you have one for the staff? — Robert Smithburg: No I don 't . I 'm sorry . Batzli : Why don 't you give this one to them so that it can go in the _ record . Robert Smithburg: My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North , which is across from the southwest corner of — the proposed development . I 'm here to raise a serious concern about this development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed . — The concern I have is to present , or excuse me , to prevent the destruction of valuable old growth trees . These trees , which are 80 to 150 years old , are an irreplaceable resource . I want the Commission to know that I _ received a letter on March 2nd from Joseph Miller informing me that they have made several design changes in order to address this concern . I thank Joseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into consideration with regards to saving old growth trees . However , their — changes do not go far enough . From the neighborhood meeting on Monday Planning Commission Meeting — March 17 , 1993 - Page 10 night , I estimate the elimination of over 50% of the old growth trees and we disagree . Tonight their presentation I think was somewhat deceiving . Batzli : Can you please put the map back up on the easel? Thank you . — Robert Smithburg: The tree loss , there will not be as they pointed out , there won 't be tree loss along Lake Susan because that is not , that site — is not developable . We have a major stand of old growth trees right here I 'd say at least 100 to 200 yards wide so you 'll have major loss here and this whole area of the hill right here where the road comes in off Powers Boulevard is all trees also . I have reviewed the 1987 development agreement . In Attachment A , clause 6( B ) , which I have in my back page , the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plat by the city . I ask the Commission to exercise it 's authority to not — approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees ha been prevented . I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this plan violates Chanhassen 's Comprehensive Plan , the Tree Preservation Act _ or any other city ordinances . And please refer to Attachment C9 . I believe the Planning Commission has the opportunity and the responsibilit, to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does here tonight . I also believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation — to act responsibly . The standards of the 1987 PUD agreement are minimums compared with current standards . I am asking you , the developer , to in good faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligations of 1987 and meet — the current standards of 1993 . Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhasse. you are a consciencious and environmentally sound developer who will be encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future . Thank you very much . — Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yet. please . Don Wisdorf : My name 's Don Wisdorf and I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills Drive North . I have similar feelings to the previous speaker , Bob . That stand of trees , I don 't know if you 've had a chance to go out there and _ take a look at it but you gain a quick appreciation for the age of those trees and the size of those trees . What the developers pointed out as fa) as putting in , I also am opposed to to a certain degree . We do appreciate the concessions he 's made to , at least it 's in the right direction but we— feel it 's quite a distance yet from really what needs to be done to save this old growth of trees . Bob had mentioned that they 're about 80 to 150 years old . Depending on size and also type of soil they 're in , they could be even older than that . One thing that 's not shown on here is the numbe• of trees that are being removed and if you take a close look at the circles that are here , if we were to fill those all in with red , on the — inside , you 'd really get an impact about what 's really being removed . There is a lot of trees along the shoreline which is not developable . Bot'.. take a look at the trees that are in this area and here are some photographs I 'd like to pass around to give you an idea in regards to siz1— of these trees . What 's really going to be devastated . Farmakes: In your discussions with the developer did you have discussions- with regards to specific lots or . . .? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 11 Don Wisdorf : We had questions on specific lots but our feelings are is that the entire development needs to have more in appreciation for the trees that are there . For example , the ones that are along Powers Boulevard , that 's a very large stand of trees . That is completely being wiped off where the development 's going in there . There 's about 1 ,000 , or about 950 tags on those trees and our best estimate is that it 's more like , of the ones that are going to be removed , are the larger sized trees . We realize that the builder has a right to be able to develop that property and we welcome development into the neighborhood , since it is zoned for residential development . We appreciate his efforts to be able to try to improve the impact upon the trees but I think it has to go further than a few lots being custom graded and the Mallard Drive being moved . They moved it about 5 feet to the southwest . I would suggest at the minimum that you consider moving that Drive more than 5 feet because if you move it more to the southwest you ' ll be able to save a significant area of trees within that area . There 's about , I counted about 13 lots that were deemed to be custom graded and as you know with custom grading , you still have a major amount of devastation but if we could , if they have more lots that could be custom graded rather than the 13 , in fact that gives us almost half of those lots have old growth trees standing on them . I 'd strongly urge your consideration of more than just 13 lots . I 'd say all of the heavily wooded lots , which is about maybe 40 or 45 lots that are there should really be custom graded . That would be another thing that would be able to at least help this development be more friendly to the trees . This is an issue not just of the area , neighbors in the area but it 's also an issue in regards to Chanhassen . As you know we 've got the Tree Board that 's just starting to get developed . Our particular issue we 're dealing here tonight is going to be very similar to ones we have in the future and I think it 's important that we pay close attention to try and preserve these old trees throughout our city which have really been here longer than the city itself and in some cases longer than what the State of Minnesota has been established , and I think we need to be very sensitive to that . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you for your comments . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Tom Rasmussen: Good evening . My name is Tom Rasmussen . I live at 8531 Merganser Court . I 'm directly across the street on the west side of Powers Boulevard and if you came into my living room and looked out , you 'd see the entire development from left to right . So I 've got a good view here . I guess what I 've got is a couple of other concerns , more in regards to the plan when I reviewed it . I was just wondering if the — Engineering Department has had a chance to look at the slopes leading to the NURP detention ponds . They appear to be fairly steep and what I 'm concerned with is that if anybody is there with children or whatever , _ future down the road , as somebody goes ahead and buys these plans and the kids are playing , they could slide right into those ponds . And if those ponds don 't have a bench , by bench I mean having a slope that 's fairly mild so that they can stop before they go sliding in all the way down , that there 's the potential for some drownings and some accidents . I just want to point that out as a concern to your attention . The other thing is access to these ponds . These ponds require maintenance by heavy equipment and there needs to be a route for machinery and stuff to get there and to Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 12 do access and I just want to bring up that point too to make sure that they can go ahead and clean these ponds so they 're effective . If they fill up with sediment , then they 're essentially worthless . My second area of concern is dealing with the speed limit along County Road 17 . It seems_ like every day I 'm having more and more of a problem turning left out onto CR 17 . The posted speed limit there is 50 . I have a hard time believing that most of those cars are doing that . I think they 're doing 55 or _ greater and we 're essentially coming from a dead stop out into that and sometimes they 're just boom , right up on your tail and you 're just trying to go up to TH 5 , a short distance . I guess what I would like to request that the City , on behalf of my neighbors and myself , is to reduce the - speed limit . There 's about a 9/10 of a mile segment that 's 50 mph and reduce that down to 40 mph . And what this would do , it would only add 16 seconds to the commute time but what I would like to , I just think for a safety reasons , I guess what concerns me is they 're proposing a fairly large park across the street and as the kids on the west migrate across , they essentially could be crossing with cars traveling in excess of 50-55 and even 60 mph and I don 't think anybody would want their children - crossing that street . I guess what I 'm requesting is that that be reduce( down to 40 . For the safety sake . My third area I 'd like to briefly just talk about is that Monday night the developer mentioned moving some of the- trees instead of devastating them and cutting them down . Moving some . I guess what I would like to see is a specific number of trees that they 're planning on moving . Where they 're planning to move them to and it would be nice to get those nicer trees up along Powers Boulevard . And if you raise the , if the slope comes up from Powers Boulevard and at a distance with the reduced speed on Powers Boulevard , then maybe salt isn 't such an issue anymore . Like he had mentioned , 40 mph seems to be the major point - So thank you for your time . Batzli : Thank you . Dave , would you address some of Mr . Rasmussen 's concerns regarding slopes and erosion and the speed limit . Hempel : Certainly Mr . Chairman . The retention ponds are proposed to be built to NURP standards . That type of design allows for a bench around the pond that has a 10: 1 slope , which means the first foot of water will be a gradual , the first 10 feet of the pond it will only be 1 foot deep . After that I think it goes at about 2 1/2 to 1 slope . So there will be a bench around each one of the NURP ponds . As far as the speed issue along Powers Boulevard . Powers Boulevard is a county road and all speed modifications and so forth is under the jurisdiction of MnDot . The City _ can certainly petition the County to also petition MnDot to perform a speed study on Powers Boulevard to see if the speeds are accurately posteL for warrants . My initial thoughts out there , it 's 50 mph north of Highway 5 along Powers and we have built up conditions north of Highway 5 along - Powers also . It would be of some interest to check with the State and sea when the last speed study was done along Powers Boulevard there since we have had quite a few residential developments go in the area . On another _ note , the city and county will , in approximately 5 to 10 years enter into a joint construction project for the widening of Powers Boulevard . It will be widened to approximately a 52 foot wide urban section . That 's - with curb and gutter . At that time most definitely the speed limit would be lowered I would assume in the range between 35 and 45 mph . Mr . Rasmussen brought up a valid point as far as children crossing Powers Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 13 Boulevard to reach access to the park and continue on to Chan Hills , since there will be a trail connection there . It may be wise to consider also pedestrian crossing anyway and again that would have to be approved through the State of Minnesota . Followed up by the Carver County Highway Department . So those are a couple issues that we can certainly pass on to the County to look into as well as the State . Batzli : Would you address one other thing and that is erosion control . The conditions related to that . Hempel : Certainly . The applicant/developer will be required to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City 's recently adopted Best Management Practice Handbook , which will address erosion control needs , slope stabilization and so forth throughout the development . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pete Kurth : Good evening . My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive . That is the First Addition of the Joe Miller properties . The first development on Lake Susan . I guess I 'd like to share with you some of my experiences that we had with the reforestation process on Phase 1 , and I 'm sure many of these restrictions were in place . What the developer had done was to take trees that were native to the area and transplant those on our lot in a very unnatural setting . For example , I had 3 trees in a row placed directly on the property line . And these were scrub trees . They met the reforestation requirements that were placed upon them but they were trees that were also planted in a very unnatural setting and then during the construction process of our home , they were further damaged to the point that it was necessary for me to _ remove them once the home was completed . The developer met this obligation to the PUD development but I , as a property owner didn 't have anything . My concern is the trees in that we physically protect those . We mandate silt guards to prevent the erosion into the lake . I think that we need to take that one step further and protect our trees . We need to identify the grade that these trees are currently at and make sure that they 're not damaged during the construction process . My concern there is _ that Joe Miller is the developer but he 's not the person who does the actual construction . And those developers or contractors may or may not share his ecology values . They 're concerned about production . If those are damaged during the construction process , which they often are , susceptible to damage during delivery of materials , excavating , placement of driveways and what have you , they 're lost forever . So I think we 're protecting the waterlands by mandating silt guards . I think we need some kind of physical barrier on these trees to make sure the trees are not damaged . And that 's my concern . Batzli : Thank you very much . Olsen: Just real quickly to answer that . We do require the trees that are going to be preserved do have to have snow fencing . It 's whatever the crown is , we do half again that size . The diameter around the trees so they cannot get the trucks in there and dump soil or anything on the root system so we do provide that protection . Planning Commission Meeting _ March 17 , 1993 - Page 14 Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jim Domholt : Good evening . My name is Jim Domholt . I 'm at 8251 West Lake Court . I 'd like to set this up for a moment if I may . I don 't border this area but I don 't notice any of the neighbors who are here tonight and I did raise some concerns about this at the meeting on Monday . This area right across here , there 's been a , as was mentioned , a very large mound of dirt compiled out there during earlier phases of construction , and it has caused a tremendous amount of water problems for the homes that are already built there that border to the west and border to the north . And I think it 's a concern of those residents that - something pretty definite be stated as far as what 's going to be done with that mound . If it 's going to be brought back to the original grade , that that be stated pretty clearly so that after this row of homes is done and _ it wasn 't brought back to the natural grade , there 's nothing can be done at that point in time . And there have been a lot of water control problems on the original phase because of the way the contouring originally had been done . Thank you . — Batzli : Thank you . Dave , are you aware of that problem that they have right there on , is it the northwest corner? — Hempel : Yes I am Mr . Chairman . There 's some existing stockpile of topsoil and excess material that creates some additional drainage going _ towards the existing homes there to the west . It 's my understanding base< on the grading plan that that material will be removed and those lots wil . be graded in the fashion that the front part of the lot will drain out towards the new street and the backyards will continue to drain towards — the west along that drainage swale . It appears that the drainage area that contributes to that westerly area right now will be reduced with this new development once those existing dirt piles are removed . _ Batzli : So more of the water will be moved towards the east once that pile 's removed? Hempel : That 's correct . As the homes are built out there , the lots will be graded so the drainage area is reduced . Batzli : Thank you . Does anyone else have any comment for the Commission' If not , is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Nancy , why don 't we start with you if we can . Mancino : I had a few more questions . In looking at the trail map we have here , it designates D and E on the western side of Lake Susan . Are we _ going to lose more trees due to the trail going in there? Olsen: Well actually I think that trail 's there isn 't it? I think we 'd just be redoing that trail along the lake there . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 15 Hempel : A portion of that trail is in place , that 's correct . There 's already an existing sanitary sewer line that runs along part of the lake there also . Olsen: Where we did look at , where they were going to trail would have — resulted in some more tree loss , I believe we were working with Todd to relocate that between two of the lots that didn 't have trees and so we were working on that too . — Mancino: Okay . So that 's like segment F? Olsen: Well no , that was one of the fingers coming up from E . Cutting — into a lot of the trees . Mancino: Where does segment F go? Olsen: Pardon? Mancino: Where does segment F cross and go into the neighborhood which is '- the southwestern corner of Lake Susan Hills Drive? Olsen: This is really , it kind of depends on where the park property and — the ponds go and also I believe that that segment F was connecting in with that cul-de-sac and that was there . Now that that cul-de-sac is not there , I believe that they weren 't even going to do that section . Mancino: So segment F is eliminated? Olsen: Right . Mancino: Okay . So we won 't be going through . . .forested area with a trail anyway . Olsen: Oh yeah . That 's one of the things we were looking at with the trail . Mancino: Outlot H, which is a . . .3 .9 acres , what 's there? Olsen : Nothing . Mancino: Do you know is it a passive or natural park? Olsen: Nothing 's there yet . They 're going to be putting in like a totlot and simple things like that . Mancino : So there 's no way to switch parcels of land? — Olsen: Into? — Mancino: To build on H and take those 3 .9 acres and. Olsen: For the trees? Mancino: Yeah , for the trees . Kind of do a land swap. Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 16 — Olsen: Well , I believe that that park was going to be used for active . — So you 'd probably be removing some of those trees with the park development . Mancino : Has anybody looked at that? — Olsen: No , nobody 's looked at that . No . I 'm sure the developer would have comments on that . But I don 't know that you could require it . — Mancino: Do you think that 's a possibility at all? Olsen : Well if you 're talking like to replace that with Mallard Court? - Mancino: Or the , I 'm thinking of the southwestern section where Lot 4 and when you get down to Lots 28 thru 38 and also Block 5 , Lots 20 thru 28 — where there 's a lot of tree loss . Massive tree loss . If you took that area and put that into park , which already abuts Outlot E and just make that , make the park bigger and save those trees and then the development — of single homes could go in Outlot H . Olsen: Well , I don 't know how we 'd get street connections . You 'd have to have another access . Well you might be able to pull the cul-de-sac . — Mancino: We could do a cul-de-sac through 11 and 12 or you know , I don 't know how but . — Olsen : If it 's going back in front of the Park and Rec , I guess they can look at that . I don 't know . We 've never done something like this . Krauss : You know we really don 't know what the determination was of the Park Board when they picked that in the first place . However , if it 's consistent with their other decisions , they have sought flat open ground — where they can build facilities and if it wasn 't flat and open , they woulc make it flat and open . It probably wouldn 't meet your goals . Mancino : Except that if you go back to the neighborhoods and say what do you want . Would you rather have flat and open or would you rather have these landmark trees kept . Olsen: But the neighborhood you 'd be going back to would be Lake Susan Hills . Right , you 're not going to Chan Hills . They have their flat and open park . — Mancino: Well I would like to bring it up in front of the Park and Rec Commission . That 's all . Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : I 'm trying hard to like this development but I 'm not being ver'— successful with it . It seems to me a couple things I 'd like to point out It seems that the last few PUD 's that we 've seen we 're getting in the presentation I think kind of stilted way of presenting the information . _ Leaving pretty much important presentation areas modified . So that the presentation favors a particular direction of the applicant . I think in Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 17 this case one of the major features is the issue of tree loss . It seems to me that we have a very weak presentation . We have a big listing here of all the trees and so on , but we don 't have very good graphic representation . I think certainly we could have better graphic representations since this is a key issue here . Particularly along the slope there next to the lake and the two problem areas that some of the citizens discussed here . It would certainly go a long way in interpretting this . It seems to me it 's difficult to take information off of a page or a listing of how many trees and try to associate it to an area when somebody 's verbalizing that they 're spread out there and you 're looking at the total development . That 's pretty loose information and I feel real uncomfortable with that . I also am asking myself , what are we benefitting here as a PUD from . To me when we 're listing these properties as total square footage , one 's next to the lake anyway on the entrance side . Off of Powers . I don 't see how they 'd be building in those areas anyway with the slope that 's there . Perhaps they could do some serious grading but I 'm not , and I 'm not sure how that fits in with our restrictions . I can 't recall that if they went with the normal development , how well they could tear up that area . But it seems to me that this is an awfully tight use of this property and in a couple of sensitive areas , it just seems to me that that 's the reason we were reforming our PUD standards . In an attempt to get more aggressive in saving these trees . And this seems like sort of a half solution or that 's how it appears to me . I 'd like to be more aggressive with it . I 'd like to, I think that that direction is there from the City Council and I think that we should pursue that harder . The other issues that the citizens brought up I think are being talked about . The NURP ponds and so on and the issue of County 17 speeds . You might want to pursue that further . We really don 't govern that here but I agree it 's been a while . There 's been a lot of development along CR 17 . Although I do live on CR 17 and visibility seems to be the issue of coming out . Your visibility 's restricted . For the person who 's driving 50 mph , that then , that 's a concern certainly . But I 've lived on there for a decade and it 's good to have that corridor route to be able to go 50 mph as long as it 's not a safety concern . I 'm also very concerned about the lots that are listed 1 , 2 and 8 . Particularly 1 . It seems to me just proportionately it doesn 't seem to be , compared to the home next to it in the previous development . If they have a 2 ,000 square foot house on their lot , I 'm a little worried _ about what 's going to be going next door on 1 . And I 'm also concerned about the issue of the PUD . The average lot size . Didn 't we work out where that was going to be 15? I 'm concerned about the difference of opinion here as to what that works out . Olsen: Well , with the new PUD regulations yes . Under this PUD , you just had to have the average of 50% with 15 ,000 . Farmakes: This is going back to the '87 issue here? Mancino : But isn 't it a 5 year life? Olsen: Right . And that 's true . You can choose to , because of that 5 year life , if you wanted to , to bring in the whole new regulations . We talked with the Attorney 's office about , because of course staff had the same concerns . If this would have come in today , that concept plan wouldn 't be Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 18 approved as it shows today . We would have know better to save those trees- and to have those protected . But that concept plan was approved . To preserve all those trees , you 're removing , essentially you 're moving Mallard Court . You 're losing quite a number of very precious lots to the developer also . So there was a question whether or not we should pull in the PUD regulations and we , with what was , the background on this , we 've always used the old ones . Krauss: The legal issue too isn 't entirely clear . I mean we have a developer who had legitimate approvals and who has made constant progress on building out the project that was approved 6 years ago . The language - that says the thing is voided out after 5 years is a little bit ambiguous and we felt that to the best of our abilities , it 's reasonable to try to honor that original approval . We have pushed the developer I think as far_ as we reasonably could within the context of that and as Jo Ann points out , with 20/20 hindsight , if we could do the whole project over again , not just this phase , it might be done differently knowing what we know now , 6 years later . But the fact is , there 's a lot of dies cast and there 's a lot of obligations real and tangible and legal and otherwise • that are already in place . Farmakes : Getting back to my comments . I think we should be more aggressive with that . I think there 's a difference between '87 and times change . I 'm no lawyer and we certainly have somebody on staff to deal with that but I don 't think that this is following in lines with what we had discussed at great length what we were going to use the PUD for . And it seems to me that we 've been discussing that for certainly a number , at least a few years now . I don 't think that this proposal is where the - current city 's at . Like I said before , I 'd be real remiss to give my approval to it . Batzli : Do you have anything else? Farmakes : No . I think that I 've addressed them . I had some questions and again , I would like to table this until we can get some of these - questions answered . And I also would like to reiterate that we not accept any further presentations that do not address the heart of the issue that we know is going to come up . For an example , I don 't think Opus should - have been in here making presentations showing parkland that isn 't part of the development on their presentation . That was a major issue of that presentation . However , it kind was brushed over that they didn 't own - that . And the issue here is again , tree removal and a lot of numbers witt very little visual impact being shown on the presentation . Batzli : Do you think that 's the responsibility of the developer or staff - to show us that? Farmakes: Well again , I 'd defer . I know that you can use some of your _ suggestions to direct that or maybe we should address that issue . I mean I really see this as a Truth in Housing type of situation . We should be seeing these things we 're making decisions on and it should be relevant information . We shouldn 't be getting what I would call a directed - statistical review or if we 're leaving something out of here hoping we 're Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 19 not going to notice it . It 's not overt but I think it 's leaving information from us that we need to make prudent decisions . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Joe . Scott : I 'd have to agree with Jeff . I 'd like to see a legal opinion on updating or amending the PUD to current standards . Also with regard to trees , I sat down and colored in with magic marker all the trees that are going to be removed and that was very striking visually so my personal opinion is that this project needs more work and should be tabled . That 's the real extent of my comments . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : Well I had a couple of specific things that I 'd like to ask some questions on . One of the conditions discussed is the oversizing of storm drainage improvements . Has the city staff been able to resolve any of this with the applicant at this point? Hempel : No , we have not . Ledvina : If you haven 't , what would be the schedule for doing that? Hempel : We would hope to get together , we were just talking about it here late this afternoon . They 're trying to get together with Carver County Highway Department to discuss this project as well as the next development on the agenda tonight . So I would hope that we could put something together or meet at least within the next 2 weeks here to discuss right- of-way situation and trail location . Ledvina: Okay . And I was wondering also if it might be appropriate to define which lots we would want , or which lots we would allow a reduction of setback limit to 25 feet . I think we don 't want to blanket this across the development . I think that where we feel it 's worthwhile , we should specifically identify that . So I think that should be done . Also as it _ relates to the landscaping I would support updating the provision for landscaping to provide a requirement for $750 .00 per lot . I think that just should be done . And I guess overall , this site , there 's a lot of grading that 's going to have to occur . Just almost every , well a large percentage of the area has up to 10 feet of cut or fill on it and again , we talked about bringing back the Opus situation and we were concerned about the grading on that property and comparing that to what our PUD standards mean in terms of evaluating sensitive parcels and I think if we can , I 'd like to see that amount of grading be reduced . I think the other issues with the tree loss are also very important . So I would support tabling this item . Batzli : Okay . What do you think Ladd? Conrad : Dave , how much grading is there? Is there a lot for this type of area? Hempel : The site is somewhat difficult . It is very rolling terrain . There 's wetlands and there 's the isolated groups of wooded vegetation so Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 20 in order to follow the street grades set by the City of Chanhassen , up to _ a 7% grade , which they 're doing . They 're falling within that guide . It comes to the point of balancing the earth work too . So you don 't have to import dirt or you don 't have to export dirt . I don 't know if the applicant has done final numbers on the earth work yet . I think they 've - just pulled together some preliminary numbers . Maybe they can address it a little bit more whether or not the earth work actually balances or not . But I 'm sure there 's probably some fine tuning that can be still done to - make street grades and building pads less cut and fill maybe . Conrad : I 'm just a general sense that the lots for this wooded land are _ too small . It doesn 't seem right to me and I think for a perspective . I. the numbers are right , and the developer is telling us maybe 1 out of 3 trees are going to go down , that 's probably what happens in a typical development in Chanhassen . In fact that may be even good . On the good - side . Even our better developers that are doing , I 'm not saying , I 'm not making a comment that this is a good or bad development but the more expensive developments , when they 're going in and saving trees it still _ ends up taking out significant trees . So no matter what , unless you preserve it as park , it 's going to be tough to make a big dent in the number of trees that we take down . Even though I said that , I 'm not comfortable with this . It just doesn 't seem like it 's the right size properties . There are more , it appears based on the concept plan that we saw 5 years ago , there are more lots on Lake Susan than there were years ago . I counted , well it just looks like they 're cramming a little bit more in there . And I don 't know that we 're going to make a big dent but I 'd like to see what we can do . And again I think the only way to solve that is by making the lots bigger . I 'm not comfortable with smaller lots_ in wooded areas . My feeling is that 's how you save trees . How many we can save? I think that would be up to staff and the developer to tell us I 'd like to see what we can do . I don 't have a better design here except the fact that I think the lots should be bigger . Jo Ann , right now maybe - they 're a little bit over 20 lots that are under 15 ,000 square feet? 20 out of 90 . Is that a mix that we 've followed in the other additions? Is that typical and what were our guidelines when we allowed the PUD? What did we? Olsen : Well the real guidelines were that you had to have at least , that half , more than half could not be under 15 ,000 . Conrad: More than half . Olsen: And generally the other phases had I think a higher percentage of the smaller lots than with this one actually . The lots are , even though these are small , the whole PUD had a lot of small lots . Conrad: Okay . Well , I ' ll just wrap it up on my comments . Again , for this type of area , I 'd like to see larger lots . I think for the trees and for the nature of all the grading and the rolling area , it 's just not wha-- I 'm use to approving over the last 10 years here . Batzli : What do you think about the $750 .00 issue? - Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 21 Conrad: That has to be done . But there 's some negotiating in this too . This is a PUD . The developer 's coming in here with a perspective of what he can do and what we kind of led him on when he signed a contract like this so we have to respect his rights in this process . So when I say that has to be done , I think there 's some give and take on the tree issue . If they can be saving some trees , and again it 's quality trees that I 'm talking about . When I see the pictures here , I 'm looking at some 24 inch plus trees . I 'd be real disappointed if we 're cutting down a big percentage of , 67% of the trees we 're taking are of a real quality nature . That bothers me a whole lot . Right now I don 't know . I don 't know if we 're cutting down 10 inch trees or 24 inch trees . That 's why I kind of need to know what it is that we 're talking about here . And again we 're not going to save all of them . I think we just have to make a best effort to save the , to keep the essence of what we 've got there . I think Nancy had a good idea . If we could be trading some land with the park . But that 's not what the developer wants . Your land with trees , even though you cut a few down , is still worth quite a bit more in the marketplace . So I 'm not sure he wants to do that . Batzli : Okay . Diane . Harberts : I just want to flag just one comment . Everything else has been covered . Page 4 . Jo Ann , this is the second paragraph . It talks about how the lot lines have been adjusted with regard to . . .trail so the lots were not within the park property . So I guess the only thing I wanted to flag is , as I 'm reading this that the ponds are not on city property yet . So it 's something that still has to be worked out or has that been addressed? Olsen : I think you 're reading it kind of vice versa . What happened originally with the ponds were shown within the outlot that 's going to be right here . Technically that 's taking away the parkland that was supposed to be dedicated . So now the plans are showing the lot lines to cover , or they 're encompassing the pond and your question was whether or not that was taking away . Harberts : Well the question was , so what you 're saying is that the ponds are now within the single family lots and not on the city lots so it has been accomplished? Olsen: Right . But what we 're trying to verify is whether or not by them extending the lot lines , have they taken away parkland . So if the pond really is still on . Harberts : Right . So I guess like I said I 'm just flagging it . That 's it . Batzli : Would you be in favor of tabling this to look at trees? Is that why you 're not commenting on anything else? Harberts : I would agree with that . I guess my primary concern was with the 25 feet setback . The idea of having it apply to the entire _ subdivision here . I like trees but I guess it 's the balance of with development . I have to agree with Ladd that with some of the trees too , I Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 22 don 't have quite a handle on the size that we 're looking at . If we can save the more larger ones , I would be in favor of tabling it until we did have a little bit higher comfort level . . . Batzli : Okay . And how do you feel about raising the requirement on the amount of landscaping to $750 .00? Harberts : I would support that . Batzli : I have a couple of technical questions Jo Ann . I had a comment on the first condition . Rather than limiting it to a number of lots , my recommendation was to say at the end of that sentence , but only preserve mature stands of trees or to reduce grading . In other words , it would be limited to what we 're trying to accomplish here . Preserving the natural features of the land which is what the essence of the PUD was originally intended . The condition 6 . The applicant 's engineer shall review the lot- grading . What I would prefer to do is that they would somehow review that in connection with our engineering department as well . In other words , tell them that they should look at it . I guess I 'd rather have them look at it and tell us what they find to see if we think that it 's reasonable . On number 11 . When they 're going to oversize and I know Matt asked and I don 't think I understood the answer . Did we decide that they 're going to try and oversize? Or haven 't we decided? Hempel : There 's really no preliminary design really yet for County Road 17 so it 's difficult to say whether or not we can incorporate runoff from — future Powers Boulevard through this development but we ' ll certainly take a look at it and if we can , we ' ll negotiate with the developer to do that . Batzli : Okay . I guess I would like to see a finessing of that condition then regarding compensation . In any event . On number 13 . Has Mallard Court already been renamed? Olsen: Not on the plans , no . Batzli : Okay . I would prefer that it reads , Mallard Court shall be renamed to either Drake Court or some other street name acceptable to cit police and fire officials . I believe that 's who reviews it , isn 't it or does Paul review it and just pass it by them? Okay . On 14 . Are we going to want 5 foot concrete sidewalks? Is that right? Olsen: Okay , that can be removed . Well , you 're getting Dove and Drake mixed up . Is Dove the one that was removed or Drake? Batzli : Dove is the one that 's still in there next to the park . Where you 're putting a 5 foot concrete walk from the main drive through the development to Dove Court so they can get into the park without walking o the street . Is that what you 're intending to do? Olsen : That 's still showing up on the plan so . Batzli : Out of curiousity , which side of West Lake Drive would that be going on? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 23 Hempel : The existing sidewalk along the existing West Lake Drive north of Dove Court . There 's a small segment sidewalk heading southeasterly along West Lake Drive and deadends south of Dove Court . We 'd like to see that sidewalk extended . I believe it is shown on the plan 5-10 plan sheet . On this drawing . Previously it was not shown . Batzli : It 's shown on plan 5? Hempel : The dashed line I believe represents the sidewalk . Batzli : Oh . And it deadends just at Dove Court . That 's the one you want to extend? Hempel : Previously the plans did not show that sidewalk extending up the proposed West Lake Drive to Dove Court . They do now so that condition probably could be deleted . Batzli : Out of idle curiousity , why do you want it on that side of West Lake Drive? Isn 't the access to that totlot is going to be through Dove Court? Hempel : That 's correct . That would be an on street walkway with there 's a trail between the , at the end of Dove Court . Batzli : Right . But then , so you have to cross the street and walk up _ Dove Court to get to the totlot that you 're putting the sidewalk on that side? Hempel : No , the sidewalk is on the southerly portion . South side of the proposed West Lake Drive . Batzli : Okay . Okay . I 'm looking at it now . That makes sense . On your condition 18 Jo Ann . Olsen: Right . It should be 18( a ) , ( b ) . Well go on . Batzli : And ( c )? So numbers 19 , 20 and 21 would become a , b and c? Olsen: Right . And then everything . . .before a station plan . Batzli : Okay . ( b ) I think needs to be changed a little bit to reflect your discussions with the developer regarding the primary species list . It doesn 't sound like there 's disagreement . Obviously we don 't want to require the developer to put in trees that can 't handle the overspray from the County Road there . Those are my comments on the conditions . It sounds like to me that the Commission would like to see this come back with a , in order to get a better handle on what trees are being lost and if there 's a way that something could be done to further minimize that . Whether that be site specific grading . I don 't think , do we normally put the requirement for snow fences around the trees in the conditions Jo Ann? I think we have in the past . Olsen: It 's always in the development contract and then the conditions . I don 't usually point it out as a specific condition in here but it can 't Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 24 hurt , you know to put it in here but it always is covered in the standard conditions . Batzli : And it sounds like the Commissioners , at least right now , would like to see the monetary amount for landscaping increased . - Olsen: Per lot . Batzli : Per lot . Which according to my rough calculations is increasing it $600 .00 per lot times about 90 lots is $50 ,000 .00 with one stroke of the pen . I guess I would like to give the applicant , if we choose to table this , an opportunity obviously to respond to that and I 'd either yot- or the applicant , if we choose to table it , to provide us some detail . A little bit more on the tree loss . Have you , I assume , maybe I shouldn 't assume . Have you gone out there with the Forester , any of those kinds of _ people to look at which trees might be worth saving and whether we 're trying to protect the right ones? Olsen : No , I have not . The Forester is just now coming back after an illness so I have not dragged him out onto the site yet . We visited the site but I haven 't , but that 's something . He 's back at work now and we can , I 'm sure he 'd be glad to do that . Conrad : I 'd like to see a list of the quality trees that are saved and the quality trees that are not . And I don 't know what the word quality _ means Jo Ann but I 'm really not interested in some of the scrubbier kind . That 's inmaterial . I don 't want that to count . Olsen : They 're mostly high quality . - Scott : I noticed that the trees don 't get any bigger than 50 inches . Is that a limitation of the caliper that they use? Olsen: I don 't know . Did you have a limitation on the size? . . .I ' ll sec how he is about that . He 's recovering from a heart attack so I don 't want to push him too hard but probably next week we could probably get out there and get those details for you . Batzli : Well okay . I would appreciate having that kind of expert input - as to whether we 're doing a good job of , obviously if we have several hundred quality trees , we can 't save them all without buying the lot . Some of them are going to have to go in order to develop this but I 'd like to think that we 're making a good effort at preserving the natural features of this which includes kind of wetlands . A little bit of rolling and somc trees and I don 't know that the commissioners have a whole lot of comfort level , at least from their comments so far . So having said that , is therE- a motion? Is there a motion to table? Conrad : A motion to table Case 87-3 . Batzli : Is there a second? Farmakes: I ' ll second it . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 25 Batzli : Discussion . Have we made it clear enough on the record what we _ are tabling this for and what we need to see? Is there an uncomfort level by the Commissioners that their particular concerns haven 't been made clear so we address those at the next meeting? Conrad: Well the direction to staff is strictly on trees right now . A little bit on landscaping cost but is there anything else besides trees? Scott : PUD amendment to bring it up to the standards of the comprehensive plan that 's in place now . Olsen: A legal opinion . Scott : Yep . Conrad: I don 't think speed on Powers is an issue that we 're dealing with right now . Batzli : No , although I 'd like to see that addressed by the City . Conrad : And I guess I would like staff 's opinion as to , I don 't know how it 's coming back other than just looking at trees and I suspect we 're going to see the same plan . I guess I 'd like staff 's opinion as to when it comes back if there 's significant tree loss , the quality of trees . If they have any further recommendations . Batzli : Meaning? Conrad: What 's going to save it , yeah . What 's out within reason . And I guess I go back to lot size . Batzli : Okay . Yeah , because your concern was that you thought that with an increase in lot size . Conrad: It 's going to save more trees . Without just totally changing road systems and what have you , lot size will do it and again lot size , within this property . With the number of trees and the rolling nature , I think lot size is the only thing that will make a difference but I 'm curious what staff 's opinion is . Batzli : Okay , is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table Preliminary Plat No . 87-3 for further review . All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli : This matter is tabled to our next meeting? Krauss : Well Mr . Chairman , we were going to propose that you cancel the April 7th meeting since there were no other items on it . But if you want this one to be on that meeting , then you have an item on that meeting . Batzli : Yep , let 's do it . I suppose Jo Ann had already scheduled vacation . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 26 Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that gives_ us time to come back with what you want . If the reports have to go out next week , you won 't get it . Krauss : That 's a fairly short turn around . We also should contact the , speak to the developer . Why don 't we agree that we will re-notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know . Batzli : Okay . So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in April? Krauss : Which is the 21st . Olsen: It most likely will be . Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don 't know what I would get the answers that you — want . As far as like the tree inventory . Wayne Tauer : We 'd like to comment on that . We would like to have it done_ in 2 weeks . You know we 're on a , we 're in Minnesota . We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring tc get it done . So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in this thing , we 'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be back on the April 7th , or whatever the date was to get back and go . Batzli : Okay , what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we ' ll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting . Okay , thank you very much everyone for coming in . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27 - TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD , ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD , PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES , JASPER DEVELOPMENT . Public Present: Name Address James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development Greg Holling Jasper Development Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape Don Patton RCI Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court Andrew K . Olson 8290 West Lake Court Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court Tom Dotzenrod 8280 West Lake Court Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 27 Thomas A . Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Name Address Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No . David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Greg Holling : I 'm Greg Holling , representing the applicant , Jasper Development . James Jasper and Jay Jasper are also here if there 's other questions that come up . As far as this plan , what 's been done is there 's two units that were dropped out . If you look here , there was a 4 unit building in the center of Powers Boulevard . Close to Powers Boulevard we took one unit out there and spread these apart . And then we also took one unit off from the 4 unit building which was closest to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard . And in doing that then we pulled the drive over approximately 20 feet to give more green space between the units that were tight between units 22 and 3 is what 's shown on this plan . As Jo Ann mentioned , that reduces our coverage down to actually we figured 42 .9% or approximately 43% . When we first submitted these plans we had somehow gotten our information twisted as far as how much coverage we could actually have and thought we were meeting the Code when we submitted our initial plan . And when Jo Ann notified us after we had submitted them , well then it ended up being just too tight as far as the timing to get revised plans . Get all these plans revised . I think the report covers pretty much most of the other things fairly well . It is very important for us to get these number of units to make the project feasible and essentially what 's being proposed I think makes a much nicer development than trying to get a larger number of units and having to stack them up . This is a typical , this is a 75 foot berm . . .from 1 to 3 feet high and as you can see it 's planted very heavily . I also have a list of plants that will go on this berm . Would you like to see the list of those plans? Batzli : Sure . Greg Holling : So if you have this , this is a deciduous tree on the berm right here that rolls into these 3 evergreen trees . And this is somewhat typical of berms around the project as is this one . Even though they 're all a little bit uniquely different , I think it gives you a pretty good _ picture of what . . .project . So there will be substantial screening all the way around this project . . .and we need some sight lines into the project obviously but most of these berms are very close . Sometimes . . .deciduous trees we ' ll be able to see under to see the project and other times the sight lines will be pretty much restricted by the berming and the planting . The plants generally on the berm are large , ranging from 3 to 4 feet to as high as 15 feet at maturity . Batzli : What do you think about salt spray? Greg Holling : From roads? Planning Commission Meeting — March 17 , 1993 - Page 28 Batzli : Yeah . Greg Holling: Well that 's always something that can happen to plants . . . Batzli : So the Amber Maples and those kind of things are hardy enough to withstand that? Greg Holling : I don 't know how close we are to the road . How close are we to the road? This is kind of arbitrary as to where that path is going to be so all we have to work with was putting that path inside the property line and there 's a fairly small area inbetween buildings and the path to get it landscaped so . We 're taking all this into consideration . . probably works the best . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions in the staff report? Greg Holling: Yes . Batzli : And do you have any disagreement with any of those conditions? Greg Holling : I guess as part of the original report , the main objection we would have would be the losing of the 3 or 4 units and I think . . .did address that . Staff felt comfortable dropping out 2 units . Otherwise I _ believe . . .that was a real problem . I guess the one thing would just be tabling the project . If that 's a consideration , when we had originally been talking with Jo Ann , we were led to believe there would be another Planning Commission meeting in 2 weeks . And from what I understand , there` isn 't going to be now so we 'd certainly appreciate it if it would be possible for you to consider the project . Batzli : Would you prefer a negative recommendation to table? Greg Holling : I guess it depends . I guess we 're really in a sense expecting a negative one on how the plans were originally submitted . As far as if you would consider a recommendation on going down to 25 , would that be what you 're referring to? Batzli : Well I 'm not sure how the other commissioners feel but I 'm just saying , if you need us to act on it tonight , would you prefer that we give you a negative recommendation than to table it to study it? Greg Holling: As far as the 27 units , I guess we would probably prefer to be tabled . I guess either one of them we 'd prefer to be tabled rather — than turned down because we do feel that we have a project we can work with and that the staff supports the project and that we can work that out . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Greg Holling : Thank you very much . — Conrad: Before he sits down , can I ask him a question? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 29 Batzli : Sure . Conrad: Thank you Mr . Chair . Really our district standard for R-8 is 35% impervious surface and you really haven 't made a compelling argument to change it other than it 's not financially feasible but I think in the PUD you should . So I think why don 't you take a few seconds here and tell us why we should change it from the 35 . Even though the contract says 31 , I think we could all rationalize a 35 because that is our standard . You 're coming in at 45 . I think you should be telling us why we should consider that . Greg Holling: Essentially what we are doing is building a project that we feel is a very high quality type project . The types of units that we ' ll be building are in the range of 1 ,200 square feet per floor and we 're looking at 2 floors but not 2 stories so we 're still looking at a lower type building . The basic units that are being proposed are in the $150 ,000 .00 type range for the sale price and these are units that are to be lived in . They 're not rental type units . They will be , I 'm sorry not lived in . Of course they 're all going to be lived in but owner occupied . And I think perhaps history would show that these types of projects , townhome type projects are better maintained when they 're owner occupied than a rental unit . So we are looking at building very nice units that are we think fit in quite well with the neighborhood . Each unit will be individually designed . They ' ll have different textures on the front of the buildings . Stucco , brick and some cedar . We are . . .I don 't know how much more landscaping . Do you know how much we 're exceeding the minimum standards? Mark Jeffries : It would be at least 2 1/2% . . . — Olsen: That 's commercial/industrial . Greg Holling: A big reason that we 're exceeding the minimum percentage of coverage is because of the size of the units . Each individual unit that we 're building . And so in order to build a nice , larger unit that 's very attractive for the type of people that are being marketed , it takes on more coverage . And as was mentioned by Jo Ann , it was allowed to go up to 9 .3 units per acre but with a lesser coverage essentially the only way you can do that is by having 2 story above the normal grade in order to get that and try to get your square footage stacked on top of each other . And so that 's why we 're at the percentage that we 're at . I would say that 's basically the compelling reason that we exceed that percentage . Conrad : Thanks . Jay Jasper : Excuse me , I 'm Jay Jasper with Jasper Development . Could I just make a clarification of that? Batzli : Sure . Why don 't you come up to the microphone . Jay Jasper : When we were looking at this piece of land initially , it has a very unique shape and we were looking for a piece of land not to do starter family or entry level townhomes , because there are a lot of builders doing that out there and obviously you could stack them in there Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 30 and do that . We 've done this project before in other communities and there 's a strong demand for professional people and empty nesters . I think the trade-off between higher coverage is lower number of units and the higher selling price . The overall value of that project . You 're not - going to see rental units . You 're not going to see lots of cars outside . You 're going to see well maintained improved projects and you ' ll see over a period of about 3 to 5 years that these projects typically improve upon _ themselves . They ' ll be adding landscaping . They ' ll be keeping up the painting . They ' ll be doing all those sorts of things . I think you 'll find that in the long run the trade-off for coverage or number of units , lesser number of units will be well worth while . Mancino : Jay , I have a question . You said that they won 't be , you won 't be able to rent these units? Jay Jasper : We can 't prohibit someone from doing that but because of the market price , we 've not seen any of them that we 've built previously rented out . I suppose if someone 's living here 6 months out of the year , they could rent it out to somebody for 6 months out of the year . We 're not targeting investors . We 're not keeping any of them as rentals and the past sales history on the other projects we 've done has been professional - people and empty nesters . Mancino: Okay , but your covenants do let the owners know that they can _ rent? Jay Jasper : They can rent . The rent would be awfully high on a $150 ,000 .00 townhouse . Scott : Jay , have you developed properties similar to , not the land but built townhomes similar to this in this area that we could take a? - Jay Jasper : Actually with the neighborhood meeting I went through this , we could all maybe get a bus and go out there . We did a small 10 unit version identical to this in Waconia . Scott : Oh where? Jay Jasper : Where in Waconia? Scott : Yeah . - Jay Jasper : It 's on East 2nd Street . If you come up from Main Street , you go over 1 block and you go as far east , it deadends at this project . And it 's a combination of single family and multi-family . We had both these types of units . We have the small and the large and it was a mix o- them . We sold just as many small as large . And it 's virtually , they 're all sold out . Half are completed . You could see color schemes and all - those sorts of things . We 're going to be duplicating that identically as far as exterior , floorplans . There will be more landscaping because Waconia 's ordinances doesn 't have as much requirements as Chanhassen 's does and the market 's a little bit different . But we 're going to be usin< those actually as , after the project is approved to help us with pre-saleL because most of those people will let us in . We do have a model left Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 31 that 's sold , or on contingent that we can use and so that would be a good project to go look at . I don 't know if anyone in the audience went to look but that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting that I 'd be happy to meet anyone out there to take a look at it . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Did you have anything else? Greg Holling: No . Thank you . Batzli : This is a public hearing . Is there someone in the audience that would like to address the Commission? I ask that you come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record . Pat VanAsh : Are we allowed to do this as a team? Batzli : Sure , you can tag team . Tom VanAsh : My name is Tom VanAsh . This is my wife Pat . We reside at 8320 West Lake Court , and if I can show the map here . We 're one of the more affected homeowners in that this is our property right here . So you can see that the back side of our property lines up with 3 townhomes . Well 3 complete townhomes and a fourth one right behind it . One of the proposals that was set forth at the neighborhood meeting was that this was going to be done in two phases . With the initial phase being done out there towards Powers Boulevard and the second phase to be completed in approximately 2 to 2 1/2 years , and that being the phase that adjoins our property . We would ask that that proposal be reversed to allow the homeowners , especially along here to see a more gradual change and not such an abrupt change in the landscaping . And that we would be under total construction for 2 1/2 years . With that proposal reversed and this would be completed right away , which by the way we were told the townhomes would begin at about $110 ,000 .00 and go up to $150 ,000 .00 to $155 ,000 .00 . We 're assuming that those , all those in the back here that are walkouts . Which are right at the 25 foot setback , so they 're very close to our home . But with these to be completed originally at the outset , we feel it would give anybody becoming a potential homeowner , a townhome , a better idea of what the flow will be between neighborhoods . So that is one of the things that we are concerned with . Overall I 'm very comfortable with the developer and the builder from what I 've seen in Waconia . I do think they did do a nice job over there . We do have some cosmetic ideas that we 'd like to suggest by some of the other neighbors . Jay Jasper : Just a clarification on two points he made . The ones in Waconia were $110 ,000 .00 to $150 ,000 .00 . Not a representation that the Chanhassen ones would be $110 ,000 .00 to $150 ,000 .00 . And the other ones , the 2 1/2 years represented the other outlot that is available across the road in Lake Susan Hills and that is a future possible development . . .two phases but that would be 2 to 2 1/2 years down the road . Just a clarification . Batzli : So you envision constructing this all this summer , if it was passed? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 32 Jay Jasper : We didn 't . . .doing it in two phases because by the time we gel roads and grading and all that stuff done , we 're going to be , to start work our goal would be to have a unit ready for the Parade of Homes . I mean that 's pretty optimistic but we 're not going to get it all done in a year . So we would probably try to split our construction . . . Batzli : You 'd be splitting it right now with the one that isn 't approved - yet that you haven 't brought in front of us? Jay Jasper : No . This , we would just split into two kind of phases of construction . Batzli : Oh , okay . Pat VanAsh: Okay , so then . . .how long expect for this particular development that 's before us tonight from beginning to finish? How long do you expect it to take? Jay Jasper : Probably one year would be realistic . It could take a little longer and then it could take a little less than that . It depends on how_ long it takes to put the improvements in and what the . . .conditions are . But the comment was 2 1/2 years for the parcel across the street . Pat VanAsh: Okay . So then what you 're saying is that at this point you - would expect to have this entire development finished by the end of the construction season this year? Jay Jasper : No . Next year . Because we 're not going to be able to barel start construction . . .until probably July . Pat VanAsh: So basically what you 're saying then is if you start this spring and go through until the fall , or whenever , that next spring you 'l begin again . Batzli : Well I think what he 's saying , if you can try to address me a little bit so that we don 't get into an argument back and forth here . I think I ' ll paraphrase what I think he 's saying and then I ' ll give him an opportunity later to clear it up if I 'm saying it wrong . By the time the get done grading and putting in the improvements , they 're towards the fal _ of this year . They would expect then to in 1994 to build the units . The majority of the units and then be completed by the end of 1994 . Tom VanAsh : Excuse me . The original model home that he talked about was to be out towards the front of Powers Boulevard . . . We 're asking that the' reverse that and build that back in here instead of this area , and develo between the existing homes . Batzli : You want them to build in your area first? Is that your major - concern there? Tom VanAsh: . . .two phases that he was talking about . The first phase wa— this portion and the second phase would be this portion . We 're just asking them to reverse that since the streets and the grading all have to be completed prior to the first units going in . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 33 Pat VanAsh : Basically that will allow us to have the property , their _ property that adjoins our 's , that area would be finished first so that from our point of view we wouldn 't have to look into the entire development and see the entire construction process starting in the outlying areas and working towards us . Instead it would be reversed and that would provide somewhat of a buffer between us and the construction zone if it were reversed . If they started on our property line and . . . Batzli : Okay , anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yeah . As far as landscaping , that was somewhat addressed and that was another concern that we felt the landscaping between their property and our 's on the lot line wasn't heavy enough . That it didn 't provide or because if the 2 story walkout . . .are right across the back of our house , that we felt the landscaping wasn 't heavy enough there to provide a buffer . I also was concerned that the type of landscaping because it isn 't , they are 2 story , that the type landscaping that they do in there would provide for some , instead of the smaller evergreens and what not , to provide taller trees that eventually would provide a nice deep umbrella . You know further than 15 feet off the ground . That was another thing . As far as the number of units . Our initial reaction was the number of units was too high . And they have proposed to lower that but at the same time , you know it may be something for whatever is down in here but it doesn 't help us out any . We 've got a solid wall . . . Farmakes : Excuse me . Could you place that . We 've got too much of a berm here . We can 't see that . Pat VanAsh: There 's a solid wall of units right across our back yard here and if the number of units is to be lowered , which I personally would like to see that happen , that one be taken out of here . Originally my suggestion was to take one off of here and one off of here or something . Or somewhere , somehow or in other words they did rearrange a little bit but if did that , it may have allowed these units also to be moved in further because they are . . .back yards , which I thought was awfully close . . . .awfully close to the back yard . I mean not only for us but for the people who are going to live in there . Batzli : Okay , anything else? Pat VanAsh: Yes . I had another question concerning the exteriors . With the stucco exterior . The solid , and he addressed the front of the units , which we personally did go and view them . Everything always looks great on paper , which your initial sketches did , but when you see them in person , you know like reality check . They were attractive from the front . They were , I felt they were not attractive from the back . The back is solid stucco with no detail . They basically on the four units that are connected that I saw , they all had basically the same decks . And then I also had a question concerning the stucco material itself . That it requires higher maintenance . My experience with any stucco that I 've ever seen is that it looks great when it 's freshly painted . After it 's weathered for a year or two , it ends up looking dingy and dirty if it isn 't maintained.. To me it seems to be a high maintenance type thing and I guess I 'm also questioning does the stucco and what not fit in Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 34 aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood . That 's another concern . - We also have a question concerning the drainage pond . It seems that it was unresolved exactly where that was going to be . . .and I think that needs to be determined before the plan goes any further . We need to know _ exactly where that 's going to be placed . Whether it 's down further in the swampland or whether it 's going to be done on the . . . Olsen: It 's definitely in the parkland , not on their land but Dave can - give you more details on that . Hempel : Staff is recommending that with this development that a temporary sedimentation pond be constructed just to the north of this development within the city parkland on a temporary basis until the permanent regiona, pond is developed further on downstream in the Lake Susan Hills Park , which is further on to the north in an area that is yet to be designated - exactly . We 've got to go out and look at the areas so we 're not destroying any wetlands or removing any trees . So our overall comprehensive storm sewer guide has shown a regional pond in that area to - the north of this development in Lake Susan Hills Park . Timeframe is • unknown at this time though . But there will be a small sedimentation pond at the end of the storm sewer that they 're extending to the north property line of this development . Pat VanAsh: And then a point that was brought up in the previous meeting was that . . . Hempel : All the retention ponds in the city are maintained by city maintenance , public works crews so they do take periodic cleaning and there are easements for access for ponding areas for city crews to provid, the maintenance . Batzli : Is there anything else? Pat VanAsh : I think that 's it . Tom VanAsh: Thank you . Batzli : Okay , thank you very much . I ' ll let you comment after everyone 's had their say . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Please come up to the microphone . Give us your name and address for the record . Andrew Olson: I 'm Andrew Olson , 8298 West Lake Court . I live 3 doors down from VanAsh 's and I 'm the one that took the pictures of the Waconia townhomes . They look nice from the front . I don 't like the back and the back side is what we ' ll be seeing from Powers Boulevard , from Lake Susan _ Hills Drive and from our homes along that West Lake Court . I would like to see something changed for color or material or something in the back sides because then it 's not as attractive as they might be from the rear . _ It 's just a solid wall of stucco with a few colors in for deck . If something can be done . And then I would also favor that less density . I don 't like the 27 . I don 't like the 25 . I would favor 23 or 24 . Just for that little more greenspace to get that greenery in there and a buffe'- between existing townhomes and trails and whatever in there . And the pon, is also an issue for me . I don 't want to have a temporary pond there and Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 35 then find out that there 's no way to get that water to a permanent pond someplace because of the creek going through there and I don 't know how you can legally change the course of a creek or how would you get water downhill and over that creek to another pond without a culvert system or something . That creek is in the way . So getting it to a regional pond is something I 'd like to see covered here before any permanent approval is given . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . I 'm almost afraid to ask Dave but , we 've had a couple comments about pond and I know you responded to that . Do we have , can you put a map up . Can you explain to us where the temporary pond . . . sedimentation basin is going to go? Hempel : As a part of this development , or I should point out first . There 's an existing storm sewer line that discharges approximately 75 feet north of Lake Susan Hills Drive . It . . .runoff from the wetlands across the street . That pipe would be extended as a part of this project to outlet to the north end of this development . The developer would be extending a line off of that proposed storm sewer to serve the internal development , the storm runoff from the interior streets and housepads , and that would be conveyed then through the pipe system down to the north end . And we felt that some sort of treatment needed to be done to try and collect some of the heavy sediments that would be collected throughout the year from the sand on the roads and so forth , instead of just discharging them into the grass meadowland . It 's much easier for us from a maintenance standpoint to clean out sediment traps than try and collect sediment as it is washed further downstream . On top of that , without sediment traps there , it could also lead to future erosion problems like . . .washout condition all the way down to the stream that was spoke of earlier . As far as the regional pond , the permanent regional pond in the area , again we do not have the specific location of it . I have a feeling that the existing stream area and some particular area may be modified and widened to adapt for the additional ponding . We also want to treat the stream and water coming from the upstream into this regional ponding before discharging into Lake Susan . Again , once our comprehensive storm water plan is developed . . .will be taken care of but in the interim measures , we felt that a sediment trap would be very useful for collecting sediments from the street . Batzli : Who owns the property that we 're dumping the water on? Hempel : That is city land , it 's the park property . Batzli : And will it affect the neighbors ' land? Have you taken a look at the impact? Hempel : It is somewhat treed and wooded up in this area . . .sediment trap is a dry pond system . Within a few days after a rain it becomes dry . Batzli : But you 're going to be taking whatever the size of this development is and right currently it has over 40% impervious , if I 'm not mistaken . You 'll be dumping a lot more water over there . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 36 Hempel : That 's correct . That 's another reason for the sediment trap . To also disperse the energy generated in the storm sewer so you don 't have - the washout and erosion problems . Batzli : What 's the impact of going from 43% to 35% coverage on the amount- of mountof water being dumped over there? Hempel : I 've not seen the overall drainage calculations yet but it would _ reduce it somewhat in the rooftop area and in the driveways so it would bE a small percentage of the overall impervious . . . Batzli : Okay , thank you . This is a public hearing . Would anyone else - like to address the Commission? Before you start talking , can you take that down? Thank you . Tom Rasmussen : Again , my name is Tom Rasmussen . I live at 8531 Merganser Court . The reason why I 'm interested in this property is because kitty corner from this lot is another strip of property that 's zoned exactly the same way . And I guess what I don 't want to see come happening 2-3 years from now is someone saying , well gee you allowed them 43% impervious . What are the current standards? Gee , are you going to let me do that? So on and so forth so I guess my main point is , I would like you to be consistent from setbacks , percent impervious or whatever because otherwisE if you allow this development to do it , what 's to stop another developer from coming in and saying hey , they did it . I want to do it too . On the other hand , I did live in a townhouse for 5 years and I agree with what they said concerning the market value . The market value of our homes wer€ about $100 ,000 .00 to $110 ,000 .00 . My next door neighbor to us , it was rental . It turned into a HUD . It was a disaster so I came out to Chanhassen to buy a single family home . So I agree with what they said and they are going after the proper market for that and stay away from the $100 ,000 .00 townhomes . You 're asking for trouble . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? IS there a motion to close the public hearing? Oh , I 'm sorry . One more . Gary Kassen : My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and I just wanted to expand a little bit on the temporary holding pond . There are several trees in the area and I 'd like to see a little bit more - information on how many of those trees we lose and the size of the holdins pond . . . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , members of the Commission . That was staff 's recommendation for the developer to incorporate the sediment trap pond . We did give him an approximately size of the pond that we would need and it 's based on the amount of contributing drainage area . That pond size i�- between .3 and .5 acre feet . The sediment pond that we intended , we don '' foresee removal of any of the existing trees . The Park Department won 't I 'm sure let us do that . So it will be an area that 's pretty much void of-- significant £significant trees . There may be some underbrush of course that would be removed in those areas outside the major tree areas . Gary Kassen : How long is this temporary pond going to be there? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 37 Hempel : I knew he was going to ask that . Batzli : You danced around it very nicely up til now . Hempel : Well , part of it would dictate on the development pressure around the areas as it becomes developed as it slowly but surely is . That would be a priority area to look at . Part of our surface water task force , or course we 've prioritized some areas in town to construct storm water improvements . We are limited , very limited in funding . I don 't know where this area plays in the order of storm water improvements however . As this area develops , the developer will be providing the city a cash contribution to put towards this regional ponding area . So this developer and the developer across the street and upstream will also , if they cannot provide on site a necessary retention pond from both the quality and quantity standpoint , will be required to pay a cash contribution into the surface water utility fund to help pay for the downstream ponding . Batzli : But that money that they donate is not earmarked for this particular problem . It goes to the overall surface water quality fund . Hempel : That is correct . Batzli : So the time is indeterminate . Gary Kassen : Alright . I guess the second issue I wanted to talk about a little bit more is the appearance . I guess I do like the front of the townhomes . I think they look very nice . What I 'd personally like to see is maybe some of the cedar or maybe even some of the brick be added to the back side because that 's the side most of us will see driving by on County Road 17 and driving on Lake Susan Hills Drive and also from the homes . . . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . I promised you a moment of rebuttal . Did you have something in response to some of these comments? Jay Jasper : More clarifications than anything . To address the concerns , one of the evils of having people look at a project to see what units are going to look like . The project in Waconia is very new . The landscaping in the backyards hasn 't been developed yet . Some of it isn 't in and so to take a look at 5 or 10 units and say gee , that looks starks . Well yeah , we don 't have any landscaping in there . It 's in a totally different setting than this is and so I don 't think that 's really a fair analysis of that project . When you look at single family back , the backs of single family houses , we don 't talk about brick and extra cedar and those sorts of things . I don 't see why this project 's any different than that . If anything , we 've got a consistent , well maintained , uniform , color coordinated backyard as opposed to 10 or 15 different colors in various states of repair and if anything , that 's going to be an improvement . The other thing is stucco is very maintenance free and it isn 't painted . It 's just more a point of clarification . Batzli : Let me ask you two questions though , because I think they may be fair criticisms and you can maybe convince me otherwise . But you have a self contained development here so that the entire , and it looks nice from Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 38 the internal side but the people driving along Lake Susan Hills and the - county road there , they 're looking at the backs of every unit . They don 't see a single front of a unit . Jay Jasper : If that were single family , you wouldn 't either . You wouldn 't put fronts along Powers Boulevard because I 'm sure you can 't put driveways there . You wouldn 't put fronts on Lake Susan Hills Boulevard because that 's I gather a collector street . I don 't think there 's - driveways allowed on there . So what you would see with single family would be all different backyards . Batzli : But you don 't see the mass . Jay Jasper : But these are broken up into small groups . I mean we could do 2 story manor homes , vinyl siding , crank the density . Don 't worry about the impervious surface . Batzli : I don 't think you could crank the density anymore but , okay . But- so you 're reply is really that you 're no different than single family . We 're not worried about it . We 're going to sell these babies . Jay Jasper : No , it 's no different than single family and you 've got a controlled maintained backyard and back of the units . Color schemes all coordinate . Not house x , house y , house z where it 's pink , orange and blue . You 've got something that all blends . I think we 're going to be - very attractive . Plus we 've got a lot of landscaping . Batzli : Thanks . Okay . - Pete Kurth : My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive . This addition doesn 't come as a surprise and I 'm not opposed to _ townhouses being put there . I guess I would like to go on record as beinc opposed to the density and I 've got a question as far as , we 've talked about runoff water . That 's a real wet area out there . I know that we have got a drainage problem in our back yard . Of about 4 or 5 properties - there on Lake Susan Hills and on West Lake Court there 's also a water problem there . I notice that they did some cordingly out there in this area that 's going to be developed . Is there something subterrean there as` far as a higher than average water table or an underground stream or , is there something in that area? I mean it 's between two lakes and there 's a lot of water problems that we seem to be addressing per addition . We talked about it in the other addition earlier and now we 're talking about it again . Is there something there that is affecting the entire area? Hempel : Mr . Chairman . Chanhassen in general has very wet conditions - sporatically all over . There 's a lot of draintile systems . This particular site did have some soil borings taken on it . There was 3 borings that did show a very high water table and whether they 're seasonal or not , I think that 's part of the reason why the low area to the north LIP there is why they 're filling 5 to 8 feet of material . Also to build walkout type houses but also to build the house pad up above the water table enough so they avoid any kind of future water problems . Yes , that - is a low lying area . There 's a natural drainageway . The ag fields used to drain that way forever . There is a drainage system on the west side of Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 39 Powers Boulevard that conveys drainage via a culvert underneath Powers through the site which they ' ll be addressing with the site grading . Further to the north is the major I believe Bluff Creek tributary . Or excuse me , it 's a tributary stream anyway that goes into Lake Susan so it is , the surrounding neighborhoods all drain to this way so it just was that characteristic will give you the wet soil conditions . Pete Kurth: My concern would be that we address maybe the worst case scenario for drainage . Maybe put in some kind of drain tile or mandate some type of drain tile to handle let 's say the worst case scenario . I know we had a lot of problems in our back yard after it was landscaped and everything else . Bringing it to the attention of the developer was kind of like well , too bad . Batzli : One of the conditions in the staff report currently , and you 're at a disadvantage is that these things need to be addressed and run by our engineering department . I don 't know that we can do anything else right now because we don 't have the data . We have to do that but that type of information will need to be given to them and they ' ll take a look at that . Pete Kurth : Okay . Again , my concern was I guess is that , are we looking at this as an individual project or are we looking at it globally for the whole area? It seems to be , and again I was a resident out there for 3 years , the whole area has got a drainage problem and so the water table is very high and maybe we need to take a look at something other than just surface drainage for the area . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Yes sir . Do you have something new that hasn 't been discussed? Jim Domholt : I do . Batzli : Okay . Jim Domholt : Jim Domholt , 8251 West Lake Court . Just a comment . The comment was made that the reduction as far as the units , part of it was going to be at this end and shift everything . It was just a comment that . . . look at in the placement of this road in terms of where it empties right onto the . . .so it doesn 't empty right on a curve and might become a hazardous entrance out there onto Lake Susan Hills . It sounds like it 's going to move closer towards the crown of the curve . I don 't know , I 'm not an expert on road designs but I 'm concerned of moving that outlet right on the curve . Batzli : Okay , thank you . And that would be looked at as well . These plans are so new , I 'm not sure that our engineering department has had a chance to look at that . But that would be one of the factors looked at . Does anyone else have any comments for the Planning Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 40 Batzli : Ladd , you 've had a long history of looking at development of this particular PUD . Conrad: I can 't remember any of it . Batzli : What do you think about the late breaking developments and what do you think about the overall density and the water problems here , in no particular order . Conrad: In no particular order . Jo Ann , the 31% density . Why was that there? Olsen: I don 't know . I went back through the whole file and we 've got different percentages for all the other outlots . They 're unusual . Conrad: Impervious surface . Olsen: There 's 29% and some , to be honest where the 9 .3% came from , I can 't answer that . That 's one of the few things I went to look at . Conrad : The higher density on this parcel , was that based on a comprehensive plan that began and the developer incorporated it into their-- overall PUD? Or was that based on the developer coming in here many years ago and saying here 's our PUD and we want some higher density areas? Olsen : You mean the 9 .? Conrad: Yeah , when we put in the three outlots . We knew they were going to be higher . Olsen: Well we knew that these were going to be medium density and we had another one higher density but yes , because it was part of the PUD , they - were also looking at it having higher than the normal density within that R-8 district . Conrad: But was it our initiative? Was it our lead or was it the developers? Olsen : I 'm sure it wasn 't our lead . - Don Patton : Jo Ann , can I address that? . . .me to give the background? Olsen: Sure . Don Patton: My name is Don Patton . I worked , I remember Ladd was on the Planning Commission when we brought this thing through in 1987 . The plan - was done incorporating a comprehensive plan with , the comprehensive plan usually uses some common sense . You don 't want single family up against a road if you can help it . You want higher density . That was R-8 in this - case , which is the case really of both sides of the road . The single family , again you 've looked at the comprehensive plan . It 's really a very abstract guideline . The plan that we took on that , there were several things . As a part of the plan we could have had lake lots . We could have taken the lots down to the lake . There wouldn 't have been lakeshore . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 41 There wouldn 't have been a city path along there . We chose to go with the PUD to accommodate the city . When I went through the numbers , again I realize tonight we 're looking at two projects . This was 300 acres that was planned in conjunction with city park and the people that were here at the time . As a part of that we gave over 50 acres of the 300 to the city for parkland , which is certainly a lot more generous than is normally requested . We thought that we had worked out issues to give the city pathways along the park , to get densities . As a part of this particular project we , at the time of that , one of the , you 've got to build what 's going to sell . At that time manor homes were very popular . We were looking at stacking . If you look at the other outlots , as we 've called them on the PUD , they 're 2 and 3 story units that were planned with a lot higher densities . Lot lower coverages . The thing that 's happening today , and if you ' ll look at your market , the society is aging . People are going back , rather than two story units , multi-story units they want one level living . I think we 've got to live with the time . I think the proposal that 's been made tonight with 25 is reasonable with the market and the intent of the PUD that we worked out with the city and the staff back in '87 and I think it 's reasonable that you approve it . Conrad: So Don , was it your lead on the high density or was it the City 's lead on the high density? Don Patton: The City 's . Conrad: Basically we 've always been trying to find , and when I say high density , it may mean medium density or high density . It 's just greater density than single family . We 're always looking for a place to put it . This area seemed to be a likely place to put it and we were , I really don 't have a problem with higher density as getting , it 's closer to the city . Downtown area and I think we were probably leading the way in terms of finding some places to put medium and high density housing . But always thinking it was to satisfy needs for affordable housing . Affordable is a real key word . Always under pressure from Met Council to do that . And I think we all feel in Chanhassen to some degree that it 's good to have affordable housing for the mix of people that we want in our city . This , I 'm looking at , I see some contradictions of the 31% obviously versus what they came in at with what our standard is . And I also know that we don 't want to set a precedent unless we 're willing to set that precedent . Whatever we do here will be done on the other outlots . There 's no doubt about it and I think what Mr . Patton is saying is they 're responding to market conditions here . It 's probably not achieving what we originally thought would be achieved on this parcel . So anyway , who cares? Well , I guess we 've got to , I have some reactions to it . I like the design of the units . I think the stucco is just fine but I do have a problem with the density and I do have a problem with the impervious surface ratio . I 'm looking , I would really like the developer to persuade me , they didn 't come in and really do a very good job tonight in persuading me . Not at all . If I wanted to go beyond a standard that was in a development contract , which was 31 , which everybody knows you 've got to come in and tell me why , and I didn 't hear that . We kind of said we 're going to upgrade the units . It wasn 't a compelling case so until I hear that real compelling case , other than profit , I really have to , I can slip a Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 42 development contract but I can 't really at this time slip our zoning standard that we have . I don 't have any comments on the drainage . Batzli : So what would you like? Conrad : Well I guess , I look at this and it just looks like there is no open space . It looks like we 've got a lot of pavement and that bothers me . That 's not what we 're trying to do . And again , I 'm guessing and I 'm not looking at numbers and sometimes little sketches are deceiving but it 's just , again I think the density is , it seems like a contradiction . I wanted higher density but I guess I want higher density with open space or where we 're not really cramming people on top of , you know I 'm looking for areas that people can go and be and I don 't see that in this . So again , I think the developer to me didn 't make that case tonight and maybe they 'd like the opportunity to make a better case for it but I guess the only thing I see right now is to reduce the density . Farmakes : In 1987 was there an issue made with the , the claim is that higher density is what was being asked for that was adjacent to single family homes . Conrad: And we were thinking stacking . We were thinking of putting , we were thinking affordable housing . We 're thinking put more units up but we 're thinking , make sure there 's some green space around . Now I can 't . Farmakes : . . .affordable housing at $150 ,000 .00 a unit . Conrad: Well it 's not . $150 ,000 .00 a unit . Farmakes : That 's what the developer just said . Conrad: Right . Farmakes : But in 1987 that wasn 't part of the presentation , is what you 're saying? Conrad: I don 't know what the presentation was . All I can tell you is that back in that time we were concerned with where can we put some higher density housing and how can we make housing more affordable . Batzli : So you don 't like the fact that there 's a totlot going in down the street at Dove Court here , that doesn 't count for open space? You want open space on this site , not as part of the overall PUD concept? Yot.- know what I 'm saying? We 're looking at this under a microscope as oppose to the larger overall PUD which is what this gentleman suggested that we 're not really doing here . We 're focusing in on the tree rather than _ the forest here . Conrad: And it 's a real valid , yeah . Absolutely . We 've got to look at it in context of the overall thing but then if we are doing that , then we -" hold to the 31% impervious surface that we had in the development contract . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 43 Mancino: Well also across the street from it 's going to be high density so it will even be more dense plus you have industrial on the north side of the high density . So we 've got park , medium , single family and a lot of high density there too . Batzli : See I guess I 've long possibly been the strongest advocate of open space in the most nebulous use of the term on this commission for the last several years and yet I didn 't get that feeling looking at this that that 's what I wanted more of . It doesn 't help me to put 3 units on there with 3 stories and having a little bit of grass around there . You 're going to end up looking at a parking lot or something . Conrad: Back 5 years ago we negotiated a development agreement and the developer has the right to go up to 9 units per acre here but also has to stay in at that 31% impervious surface . Batzli : But do you want to see , you know assuming there 's a market for a 3 story townhome deal , if there is such a thing or 2 stories and you cram them close together and get some grass growing around the edges . Is that what you 'd rather see? Conrad: Brian I don 't know but I do know that when you want to change the agreement , I think a key . All of a sudden , when you do want to change what the agreement is , I think you should make a compelling case and all of a sudden we 're focused right on this parcel . So again , if we want to change it from a 31% impervious surface ratio , then I think the developers have to persuade me that this is a much better plan and that we 're getting something for going up to a 45% . So in other words , I think I don 't have to look at the rest of the parcel right now because that was already negotiated and they have their rights to do a high density . Batzli : So you would kind of make this equivalent to Lundgren Bros coming in and saying we don 't want condos up on the Summit area . We 're going to put in single family and make a compelling case to change the development agreement , because they 're changing it on this particular lot . Conrad: And I think in Lundgren 's case they did and we listened and we changed it . But here it , I didn 't hear a good case . Batzli : Would you like to address the Commission? Don Patton : Well if I could just , Don Patton again . If I could just ask . I think the homeowners , ask them . Would they rather have a 3 story unit with 31% coverage in their back yard or what 's being proposed like this , which is one story . Which , most of these I think they could probably see over because of the change in elevation . Pat VanAsh: I ' ll respond to that . When we were talking about this earlier and we said , if I understood you correctly . To start with , that you were proposing to lower the number of units or that you were agreeing with the fact that the number of units should be lowered . Conrad : Because , to open up the space . To get the impervious surface ratio that we agreed on . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 44 Pat VanAsh: However , lowering the number of units , I guess somewhere along the line you lost me . When you were talking about lowering the number of units yet you 're increasing the density . Conrad: You increase density by going up . You increase density by either making houses smaller or putting them on top of each other . So this land , absolutely when this was thought , when you say this is zoned for up to 9 _ units an acre , that means they go up because only 31% of the land could b( covered by impervious surface . So the intent 5 years ago was to go up . That was the agreement . You know there 's a mix . When you put in a PUD there 's just a mix . As Mr . Patton said , they gave up some rights to put - some things on the lake and the city gave them rights to go into smaller lot sizes so it 's a whole combination of stuff . But now they 're asking us to change that . And then it gets kind of . Pat VanAsh : So what was good 5 years ago , good today? That 's the question . . .as far as Brian saying that he felt that they should . . .become more aggressive as far as saving those trees and more aggressive on whatever pushing the law or whatever it takes to do that . Okay , that sam4 point to me would hold true in this case . Just because it was good 5 years ago . . .5 years ago we decided this . It 's too much work to change it - or whatever , and just streamroll ahead with it regardless of whether it 's good for us or who it 's good for . That doesn 't make sense . Conrad : I don 't know that we 've changed our impervious ratio . In Chanhassen we kind of like open spaces and we sort of strive for that so that 's a standard that we have set for the entire city . So that one kind of is something that I don 't like to give up a great deal . Yeah , there 's- a negative out there and you 're obviously approaching it . Instead of having 27 families as neighbors , you could end up with 45 families as neighbors , you 're right . - Pat VanAsh: Right , and that 's what I 'm saying . Conrad : And you don 't want that . Pat VanAsh : Exactly . No . Conrad: And I 'm not willing to set a precedent to change a zone . I guess that 's the other thing . There 's a potential to set a precedent here , especially within the PUD . It would be hard to tell the next developer no . Pat VanAsh: And there 's also another point to make here as far as if you go higher you know and less land coverage or whatever the term was that you use the 31% , whatever that was and start going up . Okay , that 's goin. to reduce the price of each individual unit or whatever . That is not in keeping with the property values in that surrounding neighborhood . In our.- neighborhood . urneighborhood . Batzli : Okay . Your point is well taken . You need to keep in mind also , _ and think about this , in case we table it , that your comments earlier wen directed towards forcing them to do what you 're now saying you don 't want That 's something you 've got to keep in mind too . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 45 Pat VanAsh: No , I understand . I understand what you 're saying . However my comment was , that we would like to see less density . I did not say that I wanted to see it go up . Batzli : But by reducing units you 're going to end up increasing density , reducing impervious . Pat VanAsh: However that part of the point was not being discussed in my previous comments . As far as the units going up . You understand what I 'm saying? Batzli : Yeah , I know . Farmakes: Is there a height limitation in medium density? Batzli : I don 't know . I 'm sure there is . Mancino : Do you know what it is? Batzli : We 've closed the public hearing . These were all Ladd 's comments . Ladd , are you done with your comments? Conrad : I 'm done . Batzli : Okay , Diane . Harberts: I ' ll give it a shot . Self contained is a very good word for this development . You know I guess as long as the developer feels he knows his market , he 's going to bear the risk in terms of if he 's going to sell this . My former residence , I came from a zero lot line . I didn 't care for it and I 'll never live in there again . In a zero lot line . I guess my comments are going to be directed towards , in looking at the landscape , it looks like there 's trees on each one of the front yards . Is that correct? Olsen: With the individual ones? Harberts : Yeah . That 's how I 'm interpretting that . Olsen: Yeah . Harberts: We 've got signage going in . We 've got evidentally some lighting will go in . It 's quite a bit of stuff for this area . I guess I question , you know trees are nice in the front yard but are we getting too much? I have a concern with some of the site . Sitings you know with the 2 way traffic . If you 're putting trees all over . You 've got your light poles . You 're going to put your signage . Are we getting too much in something like this? Olsen: Within the park and drive area . . .? Harberts : Yeah , for the internal traffic control . I have a little concern . Evidentally Safety must have looked at it . This one driveway . Let 's see over by unit number 25 . I 'm trying to envision how a car will Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 46 back out trying to maneuver itself if at the same time we 've got a car coming in . Making sure again the sighting so I guess I 'm really concernec with the amount of landscaping , our signage , our lighting . All of that that 's going to be put into this contained area . My other concerns again _ with the internal traffic flow . If you look at units number 7 and number 18 , from the fire safety and I guess I 'm looking at it from the transit perspective . . .goes down the wrong way , how does it turn around? I 'm guessing they 're going to have to back it up around . - Olsen: They designed that so the trucks don 't even have to go down it . They can back around in there but also that 's why they have the loop street now . . .so all are within 150 feet where the truck can be 150 feet away and still service that . Harberts: Okay , so there 's not the concern about the . . . I guess it 's just really directed towards everything that 's going to go into this area with landscaping , signage , lights , of that nature . This is getting , are we going to start affecting some of the siting for the internal traffic . - Some of the safety things . Trees are nice but maybe a bed of flowers is just as good considering how tight this is . Oh , one other thing . I 'm sorry . With regard to item number 15 . They talked about the revised site_ plan shall include one visitor parking space per 6 units . Boy I 'd like tc know where you 're going to put that 1 parking spot per 6 units . Olsen: Their revised plan has shown 4 . Harberts: Is it on there? Olsen : Yeah . Harberts : Oh okay . Okay , I missed that one . Sorry . Olsen : Well you obviously haven 't seen it since we just got it this afternoon . Harberts: Well I can tell you that the coloring of the , I guess the open space provided me a little bit more comfort level . You know I came to Chanhassen and I live just off of Frontier and I have 3/4 of an acre and - as far as I 'm concerned it 's not enough space for me . But I guess it helped me with the comfort level but if this is zoned for medium density , that 's what it says and I guess I like the plan from that perspective . But again , my issues are really run along the internal circulation and safety with everything that has to go in there from the city perspective . Batzli : Okay . Matt . Ledvina : I 'm going to be brief here . I agree with Ladd 's assessment and I would support this proposal if we reduce the impervious surface to 35% . _ We could move it along if we changed condition number 2 on the recommendations to read that . And the other thing , as far as the conditions are concerned would be number 3 . I think that is really not the developer 's issue as it relates to our interaction with Carver County - and I would suggest that we handle that on a separate basis . Planning Commission Meeting - March 17 , 1993 - Page 47 Batzli : Has anything been done about that? Olsen: Well we 're hopefully going to meet with them next week . The reason we added that as a condition was just so as this goes through the - process we could see if the Council and Planning Commission is in support of petitioning that . We 're going to meet with Carver County again hopefully next week . They 're going to discuss whether or not even just - the trail can be located in the right-of-way . How much right-of-way is necessary and if the unnecessary right-of-way can be vacated . So nothing 's been done at this time . The City has the ability to petition such a request . Batzli : What does it do to their impervious coverage if they either vacate some of it or remove the trail? Olsen: Oh it helps . Batzli : How big of a percentage? Are we talking 1%? 5%? Olsen : Well you 'd have to measure it by the length . I think I asked you to look at that didn 't I? You were going to work that out . The trail has already been removed from the impervious coverage percentage . It began at 49% so we 're not including that . - Batzli : Okay , so they 're not going to gain anything? Olsen: As far as the trail , no . But if they vacate right-of-way , then _ that land that 's vacated becomes , they have the potential of up to 15 feet time , whatever it is . The distance on Powers Boulevard . Batzli : Is there a likelihood that that 's going to happen? Olsen: I don 't know . You know nobody 's ever very anxious to give up right-of-way that they might use . Batzli : Okay . Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina : That 's it . Batzli : Joe . Scott : I think the points are well taken and I would concur with the other commissioners . One thing , just to comment for city staff is that , I don 't particularly like to see the negotiation situation where it 's , a developer says this many units and the city staff says no , this is what we 're looking at and then they come in here . I mean you 're in a situation where you say hey , this is the deal . If you want the deal , this is the number . And if you can 't get the number , it 's no deal . Okay . And I 'm seeing this over here , over here . I mean but anyway , no more comments . Olsen : So you 're saying 35% max or 31% max? Scott : What I 'm saying your recommendation which was not 40 but 35 . Actually it was stated at 32 in the original PUD but 35 I think is , I Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 48 think 35 will work . — Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes : First question I have is , this is part of the 5 year agreement like on the previous development? Olsen: Yes . Farmakes: The major question I would have again is , it would seem to me that we certainly should be consistent on how we treat that . If we get a legal opinion whether or not we 're dealing with 1987 , which I am very uncomfortable with , versus 1993 which we 're all here and now . I do not understand why we would enter a development agreement of that length . If we look at the city , 50% of our population has increased in that amount oi- time . Certainly the world is a different place in half a decade and our standards have changed . We 've held elections . Several elections since then . I 'm sure half of our commissions have changed since then . We have — a difficult time remembering the history of these projects and what the motivation at the time was . And certainly from the aspect of real estate , I think the applicant himself said that what sold then isn 't what sells _ now . Times change and so do governments and so do applicants . I would certainly recommend that we get that sorted out as a first block and unti _ we do that I would recommend tabling this . It seems to me that we would not want to soften our position on that until we know what that is . By - selectively approving a part of the PUD on '87 's terms versus '93 's and vice versa on another part of that development . I am going to continue on the basis that we 're going on '87 on my comments , just to give you my — opinion . The level of density that I 'm looking at here , whether it 's fitting or not , seems to me to be more high than medium . At least from a.. appearance of an overhead . . . I would certainly expect at least if we go _ ahead with this to follow Ladd 's comments in regards to the impervious surface . I also am uncomfortable looking at these plans with a couple of units scribbled off on my plans that I 'm looking at and so on . It 's difficult to assess that . I 'm also very concerned about what the thinkinr- was on the part of the property units , I believe they 're listed as 4 , 3 , : and 1 . Possibly 5 that are adjacent to the single family homes . It seems to me that very little thought there in softening the connection there was_ given to the adjacent property owners and they have legitimate concerns there . It seems to me that if you 're looking at softening that type of thing , the detail on the back of these homes , flower boxes , shutters , awnings , da , da , da , anything would at least conform to help these homes in the rear which there 's a lot of in these type of developments . Would help them conform better to the front of the home . And I don 't think it 's our place here to start specifying what that is but I think that if you - can soften those issues where it looks like the front of your building is well developed , well thought out , and you get to the back of it . Well , that 's supposed to be where nobody 's supposed to see it or that 's next to the trash dumpster and not a penny goes into that . Certainly the consideration against the properties that face the single family homes and I believe actually following all the way around , the properties that would face to the rear along the walkway of Powers Boulevard , certainly would be a visual impact of the development . And coming back again to thl philosophical question here . I was not sitting here in 1987 and when I Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 49 look at PUD 's and I ask myself , what are we gaining here . And it seems to me that I 'm having a hard time buying the argument , although it may very well be true , in 1987 that we wanted more higher density homes . That hasn 't been my experience sitting here . I can 't recall ever sitting here and hearing the Commission saying , we really want more density . Give it to us . It 's always been the opposite . And in looking back at that , I 'm asking myself what are we gaining here from a PUD? We aren 't saving any trees . We 're not , we 're perhaps offering an alternative form of housing which is being brought forth . The older population , although the average age is going up into the 40 's I believe which is certainly not immobile yet . At least that I know of . And the other issue of course is addressing the price of the home . Now we 're looking at the price of $150 ,000 .00 for these houses so I don 't see us serving , that 's above the medium price home I believe in Chanhassen . So I don 't see that we 're serving any range there . So I 'm asking myself over and over again , what are we getting here and although it may be frustrating for the applicant that in 1987 he heard something else , the world changes . I 'm looking at this in 1993 and I think that 's the way that I should be looking at it . Batzli : If it comes back , what do you want to see? What do you want to see addressed? Farmakes : The issues that I listed . I believe I categorized which ones that if this does go ahead , which ones we 'd be looking at . I think there should be less density . Less impervious surface but in the end result I 'd _ have to say that I have a real problem seeing the need for this as a PUD . As part of that PUD and that commitment and I go back again , is this a commitment that the city has still made because I think if it hasn 't , we should take a long hard look at this in 1993 . Conrad : Excuse me Jeff , but just remember when this is part of a big project . Farmakes: No , I understand that . Conrad : And we negotiated other stuff that the city got , including parkland and things like that . Farmakes : I understand that but it had a finite commitment as I understand it . I 'm awaiting a legal opinion on that . Certainly in real estate you do have finite contracts and the issue of performance , we have a lawyer here and I 'm not going to get into that with my standpoint but the question is , how open ended is that commitment? 20 years from now do they come forward and haven 't developed a chunk of land and are we still going to be developing by '87 standards? I 'm not suggesting that we be unreasonable here but it seems to me that that requires a legal opinion here before we start doing that . And how this affects the other development . Mancino: Mr . Chair I have nothing new to add . Batzli : Okay . Tom Reese : Mr . Chairman? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 50 Batzli : Yes sir . Tom Reese : I appreciate the house and I 'd just like to make a comment . My name is Tom Reese and I 'm with Lake Susan Hills Partnership . I 've been at this since 1972 and I 've seen a lot of different faces . I recognize - Ladd . I appreciate all your volunteer work . Believe me . I think I can add something of credibility that might help some of you with your thinking at the moment and that is very basically , this could have been a - single , total single family development . That 's what the mode was in the 70 's . I could go back and give you history , which I won 't for time but at one time U .S . Homes had a contract on all this for single family homes . And part of developing , Al Klingelhutz , and I can go back but for the sake of conclusion , the PUD was put together with the city in concert and they insisted on high density . I underscore insisted high density . You probably remember some of that . So this land was planned accordingly so - the City of Chanhassen would have high density . They were emphatic about it . There was no two ways about it so this planned unit development has been progressing for a good number of years . Revised again in 1987 and as each addition to the Planned Unit Development continues you see what happens . We 're tonight talking about a unit that has a density requirement far greater , as you know than what 's being proposed tonight . Now once the single family 's put together and you 're trying to bring together something that would form continuity as best you can . You 've talked about what could be zoned . If someone were to bring a project here that would be 36 unit density with the proper space and stacking and so - on , you would approve it correct? Given it met all the rest of the requirements . Is that a correct observation? Batzli : We 're not going to say yes for fear that we might see it next week . Tom Reese : . . .with threatening discussion , it 's hopefully enlighting some' of the folks that are asking for what happened in the past . Is that understood? Batzli : Yeah . Tom Reese : Okay . I don 't think that that has in continuity with what the neighborhood as it was developed . When it was developed and while we 're trying to put it together so I 'd like to consider some of the history . I 'd be happy to talk in detail at another time if anybody would wish . But it 's difficult to work in a partly cloudy scenario and I think that 's what- some of what we 're hearing tonight is bringing up all those partly cloudy 's when it was really emphatically demanded by the city . The concessions given to the city to go along with it to make the PUD as it is, today . I hope , I 've tried to enlighten a bit about it and then you . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Farmakes : Could I make a quick comment to that? Batzli : No . - Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes : Real quick? Two seconds . I think that the issue that I was talking about was with several points that weren 't relevant to what you just talked about . Although I agree with what you said . I think that the points that I was making went beyond that . If you want me to clarify it further I will , otherwise I ' ll withdraw it . Batzli : No . I think we need to move on here . I have several comments but I ' ll agree with what Ladd said and that was , they 're changing what 's in the contract currently . We can argue whether we should look at that contract or not . I personally believe that we need to take a look at what was done in the overall scheme of things and not focus so intently perhaps on one density . But the fact of the matter is , they are changing the density here . I don 't believe they 've made a compelling case to change that and the fact that they 're changing it means , that 's why we 've focused in on this particular piece of property . So what I would like to see done is bring this back and give the applicant a second whack at it to tell us why they should increase the impervious from what was agreed originally . And they may be lowering the density down , whatever , but the impervious is _ really I think what kind of bothers me . Going from the 32 or whatever it was agreed , up to I don 't know where , somewhere in the 40 's . 35 's our current standard . We 've not really heard a compelling reason other than profit motive and this is what 's going to sell . Well , you know , we 're concerned here about setting precedence in other parts of this PUD or perhaps in other parts of the city and we 're trying to do what the residents want around us want . We 're trying to get a good development . We 're trying to do something that will sell because it doesn 't help us to build two units and then it just stops right there . But the problem is that we 're faced with a couple of different issues and one of those things is in fact setting a precedent that we 're , the next guy comes in , we can 't stop him or her from doing the same thing . So what I would like to see is potentially a motion to table this . I know that we just spent an hour and a half and it seems like we 're putting off the decision but I think we need a couple of things . One is , for Jeff I think we need a definitive answer from the attorney regarding whether we can just start from scratch and use '93 standards . I think probably a majority of the people on the _ commission maybe don 't feel like they need to impose the brand new standards but they would at least like to hear a more compelling case as to why this development makes sense and it 's not in compliance with the agreement from '87 . So is there a motion? Ledvina : I move that the Planning Commission table Case No . 87-3 PUD until a later date . Mancino: I second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD for Prairie Creek Townhomes , Jasper Development for further review . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 52 PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR SCHMID 'S ACRES RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT . Public Present: Name Address Gary Carlson 3831 West 62nd Street Dale Keehl 3841 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Gary Carlson: Good evening . My name is Gary Carlson . I live at 3831 West 62nd Street . I live in the original homestead on the Schmid 's Acres Tracts . It was built in 1895 and I 've lived there for the last 23-24 years . I want to wish you all a Happy St . Patrick 's Day , although I don 't know if he ' ll forgive you for not celebrating with only an hour left in the day . I appreciate the work that you do for the city . You do a good job . I just wish there was a way that those that just want to go for quick swim could have an earlier meeting and let the large problems of the city be worked out in the later hours . The Schmid 's Acre beachlot was established in 1914 . We simply wish to comply and obtain a non-conformin<, use permit for Schmid 's Acre recreational beachlot . We describe the nature of the use in our application , so if you would look at that , I ' ll - go through the application quickly . The number of homes is approximately 25 . The length of our shoreline is 50 feet wide and we 're 50 foot wide from the shoreline all the way to Minnewashta Parkway . That 's the new improved parkway that you 're adding . That you 're improving . Our useage , which you want us to define to you , is one dock and the length at times is , or whenever it was made in '81 but we do have extra sections and the legal limit for Minnewashta , we 've never used the full length . We 're onl;- asking for the one dock unless the lake goes low , and then we may put out the full whatever . I think it 's 100 feet on Lake Minnewashta but we typically only put out about 50 feet . But we may put out more feet . We 'vR had one dock since 1914 . It 's a pre-existing use . It 's a grandfathered use . We just simply want to let you know what that use was and we want to , we understand the City 's interest in restricting the use of the lake . We want to , that is also our interest is to continue . Batzli : Can you comment on two or three particular things . Gary Carlson: Yeah , run down quickly . Batzli : On our survey we have very little use made in 1981 , which is the _ year that we have been attempting to limit your use to that level of use in 1981 . You asked for several things which go over and above that use and maybe if you can just comment on these 2 or 3 things . One is you 'd like to add a canoe rack . You want to increase the number of boats which are docked and you want to put a couple of the boats on land . Were those things done in 1981 that you had boats on land and a couple on the dock? Gary Carlson: Like I say , it 's a lake access that 's been there since 191, and some years it 's used more than others . Some people that have the use Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 53 of it have never even set foot on it . Some people that have the use of it _ are down there every weekend . But it 's a very limited use and there is no , hardly any physical evidence that it is a lake access because it is , the creek is entirely enclosed within that 50 feet . Batzli : But in the past has there been 2 boats on land , 2 on the dock? Gary Carlson : Okay , let me run again down these . One dock . So that 's only one dock . We 're not saying . Batzli : We 're going to give you the dock . I don 't want to talk about the dock . Gary Carlson: Okay . Number of boats , 1 or 2 . The reason for that is not to continue . We never have continually moored boats there . We 're not asking to moor any in the lake as other accesses do . Other accesses you look at their access , all you ' ll see is 12 boats moored out from nobody 's home . Aanenson: Maybe I can make a clarification . The ordinance only addresses if you 're going to put them overnight . If you 're going to launch them at the boat launch and store them during the day , run to the house and get lunch , that 's fine . We don 't care about that . The ordinance only addresses if you 're going to leave them there overnight . Gary Carlson : Okay . The other thing I wanted to ask you is the boat launch , canoe rack of exceptional size or parking lot . Those would all require us to come to you and ask for a building permit . If we were to build a parking lot or build . . . Aanenson : No . You have existing . You can drive onto that right now . Gary Carlson: No , existing is , the reason we 're asking for 1 or 2 docks is okay , if we want to leave the boat there overnight and usually . Batzli : The ones on the dock you want to leave there overnight? Gary Carlson : Well we have in the past at the dock but it 's not a full summer 's dockage . You know what I mean? Batzli : Right , but there has been use during the summer of you leaving boats there overnight? Gary Carlson: Yeah . We have left boats there overnight . And it 's only , if you and your brother are going to fish today and Sunday . Batzli : I leave my boat there overnight and then I pull it out . Gary Carlson: You leave the boat overnight and then we pull it out . Batzli : And how many have been on land during the summer in the past? Gary Carlson: Because it 's a non , it 's next to undeveloped land and the one owner to the right , you don 't have any security there . We haven 't in Planning Commission Meeting — March 17 , 1993 - Page 54 the past and we don 't want to in the future . We just , if the occasion runs that we 're going to go waterskiing Saturday and Sunday , and somebody in the association elects to leave their boat there , we don 't want to be out a permit or we don 't want to have a citation . - Batzli : So you 're looking at boats that are fishing boats and/or boats that you can pull a skier with? Gary Carlson: Small ski boats , yeah . Batzli : And in the past have you launched from that property or is this something that you would want to build? Gary Carlson: No . The reason I have a canoe rack is because traditionally we 've chained it to a tree and as the lots on either side of us develop into a home , they might say a little stand that you can lock your canoe down . And that again is just if the kids are on summer break or they 're going to canoe for the full two weeks or one week . But if anyone leaves their canoe there for a month it will be gone you know. Batzli : So there have been canoes left there chained to trees? - Gary Carlson: Chained to trees , yeah . Batzli : But how about launching your fishing boats or your small ski boats . Gary Carlson: Okay , that 's the next point . It also states in the histor; report there was no swimming beach but you know . Aanenson: The ordinance doesn 't address that . That 's really a moot point- because ointbecause we don 't regulate that . We 're not going to stop anybody from swimming there . Gary Carlson: It 's a hard sand beach so we swim there and that 's the onl) reason we go down there is to swim there and so it does have , has always had a swimming beach . The boat launch , if you 've looked at the access , it 's a straight little gravel road and it will have a new approach off Minnewashta Parkway . They ' ll be improving that approach. And the little gravel driveway goes straight into the lake and it 's not an improved launch and we don 't want it to be a launch where 12 boats launch there every Saturday or night . The only reason we use the launch is if the public thing is full . You know they only allow 40 some boats over there . And like I say , it 's a very small access and there 's only 25 or so people that have the right to use it . I have yet to see more than 3 people , 3 different families there at one time in all the 23 years I 've been there so it 's very limited useage boat area . The only thing is if I 'm going to have waterskiing and I didn 't get up by 9:00 and get over to the public to- launch and there 's no place on Minnewashta to launch , the public I can 't leave my , so then I back in . I put my boat in . We have a little gravel driveway that goes straight into the lake . It 's not an improved . We 're not going to put in a cement boat ramp . Batzli : We probably wish you would but okay . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 55 Mancino : How long has it been there? How long has the boat launch been there? Gary Carlson: The road has always been there since I 've been there . Mancino: Okay , but according to this inventory , there isn 't one . There wasn 't one in 1981 , 1986 or 1991 . Gary Carlson: It depends on the lake level . It depends on what the ice heave is that year and unless I go down there with my skidster loader and remove that ice heave , then you can 't make a smooth launch . So only a person with a 4 wheel drive would launch there . Batzli : Okay . Do you understand the position we 're in here . What we 're looking for actual documentation of increased use over what our survey said was there in 1981 . And we have your best recollection but we don 't have anything we can kind of sink our teeth into . Gary Carlson: Well I can bring , a lot of the people that use it in the 70 's and 80 's have retired and moved off of the lots . We have new families in there and they haven 't launched there yet . So we have always launched a boat there but we 're not going to be a launch for 25 homeowners and then they 're calling their aunts and uncles and friends and relatives . If I can get into the fact that it can only be used and we would like that use to continue , it can only be used by the heirs and assigns of Schmid 's Acre Tract . And by the way , can only be used for the private use of the heirs so that means I can 't invite the public . In fact the City of Chanhassen owns one of the Schmid 's Acre tracts and so does the City of Shorewood owns one . Batzli : Do you have covenants amongst the tracts? Gary Carlson : The thing is on this particular parcel . We 're coming in as a courtesy to the city to get this permit . It 's grandfathered number one . Number two , it lies entirely within a private person 's property . It 's as if Kathryn owned a lake lot and she gave us permission from now on for the other people who live across the street from her to use and come onto her property . This is privately owned by a private party , not me . So it 's not like the normal lake access where the people hold it in common . Batzli : I believe it . Gary Carlson: We have the right to come on to Kenneth Durr 's property , the 50 feet wide strip to ingress and egress the lake and that was set up by Schmid and his heirs in 1914 when he platted . So that his relatives that owned off lake could use that and we now live on his properties and we don 't want to expand it beyond the 25 families who now use it . Batzli : Okay . We may have questions for you when we , thank you for coming . It 's an interesting one . Gary Carlson : We want to leave it with it 's current nature and there 's no improvements we can put on it without going through a permitting process of the city so it 's basically so that you can have that defined and not Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 56 — let it get expanded . We don 't want to expand it . What we 're asking for _ is just the minimum . I mean you 've got to be able to put one dock there occasionally and you have to be able to go swimming there and you like to , if we need to launch a boat , the road goes right into the lake . Batzli : Okay , thank you for your comments . Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Yes please . Dale Keehl : My name is Dale Keehl . I live at 3841 West 62nd Street . I just purchased the house last fall from a Mr . Gelsich who I 've worked with for the past 24 years . As far as I don 't , I 've never used the access . It_ was one of the reasons that I bought the house was because I have two young boys and we like to fish and stuff and I thought it would be a nice way to get to the lake and not necessarily use it as a boat launch . I don 't need that or to leave a boat on the lake . I just like a place I ca- get to the lake . Like I said , I 've known the Gelsich 's for 20 some years and how they used it with their boys and as far as leaving boats there and that , it was just an overnight thing and that , I was on the access a couple times with them and I would just like to see it kept so I could us it with my boys . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? I:- there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved , Mancino seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Okay Jeff , why don 't you start . Farmakes : I 've been consistent on this thing and I want to remain consistent . Batzli : I know . I really shouldn 't have started with you should I . Farmakes : I think the ordinance is pretty clear and I 'm really not going to go on . The applicant knows apparently from discussing it here what th• ordinance , the intent of the ordinance is to do and what we 're arguing about here perhaps is not access but expanding the use . If the city took a survey there , was down there and one of the boats happened to be missing from the dock , I could take that as a plausible event , and I don 't think that that 's being inconsistent . The City 's tact with that survey was not totally inclusive and I think that there 's some reasonable leeway there . - The difference of what you 're asking seems to me to be pretty slight and would be fine with the extra boat versus the survey . The issue of storage , I don 't think that we 've gotten super critical with the issue of _ storage off of the dock itself . The issue of access though , I 'm not sure if I , that would seem to me to be an expansion of use . If you were to improve that and utilize that for a true boat launching and that would seem to me to be inconsistent with what we can do . That 's it . Batzli : But you would agree that they should have a boat launch? Farmakes : No . That would be an expansion of use . And that would be inconsistent with what we 've been doing . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 57 Batzli : Let me ask one question . On the issue of launching . You can still launch your boat over at the public launch . You just can 't park over there . Or do they actually cut it off after 45 people have launched? Gary Carlson: I think after so many boats and trailers have gone through the gate . Otherwise they can 't . . .or you have to wait for a boat and trailer to leave the park . I supposed , I don 't know if at the gate you explained to the person at the gate that you just wanted to launch and take the boat somewhere else . I 'm not sure on that either . I guess I didn 't cover the parking either . We don 't all go down and park our cars . If it 's the 4th of July and he has all his relatives , all 14 of them . In other words , if there 's a little family picnic there and you park your cars . . .and they park all the way to the driveway out , there will be 10 cars there but we 're not asking to have any cars parking . We 're not asking to expand on the parking . So if there 's 10 cars down there . . .but we 're not asking for a 10 car parking lot either . Batzli : Did you have something? Dale Keehl : I do think you can launch over there and drive out . I used to know the guy that took care of it over there and I do think that is possible . Aanenson: I think that 's what a lot of the other associations do too . They can 't dock overnight . Batzli : Right . Joe . Scott : I don 't know . This is a personal comment and not necessarily made as a Planning Commissioner but this is my first shot at a lake situation . I don 't know . Has there been any problems with how these people have been using the dock? I mean it seems like we 're trying to go back into the history and nobody really has a good beat on it and the one day survey 's not an indication of use I guess . Has there been any reason to , or any indication that these people have not been utilizing this piece of land for whatever it 's supposed to be utilized , I mean has there ever been any problem with these people? Aanenson : Not to my knowledge . Scott : Well , and I don 't expect you to know full knowledge . As far as I 'm concerned , I think we should just , they don 't have a tremendous amount of space to work with . It doesn 't seem like there 's heavy use . I think we should grant them their non-conforming use . That 's the end of my discussion . Batzli : So do you feel comfortable with what they 've asked for in view of what we think they 've had in the past? Scott : We don 't really know what they 've had in the past and I don 't think you can determine it from a one shot aerial photograph or somebody wandering down there so I 'd take them on their word and let it go with it . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 58 Batzli : Okay . That 's a fair assessment . I think Matt may present the opposing viewpoint here though . Go ahead . Scott : Which is fine . Ledvina : You know I feel that we do have to evaluate the survey and take what we can from that survey . I agree with Jeff 's position . A boat can be out on the lake . We 've gone over that many times . I don 't need to do that here . So I would be in favor of allowing one boat to be docked overnight at the dock . The other conditions are fine but I would draw the line at the boat launch because I think there 's other issues that are associated with a boat launch that relate to environmental effects and control and things like that . So I would not support approving the boat - launch . Batzli : Parking 's okay? Boats on land are okay? Ledvina : That 's all fine . Everything else is fine as far as I 'm concerned . And again the major issue that we 've been dealing with is boats docked and I would see that 1 would be a reasonable situation for this beachlot . Farmakes : Well it 's 1 or 2 . Batzli : Well we 've got to come up with a number eventually . Ledvina : I would support 1 . Farmakes : There 's a 50% difference . Batzli : Or 100% if it 's 1 . Okay Ladd . Conrad: I don 't believe the boat launch is acceptable . I think the other_ requests are okay . Boats docked can be , well it 's not docked . Boats on land . I think we 're asking how many can be on land , right? Aanenson: Yeah . Some of those associations , I think it was like Pleasant Grove , they had actually boats for fishing that they left on land and the; just brought the motors down . So it 's question of should we qualify that . They 're always there . That 's kind of what they do here . They tie them up or chain them up to a tree . Conrad: So again , I think I 'm okay with everything other than the boat launch . Batzli : Do you want 1 or 2 boats? Conrad : 1 . Batzli : Both cases? On land and on dock? Conrad: I think we 're only , I was responding to a recommendation that , I didn 't think we were making a recommendation on the dock . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 59 Aanenson: Well you have to decide if you feel it 's consistent . They 're saying that they had one dock . We 're saying , whoever did the survey in '81 saw one dock . The 45 feet again , that can fluctuate with the level of the lake . What the ordinance says is 50 feet maximum or to get a depth of 4 feet . So really if you feel like that 's consistent that they had a dock , and he says they had a dock , if you feel that 's . Conrad: The dock 's fine . Boat on land . One boat on land . Boats on dock overnight , no . Swimming beach is okay . I find a conflict between the one 1981 inventory where we showing off street parking of 5 to 6 and on our inventory in '81 , '86 and '91 showing no , no , no . I don 't understand that . But on the other hand , I 'm not hearing any neighbors complaining so - I guess I could accept the off street parking . Batzli : Okay . Diane . Harberts: Just no to the boat launch . Everything else I agree with . I 'd like 2 boats so I know where he 's coming from . Batzli : Okay . Mancino : Well after hearing you wise people , I 'm for the dock . 10 off street parking . No boat launch . 1 canoe rack . 1 boat on land . 1 boat docked . Is there anything else? I think that 's it . _ Batzli : Okay . I think what you 're hearing so far is that we don 't have a problem with your use other than the launch and what you need to do is , what we 're going to about to do , I get the feeling , is we 're going to make a recommendation . If you can present evidence to the City Council that your property was used as a launch back in 1981 , you will probably convince them to also include the launch but you haven 't given us enough evidence to feel comfortable giving that to you here tonight . If you can find pictures . If you can have people come in . Whatever . What we 've been trying to do is put the burden on the applicant . If it 's above what we thought was there , you have the burden to prove to us that it was used in that way . We 're not trying to take it away , something that you 've been doing but you need to give us something so that we can hang our hat on it and say yeah , go ahead and continue to use it that way . So between now and when this goes to City Council , if you have a picture of somebody launching their boat , whatever you know . Harberts: Can it just be a written letter? Batzli : Well we 've gotten those from people as well . We 've gotten affidavits from people saying . Aanenson: Pictures , yeah . Batzli : Pictures , whatever . But we didn 't get really much of anything and I think there was just a level of discomfort that by making it a launch , you 've increased the intensity . Whereas a couple boats on there , fishing boats , things , that 's not a real intense use . And that 's what this whole thing is intended to do is to keep these small beachlots from Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 60 becoming real intense and irritating the people around them and over crowding the lake . Okay? - Gary Carlson: I think we should accept your recommendation . . . Batzli : Okay . Gary Carlson: Because two things will happen . First of all , when you say launch , a boat and trailer . . .If someone sees that it 's a , the only people - who will launch will be my neighbor . . .but if you say launch and I tell everyone there 's going to be a launch . Batzli : Well we 're going to say no launch in a minute so don 't worry about that . Gary Carlson: If you say no launch , fine . - Batzli : Okay . Do we have a motion? Ledvina : I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the approva: of the Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit application by Schmid 's Acre according to or consistent with the request and specifically with _ these exceptions . The number of boats docked to 1 . Number of boats on land being 1 and an exception to the request for a boat launch . No boat launch . Batzli : Is there a second? Mancino: Second . -. Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Non-Conforming Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Schmid 's Acres with the continued use of one dock , 1 boat parked at the dock , 1 boat parked on land , off street parking for 10, 1 canoe rack , and - no boat launch permitted . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Batzli : When does this go to the Council? Aanenson: It should be on April 12th . PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLAN TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM BG, GENERAL BUSINESS TO PUD, PLANNED - UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EXPANSION OF AN OFFICE AND MANUFACTURING FACILITY LOCATED AT 7900 MONTEREY DRIVE , WEST ONE EXPANSION, DOUG HANSON, WEST ONE PROPERTIES . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Doug Hanson: I 'm Doug Hanson . I live in Minnetonka . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 61 Batzli : I 'm sorry . Before you start in , I have one more question of Jo Ann . Are you done with the rest of your staff report? Olsen: I was just going to finish to say that there used to be 5 users in this building . As Chaska has expanded , they 've pushed them out . He , Doug Hanson who will be explaining that he is proposing with this expansion that he will locate his own construction business there also and I believe a plumber . So I think we need to have it clear exactly who would be using that site . Farmakes : Can I ask for some additional site plan , I guess this isn 't site plan review but some concept on how this is in relationship to the Burdick property that still remains behind Target and that road going in . I believe we might have a few drawings in the back of there of Target , but we don 't see that on any of this . The relationship of this building to the area behind Target and the drive in , the service road that goes back behind there . Olsen: Right here is . . .Market Square . . . This is Pica Drive and this is - where you get into Target . . . Farmakes : But there still are some lots I believe behind Target . There 's 2 lots . Olsen : . . .where the trees are? Farmakes : Okay , down there by your stomach . Batzli : But is this contingent upon , I mean looking at Don 's comments here . Is this all contingent upon , rezoning this PUD can be made contingent upon the HRA selling this hunk of land? Olsen: Well they have , they own it and they have total control now . Batzli : Yeah but I don 't want to rezone this PUD . Olsen : If the HRA . Batzli : Well it says here , isn 't this hunk , is this a proposed expansion? Is that going on land that 's owned by the HRA right now? Olsen: Correct . Right . Batzli : So can we make this contingent , because I don 't see in any of the conditions that this is contingent upon them getting all the property under common ownership . Olsen : Sure you can . Batzli : If they don 't do that , then there 's no point in us rezoning these individual little parcels PUD . Olsen : Exactly . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 62 Batzli : Okay . Please , go ahead . Doug Hanson: I 'm Doug Hanson . I was one of the builders , the partner of Tom Klingelhutz back in '78 . We had about 5 previous people as tenants in there . It was office/warehouse . DayCo Concrete was in there . Vernco Maintenance . Frontier Meats . There was an auto body shop in there and there 's another one but I can 't think of what it was . But eventually Chaska Machine has taken over the whole operation and they 're in a — position to expand . They would like to stay there if they could . We would , I have a company , Hanson Hometech . We do residential remodeling . I work with my two sons . Steinkraus Plumbing would be another tenant and we_ would share a small area in the very end of this building . About 2 ,000 square feet . We would share the office and the secretary/receptionist . That type of thing . Otherwise it 's mainly for Chaska Machine . And the future expansion area would be for them also as they grow . There 's 5 ,400 - square feet in the proposed expansion . . . The highway is here and the railroad tracks is here . . . Batzli : Okay . Does anybody have any questions? Harberts: I have a comment . Chaska Business Machines as well as the Target area , if you recall when Target came before the Commission there was a transit element involved and it 's simply because of the amount of traffic and trips that would probably be generated in the Target area . Chaska Business Machines is one of the businesses that are being targeted - for reverse commute opportunities . Basically bringing people from the inner city out to a possible location such as Chaska Business for employment . And because of the location , and what could potentially happen with these other areas , my comment is that I would like to have Southwest Metro involved in the , if this thing goes forward , to add that transit element in here because I see a potential high demand for public bus service to bring potential workers out to this area . Especially with - Target . . .and what I 'm seeing right now is basically maybe just adding like a bus shelter or a bus stop or something in that turn around area . That circle , that cul-de-sac little thing . So I 'd like to encourage that — Southwest Metro become involved with this conceptual site plan design to insure that it 's transit friendly and that it continues to fill that reverse commute strategy . Olsen: By transit friendly you mean that a bus can get in there or a van% Harberts: More a van but just basically putting maybe a bench or a bus shelter or something . Simply , you know with Chaska Business Machines is expanding . They 're going to expand their work force . They 've already been identified as a company out in Chanhassen to promote reverse commute . So I just think that they 're a top candidate to really focus in on making sure that this facility is transit friendly . That would be basically the same concept that you see presented to you when you looked at the Target site plan . Batzli : Any other comments right now? Okay . Did you have anything else? Doug Hanson : I 'm here to answer any questions . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 63 Batzli : Okay . We 'll probably ask them in a minute . Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Okay . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved , Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Mancino : I have one question . Batzli : Go ahead . Mancino: My big question is , is that the comprehensive plan that was done in 1992 designated this property as commercial even when Chaska Machine and Tool were there at the time . I 'd just like to hear the rationale behind that . Why did they not , when Chaska Machine and Tool were in there at the time in 1992 , designate it as industrial? Or light manufacturing . Batzli : Because we 're trying to get all the manufacturing out of the city and we assumed that once they were ready to leave or we 'd buy them out , it would be commercial property . It 's downtown . Farmakes : But the ensuing developments that occurred basically boxed in that property from any reasonable access or for potential client , retail client to see it . It just isn 't going to happen . You 're going to have to know it 's back there because you 're not going to see it from anywhere else . Mancino: So commercial , is that only retail or could that be office? Farmakes : Well it possibly could be office . Mancino: It could be an office . So it could still be commercial and not be retail but be . Farmakes: That 's correct . Batzli : And that 's the big issue . Farmakes : Except most of our office buildings are retail . We 've heard arguments about that before too . That 's what they wind up being . Harberts : But isn 't the office industry also telling us that it 's going to be another 10 years before that market comes back around? Farmakes: That 's how things progressed in development of the city . Eventually come the lawyers . . . Mancino: The industrial is an anomaly there . The way it looks right now and to keep adding onto it and make it even bigger , it just doesn 't fit . That 's all I have . Batzli : Jeff . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 64 Farmakes : It would depend on how they would revision that building . I have I think real sympathy that that particular piece of property would not work as a retail and I 'm not sure that the foreseeable future if it 's feasible to consider it as a business area . It is sort of a little hold over pocket from a failed development many years ago of , I remember seeing , I will build on this site your company sign , I don 't know a decade at least . I never saw one of the properties being sold . I 'm not sure that this is going to be something that 's going to be easy for the City to- deal with as to what they 're going to do with this . This may be a reasonable alternative . It isn 't very low impact area . It 's going to be basically surrounded by other buildings and the only way you 're going to _ be able to see it is for a very brief time as you drive over the bridge . Certainly one of the possibilities is giving it a facelift and eliminatin<_ any of the types of objectionable industrial use that 'd be incompatible such as on site storage of machinery or materials that would be objectionable . Expanding that type of useage I think would be the wrong way to go . But I think from a conceptual point of how we 're looking at this , I wouldn 't turn it down flat and say that 's not a reasonable alternative to use this property . I 'd leave that up to the applicant as to how they would soften that connection of an industrial use with what i. on the plan that designates it as a commercial area . In other words , the more you could make it look like a business building , office building , thE— better off a case could be made that that was being done as a solution . That 's my comment . Batzli : So right now you 'd be willing to look at it as a PUD or wouldn 't you be willing to vote on the concept and rezoning? Farmakes : As I understood it , what we 're looking at here today is just the concept itself . . .correct? Batzli : Right . Farmakes : We 're not voting to make this a PUD today? Conceptually yeah . Harberts : What message are we sending to the HRA though? Batzli : Yeah . Farmakes : Well we really don 't . Batzli : If we vote on it conceptually that we like it , then they 're goinr- to get the impression that we ' ll approve it or something soften down the road . Harberts: Or we cave in on something . Farmakes: That 's difficult to do here because we 're really looking at a very preliminary concept . What we 're looking at here . We 're not looking at any detailing or what they 're planning on doing with the building othe' than expanding the connection use . Batzli : But it sounds like . I 've heard one person say this isn 't appropriate . You say maybe , if it 's done right . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 65 Farmakes : Correct . Batzli : Okay . Doug Hanson : Could I say something? Batzli : Sure . Doug Hanson: I plan to follow the building that 's there . It 's a 20 ,000 square feet building there and I just , all you 're seeing is another 30 foot and a turn and another 60 foot . And so there 's really not much different on the front so I would follow the same site , the same architecture that 's there right now . Farmakes : In long term use for downtown and if you 're looking at where in the long term in the market developed for business/office type market , which is not , I don 't believe here yet or we haven 't seen that - demonstrated by our developers . We do have a fairly limited amount of space downtown where that would go so that 's another thing for consideration in reviewing this . I 'm just saying that it 's how far down the line you wish to look for this type of useage . This is a possible solution for the existing building and I don 't think that I 've got enough information to go one way or the other . Scott : If from a manufacturing standpoint , could you tell us , and especially me , what happens in that building? What do you do in there? When you manufacture . Manufacturing . . . Doug Hanson : Okay , it 's Chaska Machine and Tool and punch presses and they make parts for machines . They 're shipped all over . Scott : Custom fabrication . Doug Hanson: Yeah . Just small , mainly small parts . Scott : So you guys basically take , your raw materials are metal? Doug Hanson : Yep . Scott : Metal castings? Doug Hanson: No metal , sheet metal . Scott : Pretty much sheet metal? Doug Hanson: Stamped parts and machine parts and things like that . Scott : Okay . So as far as any sort of , and then the scrap , basically a scrap hauler takes it away and recycles it or something? Doug Hanson : Yeah , it 's recycled . Right . Scott : Okay . And then as far as , is there any sort of hazardous material that we could probably get some fumes? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 66 Doug Hanson : No . - Scott : You know when I was down there , it was hard for me to tell but my opinion is conceptually I don 't have a problem with this at all . Granted _ there 's some architectural features on some adjacent buildings that need to be considered but I figure , it seems like this property is probably not that useful for something else and if these guys happen to grow out of it or , I mean office warehouse is pretty useful space . But then you 've got - an industrial , a couple of things in the TIF district that have some of that empty space anyway . So I mean you 're right , the market isn 't there . But conceptually I don 't have a problem with it and from a standpoint , they 've got a business running here . They 're looking at expanding . It looks like a logical alternative , so that 's my opinion on it . Batzli : Okay , Matt . Ledvina : I share the same sentiments as Joe here . I think this seems to be a reasonable extension of the existing use . I guess in looking at some- of the conditions in the staff report here , we have on number 3 the expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the existing building . And we looked at , recently we looked at , was it . . .and _ we changed that building to , or we suggested the developer change the building to include some pitched roof elements and I think you could easily do the same thing for the expansion and make it work . Because much of the building is , you know has a flat roof and then you can have an - entrance or something like that that has a pitched element to improve the architecture or increase the standard or whatever . So I think we could change that to say matching and enhance the architectural design . But I - guess other than that , I agree . It 's kind of a weird little corner and i it can be expanded to an increased use by . . .use , I think it should be done . Batzli : Okay . Ladd . Conrad : I saw an interesting figure tonight . An acre of commercial land - sells and -sells for $130 ,000 .00 in Chanhassen . An acre of industrial land is a little bit over $40 ,000 .00 . And so what 's the implication of value . As you talk industrial , there 's a gap between that and what commercial property is valued at . How does this impact our decision? Olsen : Well in the value of it , and all of that kind of gets back to the HRA . It 's their final decision whether or not to sell it , and that 's where we got involved in this because of the HRA wanting to know , is this an option . What were the options and so the Manager 's comment is right . Which one goes first . If they choose to not sell it and feel that they - could sell it commercial and receive more money , that 's their decision I think . As far as us , I don 't know that we 're involved in that . Conrad : Okay . From a planning perspective , I have no problems with that at all . Batzli : That 's it? Conrad: That 's all there is . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 67 Batzli : Okay . Diane . Harberts : I have no problem with it . Again , I just want to recommend there be some transit planning , and that 's for the future . Batzli : Okay , is that it? . . .Ladd 's remark that from a planning perspective I have no problem with this at all . I 'm more on Jeff 's wavelength . It probably could be done if it 's done right and I guess I 'd give it a shot at a conceptual stage and let the HRA determine whether it 's a smart move to sell it for a third of the price that they could maybe get doing something else . Given it 's location . Maybe they can 't . I would add one condition that any approvals that we 're doing tonight is contingent on the applicant 's purchase of the land , which it 's shown on . The plans we 're looking at . The additional lands . Olsen: So you would not like to see this proceed until he 's actually finished that deal? The conceptual plans . Batzli : Well , I find it difficult to move too far down the road if the HRA isn 't willing to do it . Olsen: Right , I agree . Doug Hanson: I 've given them a purchase agreement and they 're just holding it until it goes through here . Batzli : Right . But I 'm just saying that if the HRA at their next meeting , after we approve this says they 're not going to sell you the land , then one of our conditions was that they sell you the land . Doug Hanson: Yeah , I agree . I can 't do anything otherwise . Batzli : Okay . Is there any other discussion? Ledvina : I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Concept Plan Request to Rezone Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Burdick Park from BG , General Business to PUD with the following conditions as outlined in the staff report subject to the following modifications and additions . Condition number 3 should read , the expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building . The addition of condition 7 which would read , prior to rezoning and development , the applicant shall purchase the property in question . And condition 8 , that transit planning be incorporated into the development . Batzli : Is there a second? Harberts: Second . Batzli : Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved , Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the concept plan request to rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick Park from BG , General Business to PUD , Planned Unit Development with the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 68 1 . The applicant shall receive and meet the conditions of the following _ approvals : a . Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3 , 4 and 5 , Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements . b . Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from commercial to industrial . - c . Site Plan approval for the building expansion . d . Rezoning approval from BG , General Business to PUD , Planned Unit Development . 2 . The site plan shall have to maintain the proposed concept plan , with - the proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing use , light manufacturing . A higher intensity industrial use will not be permitted at this site . 3 . The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building . 4 . There shall be no outdoor storage permitted . 5 . All rooftop equipment shall be screened _ 6 . The hard cover surface of the site ( the three lots ) shall not exceed 70% . _ 7 . Prior to rezoning and development , the applicant shall purchase the property in question from the HRA . 8 . Transit planning shall be incorporated into this development . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETBACK ZONES . Public Present: Name Address Jeff Kvichang 6681 Horseshoe Curve ( The following people signed the public hearing sheet but had left by thi- point in the meeting . ) Randy & Rayma Smith 429 Pleasant View Greg & Barb Hedlund 748 Lake Point Donald & Beverly Hanson 8516 Great Plains Blvd . _ Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 69 Batzli : Do we want to tackle the dock setback? Aanenson: I 've had a lot of phone calls on this . Everybody on all the lakes in the city . Batzli : And we have one person . And we made him stay here until midnight . Aanenson: I took at least 50 phone calls on this . If I notice it again , we have to notify everybody on the lakes again and go through that whole process , what happens? I 'd really prefer . Batzli : Commissioners , are you up for one more? I hate to do this . Scott : Just as long as it isn 't a filibuster . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order . Farmakes : How does this conform to the DNR criteria for lot extensions beyond the high water mark? Aanenson: Well in this instance , as far as the 100 foot . Farmakes: But the angle of the property lines as they extend into the lake . How does that? Aanenson : There 's no jurisdiction there . Farmakes : The DNR has no jurisdiction there? Aanenson : Below the ordinary high water mark? As far as the dock going out the 100 foot , that 's in compliance with this . The jurisdiction going 100 feet . Above the ordinary high water mark is our jurisdiction . I guess I 'm not really clear what you 're . Farmakes : If the angle of the property continues , in other words , that property line , does it continue beyond out into the water . Aanenson: 100 feet . That 's all they care about . They don 't care how we measure it . That 's really based on the complaints that we 've had of people that have descending lots , pie shaped lots . The people that have lots that are increasing in size , pinching off the neighbors . It 's really just to make a good neighbor policy for the city . That 's where that came from . It 's driven by us . The DNR really doesn 't care how we . Farmakes: This isn 't conflicting with their 's? Aanenson: No . No . What we 're trying to do is make a good neighbor policy is really what it 's about . And we really want to get this in place before we get into the summer months and boating . Before people put their docks out . Another reason why we wanted to get it forward on the agenda . By the time it gets through Council and we can have it adopted , people putting their docks out this spring will be able to comply with this . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 70 - Farmakes : Is this going to be enforced on a complaint basis? - Aanenson: Yeah . We 've never , to my knowledge , the City hasn 't gone out , although I volunteered , to go out and boat each lake . To make sure they 're all in compliance . To go out and actually take a transit and go = out and try to survey these , it 's pretty difficult but we do try to do them on a complaint basis . I had 2 or 3 of them last summer where I went out and checked . And again , we just try to work with the neighbors to be - a good neighbor kind of a policy . Batzli : Explain to me on the one where you extended the lot line then on _ the little inlet there . Why the person gets , no to the left . Yeah . Why that person gets such a narrow line and the other guy has such a big line . Aanenson: Well if you do that at a right angle like this , the . . . The same with this one here . Actually this lot goes all the way around . . . Batzli : Okay but , if you draw the line straight from the house to the - north , you get that small pie shape . Shouldn 't the actual line then be , so there 's an area of overlap on that particular case . Aanenson : Yeah . What it does is split the difference between the overlap . Batzli : Yeah but it doesn 't look like you split it at all in that case . - Aanenson : I didn 't show . . . Batzli : What I 'm saying is that particular lot , if this is the result , that particular lot is getting the raw deal compared to the guy to the north . Aanenson : Yeah . Batzli : Well , it looks to me like those , if this is what happens , then I - don ' t like it . If the dock setback is a little bit less of an angle , then I agree with what you 're doing . Aanenson : See this . . . Batzli : I know . I 'm just saying , this doesn 't go far enough if that 's the result . Because if the guy to the north can put his boat closer than - he should to the person to the south from just a fairness aspect . We haven 't gone far enough then . Aanenson: Yeah , there are a few instances . I tried to find some that have real anomolies on the lake . There are a few instances that are eve, more severe than that . Where people have very narrow frontages and they 're in a . . .or something like that . Batzli : Okay . Jeff Kvichang: You still can 't block access . Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 71 Aanenson : No , you still can 't block access . Batzli : You can make it very uncomfortable . Aanenson : And enjoying the other person 's right when they 're using their beach property and swimming and you 're cutting back and forth to get to your dock . Batzli : My father 's situation , which has absolutely nothing to do with _ this because he 's in Tonka Bay . In years when the water is up they put a sailboat with a big keel so that you have to kind of wind your way between his dock and the sailboat . And so you just pray for water that year . Anyway , this is a public hearing . Would you like to comment on this? Jeff Kvichang : Just pass it . It makes sense to me . Batzli : He stayed the whole time to say pass it . It makes sense to me . This is a dedicated Chanhassen resident . Can we have your name for the record . Jeff Kvichang: Jeff Kvichang , 6681 Horseshoe Curve . Batzli : Thank you . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? ( Ladd Conrad had left the meeting at this point and was not present for the voting on the remaining items . ) Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Diane , any comments? Harberts: No . Batzli : Okay , let 's do it . Our one public comment , let 's pass it . And how many negative phone calls did you receive? Aanenson: No , I just had a lot of questions and interpretting it and they wanted a crack at it because they want to make sure that they 're in compliance in the summer . Batzli : Okay , do I have a motion? Scott : I move that we close . Batzli : How about a motion that we recommend approval of the dock setback zoning ordinance amendment in accordance with the staff report dated March 8 , 1993 . Scott : I ' ll move . Mancino: I ' ll second . Batzli : Any discussion? Planning Commission Meeting March 17 , 1993 - Page 72 Scott moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Sections 20-1 , 6-1 and 6-22 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning dock setbacks as presented by staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 3 , 1993 as submitted . Scott moved , Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 12: 13 a .m . . - Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim cc/et 4L--)'"e JAMED F.LARK N LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, LTD. PAUL{.PLVNKETT ROIER.L.HOFFMAN ALAN L.KILDCW J AGI.r.DALq ATTORNEYS AT LAW KATnJEN M.NEWMAN P.KEI.NETN LINCOAAN MICHAEL I.ASARON OEMLO it rRIEDELL GREGORY C.KoRRTM - ALLAN C.MULLIGAN GARY A.VAN CLCVI• JAMES C.I I,CKEON DAdIL l IOWLES EDWARD J QRIECLLL 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER TODD M.VLATxC VIGN LRH{N.MLC^ TIMOTHY J.MFMANVS JDNN D.NILLMSR 7900 XERXEO AVENUE SCUM TIMOTHY J MANS 110IERT t.IOYLE ALAN M.ANDERION FRANK I.HARVEY BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 6E431.1104 DONNA L.IOIACK GHAALES t MODELL M;CHAEL W.tC.ILEY GIIRI[TOMIEn..DIETCCN TELEPHONE W21636-3E00 M,C HAM.A.fOREAT90N J OwI R IIATIR1.11A A.GRAY LADA u.F701IER fAX (817)1,196-3333 CARY A.RGYNEKE TNOMAA r.ITOLTw1Nw OIINNDN K.MNGAMIIYOCC MICNNL C JACAMAN GM,%rOPHM J RARRIR*RAL JONI E.DICnL Yr'ILLIM1 C.CMFFITH,JR. Joh A AWlt R2tW6KI JnIN J.OTErrENIIAG[N .tiQMAS J.FLYNN DANIEL W.VCRS JAMS I.({NINA MMK A.RVRIK TODD I.►RItMAN JDI N R "ILL 14TER K.SCCK JMIER K.MMTW J{RGM{N,IAwNKI TMICMAC J RCYMOVI AERALD L.SICK M16NACL J.EM'1 I J0114 I.LVNOGVIST PRIDERACK K.HAMA LI — DAVIS HOLM.c .StRTO• MARY C.Y00 THOMAS I.HLMNMREY,JR. LARRY D.MART+N JOIN A.COTTER• JAIII IREMIR PRAT'rt A Rf' WRAF■ MARCY R.KREIBMIAN MAPIEL I PIILOLA OF COVMEIL WEhPCLL R.ANDERGON JUSIFH MIRE -ALAO ADMI1 ID Rh wISCCNtN MEMORANDUM - TO: Urban Wetland Coalition FROM: Mike Robertson DATE: March 29, 1993 — RE: Update on Legislation Good news to report this week on our legislative efforts. Prospects _ now appear good that legislation extending the interim program will be passed this year by the Minnesota Legislature. A bill extending the interim program and delaying the implementation — of the new rules has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Joe Bertram and in the House by Representative Jeff Bertram (H.P. 1405 and S .F. 1304) . The interim program would be extended until March 1, - 1994 , thus allowing time for review of the new program by the legislature and an opportunity for the legislature to take action in the 1994 session. Representative Willard Munger, author of the Wetlands Conservation Act, has indicated that he will support an extension of the program, but will not allow any further changes in the law this year. The House bill passed out of Representative Bertram' s Agriculture Subcommittee on Friday, March 26. At that — meeting, Ron Harnack indicated support for an extension until January and distributed a fact sheet comparing the interim and permanent programs (attached) . The bill will be heard in the House Agriculture Committee today, Monday, March 28, 1993 at 10: 00 a.m. , and possibly in a hearing in the Senate Agriculture Committee from 12 :00 noon to 2 : 00 p.m. It is - expected that the bill will be re-referred to the Environment committees . — We will keep you informed of further developments. Attachment MAR:CK3s •1 we a' ssr♦ WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT Min to Comparison of Interim and Permanent Programs I . Or •ter&SOiii Resources ofinftwoemak INTERIM PERMANENT Who's in Charge? Many local government units Greater MN: Counties/cities or — (LGUs) can accept responsibility, their designates will provide but are not penalized if they don't. 'seamless" coverage. In Metro: There are parts of the state where WMOs, cities or towns (or their jurisdictions overlap, and also areas designates) are required to develop where no LGU has accepted clear jurisdictional boundaries for responsibility. Also, there is the entire metro area. State questionable authority over mining agencies will act as LOU for projects and projects on state land. projects on state land. Exemptions Exemptions for agriculture, forestry Ag-land is defined and ag use must — and development are being continue for 10 years to qualify for improperly interpreted resulting in ag exemptions. Development and land use conversions under these infrastructure approvals and _ exemptions (see examples), forestry activities are clarified. No-Loss There is no "deminimus" amount or Deminimus and no-loss categories no-loss category; minor projects establish some minor projects may be held up during review. excluded from regulation. Compensation Only Permanent Wetland Preserves Authorizes compensation for Easement program is available. denied replacement plans through appeal process. Enacts Wetland Preservation Areas which provides possible tax relief for wetland owners. Appeals/Notification Landowner and/or affected parties Appeals process established can only appeal LGU decisions through BWSR for landowner and through court system, affected parties who disagree with LGU decision. Project Review No requirement for Technical Three member Technical Evaluation Panel. Most have been Evaluation Panel can be called used only after the fact, when a upon by landowner or LOU to problem has arisen. make scientific determinations, thus minimizing disputes. - more WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT Comparison of Interim and Permanent Programs (Continued) INTERIM PERMANENT Wetienculainemmt The avoid, minimize and then The rules establish specific criteria Sequencing replace requirement is and tests for sequencing, including Inconsistently applied from one a findings of fact and alternatives LGU to another. analysis. Replacement Ratio Wetland function, values and type Replacement will be based on not often considered; replacement function and value assessment to of acreage is only requirement. No ensure "no-net loss' of acres and credit for restoration of partially public values. Credit for drained areas. restoration of partially drained basins is possible. integrity/Quality No monitoring or deed recording Monitoring period and construction required to ensure long-term standards insure perpetual viability of replaced wetland. existence and functioning of replaced wetland. Wetland Banking No state wetland banking system. State wetland banking program is established which provides a practical off-site replacement option for landowners impacting wetlands. Training Basic administrative training and BWSR will offer extensive materials for Interim are in place. administrative training to LGUs h m n R l finaUzed. • EXAMPLES 1) City XXXX gave an agricultural exemption (#1) to themselves on a piece of recently purchased city property that contained a 10 to 15 acre type 3 wetland which is now being drained without replacement for a housing development. This valuable wetland on the edge of the Minnesota River Valley provided flood control, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities to the neighborhood surrounding the wetland area. The Permanent Rule would have saved this wetland, or as a last resort, required replacement as the ag exemptions are not allowed where land will be converted to some other use within 10 years. 2) In XXXX city, the LGU gave an agricultural exemption to a private developer, who had recently purchased the property,who then immediately filled several wetlands totalling about 2 acres without replacement for a housing development. Again, the Permanent Rule language cited in example 1 would have required avoidance or replacement. 3) In XXXX county a landowner proposed to use an exempt wetland as replacement for a non-exempt wetland that was to be filled. Because the landowner threatened to simply drain the exempt basin and then immediately restore it the LGU was left without any option. This type of wetland loss is prohibited by the Permanent Rule which prohibits using exempt wetlands that are drained/filled for replacement for 10 years. 4) In XXXX county a landowner building a hunting cabin proposed to exercise the silvicuitural exemption #15 as he was planning to cut down several trees for the — building site. Since the statute language is unclear about how much timber harvesting constitutes a silvicultural operation, the LGU issued the exemption rather than face a legal challenge, and the wetland was filled for a permanent road without replacement. The Permanent Rules state that this exemption applies to roads constructed for the primary purpose of silvicultural operations. 5) In XXXX county a mining company seeking to expand operations had to get approvals from two LGUs for the unavoidable wetland Impacts (the project bordered on two jurisdictions) and also had to secure approval from the DNR for other aspects of the project. Under the Permanent program one jurisdictional LGU is identified and for permitted mining projects the DNR will act as the LGU thus providing one-stop comprehensive project review. LARRIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Attorneys at Law 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis , MN 55431 Telephone ( 612 ) 635-3800 FAX Numbers ( 612 ) 896-3333 or 896-3265 MULTIPLE MESSAGE COVER SHEET DATE : `7 /)Q•� 'e__J-2 / J /99_3 PAGES: ( INCLUDING COVER SHEET) . \_ FROM: FILE�C� C/Q cam, ) FILE NO. /9.59& - Crit TO THE FOLLOWING: NAME : O Q'rt_ C NUMBER: 60c/Lc - NAME: 4L4/-.1 NUMBER: 937 5-739 _ NAME : NUMBER: 9? 9 033,:; NAME: Xti NUMBER:— 835 - 7008" NAME: ii4 77 /��. . tF . �' NUMBER: 155 - 09'75 NAME : /24-Cit..., / 'ZCL 4 t'�L'-- NUMBER: �A ./-- d/toja ************************* M E S S A G E************************ 4n ,& 9G)/ — 5 ca-C TUE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THE COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE. AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. G1 �c� t / — C'IG0MI, a.COr"". LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY& LINDGREN, Lm. PL I{.P P 'Tao k r.".JAMES P LARKIN PAUVL LVNKETT ROBERT L.HOFFMAN — ALAN L JACK F DALY ATTORNEYS AT LAW KILDOW AN D KENNETH LINDGREN KATHLEEN IB M BARO MICN GERALD H FRIEDELL MICHAEL LEBARON GREGORYE KORSTAD ALLAN E.MULLIGAN GARYRY•A VAN CLEVELEVE' JAMES C ERICKSON DANIEL ECWARO J DRISCOLL 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER TODDD M A L VLAUTKCTKC GENE N FULLER TIMOTHY J MdMANUS MEM JOHN 0 FULLMER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TIMOTHY J KEANE ROBERT E BOYLE ALAN M ANDERSON FRANK I HARVEY BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431-1194 DONNA L ROBACK CHARLES S MODELL MICHAEL W CHRISTOPHER; DETZEN TELEPHONE 16121 835-3800 MICHAEL A..ROBERTSON BER750N JOHN R BEAT E LISA A GRAY LINDA H FISHER FAX 1812)896-3333 GARY A RENNEKE THOMAS P.STOLTMAN SHANNON K MCCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL C JACKMAN CHRISTOPHER J HARRISTHAL JOHN E DIEHL JR JON S SWIERZEWSKI JOHN.1 C GFEN., GH. N JOHN L STVFcfNHaGEN THOMAS J FLYNN DANIEL W VOSS JAMES P.QUINN MARK A RURIK TODD I FREEMAN JOHN R HILL PETER K.BECK JAMES K MARTIN JEROME H.KAHNKE THOMAS J.SEYMOUR GERALD L.SECK MICHAEL J.SMITH JOHN B LUNDOUIST FREDERICK KHAUSER III DAYLE NO LAN CILIBE RTO• MARY E.VOS THOMAS B HUMPHREY.JR LARRY D.MARTIN JOHN A COTTER• JANE E.BREMER BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER MARCY R.KREISMAN MARIEL E.PIILOLA OF COUNSEL WENDELL R ANDERSON JOSEPH GMS •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN — MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Wetland Coalition FROM: Mike Robertson DATE: March 22 , 1993 — RE: Update on Recent Legislative Activity Over the past couple of weeks I have met with several key legislators regarding the possibility of amendments to the Wetland Conservation Act . Senator Jeff Bertram, Chair of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Soil and Water Conservation, has — conducted one hearing to begin an overview of the rule proposed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) . Bertram' s intent is to hold hearings to get a detailed overview of the rule. A second — hearing had been scheduled for last Thursday but was cancelled due to House floor action. Bertram is interested in having a panel of perhaps three members of our coalition present comments following the presentation by Ron Harnack and Greg Larson. He had said that — this would occur on Thursday, March 25 at 4 : 00 p.m. However, this schedule may be adjusted due to the cancellation of last week' s hearing. - Representative Bertram will be introducing legislation to extend the interim program perhaps until July 1994 . He believes that the full ramifications of the new rules must be known before they are allowed to go into effect . Several bills have been introduced to amend the Act. Most notable is a bill by Senator Dille to eliminate the two-for-one replacement requirement and extend the interim program until January. The problem we have is that so little time remains before bills must be - passed out of committee. It is very unlikely that Representative Munger would hear a bill that would eliminate the two- for-one replacement requirement . Our best hope at this late date in the Session is to extend the interim program. _B`j;_�, — R C �x r: Cr r Lir P'!•:+,IUII-{pSS". LARKIN, HOFFMAN, Dux& LINDGREN, Lm. — Memorandum March 22 , 1993 Page 2 We will keep you informed as we move through the process. Please call me if you have questions or comments. cc: Linda Fisher • MAR:CJ7s ,,r,,./-1 5 1..iL BAFITON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. 111 Tn rc Avenue South.Sete 350•M,nneapol's Minnesota 55401 USA•(612)332.0421 •Fax (612)332-6180 March 10, 1993 — Mr. Michael Spielmann, P.E. — Consultant Design Engineer MnDOT Metro District 2055 North Lilac Drive — Golden Valley, MN 55422 Re: TH 5 Mainline and Access Boulevard Design (S.P. 1002-61) — Dear Mr. Spielmann: Enclosed, please find a preliminary design layout for the referenced project. The following changes are incorporated into the layout as compared to MnDOT's preliminary design layout and the 30 percent final design plan set submitted in — June 1992: • To alleviate the impacts to development on the south side of TH 5 between Audubon Road and CSAH 17, the proposed additional TH 5 driving lanes will be constructed on the north side of the existing lanes. The preliminary design — layout and the 30 percent plan set showed the new TH 5 driving lanes on the south side of the existing lanes. • The City of Chanhassen has contracted with Barton-Aschman to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA) on various frontage road/access boulevard alternatives along the north side of TH 5. The enclosed design layout shows the — alternatives to be studied in the EA. (The EA will also address the impacts to Lake Ann Park caused by the TH 5 mainline alignment shift noted above.) • Incorporation of a continuous frontage road/access boulevard along the north side of TH 5 has necessitated the redesign of all of the intersections of TH 5 and the existing and proposed crossroads. The previous design for TH 5 showed full access at all of the crossroads. The current design, with the frontage road/ access boulevard, allows for the restriction of some traffic movements at two of the intersections. Updated traffic volume projections for TH 5 were also developed by MnDOT in October 1992. These projections provided guidance in the design of the frontage road/access boulevard and the redesign of the — intersections. A traffic study will be included in the EA. However, geometric and topographic constraints will likely preclude any major changes from the current design. RECEIVED l MAR 1 1 1993 (� (PARSONS =_ IIITRANSPORTATION GROUP March 10, 1993 Page 2 • Updated topographic mapping for the TH 5 corridor was received in December 1992 and incorporated into the enclosed design layout. MnDOT will complete the project basemapping after field surveys are conducted this spring. Incidentally, the updated mapping utilizes a different coordinate system than the previous TH 5 projects and the basemapping utilized in the 30 percent design plans for this project. • The TH 5 mainline vertical profile design, typical sections, and cross-sections are not significantly changed from the 30 percent plan set. It is requested that the enclosed design layout be reviewed at this time by MnDOT preliminary and final design staff. Concurrence with the design is needed to proceed with the EA and with the TH 5 mainline final design plans. The schedule for the frontage road/access boulevard EA and final design is based on the assumption that construction will coincide with the TH 5 mainline improvements. It is our understanding that the current bid letting date for the TH 5 project is February 1996. The attached correspondence documents the current status and projected schedule for the frontage road/access boulevard project. It should be noted that the final design of the frontage road/access boulevard will be incorporated into the TH 5 construction plan set. We look forward to receiving MnDOT's review comments on the enclosed design layout. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, - /2,77-,z; �✓� Carl L' James H. Unruh, P.E. Senior Associate JHU:kro Enclosures cc: Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Charles Folch, Chanhassen Don Ashworth, Chanhassen Ron Erickson, MnDOT Evan Green, MnDOT John Mullan, Barton-Aschman R,e pa- Mop aft MARY GALE- 14OLtNAAR ,C1 �, 218 MILL ST ^Yl mac' CANNON FALLS MN..55009 • •f" _ YY 1 4171 4-‘1.A.,6-1 -11."----"*. lls,re.s/j ; •-•5C w� �r1vE .o�' (p 4 O c9 C.ck.gelSS °` '12— CItia.n h .Sse17 1in .553/7 oS cd&c. csA ( - yy �' ;ca. �. L)"k� WOMAN SITTING BY TEE SEASHORE 1883.6!Pierre-Auguste Renoir(French.1841-19191.Photograph:The Gager Collection.New York. RENOIR A Postcard Book' X188!61 Rwiy Preis Book PuNuken ,m • CITY OF cEANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 'i March 8, 1993 Ms. Jean P. Haney P. O. Box 1299 Walker, MN 56484 Dear Ms. Haney: Thank you for your recent inquiry to the City of Chanhassen. We have received a number of inquiries regarding the potential impact of development and the Arboretum which is partially located in our community. ?1 We are not sure how you received your information but believe that at the very least, it appears you were not given all the facts. Chanhassen has long recognized the importance of the Arboretum to our community and has taken great pains to ensure that urbanization only occurs in a coordinated and sensitive manner. In fact, Chanhassen is the home of many important — sensitive areas we are working to protect. These include the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, Camp Tanadoona operated by the Camp Fire Girls, six major recreational lakes and the Bluff Creek valley. Additionally, we are blessed with over 400 wetlands. In recognition of the need to protect our resources, the City has worked diligently for many years. We had a no-net-loss wetlands ordinance in place over eight years before the rest of the State of Minnesota dealt with that issue. As a part of our Surface Water Management Program, we have updated our wetlands protection program to the point where it is now considered to be a model for other communities. The program is additionally working to halt and reverse water quality impacts that result from non-point runoff. We also have a tree protection code in the process of being updated. We have also been extremely active in the area of urban design. The Arboretum is located in what we are calling the Highway 5 Corridor. Recognizing the need to ensure that only compatible development occurs, we have established the Highway 5 Corridor Planning program. We have a Task Force working hard on the plan and have included Peter Olin, as a representative to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ( '-v - • - r� March 8, 1993 Page 2 of the Arboretum, in the group. I am enclosing a copy of our "Building Community Across the Corridor" newsletter that describes some of these efforts. While it is clear that the City will be — developed and ultimately, that roadways will be improved, the Highway 5 program has the following goals: • Identify environmentally sensitive areas and design protection strategies • Develop an overlay zoning district to ensure that when development does occur, it meets _ the highest possible standards • Work with MnDot and other agencies to ensure that road impacts are minimized. In fact, we are working to reduce right-of-way and grading requirements, minimize impacts on trees and wetlands, incorporate significant landscaping,etc. For example, we are working to utilize a bridge over Bluff Creek rather then a culvert, to preserve this recreational and - natural feature Chanhassen has also been an innovator in many other areas of interest. We are one of the few - suburban communities with a strong and vital,pedestrian-oriented downtown. We have expended considerable time and money in this area and invite you to visit. We are also working diligently with Southwest Metro Transit programs to reduce reliance on the automobile and are having - excellent success. I hope this letter has answered some of your questions. Please feel free to call or visit on your — next trip to the Arboretum. We are proud of our City and like to have the opportunity to show it off. z s c c eta -v Sincerely, Per •exw+,N s t trr Luba obie c � C-A- ^^ c.Z ac,d, .Y.c .,-c- «.;� 1-\-t%h t-ust. c 5 14 1 � ;-c." G o e s r-\ . • a-re- 'e- t ores s; v► m c A-, L 0-N.,-‘c.ai m oe� �l �'� Y� , Paul Krauss, AICP tQ-ac 0\`n t 1 oprc s P rba( t-h1r., N,ec,us(^ Planning Director - S T VI at).h k 5 P . 1 - ob V rah Sl s h u T ►r, ctuers CL m.c,,,r,r, lout ns. sr 1 ►u.7 . c: Mayor and City Council -ran �L s; S r ��,,rtY roc hwr-c_� Planning Commission � �� f ti"' S Highway 5 Task Force do Le C y c k� y Gtr c.e.Acn \\\ \1 s e.L' °i�- Cov - 0.h� ayvz- • 0.n o L Nk 4-y. 4-. a Cllr t=, rcLescarte `maw Se.e -r-c, ���t n S Ca C-C— w e-,^ CLOS To c'-/rte t-i Otto G Bonestroo PE Howard A Santora.PE. Michael P Rau,PE Miles B Jensen PE Bonestroo Robert W Rosene.PE Keen A Gordon.PE Agnes M Ring.AJC P L Philip Gravel IR PE JosephC.Anderlik.PE Robert R.PfefferIe.PE. Thomas W Peterson.PE Karen L Werner!.PE. Rosene Marvin L Sorvala.PE Richard W Foster.PE Michael C Lynch.PE Gary D Knstbfrtz.PE El Glenn E Turner.PE David 0 Loskota.PE. James R Maand.PE F Todd Foster.PE Glenn R Cook.PE Robert C Russek.A I.A. Jerry D Perosch.PE Keith R Yapp PE Anderlik & Thomas E Noyes.PE Jerry A.Bourdon.PE Kenneth P Anderson PE Shawn D Gustafson.PE Robert G Schunrcht.PE Mark A Hanson,PE. Mark R.Roth.PE Cecil*Olivier.PE Associates Susan M Eberkn.C PA Michael T Rautmann.PE Mark A.Seip.PE Charles A Erickson 'Senior Consultant Ted K.Field PE Gary W Monen.PE Leo M Pawelsky Thomas R Anderson.A.I.A Daniel J.Edgerton.PE Harlan M Olson Engineers & Architects Donald C Burgardt.PE Daryl K.Kirschenman.PE James F Engelhardt Thomas E Angus.PE. Philip J Caswell.PE Ismael Martinez.PE. Mark D.Wallis.P.E. — FEASIBILITY REPORT FORCIER PROPERTY AT FRONTIER TRAIL STORMWATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY ANALYSIS CITY PROJECT 93-6-3 _ CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA MARCH 1993 — 1. INTRODUCTION - PRELIMINARY COMMENTS The Forcier property development is a 7-lot, 4.5-acre subdivision located west of the intersection of Frontier Trail and Frontier Court, south of Lotus Lake. The location of the development is shown in Figure 1. Although the Forcier property development only subdivides 4.5 acres, any storm higher than a 10-year will produce some runoff into the development from the 63 acres of upstream land. This natural overland drainage route goes through a ditch located where the ponds are proposed (See Figure 2). The existing 36-inch trunk system can handle peak flows up to a 10-year storm. The development must provide ponding and outlet structures large enough to safely handle the difference between 10-year and 100-year peaks, and keep high water levels 2 feet below the lowest house. Stormwater quality is a very important factor in this area because of the lack of upstream treatment and the proximity to Lotus Lake. The SWMP identifies this area as a high priority location for stormwater quality improvements. Any amount of stormwater quality pretreatment 39313.rpt 1 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 performed at the development would both increase the treatment efficiency and reduce the cost of future downstream ponds. 2. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were modeled to identify the most cost effective drainage elements that would meet water quantity and quality criteria. The following is a summary of the alternatives _ modeled: A) One Pond versus two Ponds Alternative: The small stormwater quality treatment efficiency obtained with one pond, and the high amount of excavation necessary to provide the required acre-feet of wet volume with only one pond, eliminated this alternative in an early stage of the analysis as a cost effective alternative. In addition, the 6-foot drop between the East and West ponds would have made very difficult the construction of one single pond, due to the limited area mailable and minimum side slope requirements. B) Water Quantity versus Water Quality Design: Due to the small size of the ponds, using them to limit peak flows during a 100-year event was proved to have no impact in reducing the cost of the downstream trunk system. On the other hand, rising the normal water levels of the ponds to obtain the maximum wet volume possible for stormwater treatment purposes was proved to be the most cost effective alternative. C) Culvert versus Broad-crested weir at the West Pond Outlet: To prevent oil spills and debris from going into Lotus Lake, the West pond requires a skimmer _ structure. Although the cost of a 36-inch RCP outlet culvert is higher than its equivalent Broad-crested weir, the higher cost of the skimmer structure for a Broad-crested weir outlet makes the weir alternative more expensive overall. 39313.rpt 2 '= 1 \ ► 1Yt" •*... 1.� ' iF....;,,,::.&, ski r` L.,----**-- —• t a F-- `r. i s I ...�...,,x-tee 1 e` "'f1'0�� j �- : :-...',:*. ‘!„....4 ocii7 t' :'-‘ .1 r/.. i'r.r.,Alt-C-',,,,.: 4;c;:. 4,_ '' iti-;;, .. , • `�. a ; ..c>,‘44 tr.::::.......,.....rr.r.'"T'r•,- , 7...4•7"."7'.".., ^--'4::,,t4r.. ::',.:'.. .., „: l _. 3.._ .ter £.�, ,+ > .r � ~ r`x`^ `. SAI „..,-- RSHEP, ..,----''''--::'::, ,...,,, . 3a _.. .- - -- ;at i't VI x - tf z1 '3 PROJECT LOCATION ' -� , ¢ , 1„ ,.-i. ,� • ff/ —_ .. fe r . - V - fir.,;c"�, { ' kate_ a -.M .3 {1 --- 1•44� ,,'�=: i 1500”: y � -.;1; ' s I i, -^,\: Y ``;_,_'yn feet LOCATION MAP ti Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA FIGURE 1 Ill Associates FORCIER PROPERTY AT FRONTIER TRAIL eno►neersd Architects 2335 West Highway 3E St. Pain. Uinnesota 35113 39313R03.DWO MAR., 1993 COMM. 39313 3. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: The proposed improvements for the Forcier property are shown on Figure 2. The following is a more detailed description of each one of the improvements: A) Connection of 24-inch Water Ouality Trunk The 24-inch trunk is proposed to handle flows up to a 2-year storm (design storm) from the upstream 63 acres. The flow will be diverted to the 24-inch _ trunk by means of a 2-foot high concrete wall built in the 8-foot catch basin as shown in Figure 3. Flows above a 2-year storm will overflow the wall into the _ existing 36-inch trunk. The inlet and outlet invert elevations of the proposed 24- inch stormwater quality trunk are 919.2 and 918.7 respectively. The total length _ of the proposed trunk is 40 feet. Other proposed improvements are: * Remove existing C.B. * Build new 8-foot diameter C.B.M.H. _ * Connection of 24-inch trunk to new C.B. * Riprap and restoration work. _ B) Construction of the West Pond The west pond will be excavated to provide 0.33 Ac-ft of wet volume with a NWL at 918.7 (See Figure 2). The pond area at NWL is 0.1 acres. Pond slopes of — 10:1 are recommended for safety reasons in the first 1 foot of drop. Slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1 are also recommended for the water quantity and quality portions of the pond respectively (See Figure 2). Other proposed improvements are: * Outlet structure: 36-inch RCP, 25 feet long, 5% slope, Invert = 918.7, flared outlet end. * Skimmer structure * Seeding with mulch * Riprap and restoration work 39313.rpt 4 _ C) Construction of the East Pond The East Pond will be excavated to provide 1.01 Ac-ft. of wet volume with a _ NWL = 915 (See Figure 2). The Pond area at NWL is 0.25 acres. Pond slopes of 10:1 are recommended for safety reasons in the first 1 foot of drop. Slopes _ of 3:1 and 2.5:1 are also recommended for the water quantity and quality portions of the pond respectively (See Figure 2). Other proposed improvements -- are: * Outlet structure: 14' wide rectangular, broad-crested, grassed weir, 4% downstream slope at Invert = 915.0. * Seeding with mulch. Outlet channel realignment. D) 42-inch RCP Crossing Frontier Trail The existing 36-inch CMP at Frontier Trail needs to be replaced by a 42-inch RCP with a new inlet invert elevation at 910.5 and outlet invert elevation at 909.8. The slope for the new 42-inch will be 1%. The existing 36-inch CMP can not handle 100-year stones without producing a serious backwater effect on the East Pond. To ensure the 2 feet minimum freeboard in lots 5 and 6 and protect Frontier Trail, we need both to replace the existing culvert and lower the existing invert elevation. The lowest house elevation at lots 5 and 6 should be raised to 919.0. It is also possible to add another 30-inch RCP to the existing 36-inch CMP to provide the 100-year storm capacity. This option is not contemplated in the cost estimate included in this report. Other proposed improvements are: * Inlet and outlet flared ends * Remove and replace existing bituminous path * Riprap and inlet and outlet excavation and restoration _ 39313.rpt 5 4. MODEL RESULTS 4.1. Stormwater Quantity —" Table 1 shows a summary of the stormwater quantity model input and results. Figure 2 also shows some of these results. TABLE 1 STORNIWATER QUANTITY INPUT AND RESULTS — Stormwater Existing Culvert at Quality 36-inch RCP West East Frontier — Trunk Trunk Pond Pond Trail Storage volume (Ac.ft) -- -- 0.45 0.34 -- NWL (ft) -- -- 918.7 915.0 -- — HWL for 100-year (ft) -- -- 922.5 916.3 914.0 — Area at N%\t (Ac) -- -- 0.10 0.25 -- Area at HWL (Ac) -- -- 0.15 0.28 -- — Outlet structure -- •- 36" RCP 14' weir 42" RCP Peak outflow (cfs) 25.0 48.0 52.7 52.8 58.5 Invert elevation (ft) 919.2 919.2 -- -- 910.5 Length (ft) 40.0 165.0 -- -- 85.0 Slope (%) 1.0 1.7 -- -- 0.9 — 39313.11 t 6 4.2 Stormwater Quality Table 2 shows a summary of the stormwater quality model input and results. Figure 2 also shows some of these results. TABLE 2 STORMWATER QUALITY INPUT AND RESULTS Normal Pond Area Wet Outflow P-Removal Water Level NWL Volume P-Concentration Efficiency (ft ) (acres) (Ac-ft) (ppb) (%) West Pond 918.7 0.1 0.33 342.0 24.0 East Pond 915.0 0.25 1.01 222.4 50.6 39313.r pt 7 \ 8 r 41 W VO G� �Vk, //' \ i ILI S n ZewC _ - ` \ 1 .► _ w a I o �J4., }� �fi°_' ff%ttOCZC `\„.. � o'er — wl CNI ç- -::f. ' =-=-=-1 -i O w m o o W R W \ 111 (� / 3 `� i ..p� O C � li /1.: U_ 1 as _ / M el 0 - • Xc77 14% O ` i' /w ,;;,,,:i _LLIJ 1 , = c P oo vi u / Zi° ltottg r%i 4.11 wi o Ii %:‘,. / a tai ;`� --11 .W.w�h;::h /moi /.,. iintI ''<-::-.:).) I.',4 '\. \ N A.Iffl llfi obi N ch aCr‘t&• `�Ji C`, W O \ ,- • o vl • 410.66,,, 1 \ cn CtCt c.) v Lu oce R i _ `\ n / K �% ,1 U' ..i 0 N O Q \ /19 ��� CSI `�. W a 3 3 l _. ._ _______f-- O 1111.1 \ 1 Q Pr \ nal� Po \ \ n n I ` I ^ \ \' _ ITNN I \ \ i <::::::› \ `\\ I77 \rtf \\\ J Vil \ \ w r 'eh • ` r CT I LLJ I1 1 W Z cc - - — I 1CI ; I d 1 z Q m n U� d' U 0O R • AA 27' 8' C PROPOSED TRUNK EX. TRUNK OVER FLOW j- EX. TRUNK r 3' — — 1 36"RCP 24; - " /-• ' : 36"RCP / J 1 1 1 Dia. N p l i lk CONCRETE WALL SECTION DETAIL OF STORMWATER QUALITY DIVERSION STRUCTURE Bonestroo Rosen dd CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA FIGURE 3 Anderfik A xistes FORCIER PROPERTY AT FRONTIER TRAIL 39313RO2.DWG MAR., 1993 COMM. 39313 5. COST ESTIMATE A summary of the estimated construction costs (without including Engineering, Fiscal and Administrative costs) for each one of the proposed improvements is shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 _ CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY Improvement Construction Cost Connection of 24-inch Water Quality Trunk $5,600 Construction of the West Pond $11,525 Construction of the East Pond $6,200 Replacement of Existing 36" CMP by a 42" RCP at Frontier Trail $9,475 Table 5, at the end of this report, shows itemized costs for each improvement and includes Engineering, Fiscal and Administrative Costs. Costs for the 24-inch water quality trunk includes the replacement of the existing C.B. 2 by an 8-foot diameter C.B. manhole. The excavation cost for both East and West Ponds has been estimated at $2.00 per cubic yard. This cost assumes that most of the dirt will be used in-place for grading. It is important to point _ out that any change in the assumed excavation cost will affect the total sharing cost by the City described in the next section. East pond costs also include the realignment of the outlet channel going into the Frontier Trail culvert. Costs for the upgrading of the Frontier Trail culvert include removing and replacing existing bituminous roadway at the cuhert crossing. 39313.mt 10 6. COST SHARE The following is a description of the proposed cost sharing by the City of Chanhassen and the developer of the Forcier property at Frontier Trail. 6.1 Connection of 24-inch Water Quality Trunk This connection has the purpose of diverting runoff from the 63 acres upstream the Frontier development into the proposed ponds for water quality treatment. Although runoff from lots 1 and 2 will go into the existing 36-inch trunk and then into the proposed 24-inch trunk, its contribution to the total flow will be very small. Therefore, the City should contribute 100% to the cost of this improvement. 6.2 Construction of West and East Ponds It was estimated that the developer would have had to provide 0.72 Ac-ft. of wet volume to bring the 4.5 acres of development to NURP stormwater quality standards. The proposed improvements show 1.34 Ac-ft of wet volume provided. The 0.62 Ac-ft. of extra excavation should be credited to the developer by the City. Therefore, the excavation and seeding costs of the proposed improvements should be shared - 46% by the City and 54% by the developer as shown in Table 4. The 100-year peak flows have not changed because of the stormwater quality improvements. Therefore, all outlet structures to handle 100-year storm events should be provided by the developer. The skimmer structure proposed at the West pond would have been a City's requirement for final approval of the plans, and therefore should be provided by the developer. 39313.rpt 11 6.3 Culvert at Frontier Trail The existing 36-inch CMP at Frontier Trail needs to be replaced by a 42-inch RCP (or equivalent) to meet the 2 feet minimum free board in lots 5 and 6. The necessity for replacement of the existing 36-inch CMP, or addition of 30-inch RCP, is originated by the proposed house elevations in lots 5 and 6. Therefore, the replacement cost should be confronted 100% by the developer. Table 4 shows the proposed cost sharing as described above. TABLE 4 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION COST SHARING BY CITY AND DEVELOPER City's City's Developer's Developer's — Improvement Share Cust Share Cost 24-inch Water Quality Trunk 100% $ 5,600 0% $ 0 Ponds excavation and seeding costs 46% $ 4,690 54% $ 5,510 Outlet structures from ponds 0% $ 0 100% $ 7,525 Culvert at Frontier Trail 0% $ 0 1009'c $9,475 TOTAL $10,290 $22,510 The cost shared by the City can also be applied in terms of cash credits to the developer. 39313.rpt 12 TABLE 5 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR STORMWATER QUANTITY/QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS — AT THE FRONTIER PROPERTY ON FRONTIER TRAIL 24-INCH WATER QUALITY TRUNK — Quantity Unit Item Cost 40 LF 24" RCP, cl 5 @ $35.00/LF $1,400 1 EA 24" RCP Flared end @ $400.00/EA 400 1 EA Connect to C.B. @ $700.00/EA 700 5 CY Riprap @ $40.00/CY 200 1 LS Remove existing C.B. @ $400.00/LS 400 — 1 EA 8' diameter C.B.M.H. @ $1,750.00/EA 1,750 1 EA 2' high diversion structure @- $500.00/EA 500 1 LS Restoration work (a) $250.00/LS 250 CONSTRUCTION COST $5,600 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 1.400 TOTAL COST $7,000 39313.rpt 13 WEST POND Quantity Unit Item Cost — 2,100 CY Common Excavation @ $2.00/CY $4,200 0.5 AC Seeding with mulch @ $700.00/AC 350 25 LF 36" RCP, ci 5 @ $55.00/LF 1,375 1 EA Skimmer structure @ $4,000.00/EA 4,000 — 15 CY Riprap @ $40.00/CY 600 1 EA 36" RCP Flared end @ $1,000.00/EA 1.000 CONSTRUCTION COST $11,525 _ 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 2 90 TOTAL COST $14,425 EAST POND Quantity Unit Item Cost 2,650 CY Common Excavation @ $2.00/CY $5,300 — 0.5 AC Seeding with mulch @ $700.00/AC 350 100 SY Sodding overland weir L $1.50/SY 150 1 LS Outlet channel realignment @ $400.00/LS 400 — CONSTRUCTION COST $6,200 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 1,_500 TOTAL COST $7,700 — 39313.rpt 14 42-INCH RCP CROSSING FRONTIER TRAIL Quantity Unit Item Cost 85 LF 42" RCP, CL 5 @ $65.00/LF $5,525 2 EA 42" RCP Flared end @ $1,100.00/EA 2,200 15 CY Riprap @ $40.00/CY 600 1 LS Remove existing 36" CMP @ $400.00/LS 400 1 LS Inlet/Outlet excavation and restoration work @ $250.00/LS 250 1 LS Remove/Replace exist. bituminous roadway (a) $500.00/LS 500 CONSTRUCTION COST $9,475 25% Engr., Fiscal & Admin. 2.375 TOTAL COST $11,850 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Tet.t. ,Se.A4t.p14: Robert G. Schunicht Date: March ll, 1993 Reg. No. 12105 39313.rpt 15