The URL can be used to link to this page

11-2-94 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1994, 7. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS 1. Preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition, Hoben Corporation. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 48 lot single family twin homes, site plan review for 24 structures and a wetland alteration permit located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. 3. Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential. preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1/4 mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands. 4. Amendment to the City Code regarding accessory structures on recreational beachlots. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOI RNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. / , CITY OF PC DATE: 10/19/94 \ 1 . , CIIM7HAEN Y CC DATE:11/14/94 J-- CASE #: 94-15 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.87 Acres into-4 3 single family lots, Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition I'm LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Sommer Z Gate V4 APPLICANT: Hoben Corporation C. Halgren 18285 Minnetonka Boulevard 6320 Murray Hill Road -I Deephaven, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 473-2700 4 • PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District ACREAGE: 1.87 acres DENSITY: 1.6 Units per Acre 2.1 Units per Acre Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family QW - RSF, Residential Single Family QWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. Li i PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a detached garage. F-. One of the most significant features on the site is a 50 inch diameter cottonwood tree. The — entire site is bordered by mature trees of different species. V) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) .., ..., O rn v S S 0r0N N hN N N t ' N N Om N. O_ GO CO I RRC I I 1 -�—�,� _ _ . 1 _tea n I ( • • • • 1 •MUrRilr �� =1l _ v _�I CIR L= .11271117ZEMOW p *� q� Or. '� .Vj - ■ , 5i:. r �r ems► Vtiltillat 1k.i11 02k* N-4141� ■ n _ ■allait4E3grit v' / it PHE-alleilii, .- • �_ST iggiii "�� i CIRCLE Er l4F -- -- HARMAN F/ELD *�WO .u'r.4 .../*. •I'L' , �aE3�in i s o;w ��. ,it& 4.#4',p PH A ■" 1 1aosrvi ��• ��•.. H/LL 2� LoCa I � D � � ►y' �'� ccf�fPARK kJ on fib ^ `: Q4.' ; I 1, QillriVIIIIIIIVA- 3 / t �� I Ov 76.0,**p ir M/NNEWASHTA LAKE R As. `'''''.,,.4 I 1 - - LAKE 4 I - - N�cRRI,SON . ( , , LAK /2- Nr , --\1C9-----'--41111, 0 7 p 4, i co .oJv ;; C., © LAKE Z 11111111111n11' ' �'" Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 2 This application appeared before the Planning Commission on October 19, 1994. The Planning Commission and neighboring property owners had some concerns regarding the number of units proposed on the site. The applicant has revised the plans by reducing the number of units from 4 to 3 and eliminate the private driveway that was proposed to serve the homes. This staff report has been revised accordingly. Any new information will appear in bold letters and the old information is shown struck out. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY This is a straight forward subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.875 acres into-4 3 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 20,402 27,211 square feet with a resulting net density of-274- 1.6 units per acre. The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Sommer Gate and Murray Hill Road . _ . - _. _ . - _ . _ - . . .. . . There is a home with a detached garage on the existing parcel. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along its parameters. A 50 inch diameter cottonwood tree is located at the center of the site. Staff believes this tree can be saved even since cottonwoods are relatively tolerant of compaction and root severance. A 20 inch maple tree is located south of the existing residence. This tree is dying and will be removed. The applicant must submit a landscaping/reforestation plan prior to final plat approval. A 40 foot preservation easement over the wooded areas along the north property line will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. Additionally, the two black walnut trees located in the northwest quarter of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A letter was received from the McFarlands, who live across the street. They are opposed to the subdivision (see attached letter). In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.87 acre site intoes three single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.1 1.6 units per acre net. All the lots meet or Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 3 exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 20,402 27,211 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, and a detached garage occupies proposed Lot-4 1. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory structures prior to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a nonconforming situation. Staff discussed this with the applicant, Mr. Hoben, and informed him that the garage must be removed prior to final plat approval. Mr. Hoben will not own the property until after the final plat has been approved, consequently, he will not be able to remove the garage until he closes on the property. We suggested that he escrows funds with the City to guarantee the removal of the structure no later than December 1, 1994. If he fails to remove the structure, the City would contract to have the structure removed. This solution was acceptable to the applicant. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS There does not appear to be any wetlands present on-site, however, staff recommends that the site be assessed by a wetland delineator to verify the City's planning maps. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 4 and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house/lot has been applied. The proposed SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $791/acre for single-family residential developments. This proposed development of 1.4 acres would then be responsible for a water quality connection charge of $1,107.00. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single-family residential development of 1.4 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,772.00. DRALNAGE Most of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and 4 drain naturally toward Sommer Gate Road. The runoff will be collected and discharged into the water quality pond north of Sommer Gate Road. The runoff is then conveyed via storm sewers off site. The applicant has provided the necessary storm drainage calculations for the predeveloped and post developed drainage areas, along with runoff calculations for the predeveloped and post developed conditions for a 100 year 24 hour storm event. The additional runoff generated by this site development is minimal. Staff is comfortable that this development will not adversely impact the downstream storm drainage infrastructures. .. . . . -.. - r. . . . • • .. . .. .. • - - _ ._ - r. . . , - • • _. . • - _. . . Chaska Read. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 5 GRADING A grading and development plan sly-be has been provided to the City action for review. • . . . . . - ---: • - . .. - . - --• - . -- . ._. The plan sheuld shows the proposed house pad locations, type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations. Proposed grading elevations shove are shown on the plan as well . - - - ' - • . .. • • - - .. • . . .. . The plans should also delineate which trees are to be saved or removed as a part of construction. The appropriate tree preservation easements may be useful here in attempt to preserve some of the significant trees. There are two existing buildings located on Lots 1 and 2-enEI-4. It appears these buildings are to be razed. The appropriate demolition permits from the City will be necessary prior to removal. The new house pad locations from Lots 1 and 2 should be relocated to the same proximity of the existing house or building sites. This is in an effort to reduce grading and save trees on the site. Also by utilizing or expanding the existing driveways, site impacts will be reduced to a minimum. EROSION CONTROL Staff recommends An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to City Council - . . ... - . . . -- . .. - . All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Additional erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances may be required by staff in conjunction with building permit issuance. UTILITIES Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling that is connected to city sewer and water. There are two additional sanitary sewer and water services stubbed to this proposed development. One to Lot 1 and the other to Lot 4- 3. The city's Building Department will be responsible for inspection of the sewer and water service extension to each dwelling. The appropriate permits will be necessary as part of the building permit process. The parcel has been previously assessed for two sanitary sewer and water hook-up and connection charges. Since the applicant has paid for two previous hook-up and connection charges, it is appropriate to charge one additional hook-up charge for the new lot (Lot 3). The hook- up charge is $2,425 (1994 value) for the new lot. These fees are payable at time of building permit issuance. These fees may also be assessed. - ••• - • - - - • - Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 6 - - _. . •• - r-- • .. ' , . • - .. - applying for and receiving a construction in right of way permit from the City. The ... _ • • • - _ .. . - - - - .. . • ... - - "_ . • . - . -. - - - _ - . : r.- •. ' - - additional lots being created. The heokup chafges are $2,425 fer each new lot (Lots 1 and 3}— well. The existing home is to be razed on Lot 2. The sewer and water lines shall be disconnected from the existing home pursuant to city policy. The applicant shall coordinate with the City's Building Department for appropriate disconnection procedures. STREETS The site is proposed to be serviced from Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate with individual driveways. . .- . - .. ' - . . - - . There currently exists two driveway accesses which loop through parcels 1 and 2 and-4. Staff recommends that the existing driveway access points be utilized and no new driveway curb cuts be allowed on Sommer Gate. Therefore, Lots 1 and 2 and-3- shall gain access via the existing curb cuts off of Murray Hill Road. The access points on Lots 1 and 2 may be widened to accommodate desired driveway width. The maximum driveway width at the street shall be 20 feet. Access to Lot 3 shall be from Sommer Gate. The proposed driveway slope is 10% which is the city's maximum percent allowed. As a result of the steep slopes, a retaining wall may be necessary to minimize grading and disruption. The sewer and water service to Lot 3 is located in the northwest corner of the site. Extension of this service to the dwelling will impact the site and remove trees. Therefore, the retaining walls may only be necessary on the easterly portion of the driveway to save trees. ' - '. . • - - . ! -- . - .. • . , . Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 7 sign costs. this development. City Code, Sectie 1-8 5.7 ($-permits ep to €ems (4) lets to be sewed by a Y. - - - - - - - - - conditions, and the existence of wetlands. feet. public street system is not required to see other parcels in the area, improve �. . . _ • .- • - - - • . -_ -- - . - • - -- ... _- - service the parcels in Eight Acre Woods. {3) The use of a private stfeet will permit enhanced pFotection of wetlands and ,turn tre I.' . . , • - - - -- _- - -• . - - • • . . - - - . _ _ . , - - . ' . ! .. _ •- MISCELLANEOUS Staff recommends that an escrow account be provided by the applicant to the city in the amount of $500 for review and filing of the final plat documents. After the final plat documents are recorded and the city receives the invoices from the City Attorney's Office, the city will refund the remaining balance. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 8 PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 20,09424,818' 45 134.5' 429'188.32' 30'/10' 10' Lot 2 20,54724,474 45.349'134.49' 432'185.87' 30'/10' 10' Lot 3 20,104.32,343 455-- 125.04' 429'256.11 30'/10' 10' Lot 4 20,847 158' 133' 30'/10' 10' It should also be noted that Lots-4 2 are is considered a corner lots and have 30 foot setbacks from Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate. The remaining sides are 10 foot setbacks. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Near the center of the parcel, a very large (50" dbh) Eastern cottonwood which will be saved - - - - -- :. : : , - - : - : • : - : _ • .. _ . ._ . - - - ___ The tree is not within the building area of any of the house , drive. From the development plans, it appears possible to avoid additional damage to the tree's root syste .- - .: : .• _ 3. There are no large visible pockets of decay in the trunk or branches and very little dead wood throughout the crown of the tree. It appears to be a healthy, mature tree worth preserving. I would also recommend the preservation of the sloped area along the north side of the development with the exception of a curb cut to allow for a driveway access onto Sommer Gate to serve Lot 3. This area includes a number of significant trees as well as an abundance of diverse species and ages. It will provide a beautiful backdrop to the future homes and Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 9 allow for privacy from Sommer Gate road. A forty (40) foot preservation area would still allow for a large building site while retaining the natural beauty and screening for the development. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees: 1. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 3 and 2, Block 1. 2. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1. In addition, the two black walnut trees in the northwest quarter center of Lot 3, Block 1, shall also be protected and saved as part of the development of the site. The baseline canopy coverage is 38,444 or 47 percent of the site. City Code requires a post- development canopy coverage of 35 percent or 28,563 square feet. The applicant has estimated a canopy coverage removal of 6,512 square feet (not including the cottonwood) which would provide a canopy coverage of 31,932 square feet or 39 percent of the site. However, since there are large open areas on the site that could be developed, staff is recommending that additional tree canopy be preserved. Specifically, three 10 inch elms in the northwest corner of Lot 3 will be included within the tree conservation easement. Based on the conditions of approval, the proposed canopy coverage being maintained shall be increased to over 40 percent of the site without impacting the developability of the site. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 10 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The site is fairly level and will require minimal alteration for development. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. Only minimal tree removal shall be required. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94- 15 9415 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 14- single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions: Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 11 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. —All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and 2. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 3. Building Department conditions: a. Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. b. • .. ' _ . . . ' - .. . _ .. ..' .•- • 4. The applicant shall enter into a develeprnent contract with the city and provide the 5. Access to all lots shall be luted tele integer private str-eet. The existing "U" shaped 4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition. 6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees: a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 12 b. A conservation easement over the norther 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1. 7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1, shall be preserved. A tree protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1. 8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 1. 12. All utility and street improvements shall be con Acte in accordance with the latest - -- • _ - _. . - - homeowner. • . . -- - •. . . _ a • _ -- - - -. Y• . . . . :- ..• .. . .... .. .. 9. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents 10. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition of the of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines for Lots 1 and 2 -4. 11. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 13 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. . - - - - a. Proposed house pad locations. b. Standard building type, i.e. rambler, walkout, etc. c. Elevation of lowest floor and garage floor. d. Erosion control measures. e. Proposed grading, if any. 13. • -- -- - - . . - service to Lot 3 in licu of a connection charge. Lot 3 will be charged a hook-up charge in the amount of $2,425 at time of building permit issuance. 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall receive the necessary construction in right-of-way permit from the city and provide a performance bond in the amount of $2,000 for extension of utility service to Lot 3. 22. Direct access to Lots 1, 2, and 3 shell be-limited to the proposed private dcveway. A to Lots 1, 2, and 3 via the proposed—private driveway. Lot 4 may also be included within the private driveway agreement. If access for Lot 4 is via-the private driveway, the existing access to Murray Hill Road shall be removed. Alternately, access to Lot 1 15. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on Murray Hill. The driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 1 shall be from Sommer Gate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimize grading. 16. The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount of $3,879.00 in lieu of on-site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the city signing the final plat." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Richard D. McFarland dated October 11, 1994. 2. Application. 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 4, 1994. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition October 12, 1994 Page 14 4. Public hearing and property owners list. 5. Planning Commission minutes dated October 19, 1994. 6. Preliminary plat dated October 7, 1994. REGI NAL FlRICHARD D. McFARLAND U' CHAIRMAN OF 71-IE BOARD I ( October 11, 1994 Chanhassen Planning Department City Hall 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to register a strong objection to the Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Edition proposed for 6330 Murray Hill Road. My wife and I have lived at 6330 Murray Hill Road for 24 years, and my wife's family originally bought the property in 1938. For those of you who have been through the neighborhood it is a delightful area with many small and large homes on wonderful pieces of property. The possibility of putting four homes on the property across the street from us at 6330 Murray Hill Road would definitely change the spirit and environment of the neighborhood. Two homes would be appropriate -- certainly not four. Thank you for hearing my complaint and our son David McFarland will be representing us on Wednesday. October 19, 1994. Siely. Ri ar cF land F RDM:rrh CAIN BO9A.ORTH INCORPORATED/RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES, INC/INSIGHT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT/REGIONAL OPERATIONS GROUP, INC. DAIN BOSW+ORTH PLAZA / 60 SOUTH SIXTH STREET / PO. BOX 1160 / MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1160 612-371-7750 / FAX: 612-371-7755 CITY OF CHANHASSEN R E.0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1d34 9NINNV1d N39SVHNVhJ 690 COULTER DRIVE �,_ CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 c �' "h` ' - (612) 937-1900 mow. - - �.' I CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPbEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION -'03'G N3SSVHNVHD JO AU APPLICANT: 171CC ' A ro/efog..Ato,(/Or�/1-1 ,t/ OWNER: �� r7i/�/C r /'' ADDRESS: /52- /fI re EL v D ADDRESS: (� 3 � A 7)47 TELEPHONE (Day time) V73 TELEPHONE: / 70 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. • Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review 7 Notification Signs J 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" $ CUP/SPRNACNAR/ WAP 00 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. ✓ Subdivision — TOTAL FEE $ /0 A Ilst 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME 171. „5,07f/ /,.5- )f / D /A- leo15 F/,E sT— ,ocz-cicZ Al LOCATION 3 — 6 3 3 0 /}9,cir 7,,„. - LEGAL DESCRIPTION (I PRESENT ZONING Art74 L REQUESTED ZONING e 5 (d e yam/f4 L PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST p/!// ,nom .4-pp/Pe, / //v7 F o v ,z- L ozsThis application must be completed ic;‘) ll 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. • Ey Si ture of Applicant D e _ Signature of Fee Owner G Date Application Received on 2 )q Fee Paid /(- /O , Receipt No. S/� The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 8 o- emir Q s cf i or N tV + 0I I I Iaa.1mum. ITY NOTICE OF PUBLIC l221 " HEARINGIRK INIE. sm. '11;7' 41041 PLANNING COMMISSION ': � mon �� rl ► MEETING &Arm, �/<+� 2 4 OCTOBER 19, 199 - IOU M E* NvoileFI Wednesday, �. Wednesday, 7:30 p.m. iiiiiiii , ��•�c•�- City Hall Council Chambers Sb ' g: : IçI 690 Coulter Drive 5A1111 SDST\ Tim itscuaw Project: Hobens Wild Wood Farms ii'J afig&N .7 1st Additioriaill Developer: Hoben Corporation Location: 6330 Murray Hill Road = -� LAKE Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of.this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994. Robert & Delores Aman Steven & Denise Artley Harry & Lynn Baert 2250 Melody Hill Road 2098 Melody Hill Road 6300 Hummingbird Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas Baurle Claude & Kaye Benson Philip & Susan Bonthius 2231 Sommergate 2211 Sommergate 2300 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Gary Brunsvold David Brush and Erin Kerans Paul & Agnes Burkholder 6287 Chaska Road 6257 Chaska Road 6370 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Shirley Butcher & Lorraine Clark Robert & Margaret Cristofono Rosemary Fruehling 2161 Melody Hill Road 2210 Sommergate 2240 Sommergate Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Lea Foli & Marilyn Zupnik Wayne & Barbara Fransdal Terry & Vicki Franzen 6200 Hummingbird 6200 Murray Hill Road 6260 Hummingbird Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Kimberly Gallogly Greg Golmen Steven & Carol Good 2230 Sommergate Junie Hoff-Golmen 6245 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 2220 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John & June Hamsher Perry Harrison Ind. School Dist. 276 2081 Melody Hill 2221 Sommergate 261 School Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 James & Michele Infanger David & Christine Johns Craig & Catherine Johnson 2080 Melody Hill Road 2220 Sommergate 2071 Melody Hill RoAd Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Harlan & Eleanor Johnson Lennart & Deadra Johnson Glenn, Jr. & Sherry Johnston 6340 Hummingbird Road 7605 Hyde 6263 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Excelsior, MN 55331 Randy & Jennifer Merry Koski Frank & Lynda Kuzma Robert E. Lee 6231 Murray Hill Road 2241 Sommergate 6261 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John & Diane Lenertz John & Nancy Liberg Evelyn Lohr Trust 6269 Chaska Road 2091 Melody Hill Road c/o Evelyn Hohr & C. J. Hasse Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 6240 Hummingbird Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard & Joyce McFarland Kenneth & Nancy Meyer Richard & Linda Nicoll 6341 Murray Hill Road 6251 Chaska Road 2280 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas H. Parker Arthur & Jane Partridge Karen Signe Peterson 6235 Chaska Road 6280 Hummingbird Road 2240 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Wayne & Joyce Slater Poppe Ward Allen & Sandra Putnam Frank & Greta Reese 2090 Melody Hill Road 6285 Chaska Road 6200 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Virginia Rode Todd Rowe Robert F. Sommer 6275 Chaska Road 6270 Murray Hill Road 6239 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Peter & Lisa Staudohar Robert J. Stone III & William Swearengen 2204 Sommergate Joan M. Stone P. 0. Box 756 Excelsior, MN 55331 6201 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Jon & Laura Williamschen Clifford & Patricia Woida 6230 Murray Hill Road 6398 Murray Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Oh okay. Where their sign is a logo. That's 100%. Okay. Any other comments? If not, then I'd like to have a motion please. Conrad: I move to table the sign ordinance. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the sign ordinance. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: And if you could add Randy Herman, Moore Sign, would you like that delivered to your office? Randy Herman: That'd be great. And I'll get it distributed to the others. Scott: Okay. That will go out with our, we usually get the Planning Commission packets on Saturday? Friday? Generous: They come out on Thursday. Scott: Thursday or Friday, something like that so you'll be getting your's just after Halloween. Rask: ...same time you received it so if possible we will try to get it to him earlier this time. Scott: Good. Thank you all very much for coming for that item. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION. Public Present: 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Name Address James Hoben Hoben Corporation Perry & Pat Harrison 2221 Sommergate Charles Spevacek 6474 Murray Hill Road David McFarland 6341 Murray Hill Road Paul & Betty Burkholder 6370 Murray Hill Road Kaye Benson 2211 Sommergate Peter & Lisa Staudohar 2204 Sommergate Robert & margaret Cristofono 2210 Sommergate Lynda Kuzma 2241 Sommergate Richard Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road Keith Boudrie 6482 Murray Hill Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions. Mancino: Yeah. I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things. Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there won't be a lot of grading because it is so flat. The roadways...proposed 30 foot easement. There is a location of the housepad that could be...the setbacks and conservation easement along the north property line...I think the applicant has... Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff'? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you like to make a presentation. Jim Hoben: Sure. This is the... Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: Or just hold it in front of the stand. Jim Hoben: Very quickly I probably should mention first, because I was asked by several people, my name is Jim Hoben. Hoben Corporation. I've been a developer for 35 years. Commercial, office buildings and warehouses and stuff like that. The Wayzata First National Bank in Wayzata. The Citizens State Bank. I've been building and developing residential since the mid 1970's. I'll pick that up in just a second. Since the mid 1970's. We built in the Deephaven...property. I've developed the Hollybrook Townhouse they call it up in Wayzata which is 60 some units over there and we've built homes in Orono, Plymouth, Wayzata, Deephaven and then in Minnetonka and areas such as that. In looking for land in which to do an neat little development, this came to me, which we're always on the lookout for. We came upon this nice wooded property up there. I've been working with the staff as to what the requirements are and we have put together...approximately half acre lots. I don't know if anybody's familiar but basically something like the Villages which Fazenden did over in the north part of Plymouth...but that's generally what we're doing. Putting in this with we established a private road with the 4 residents that facing in on it. I'm using setbacks greater than the required. The 40 feet which Mr. Generous spoke of is shown on there and it's being used. We also used a more than 30 feet, which is I think is the requirement. We've gone to about 40 feet as this property backs up to the Burkholders which are on the other side... We've met and exceeded I think the requirements as to the lot size. As we pointed out the utilities are all there. The grading plan as I understood it would be there before the final plat which... There isn't that much grading on this road to be done as he said with this plat. We acquired the outlot or the means to acquire the Outldt B which abuts Sommergate Road and having, in doing that. that 40 foot setback allowed him which we also were able then to move the intersection, private road over so that the trees that you spoke of is not getting touched. We talked about that large cottonwood tree. That's off to the left hand side now and we've got a problem. I'm ready to answer any questions that you might have. Scott: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? None. Do you have anything else, any other comments you'd like to make? Jim Hoben: No. I think none that I'm aware of. I've tried to work with the staff to meet the requirements and I think we've done so. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and if I could have a motion please to open the public hearing. Harberts: Can I ask some staff questions first? Scott: Sure. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: This might be a Dave question. With this private driveway agreement, I'm guessing that's that blue. Is that actual. Jim Hoben: You turn it sideways. This is Murray Hill Road. This is the private road. Harberts: Okay. Is it a road or driveway? Hempel: It'd be a 20 foot wide private driveway. Harberts: And so it would be a private driveway to at least 3 parcels, if not 4, is that correct? Hempel: No, that's not correct. We currently serve up to 3 homes. There's one home that would maintain existing driveway access off of Murray Hill. I believe it's Lot 4. They right now have a horseshoe type of driveway. Jim Hoben: That was not stated...all entrances would be off this road. Harberts: Well it goes back to my original question. Are we talking a road? You know in reality here, or is it in a sense just a driveway? Hempel: It is just a driveway. Harberts: Are we going to be, if it's the only access'point to the homes that are proposed, am I correct on that so far? Is the 20 foot going to allow for 2 way traffic? You know if someone's coming in and someone wants to come out, is 20 feet big enough for that? Hempel: It would be, yes. Harberts: Okay. And did public safety, in terms of the fire department and all those people take a look to concur that 20 feet was okay? Hempel: That's correct. That's your normal, standard driveway width. Harberts: And how does the, at least the public safety vehicles go in there and turn around? Hempel: That was asked by Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal, and he tells us the length of this road is not long enough to warrant a turn around for the fire truck vehicles. Harberts: Even if they turn in there by mistake? I don't know, I'm just asking. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Hempel: That question I guess has not been answered or addressed by Mark Littfin. Mark's comments were that he didn't feel that it was appropriate to require a turn around for this length of driveway. Harberts: Okay. And it seems to me based on some other proposals that had come forward in terms of, we didn't call them private driveways. They were like shared driveways. I think that's what it was. And I always, it's my feeling that that was one of those things that Chanhassen didn't feel very comfortable with unless there was some unique situation so I guess I'd be interested to, do you recall any of that conversation that took place at the commission level here Dave? Hempel: No, I don't think I do but the ordinance does state that if we are saving vegetation or reducing grading and so forth by doing a private drive, then it would be warranted. I think in this case. as Bob Generous indicated earlier, there are some significant trees on this site. Some maples and walnuts and also the 50 some inch cottonwood that are going to be saved as a result of the narrower pavement width. Harberts: Right. I just wanted to just kind of remind people on that. I guess the only other question I have with regard to, there was a couple of letters or one letter in here with regard to the local residents raising concern about the, that perhaps the integrity or that there would be a change within the environment. If I'm correct, I think I read in here in one of the findings that this is within the zoning allowed for the area in terms of having 4 homes there. Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirements. Harberts: So they're meeting the code or the zoning requirement? Generous: Yes. Harberts: Okay. That's it. Scott: Good. Jim Hoben: Dave when you say driveway, I've got a townhouse development where the blacktop is 20 feet for 220 or 225 feet width and there's plenty of room to... Harberts: Just one more, and maybe this is a Bob question. I know it said somewhere in the staff report about some kind of cross use agreement would be. Generous: That's required under the... 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: And if I recall, that includes maintenance understanding, all of this. Generous: Exactly. Maintenance, snow clearing... Scott: Okay, good. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open and we invite members of the general public to step forward and let us know who you are. Let us know your address and go from there. Yes sir. Paul Burkholder: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Paul Burkholder and I live directly to the south of this property, 6370 Murray Hill Road. I moved to Chanhassen about 6 years ago after living in Deephaven for about 10 1/2 years. One of the reasons I moved to Chanhassen, and in this particular area, was because of the large lots and the mature trees and the fact that...and it was just a very nice... Our neighbors next door was the Grautmans. An older couple who loved their yard and planted lots of things and... environment for wildlife and birds and their garden and it was a very nice place. They've passed on and a few years ago the property was sold. On my lot and on their lot there were things like woodchucks, raccoons, well there's raccoons all over, but all kinds of squirrels. In my yard there's black walnut trees. I think in the yard in the subject property there is perhaps 6 or 8 black walnut trees. There is this magnificent cottonwood tree right in the middle of the yard. And fruit trees, there are wild flowers. What Mr. Hoben is proposing is totally out of context and out of character with the neighborhood. It is basically a cluster home concept. One driveway and I agree with Commissioner Harberts that it's a driveway. A shared driveway by 4 houses. I say to myself, after looking at Mr. Hoben's plan, if this property were allowed to be developed, what would happen on Thanksgiving and Easter, Christmas time when all 4 of these homes decided to have a gathering and all of them had 6 or 7 cars and a fire started in one of these homes? Again, I didn't hear any clear answer whether this proposal has been run past the Fire Chief and how he feels about getting a fire truck or emergency vehicle here in a situation such as that. I'd like to know about that. Secondly, we have a problem with the topography is rather flat. The southern end of Murray Hill Road is higher than the rest of it so the water flows northward in heavy rains. When we first moved into our property and the heavy rain, the water would come down our driveway and make almost a small lake. We had the city, when they were out doing some blacktop repairing, we asked them to put a little tiny, 3 or 4 inch curbing to direct the water a little further down. Now Murray Hill Road, for those that live there, every time it rains there's a torrential amount of rain that goes down that hill and they're constantly trying to fix it up down there. It's a terrible little winding country road. Now we're talking about in this 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 particular situation, of bringing in another 8 to 10 cars with 4 homes. There's another site to the south of me with 2 1/2 acres which I believe will probably, someone will be appearing to try to develop that one too. Using this property, this particular situation as precedent to squeeze as many possible homes on this site as they can. Mr. Scott, the Chair at the meeting here, he mentioned Lake Wobegon where everything is perfect and that Chanhassen is growing and I know that and you're going through these sorts of problems and I realize that the people next door to me are attempting to maximize as much money out of their property as they can and perhaps this is a way to do it. Try to cut it up into 4 small homesites. I know that they meet the requirements but I am very much against it. Again I'm going to be redundant and say it will change the total character of our neighborhood. If one looks at the plat map. you can see the lots are much larger than what is being developed in some of the PUD developments currently in Chanhassen. And nobody is making a lot of moves. I know over, just recently over on Hummingbird Road. A lot of property was sold by the Rainey family. They did not go in there and try to maximize that property and cut it up into as many small lots as they can. They sold them in big, large, over an acre piece of property maintaining the integrity of the trees and everything that's in that area. Again the 4 homes on this particular property I think would create a real water problem. We're going to have a lot more water runoff from these properties. The soil will no longer be able to absorb the rains up there and it is flat. I get water in my basement even though I'm on top of the hill. I mentioned that I lived in Deephaven for 10 1/2 years. I don't mean to compare Deephaven with Chanhassen but Deephaven back in 1973, facing somewhat, I think problems somewhat similar to what Chanhassen is facing now, changed their zoning requirements in some of the older areas... requirement at 20,000 square feet. And out in Northome, they raised it to 60,000 square feet and in the area where I lived in the 10 1/2 years, I built two homes there, the lots were 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hoben I'm aware...during that time and he did build them in a 40,000 square foot area but I'm not saying that 40,000 square feet is the ideal site but it does make for lovely home sites and the kind of homes that come in the price range of the homes are certainly at an addition to the community in general. I guess I don't have much else to say about it except I'm here to object to this cutting up of this property into 4 sites. I would have no objection to it being 2 sites. I know when the Grautman's, when Mrs. Grautman passed away and I thought that the property was going to be offered for sale in the open market, I checked with the city here and found out there were two sewer stubs put into this property when they installed the sewer and water back in the late 70's, or early 70's rather. So I thought possibly at that time probably the thinking was that that site at some time would be developed into two sites and that seemed reasonable to me. Four sites to me seem unreasonable. It's a cluster home type situation. I'm concerned about the private road. I'm concerned that these houses will be facing out on Murray Hill Road or onto Sommergate like the rest of the homes are and I guess thank you very much. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Well thank you. Dave, if you could just address the public safety issue and then Bob, if you could talk about the zoning of the adjacent property lot size and so forth. Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman. Again I did look through the staff report. There is a sentence or two in there that says something about there should be a turn around acceptable to the Fire Marshal and I think that that got put in by mistake, to be honest with you because I did have conversations with the Fire Marshal in regards to hydrant placement as well as the turn around. He felt that the driveway length of approximately 180 feet long which did not warrant taking a turn around on behalf of the fire truck scenario so. Then I'll just touch on one other point that Mr. Burkholder had concern with on the drainage in the neighborhood there. Certainly it's always a concern. With developers and such increasing impervious surface for the private driveway which is a narrower street from a city street, the adding of the two home sites would not dramatically increase the amount of runoff on this parcel of land. The runoff from this development does flow north to Sommergate where it is picked up with storm sewer system and conveyed to a storm water pond on the north side of Sommergate...the runoff along Murray Hill Road is a maintenance problem with the city... Generous: This area is zoned residential single family which permits lot sizes down to 15,000 square feet. The development has an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of the lots are over 20.000 square feet. The development immediately west of this, Eight Acre Woods is 16 lots. Their average lot size is 20,744 square feet. From that standpoint it is very consistent with the area. Mancino: Well it is for those west but for those across the street that are east of it and the old parcels are much bigger that really abut this property also. And that are south of it. That is one part of that whole area, which I live very close to, has a very open, old mature tree, very narrow street, old neighborhood feel. And it is something for us to be considerate of it and I think you have been too. Staff has been too. Scott: Okay. Sir. Keith Boudrie: I just have a question. Scott: Oh, please step up to them microphone and identify yourself. I don't like to do that either. Keith Boudrie: I may have more questions but my name is Keith Boudrie and I live at 6482 Murray Hill Road. We've been there for a little over 10 years. We were the first residents of the new homes that have gone in in that area. My question is, you keep referring to a subdivision and I'm not sure I know which one that is. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: It's the one off of Sommergate Road. Keith Boudrie: The one off of Sommergate Road? Generous: Yeah. Now that's the access for it. Resident: At the end of the cul-de-sac. Keith Boudrie: Oh, okay. So it's the Sommergate development? Mancino: Yeah. Keith Boudrie: Thank you. Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Dick Herrboldt: My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road, which is directly south of this, right close to the Boudrie's and the cul-de-sac that's south of this proposed development. I'd like to address a little bit the concept of the trees that are in that area and what provides for the neighborhood. These are all mature trees and one of the things that drew myself and my wife to the neighborhood. We've lived now in the area for 7 years. We love it up there. We love the peace and the quiet, but most of all we like the trees. And as I looked around my cul-de-sac, or the cul-de-sac that I live on and my lot, after the construction process in the development, you're going to lose trees. I, myself have lost about 5, even though we spent a substantial amount of money treating the existing maple trees. When I look around the cul-de-sac, all of the houses have lost magnificent trees that have resulted from the construction. If you start driving earth moving equipment, trucks, etc, over surfaces of land where there's mature trees, you're going to lose them and I would suspect, I haven't looked at the plat that closely but I would suspect that if you do construction in this area where this cottonwood tree is, after a couple years, you're going to see that cottonwood tree go. That's one of my major concerns because we're looking at an area in Chanhassen that's a mature residential neighborhood with magnificent trees and you're going to substantially change that environment by allowing a high density development to go in. The other concern I have is Murray Hill Road, which is a very narrow road. Maybe many of you have not been on that road but again times of family gatherings, I don't see that these houses are going to have adequate parking. What you're going to wind up having is traffic flowing over on Murray Hill Road. Parking. Blocking other vehicles and again in the case of an emergency, which was brought up, I don't know how a large fire truck or other safety equipment would be able to navigate up Murray Hill Road. So I'm concerned about the overall environment and what a project of this type would do to that area. Again there's 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 a lot of wildlife. There's a lot of birds up there. You're going to lose, you're going to change the entire environment so those are my comments. Scott: Okay. I think I can respond to a couple of those. And I don't know when your home was constructed. My guess 5 years, 10 years ago. Dick Herrboldt: Probably about 7. Scott: 7 years ago. One of the things that we've recently done as a Planning Commission and as a City Council is have a very restrictive and very detailed tree preservation ordinance. The old way of doing things is you'd wrap the trunk of the tree with snow fence and then hope that if somebody ran into it, it would be okay. And at that time that was state of the art. What we've done now is we've, because we have a forester on staff now, we're concerned about not allowing any compaction around the drip line. So now we have snow fence going around the drip line of the tree. In the case of a cottonwood, from my understanding, that is one of the species of trees that is the most tolerant to compaction and also to severance. That's obviously, the staff report had a paragraph on that particular tree and what we're trying. we're not trying to manage on a tree by tree basis. We're looking at it as the overall canopy coverage. But I think the commissioners would agree with us, we've gotten a lot better at tree protection and understanding the needs of various species and so forth. So I think from the tree standpoint, that's a major issue in the project. I guess from what staff has told us and from what I've seen of the property, I think that's obviously going to be an amenity that is going to allow this development to be a lot more profitable for the developer. So that works both ways. From what I'm looking at where the house pads are to be positioned and from a, I'm concerned about public safety. One of the things I think that, the way it looks here is that there are going to be driveways extending off of this common drive which usually in houses, these are probably going to be 2,500 square foot houses. In that roughly, 2 to 3 car garages. My guess is, at least at my house, we can get 4 cars in our just parking area so my guess is, you'd probably have to have 4 simultaneous, pretty huge parties before you'd even back out onto that private drive. That's my sense but hopefully those comments will assist you. If anybody on city staff, if you've got some other comments to make, that might help. I think the way this is laid out, it is, the lots are 30% larger than what is required by the ordinance and it appears that the public safety and the vegetation concerns have been dealt with. I personally feel fairly well. So I mean if there are any other comments from staff on there or commissioners on that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank you sir. Yes sir. Chuck Spevacek: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Chuck Spevacek and I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road. I'm Mr. Herrboldt's neighbor and Mr. Bourdrie's neighbor and pardon my voice. I'm fighting a cold that my children have had for 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 months that they've just gotten over and I've picked up. I echo the sentiments of the other residents in the neighborhood that have spoken, which I understand will continue to speak tonight. I do believe that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. What we have now is a blend of large and small homes in an open, natural setting and what we're proposing is a parcel of property with 4 homes, sitting 2 deep with the front or facing houses having their sides facing towards the street serviced by a common drive. And while the lot sizes themselves might have enough square feet to meet or exceed the zoning codes, there is nothing in the vicinity remotely like this development. And I know that the reference has been made to the houses on Sommergate. That if you just want to compare square foot to square foot, then we're talking apples and apples. But if you want to talk the way the homes are situated on the site and how they present themselves to the neighborhood and the community, what's going on in Sommergate is really totally different than what's being proposed for this development. Despite the size of the lots in this development, the property itself is very narrow and the lot size comes from the property's depth. Thus the proposed development is one that gets it's lot size by stacking the houses 2 deep off of the street. Servicing them with a common drive and again having the front facing houses not presenting themselves to the street but presenting their side yards in the side of the house to the street. And while the lot sizes are large, this type of arrangement is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and is more attune to the type of cluster type homes you see in an urban setting where land is at a premium. Now in addition, and as I've indicated, this proposed development is inconsistent with the type of development that has recently taken place in this neighborhood. Both the Sommergate Addition, while lot sizes are similar, they present themselves to the neighborhood much differently and much more consistently with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. That's particularly true with the Melody Hill development or the cul-de-sac at the end of Murray Hill on the south side where my house is. There are some extremely large lots. There are some more modest lots but again, in that situation we don't have a situation like you'd expect to see...where you have 4 home sitting 2 deep off of the street serviced by a narrow cul-de-sac. I'm convinced that anyone driving through the neighborhood will reach the same conclusion that the proposed development is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the way...now. I understand, and can trust me I have done my own independent check on this where the proposed development is not inconsistent with the present zoning ordinances. And therein lies the fundamental problem I think for myself and the remainder of the people who live in this neighborhood. Because what this is telling us is that the zoning code doesn't reflect the character of how our neighborhood. It may be a zoning code that has applicability to the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen. But the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen isn't our neighborhood and our neighborhood is a neighborhood of mature, developed foliage, trees, homes. Again, that gives one the flavor of a mixture of modest and substantial homes in an open, natural setting and one where a subdivision where you're stacking homes 2 deep off the street is inconsistent even if the lot sizes meet the technical requirements of the zoning code. Two homes on this 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 parcel would be consistent with the precedent set by recent development. Sommergate came in by the development on Murray Hill. I truly think 4 homes on this parcel of property, despite it's ability to accommodate large lots because it's a deep, still shadows that precedent because of the way that they present themselves. Finally, while I understand this issue is not directly before this commission, I trust that the commission bases it's decision not just one any particular parcel it's dealing with but also what the effect might be on other potential development in the neighborhood. There is another parcel of property just on the other side of the Burkholder property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, the Woida property, which has been on the market for sale and as I understand, although this is pure hearsay, that the Hoben Corporation has an option to purchase and develop this property contingent upon the success of the present development. And that might not be true. But regardless of whether that's true or not, this is a 2 1/2 acre site. It sits at the corner of Murray Hill and Melody Hill. Right at the entrance to the Melody Hill subdivision that Mr. Boudrie and Mr. Herrboldt and I live in. No more than 50 yards from the subject property, and if the approval of this development is in any way deemed to be precedent for what must be allowed on the Woida property, or the property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, we're talking about someone coming in and saying I want to stack 6 homes in this property and telling this committee that in terms of pure square footage, it meets the zoning regulations. And those of us who live here will think more than ever that the zoning regulations don't reflect what the nature of our community and what our neighborhood is for putting 6 parcels of property on that piece would truly destroy the ambience of the homes that are at the south end cul-de-sac on Murray Hill. And I know that the county or the city or whoever is in charge of this must think highly of the ambience of the homes on the south cul-de-sac of Murray Hill because in the 2 years that I've lived there without making substantial additions to it, my assessed valuation has gone up over $60,000.00 and that would truly reverse if you toss the 6 homes on the Woida property. To conclude my remarks, I understand that technically there's enough lot size to sustain this development. But technically that exists only because you have a property that's narrow and deep. You can look around this neighborhood and you will not see anything at all remotely resembling what's being proposed for this property, and in this case the zoning ordinances do not reflect the character and nature of the neighborhood we live in and we believe our neighborhood will be diminished by allowing more than 2 homes on this parcel. Where we live now is an above average section of this community and this proposed subdivision is truly average and it will not help bring us up any. It will do nothing but bring our subdivision down to a level where it hadn't been before. Two homes is consistent with what we've established and what other developers have tried to do here...thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else, yes sir. Peter Staudohar: Good evening. My name is Peter Staudohar and my wife Lisa and I live at 2204 Sommergate. As David referred to, the drainage area there happens to be my front yard 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 so I'd rather refer to it as my front yard rather than the drainage area. I'm right here. I'm sorry, right here if I'm understanding this correct. I have a couple of questions and then I have a couple of comments. The outlot is a concern of mine. I live directly across from the outlot and I'd like you to address the issue of what will happen to that if it's acquired by the corporation. Generous: It will be designated as a tree conservation easement. Peter Staudohar: Which means what? Generous: The trees that are there will stay there. Peter Staudohar: In it's present form? Generous: Yes. Should maintain... Peter Staudohar: Okay. If I am assured of that, that helps some of my concerns a little bit but my wife and I moved into this area in March of 1994 and one of the express purposes of moving into this neighborhood was, as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the aesthetics. The way it presents itself and the development that you're suggesting presents itself completely different to the surrounding area. I can say without any hesitation, because we looked at an awful lot of houses. An awful lot of new developments. We wouldn't have moved into this neighborhood in March of 1994 if the proposed development were in place at that time. Without question. And I think if you went around the room to the other people that live on Sommergate, their comments would be the same. If they would have known 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years, 2 years ago when they built their house, they would not have built a house in a neighborhood that was going to have a development across the street that has a cluster of homes. I'm not very excited about getting up in the morning and walking out my front door with the dog and going for a walk and looking at the back of 2 houses where there now is woods. Or in the winter, at the very least, there's a little red, attractive farmhouse that my wife and I happen to fall in love with when we moved into the neighborhood and would have probably gladly purchased it and updated it if it would have been for sale at that point in time. I'm confused about one other item. We keep referring to the development west of the proposed development and you suggest that's the houses on Sommergate, on the south side of Sommergate? Generous: It's that whole development. It's called Eight Acre Woods. Peter Staudohar: Okay. Because that area was referred to as north of the development earlier. Sommergate being north of the development. David, I do have another question for 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 you. I'm a little bit concerned about the drainage. If you would have been at my house during a few of these rains, you'd been a little bit nervous as to the level of the water. It's crept up dramatically as the summer's gone on and that concerns me. If we put 4 lots in there, we're taking away some locations for the water to settle into the soil. What's going to happen to my front yard or my drainage area based on your guesstimates? Hempel: The drainage area in your front yard has been sized to take on the neighborhood drainage from this area. The increase of 2 additional homes...common driveway. If you have 4 separate driveways, there's more impervious surface. Therefore a common driveway makes more sense from an impervious surface standpoint. Those calculations for the storm water are going to be supplied to us with the final plat just to verify that we will not exceed the capacity of that ponding area for the storm sewer system down the street. We don't anticipate any problems with the additional 2 lots which are being created with this proposal. Peter Staudohar: One last issue that may or may not be appropriate to bring up at this time but the gentlemen before you mentioned the appreciation on his property based on assessments. Based on the tax bill. I've had the same benefits as I moved in in March. I'm very happy to see that for a lot of reasons. My question and concern is, what is this cluster of homes going to do to my home value and I'd like to briefly have the gentlemen proposing the development speak to the size of the homes. He said 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and values of the home, which is extremely important to..a lot of people concerned. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Scott: Would you like to answer that question Mr. Hoben? Jim Hoben: I'd be glad to have an opportunity to answer that. One of the main reasons we chose this site to go ahead and do this, I can't imagine that anybody's houses will be depreciated from that standpoint because I'm looking at an entrance coming in here where we'll call this Woods. There will be a little brick thing on the inside and it is. You call it cluster homes. Well cluster homes sometimes is a phrase used to demean a development and that's not the case here. These homes will be in the neighborhood of $300,000.00. $310,000.00-$315,000.00. That's the idea. It's not, I don't build and have not been and I think even Mr. Burkholder knows that. Go in and build low end housing. If I didn't think that we could go in here and build homes in the neighborhood of $300,000.00, which is... the studies that we've made of the homes both on the cul-de-sac where Curt Osterman built and where the other gentlemen built up on the other cul-de-sac and also with the Eight Acre Woods, I wouldn't be interested in the site. So again, we would go in the trees that were attractive to the area. We'd work with the staff. It's not my intention to go in and knock down trees indiscriminately. We will save all the trees that are possible and I think planning 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 showed most of the trees being saved there, except for the...pad where the house will sit because that's what will add value to the...to the homes so in no way will we be demeaning, setting down the value of the homes for surrounding. Harberts: Mr. Hoben, I have a question for you. Will you, your firm be acting as both the developer and the builder? Jim Hoben: Pardon? Will I be the builder as well as the developer, yes. Harberts: And I'm ignorant in this area. So if someone comes in and they choose a lot. Will they be able to choose the type of home they want to put on or will you already have that established. Is it like a package deal? Is it like a package deal? You get this lot and you get this house or do you buy the lot separately and then decide separately on what house you put on there? And I'm really ignorant in this area, sorry. I apologize. Jim Hoben: We wil, nave 2 or 3 home plans that will fit on these sites. I mean is your question that you have to take this house? Harberts: Well is it a package deal when they go in there? Do they buy the lot separately and then they buy the house separately or do they, if they're interested in purchasing, do they buy the house and the lot at a given price? Jim Hoben: Yes, because that's what we'll be doing but they will have a choice of a couple of different plans to put on that. Harberts: Alright. Well you know based on my experience when I was looking, we were looking around for a home, you'd go out and buy your lot for x thousand and then you'd go and find a house and then they'd have a builder. Or you bring your builder in so I was just wondering if that was the case. Jim Hoben: No, you won't bring your builder in here. I will have 2 or 3 plans...would look at and this has been done in Plymouth and so forth. Again, I go back to the word cluster. Cluster homes and doing this intently with the idea of pointing them into themselves so that they have their own identity. Harberts: So is it, so am I understanding that these probably will not be custom homes? You know an individual's choice. Jim Hoben: Yes, they will be custom homes. Absolutely. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: But I'm understanding you to tell me that you're going to have 2 or 3 different designs and they can pick from one of those to put on there. When I'm speaking of a custom home, they bring in their plan or their idea in terms of their dream house. This is what I'm asking. Jim Hoben: If you brought me, for example, if you brought me in a plan that would fit on that lot and the square footage of it was such that after I constructed it, it would be in that price range, compatible with what I'm talking about, yes. You could do that. I'm not going to...somebody you've got to take this plan, if that's your question. Harberts: Well it's more the question. Jim Hoben: You would have to conform to the. Harberts: I understand that. It's more the question is, is it a package deal or do you buy your lot separate and then the house is another separate transaction in a sense, or whatever. Jim Hoben: No, it's all one transaction. The lot and the house would all be. Harberts: No, that's fine thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Perry Harrison: I'm Perry Harrison. My wife Pat and I live at 2221 Sommergate. Just down the road from Peter. And some of my fears have been allayed here through this discussion but I guess I still have two primary ones and I guess they both focus around what this gentlemen so eloquently said about the integrity and nature and the ambience of the neighborhood. As he so well pointed out, this is "cluster" or whatever you want to talk about the layout of these homes is totally different than our area. Having 4 homes positioned there that have most, all but 1 home facing the two major roads of that intersection, which is Sommergate and Murray. And I can envision and I assume other people on Sommergate would be acceptable to having 2 homes where they be both sitting at the west end of the property facing Murray Hill. Therefore having minimum exposure to the sides or the backs of their houses to either Sommergate or Murray Hill. Otherwise right now, the way it's laid out, you're going to have 3 homes with their backs or sides of both facing the road. Every home in that whole area, 5 or 6 lots in a mile or two circumference around that area, has their homes facing the main road. There isn't a single house that has a side of their house facing one of those roads and it just establishes the integrity of the neighborhood and the naturalness of the neighborhood. We're now looking at the back of somebody's house or deck or an undeveloped barren back yard. Now the other part of that I think is you can't help but tear 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 down a whole lot more trees with 4 houses than 2. I mean you just can't fit for the 2 and there's some big, beautiful trees on that lot and I can't envisioned where you'd keep this many trees as the 4 would do, so that was... Scott: Would anybody else like to speak for the first time, and if we're clear there. Sir, if you've got another comment you'd like to make. Keith Boudrie: Well I just want to come up. Keith Boudrie again, 6482 Murray Hill Road. I really only had one question earlier. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Again, I don't think there's an objection at all by any of us to having change on that lot. It is a cute little red farmhouse but I think we all realized coming in there that, even 10 years ago when we built there, that someday that would probably change. The indication and what we were told by Mr. Curt Osterman at the time, was that lot was set up with 2 stubs and would eventually be 2 homes in the future. And apparently we relied on that explanation as opposed to looking into it further. I think that you're hearing objections here and I think technically we have nothing to object to. I think emotionally and I think that there certainly are more taxpayers sitting here that are concerned about it than potentially taxpayers that are coming in on these 4 lots. We're here because we love it here. We like it here. We've invested in the neighborhood. The developer's coming in strictly for profit and he's corning into the area on the basis that our homes are there. Our homes are going to help attract potential buyers that he's looking for. I think the price range of the homes that he's building are fine. I think the square foot of the home that he's building is fine. My major objection is the stacking. Cluster was used. It's an obvious...to be able to get 4 homes in place of where 2 should go. That's my objection. We've lost 5 large trees on our front yard. Maples about this big around and we did everything possible to try to protect them and not lose them and 2-3 years after the home was built, the damage shows up. So I think in every effort that he makes to save these trees, I would be willing to guess that 80% of them will probably be lost. I think that's been the experience of the neighborhood. I think Dick Herrboldt can speak to that. I can speak to that. Jeff can speak to that. We all made every effort possible to save the trees and even with our efforts, we lost them. The comment was made before hand, two homes probably fit more logically on that lot. That's all I have to say. Scott: Okay, good. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Kaye Benson: I'm Kaye Benson again from 2211 Sommergate. My neighbors and people in the neighborhood have spoken very eloquently of all the issues associated. My husband and I live in the property that is directly adjacent to this development and I just thought I should at least stand up in front of you and say that our feelings are certainly echoed by everybody that has been in front of you tonight. I think in a little bit broader perspective, the next agenda item is going to be another huge development that's just south of us. Just off of Galpin 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Boulevard and that too is going to change the whole nature of that particular area, which is really country. So I guess if this is only 4 houses, and the next one's only 37 and then the next one's only 37 but it all adds up and impacts people that are there and they impact our future. Scott: Good, thank you. We'll have one final comment from this gentlemen then we'll close the public hearing. Chuck Spevacek: I had a final comment and then I had a question. The comment I think after you were having to hear a lot of the people in the neighborhood criticizing what's been proposed, and in particular of the planners, I guess I want to say something positive. We do appreciate the work that the city has done to preserve the trees. To see that the outlot that was along Sommergate would be set off as a nature area and not be developed. I think this shows a true sensitivity on the part of the city and it's planners to a lot of concerns of what is there. The fact is. that doesn't change that we still think there are 2 more houses that are going to go on this lot than there should be...central character of our neighborhood doesn't change but I wanted to express, at least from my standpoint, our appreciation of the steps that were taken to address some of these concerns. The last concern however wasn't addressed and that is that 4 homes stacked 2 deep is really inconsistent. I also know that the planner who was responsible for this isn't here today but I spoke with Sharmin on the phone about this and I was very impressed by her dedication to her work and the effort that she put in on this so I don't think any of us here want to let you think that we're unappreciative of the efforts that you took. And I think that you understand, as well as we do the purpose of something like this is for us to express areas where we still have concern and this is a very serious area of concern. That's my comment. My question is now for the developer. Whether there are going to be restrictive covenants on this property that will specify the minimum square footage for the house size or is the idea of the 2,500 to 2,000 square foot house the initial hope that would economic factors or perhaps the... Is there going to be a square foot minimum restrictive covenant put on the property? Jim Hoben: ...restricted in the way that I build them, yes... Chuck Spevacek: But if there are. Jim Hoben: The restrictive covenants will be as required by the city and obviously even from my part...to the road. The maintenance and up to the road which would be... Other than that, the individual homes can do their own watering of the grass and cutting of the grass and all that sort of thing. In fact it's a little bit different than a townhouse development where they don't...and that's in a townhouse development. This is a single family. But it's the 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 same type of concept that I'm proposing here and actually I think this is in character in my opinion... Chuck Spevacek: I guess my question was whether there's going to be some sort of guarantee with the development by the developer that there be a restrictive covenant on the property that would require homes of a minimal square footage or whether this is just a developer's hope that if there are no takers of that size...And I guess what I'm hearing is the guarantee that we have now of larger homes, which obviously if I'd rather be for, I'd rather much have them be four $300,000.00 homes on this property than three $150,000.00 homes on this property. It's dictated by economics. If they can sell four $300,000.00 homes, then we have our guarantee. If not, then I guess we don't know what...Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: Well I have, I did not receive the grading plan and apparently one was not available so that. and that's one of the things that I like to see when I'm evaluating a plat. I feel fairly strongly that even though we're looking at somewhat of a flat parcel, I think it still in every case it warrants knowing where the dirt is being moved so from my perspective I feel that I haven't evaluated it entirely without that plan. Listening to the neighbors, I can certainly understand their concerns and in general I agree that a development with this density is not in character with the neighborhood. I think, I can't argue that point whatsoever. I think that if this plat would go through as it's laid out with the 4 homes, or the 4 lots, I think potentially what could be done would be to provide some more screening or buffering along the property boundaries here to maybe isolate it somewhat and typically we see landscaping plans with our subdivision plans. But saying that, I don't know if that would actually work in this instance. That that can work in many times in terms of providing the buffering but when we're talking about relatively smaller lots and relatively larger homes, there's not much area to do the buffering and still space physical distances does become important. So I feel that can be used as a factor to help mitigate some of the concerns as it relates to the surrounding property owners. The proposed driveway, I guess I would agree that that makes sense from a grading perspective and impervious surface. I don't know, I guess I'm still a little bit concerned about the safety issue and Dave, did you mention that the Fire Marshal has looked at this in terms of specifically from a safety perspective and in terms of getting emergency vehicles in there? 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioners...access standpoint. Access the site...have to go into that driveway with a fire truck. The other thing is that...sheriff's or paramedics or the fire chief himself who responds to the site as well...as far as access goes. Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Unfortunately I didn't go out and tour the site. This does meet all the specs that the city requires and I've been sitting up here trying to understand or trying to determine is there's some good rationale, good logic to change it from 4 to 2. And I'm struggling with that. I've heard what the neighbors said. I empathize with what they say. I've gone through that many, many, many times in my neighborhood. I think the staff report is good. I think the staff is preserving what we're trying to preserve. It's hard to fault what they presented. The one issue though is, what I haven't done and that was to visit the site and if I thought that this was really out of character with the neighborhood, then I think I'd have a reason to change the density. At this point I don't because I haven't been there. So if this gets tabled, I will make a point of going out there. But at this point in time, not looking at the site, knowing the area however. I'm not unfamiliar with the area. I just haven't looked at this, I think the plat as presented is acceptable. Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ladd a question? Scott: Sure. Mancino: I think you raise a very good point and should we table and go out and look at it. But my question is, I mean I hate to see it. However, this is going to come up again in that neighborhood. It may come up in other people who own larger lots. Acre, 2 acres or 3 acres. I don't have an answer to this. I'd like to say to the neighbors, be mindful of who else is selling and go and get your money together and buy the lots and keep it that way. But it will keep coming up and I think it probably will in this neighborhood. We've seen it for the last, I mean even thought of us who lived in a neighborhood when Sommergate came up. That was a big deal. Conrad: Major deal. Mancino: A major deal so, and it will keep coming up. Conrad: And everybody that's here tonight has that opportunity to subdivide their lots. If they're bigger, they can do that. When we've gone out to ask the public for input on lot size 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 and we've tried to zone larger, we've never had enough public support to zone larger. We've tried to do that. So it's not that we haven't looked at those issues. We haven't seen a demand of people beating the development to the pass, so to speak. Where you come in and say our area, we want a different zoning. You haven't done that so on the one hand we've looked at zoning. We've paid attention. We've suggested some 40,000 square foot zoning blocks but I don't think the public's ever come in and said yeah, we endorse that. What we have today is 15,000, which is still decent. This is 20,000 which is 30% more than decent and it's always an issue. It's always an issue when it's in your neighborhood and you're looking at it. I don't particularly care for smaller lots but that's really a very practical thing and every one of you has that opportunity and unfortunately you say no, I won't do it but we, those of us who have been around for a while, the people who said no, we won't do it. They come back. They want that right to do it so. Hard to restrict development. But in this case it's hard for me to hook onto something. I think what we try to do is preserve what we've got. Can't preserve density very much, other than using our standards that we have but we can preserve the natural surroundings. We can preserve some of the slopes. This one doesn't have any. We do have ordinances in place to preserve the natural assets of Chanhassen. I'm real comfortable with that. I think the staff has prepared a report that looks like we're preserving. Tree coverage of about 6,000 square feet of trees or canopy coverage is taken out but I think some of that is put back in. It's a better proposal than a lot of things that we've seen. That doesn't satisfy you but there's some good elements in it and partly that's because staff I think has done a pretty good job on this one. That still doesn't say that I agree with the 4 however. I haven't seen the site. I haven't seen how it fits into the neighborhood and that's the only key thing that I think the neighbors have said to me that I guess I just need to take a look at. Now if everybody else has taken a look at the site and feels comfortable that it's out of character, then I think we have something to hang our hat on and to change density. However boy what, I'll listen to what you have to say. Ledvina: Can you say it's out of character and say oh, then there should be 3 lots? I mean is that a basis for... Conrad: In my mind it is. In my mind we're trying to fit things into a neighborhood and not destroy, the people who live there really, I think we cater to as much as we can. They are there. We want this to fit in their surroundings as much as we can. I think we have that control. But there's a lot of definitional things. What fits? You put a 20,000 next to a 30,000 square foot, does that fit? Or is it 20 to 40? So definitionally it's just real tough. And usually when you look at it you can really tell what fits. I think we're going to have another, well we'll have some other exercises in what fits tonight after this warm-up. So anyway. Scott: So your thought is to. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: I don't know. I'm interested in what everybody else. If you've seen the site, I think you should respond to what the neighbors are saying. Doesn't fit. Out of character. But I don't think you can use square footage as the factor here. It's does it really, has it changed the neighborhood. Has it changed the character? Not square footage wise but in what that neighborhood is now. Is it changing? You've got to tell me. Scott: Okay. Diane, tell Ladd. Harberts: I would certainly support a recommendation to table it. And my feeling is one, I guess the other commissioners noted they didn't feel that they've had a complete package and it certainly is our responsibility and our task to look at the package completely and then pass it up to the Council. If we pass it up without doing our job. Well if we pass it up to the Council in this form, I don't believe we are doing our job. Second, I would be interested in looking at where the proposed house pad locations would be. Also with regard to the, I don't know where the potential drawings are for the particular homes that would be available for this site. Just to publically share then what type of houses are being considered for this. So if that's available. I'd certainly like to see that in terms of the sketches or whatever. I'm still uncomfortable, from a safety perspective, with the private driveway. I certainly support the ordinance. The intent in terms of saving or hearing the integrity' of the vegetation and things like that around there so I can support, I'll support the public driveway in that sense. One question Dave. Is there a stop sign? When you have a public driveway, can you put in traffic control signs like that on that type of location? Is that to be determined? Hempel: It's really no different than a single driveway access I guess. Some certain...we have added stop signs. Harberts: So it can be added? Hempel: They can be added. Harberts: Traffic control or safety things can be added. Well and I guess if this gets tabled, see again going back to design. Are we talking 3 car garages? Are we talking 4 car garages? I mean what's the average, I'm a single person at my house and I have 2 vehicles. That's what I'm saying. Scott: $100,000.00 a garage. Harberts: Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. I guess I'd like to see what we're dealing with and with regards to that private driveway, and should we extend the concern or the covenants or the restrictions or whatever within the city that they have for private driveway agreements 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that perhaps we restrict to some or no parking of any vehicles on that driveway simply because of the limitation and size. Because I'm guessing, because of the limitation in size, that any parking that's going to be on the vegetation and isn't that what we're trying to be considerate of? So I guess if this is tabled, I'd like to extend a potential restriction or whatever. A condition of the agreement that there is no parking on there unless it's public safety or the city vehicles or whatever purposes. I don't know if we can do that but again also with regard to traffic or public safety signs or whatever is needed. I'm not too familiar with the amount of traffic on Murray Hill Road so that's where I raise the concern about stop signs. And is it going to, depending on how dense it is, with the turning traffic, from what I'm hearing from the residents and from what I've seen it is a narrow road, are we causing a lot of traffic problems perhaps with turning in and out? I don't know that. So again that's part of my justification to table this until I get a little bit more information on that. Is that clear Dave? Mancino: Want me to go ahead? Scott: I was just waiting. Are you finished ma'am? Harberts: Oh yeah. Mancino: Okay, a few points that I'd like to make. First of all I think that staff has done, Sharmin has done a very good job of looking at the site. Of asking for a 40 foot conservation easement on the northern side of the property. It is the whole north boundary line of Lot 1 and 2 and I hope that the neighbors know that. That that steep slope that goes into Sommergate will all be kept natural. That that means that nothing can be taken out of it. Now there is Bob, in the conditions, it does say under condition 2 that all healthy trees over 6 inch caliper, 4 feet height shall not be permitted to be removed. I would like that line taken out and just no removal of any vegetation so that some of our second and third generation saplings can grow and mature and become healthy big trees. So that we're looking ahead to the future. But Sharmin isn't here tonight but I would say that, and she also worked with the applicant on another conservation easement bordering the Lot 2 and Lot 1, 55 feet to preserve that area too. And I would say that I have a little different view than some of the other commissioners about the private drive, and I think the private drive is also used to, and has been stated to preserve as much of the environment as possible. That there won't be any driveways coming up to Sommergate that will go and will obliterate and damage that steep slope. That you will have the visual screening there and it will be there all year round. Now one of the things that we may want to add is year round coniferous trees to that screening from Sommergate. But I think that her efforts, keeping it somewhat narrow. The 30 foot right-of-way and having 4 houses come off of it, was a very good plan. And I think it will keep the integrity of the neighborhood much, much better. I do have the same concerns Ladd 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 does about how compatible it is for the rest of the neighborhood. I would favor tabling it so that everyone gets out there and looks at it and comes back and talks about it next time. And I also favor tabling it because I really, as I said earlier, would like to receive completed packages and that is with grading, with house pads so I can see exactly which trees will be removed and which ones won't. So I would like to see it again and take into account all of what the neighbors have said. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I can keep my comments brief because I think most everything has been covered. I guess to get to the issue of density, I need to understand where the house pads are going to be. How things are situated and then to look and say, okay here's what it's going to be here. Dealing with the issues of being compatible with the surrounding development. I haven't been around here that long but I do know that we have given that issue serious consideration with other developments here and for me it's a struggle. You've got the density of the residents who spoke here tonight and then you've got the 2.1 per acre to the west and where do you bridge the gap when those developments come together. And does that mean that one wins and one loses or is there some compromise to bring it together so it flows a little bit better. There's no way for everybody to be a winner on the density issue. Someone has to give somewhat but I am hearing positive comments to the, if the development does fall in the 5300,000.00 plus area, that that in and of itself is not so much the concern. It's just the number of units per acre and how that visually impacts the amenities of the area. So I'd like to see it back with the details that Nancy spoke of and Matt spoke of and then assuming we get our package next Thursday, or Thursday-Friday before the next meeting, have a chance to then go out and lay out the map and say okay, here's how it's going to be so I would move to table and go forward on that. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I don't have much to add. You can table this but it's still going to be 1.8 acres. It's still going to be a square. And it's still going to be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of large lots. There is no solution for this. As Ladd said, earlier in the 80's Chanhassen toyed with the issue of having a second single family zone for large lots. I think it was 2 acres or higher or something like that is what they were throwing around. There are pressures on the opposite end of this, and I don't know if our citizenry knows that because they have large lots and they're not perhaps watching as closely but there are a lot of pressures on municipalities to reduce the size of lots, both from the funds that they get from the Met Council, from County and the State, which pays for your utilities and so on. Their pressures are to make as many people as possible fit in the least amount of land as possible because these things are such enormously expensive. And developers come in here constantly 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 and say that 15,000 square feet is...developers come by and buy small acreage that may crop up in the middle but also some of your neighbors may sell the property. I think the average piece of property in Minnesota is owned 7 years. So what may happen is that your neighbor may sell and the person who comes by to purchase that property, if you don't, may finance that property by looking at subdividing it. And over a period of time, that's going to happen. You don't see a lot of 5 acre lots in Edina and that area developed after World War II. You don't see a lot of big lots even in Eden Prairie anymore. There's a reason for that. Because eventually they get divided up to the minimum requirement and I'd like to see the hobby farms, because I'd like to see those open spaces. I've lived in Chanhassen a long time and I'd like to see that kept but the only way that's ever going to happen is for the city to look at a larger lot, and as Ladd said, there's been very little support for that. In fact there's been a considerable amount of support in the opposite direction to not only allow I think developers who would like to see always the maximum allowed of housing on a piece of property as possible. but also there's a move afoot now to lower the price of housing. To have cheaper housing in Chanhassen. And land and the cost of housing are, you can't separate it. So especially in Chanhassen. The price of our housing's going up and the comments that you asked, we can't sit here and ask the developer what's the price of the house. That's not legal. That's not something that we should be doing. We can't say well, there's a $300,000.00 house here and therefore we're going to legislate that you're going to have to have an equivalent cost house next to it. We deal with minimums. Whether that's fair or not that's, the ordinances deal with the minimum requirement. And then it's up to the developer and the economics of the marketplace to decide what's going to go in there. And I don't know if that's going to be solvable by making that 3 houses.on a square lot. I'm not sure that that's going to solve anything other than to say making a compromise. I would like to see 2 houses on there but I have nothing to grab onto and say that that's what it should be. Again, if it was a larger scaled development I could say, well let's see more of a buffer here like we have in some other developments. But it's so small that it's difficult to hang your hat on these days. As to the driveway, 20 feet isn't that much. Are we putting parking restrictions on that driveway at all? Are we going to get parking on both sides of the road if there's a party or construction? Hempel: I believe the ordinance does cover parking lots and... Farmakes: Okay. The developments that I've seen like this, the square I'm thinking of is the one on Lake Lucy Road and CR 17. I don't, there are 4 houses and there's a driveway splitting it in the middle and you see delivery trucks or something and it blocks the whole road going in there. Whether that's temporary or not, it doesn't look very nice. These are somewhat bigger lots but the road's about the same size. So as I said before, I don't know if there's a solution to this is going to solve the problems for the neighborhood but I empathize with the fact that if I had a 4 acre hobby farm, I wouldn't want to see...city density in the middle of our hobby farm area. And I'm not opposed to the city to look at trying to maintain 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that. It seems to me that some of that may be spitting in the fact of the other direction that it's going but on the other hand, looking at the comprehensive plans, that does maintain somewhat the character the people profess here that they want to see so I'll leave it at that. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that we table Case #94-15, which is the Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition. Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the development. Is there any discussion? Mancino: No. the only comment I was going to make was, I don't know if there was a neighborhood meeting with the neighborhood and the applicant. That might be a good idea too between now and then. Scott: Another comment too is that if there's one of the neighbors could identify themselves so that when the next package that the Planning Commissioners get be sent to one of you folks. You can just speak with Bob Generous and get the address and then you'll have it the same time we have it and then we can run the process at the same time. Resident: When is the next meeting? Scott: It will be I think the 2nd of November. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-15, Hobens Wild Woods Farms 1st Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: The motion is tabled and the reasons behind it has to do with needing more information. Grading, drainage and also tree inventory and house pads and so forth. Thank you all for coming. Landscaping. And one of the things that I wanted to mention just briefly is that before a development gets to the point of public hearing, there's a tremendous amount of work that goes on so the form in which a development comes to the city sometimes does not resemble what it is at this point in time and sometimes it does not even resemble what our friends at the City Council will see. The final decisions are not made here. We make the recommendation to the City Council so please follow, continue to follow your issue and I have a feeling you will. Thank you all for coming. 39 October 15, 1994 CITY OF OHANE-iL'. EN Chanhassen Planning Commission City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1. _ 1l 1.rr. � .... f. / il��_• Re: Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition .... " =' ,. 6330 Murray Hill Road To Planning Commission Members: Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting scheduled on 10/19/94 to review the proposed development referred to as Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition. I would like you to review this letter in lieu of my testimony at the meeting as I have genuine concerns about the project. It is also my understanding that the Developer has an option to purchase another piece of property at 6398 Murray Hill Road (one address south of 6330 Murray Hill Road and directly north of my property) that is subject to his success at getting approval for the 6330 project. The biggest single issue is that the proposed development is completely inconsistent with the density configuration on Murray Hill Road. It is replacing one house on the lot with four. If you extrapolate that proposal to the other "Optioned" property (6398 Murray Hill Road) the equivalent proposal would replace one house with five or six homes. That would mean within less than 500 feet you would be putting in 9 or 10 homes were 2 currently exist. The result of approving this project as it is currently proposed would result in the following problems: 1. A substantial increase in auto traffic. Approximately 4 cars will be replaced by 20. 2. Increased risk to the children in the neighborhood. 3. Loss of a substantial number of mature trees and other foliage. 4. The irony would be that after living through all the mess, noise and nuisance of the construction process the result to the current neighbors would be a decline in property values (particularly Pleasant Hill) and a markedly less attractive neighborhood than currently exists. I recognize that both properties are large enough to support more than one home and still maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. I would not oppose a reasonable proposal, consistent with the neighborhood ( i.e. 2 homes on the 6330 property and 3 home on the 6398 property). The currently proposed development would detract significantly from the area, be unsafe and Unfair to those who currently own property in the neighborhood. I assume that as a matter of standard operating procedure, either the Planning Commission or the City Council, prepare a credit review of any developer who proposes a project in the City of Chanhassen. If by chance you do not do so, it would be prudent to incorporate a financial check into the process. I have concerns generated by the nature of how Hoben Corporation is trying to acquire these two properties. All they have are options to purchase to both pieces of property and consequently limited financial exposure if you reject the proposed development. It seems obvious that the only way Hoben Corporation can afford to pay the current property owners their asking price is if a project is approved that is completely inconsistent to the neighborhood. I have learned over the years that when there is little or no monetary risk to the beneficiary of a project (as is the case here) it usually merits very close investigation. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read this letter and to take my concerns into account when you review this project. I am very disappointed that I could not change a long standing commitment inoder to be at the meeting. If it were possible I definitely would be at the meeting. Thank you for your sensitivity to my concerns. Sincerely, •ert H. Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road 474-9129 CITY 4F -2' PC DATE: Sept. 7, 1994 \�\I G CHANHASSEN CC DATE: Sept. 26, 1994 CASE#: 87-3 PUD,94-7 SPR WET • STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Site Plan Approval forte 48 Units (I5 24 structures) Owner Occupied Twin Homes Multifamily Development Z 2) Preliminary Plat Approval to subdivide 9.7 acres into 31- 49 lots Q 3) Wetland Alteration V J LOCATION: West of Powers Boulevard, north and south of Lake Susan Hills Drive., Powers Place Q APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corporation 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 PRESENT ZONING PUD, Planned Unit Development ACREAGE: 9.7 acres DENSITY: SA 5.0 u/a (gross) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - PUD; Single Family Homes S - PUD; Single Family Homes QE - PUD;Prairie Knoll Park, Prairie Creek Townhomes, 1— vacant outlot for medium density town homes and L. Powers Boulevard Q W - PUD; Single Family Homes WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has steep slopes on the west side of the property. It contains a heavily vegetated area in the center. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Medium Density Residential . • 111 a. .. N� _ �r - .- -ARAq�'.5 a' -tr \ __. // \ 0. -� I MEADOW / •y . �`��A r~ 4 LAKE ANN GREQV - :K r—= 1- ��_ ..,1_y��op �� R IY�i� C bit*4 mow -1..-x �,•� a., =�,! :=..y ►_-rte•......„ - .. RSF-- ....• • _ --- i R4 . ft. , -- - i. 2 l AKE ri,..„ , . ,_ ,, _ . ANN PARK , [i , �� d ,� ...iii ial •� -� 4116RR " ~� r R12 F � �:�-� .. Cz •moi •�:ra .o, ►• GRIM AO PERIEIrtr. L-41:17 ,. -----7-:;-; t• ' iins, mu .' D, i eri7...m 6-3-6. IA PIPX:........_ . 9: h IOP110• __ r-• {.�`• • - _.,,:) .iiii, 0 0 0 \ t. , No _ - ...du - • �� '�� IOP ......... ,...._ rpnvii_ _____ _-- 4:i a �.� _as SU 4 gni•:.�� ' •• �r' PARK ` %u.i�, t . . - ri. Pil 41114L.Mlle 6.1111 PA Z L 3 — .. G„awl,. :� "� _ •^j' 0 .*eh: h��r•`f r_.., – LANE SUSAN _ UD - '— • �UD f s -� d!� c..' RD A�cE /'�' �rr1 .....�, ;/ ti, -\ der/ \\1' NE ..*,•,* i. a .I,:ill: r.,40:7.z.„-- - ...1 • I \id i '�s ♦. Vir .O;PARK I 4 �� RSF, :-= ,' ' v; k11 �._ �.. - E ...---- ,- .`;\ DI NI 4t01 • 43,,,V.„„.4,71. • 3 300:—i —� LYrA- -.Oh ' - . -" _--1 1 -wit-ci., gly ".'*frlik''''''4.'‘'‘'\:e.• - 1 �'"` , • MHS PARK, "- R y�./ PUD-R- - O I BAA.,MfAc i= _________H ---~ BAMO:M ": ,� ' • I _ LAA• II c , ✓ MPR 4, _ SF � RILEY z A2 - � � = ' ice' I iI . I .. ..-- 1....._ ' Watt 0 i I i ' 1 .. Q � MMI 'gaWA oQo�v j i �o ... �..- — --� a , A2 / _ - \ , M;r i .C,.. BLUFF -it, 1 CREEK I s,,y PaRKA \ _ _ �, r.:l iP , N. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 2 This item appeared before the Planning Commission on September 7, 1994. The Planning Commission tabled action on the application and directed the applicant to work with staff to provide additional information regarding retaining walls,landscaping,wetlands,grading, and safety issues. This staff report has been modified to address these issues. New information will appear in bold and old information will be struck out. The applicant will be providing a scaled model as well as samples of building materials at the meeting. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Jasper Development, is requesting preliminary plat and site plan approval to construct a 343 48 unit townhome housing project on Outlot B. Outlot B was designated as a medium density site as part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD approval. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and to be located on 36 48 zero lot line parcels. The housing style and density generally falls under the townhome development type buildings. The 9.7 acre site is located west of Powers Boulevard and north and south of Lake Susan Hills Drive. The gross density is 34- 5.0 units per acre. Access will be provided by-twe a private street located on community property (Lot 51 Outlot A)-will-be-designeted-as-an-eutiet-and owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The site is currently zoned PUD-R8, Medium Density Residential and utilities are available for the area. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive. There will be two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns define the entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. 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 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 site 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 exceed 9.3 units/acre and also states that the impervious surface coverage of Outlot B cannot exceed 30%. It would almost be impossible to reach 9.3 units/acre with an impervious surface coverage of not more than 30%. Throughout the staff reports and Planning Commission/City Council Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 3 minutes for the original approval, it was stated that 9.3 was the maximum density allowed and the applicant was not guaranteed this density. The proposed30 48 units result in density of-54-5.0 units/acre. The impervious surface coverage is--34 35%. Therefore, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract but is below the R-8 zoning district standards (35%). The applicant is aware of the situation mainly because the same situation took place with the prior development, Prairie Creek twinhomes. In that case, the PUD allowed a 31% hard surface coverage, and the applicant was permitted 24 units which required a 40% hard surface coverage. Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 district. There are some changes that will need to take place on the plat. The proposed landscaping needs to be improved. Staff requests that the applicant provide extensive landscaping and berms to screen the development from Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the single family residents west of the site. There should also be increased internal landscaping. A petition from the some of the neighbors in Lake Susan Hills West subdivision has been presented to city staff. The petition raises several issues. The main concern is what does the city benefit from this type of development. Staff believes the issues raised can be resolved as the development evolves. In addition, the development is under the density allowed with the original PUD agreement. The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended that the applicant pay park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication. Staff is recommending approval of the application with conditions outlined in the report. 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. One of the outlots (Outlot C) designated for medium density units was platted in April 1993 for 24 units. The remaining 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 (9.7 acres), C (4.4 acres) and D (7.9 acres) were designated for medium density development. The PUD contract states 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 Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 4 9.3 units/acre. To date, only 24 units have been approved, leaving a total number of dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property of 197. 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 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. SITE PLAN APPROVAL General Site Plan/Architecture The site is 9.7 acres with a gross density of-4 5.0 units per acre. The- 4 5.0 units per acre is under the allowed PUD density of 9.3 units per acre and the R-8 ordinance of 8 units/acre. The applicant is proposing to develop this site with-50 48 owner occupied units. The current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing stands of trees on the site must be preserved. The proposed townhomes are attractive. There will be two twinhome types designed for this site. The Voyager (1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portion of the site. The Itaska (1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portion of the site. Both units will have vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding on gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors to add texture. Overhangs with columns define the entrances. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment will be provided. A homeowners association will be established to maintain the site and units and enforce their covenants and restrictions. Staff is recommending that the applicant introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Staff is also recommending the introduction of some elements to the roof design to break up the large spans. PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN APPROVAL Lots/Density The applicant is proposing to subdivide 9.7 acres of property zoned PUD-R into-5048 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 B 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 2 such outlots left) could not exceed an overall density of 9.3 units/acre, and specifically, Outlot B (subject site) could not exceed 30% Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 5 impervious surface coverage. The proposed 48 lots are located in clusters north and south of the site. The lot sizes are 2,464 square feet per lot.as-€ellows Lots 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10. and 27 through 50 4,260 sgeare feet. The townhome lots are located within a larger community owned parcel, shown as Let 51 Outlot A on the preliminary plat. Lot 51 Outlot A contains the private streets and open space. Staff The density of the site is 5.1 5.0 units/acre (gross). Since it is a townhome development with private streets 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-34 35%. The PUD contract stated that the density could not exceed 9.3 units/acre and that the impervious could not exceed 30%. As stated previously, the density is not as high as it could be, but the impervious coverage exceeds the PUD contract but is below the R-8 zoning district standards (35%). Staff will be recommending the applicant be permitted a maximum hard surface coverage of 35% as permitted in the R-8 ordinance. 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 B to be-34 35% The twinhome units are maintaining a 25' setback form Powers Boulevard, Lake Susan Hills Drive and the existing single family lots to the west (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 street. Eight units are located within the southerly portion of the site and will be served via a-r private street. The northerly portion of the site will contain the remaining 44 40 units and will be served via the same private street. - . •• • - -- - - - - - • - - Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE Ordinance PUD Project Proposal Hard Surface Coverage 35% 31% 3435% Setback from Collector 25 feet NA 25 Internal Private Streets NA NA NA Density 8 units 9.3 units 345.0 Landscaping and Tree Preservation The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan. The applicant has proposed saving the majority of the existing stand of trees located within the southerly quarter of the site. All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous with a collector street. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Powers Boulevard. Appropriate financial security will be required. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. This stand of trees has a total canopy coverage of 1.35 acres, or 16%. The landscaping ordinance requires a minimum of 20% canopy coverage. Based on the grading plan, it appears that some of the trees will be lost due to grading. The following constitutes our calculation of the required forestation and tree replacement: There is a 14% baseline canopy coverage (1.35 acre). Tree canopy within a designated wetland is excluded from calculation. The required post development canopy coverage is 20% or a total of 1.94 acres of tree canopy. To meet the minimum canopy coverage requirements, the developer would need to develop a forestation plan for 0.59 acres (1.94-1.35) which would require the planting of 24 trees (0.59 x 40). In addition, because the developer is removing canopy coverage that is required to meet their minimum canopy coverage, they must replace the removed canopy area at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy coverage area being removed. Since the applicant did not provide these calculations, staff has estimated that the removed canopy coverage area is approximately 0.48 acre. The replacement planting is then calculated at 0.57 acres (0.48 x 1.2). Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 7 The number of trees required for replacement planting is calculated at 23 trees (0.57 x 40). The total tree planting requirement as part of the development for forestation and tree replacement is 47 trees. The PUD agreement states that 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. The proposed landscaping plan do not provide adequate landscaping along the west edge of the property. The agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. Street lighting for the interior private streets is not shown on the site plan. Staff is recommending that before this item goes to the City Council, that a street lighting plan be prepared for staff review. Street lights will be required in accordance to City standards along the private streets. Street Names In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Building Setbacks The building codes requires that walls for single family, dwellings within three feet of the property line be of one hour fire resistive construction with no openings. The building code .. ... . .. . . . . --- - -• - . - - . . • WETLANDS Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 8 Four wetlands were staked and surveyed on the site by a qualified wetland delineator. All of the wetlands are classified as ag/urban since the area has been disturbed due to previous construction activities. The following information describes the isolated wetlands on site: a. Wetland 1 is 16,627 square feet (0.4 acre) in size and is located along the northern edge of the property. This wetland will not be impacted as a result of the proposed project. b. Wetland 2 is 1,083 square feet (0.02 acre) in size and is an isolated pocket located on Lots 1 and 2 of Block 7. This wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development. c. Wetland 3 is 240 square feet (0.01 acre) in size and is located at the inlet of a 24-inch culvert on the northern portion of the site that carries runoff under Powers Boulevard to a pond in the Lake Susan Hills Development. This wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development. d. Wetland 4 is 1,140 square feet (0.03 acre) in size and is located at the inlet of a 24- inch culvert on the southern portion of the site that carries runoff under Powers Boulevard to a pond in the Lake Susan Hills Development. This wetland will be filled as a result of the proposed development. Buffer Strip A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. The buffer strip width required for an aglurban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Alteration/Mitigation The city recommends that the applicant first try to avoid impacts to wetlands. If avoidance it-5. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 9 -- • - - • :. .'. •-• •• • ::- - - . . Y" .. :. - . - - regttifed Mitigation of the impacted wetlands is necessary at a ratio of 2:1 under both the City Wetland Ordinance and the Wetland Conservation Act. Half of the mitigation will be a created wetland constructed adjacent to the existing Wetland 1 on-site. The other half of the wetland will be purchased from the City from the banking credits that will be created from the restoration project for the County Road 17 reconstruction project southeast of the site. Staff thinks that contribution to the restoration project will provide more natural resource benefit to the City than to create a small wetland on-site. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) formal adoption. The SWN4P will serve as a tool to protea, preserve and enhance water _ . .. _ . . - . . . .. .. :. :. _ . , . , - sets of improvements under fell develepment were analyzed to de • • • . -: • . . : :- : - ::" - - - . . . The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 10 water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply final drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post- developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post- development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall be in accordance to the City's SWMP. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-developed and post-developed conditions. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWIM has established a user fee for water quality systems. Dedication will be-equal-to-the - a The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been calculated at $1530 per acre for a multi-family (townhome) residential development. This proposed development of 9.3 acres would then be $14,229. This includes a land cost estimate of $24,000 per acre and excavation fees. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 11 Storm Water Quantity Fees �. . • • • . .. - •- •- . .. - . - - • - .-- The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Medium density developments will have a connection charge of$2,975 per developable acre. The proposed medium density development of 9.3 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$27,668. A credit would be given to the applicant for the installation of the 21-inch storm sewer along Powers Boulevard. The credit would be for the cost difference for the oversizing of the storm sewer. Staff will review and calculate the credit after reviewing the storm drainage calculations. DRAINAGE „to tho etland -- _ • - . •. . - . _. • • - . - •- - . ' - . -. • - . . . - - • _.. - - • - , . - . . - - - .. . S.. - ! . . .. , • • - . . - - . . _- • _ S . -- •• . . - - .• . . . - . . - .. _- • . . . . • • - - - • . _ •- - . . . . . - . - .. Y. . . - ... .. .. . .' . - • - 1 -:- - - - -. - - - -. . - . . • Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 12 pond shall be sized in accordance with the city's Surface Water Management Plan. Any . .. • .. . . •- • :. :•-: • - . - - - - . .. .- - r. . . • • - - . . •:- -•- • •. - • - from the proposed streets. Staff recommends that prior to final platting, the applicant and his access to the site. The sediment trap adjacent to the wetland on the northern end of the parcel is sufficient to trap the heavy sediments before it enters the wetland. The existing 24" storm sewer underneath Powers Boulevard has been extended and upgraded in conjunction with Joe Miller's Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition. In addition, Joe Miller's development constructed water quality basins to pretreat the runoff from this development and others prior to discharging into the wetlands downstream. If the existing storm sewers underneath Powers Boulevard cannot handle the 100-year storm, however, appropriate ponding will be necessary to maintain the desired level of flood protection for the area until the storm sewer system is upgraded with the construction of Powers Boulevard improvements. Staff will require stormwater calculations prior to final plat concerning this issue. The applicant is proposing drainage swales to convey runoff from a portion of the streets into the county ditch. This will require a permit from the Carver County Highway Department. Carver County has retained BRW in preparing detailed construction plans for the upgrade and widening of Powers Boulevard to an urban street section. This work will also include installation of storm sewers which will convey runoff from this development. Prior to final platting, the applicant and his engineer should meet with the city, county and BRW to discuss and coordinate the specifics on pond design and access to the site. GRADING range from g' to 14' in height. Staff is also concerned with the height of these walls from a Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 13 units along Powers Boulevard. Staff suggested, at a minimum, to rearrange Lots 1 $, Block 1 southerly cul de sac bubble, in an effort to pull the units dawn off the hill side. This may result - - . . • • - . . . - .. : . . . •- • . - . - .. . - . . - . •: - : _ . - . . .. . • . - -- - - . . . • 6: - . . . `: : . . - .. - . -, -_ .. _ . . - . • - .. . • . _. - - . . _ - • • . . - ... . . . •: _ .- - .. . . . - . . . . . • -- . .. . - . - .. . . - 11' . . . • well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individua . •• • .• . . - - bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the Fetai-ning ill is 9' high. the limits of . . • . .' .. - -. - - . - Y.• • • - ... . . The site is almost entirely associated with steep slopes and is difficult to develop without extensive site grading and retaining walls. In addition, with the lot configuration along with the trees it is difficult to expand the grading limits to soften the slopes. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls to minimize grading and combine construction limits to within the property limits. The applicant has suggested potentially staggering the walls to reduce the height. As proposed, the retaining walls range from 2' to 6' in height, significantly lower than proposed. Building codes require engineered drawings of retaining walls in excess of 5' in height. In an effort to break up the row house effect along Powers Boulevard, the applicant has redesigned the street layout. Staff believes this layout is a better proposal. This would provide for some screening along Powers Boulevard and break up the row effect of houses adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The applicant has also eliminated the southerly access onto Powers Boulevard by extending the private street south to service the 4 lots. This reduces one of the safety and neighborhood concerns regarding U-turns. With the anticipated lot grading into the side of the hill, it is most likely subsurface drainage will be exposed and need to be dealt with by means of drain tile and/or storm Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 14 sewers. The applicant should be prepared to install minimum drain tiles along the perimeters of the retaining walls as well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individual units to discharge their sump pump into. Installation of retaining walls along the wooded area will require tie backs into the bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the retaining wall is 6' high, the limits of construction will extend 6' back from the base of the wall. This will involve additional tree loss which may not have been anticipated by the applicant. EROSION CONTROL .. - •. Handbook for erosion control measures. "' urbed areas, as a result of coRse=uction, shall be seeded- and mulched or sodded shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. The current grading plan shows Type I erosion control around the culverts at Powers Boulevard and around the edge of the large wetland. Type III erosion control is recommended for these areas. Staff also recommends additional Type I erosion control adjacent to Powers Boulevard. The plans should be revised accordingly. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. UTILITIES - ' - - - - - - - r- . • - - - - to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation, maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in - ' . ° - N. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 15 The site is easily serviced by sanitary sewer and water service from along Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service along the private driveway to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation, maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in conformance with the city's latest edition of standards, specifications and detailed plates. The city's Building Department will be monitoring the inspection and permit issuance for the utility installation portion of the project. Fire hydrant layout shall be in accordance with the city's Fire Marshal's recommendations. STREETS . . - - - - points. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Pewers- Boulevard iJ • .. .- Y. •. . - . ! .. . . -• - • .... .. . . . .. .. • . .. . . - , .. - .. S. .: - - •- . . , - - - I • . . • • - ' - . . - . .. - • . . - - • . '. - S .. - .. .. - - - - - .. - - .. - . .. . . .. .. . - ::•- - approved by Carver County. Safety concerns such as sight distance will be looked at to •• • . . . •. - ! .. - . .. - - -- -- . . -- -'. _. . - . - •- - ! - - which has been related in the staff report (see attached). Access to the site has been redesigned. The southerly access point has been eliminated and the private street extended to serve the southerly lots. Staff recommends that the curves in the south street be "softened" to accommodate public safety vehicles' turning movements. Since Powers Boulevard is a county road, Carver County Highway Department has jurisdiction on access points. Staff has met with the County Engineer and determined the proposed access is acceptable. Auxiliary turn lanes will be provided with the upgrade of Powers Boulevard including a full median access. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Powers Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial (Class II). The required right-of-way for this type of street system is 100 feet. The right-of-way as shown on the plans indicates a 150 foot corridor which is more than adequate for an urban 4 lane roadway system. Carver County Public Works Department has contracted with BRW for design services for the upgrading and widening of Powers Boulevard. In any case, the applicant shall be required to construct the driveway approaches to be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 16 The Planning Commission requested staff to review traffic concerns such as speed, traffic control,turning movements and pedestrian crossings. Staff recently met with BRW and the Carver County Engineer regarding these concerns. The new speed limit along Powers Boulevard will be either posted at 40 or 45 MPH. This is due to the street design, traffic volume and street function. There are not signalized intersections proposed other than at Trunk Highway 5. None of the intersections will meet the necessary criteria to warrant a traffic signal or four-way stop. Elimination of the southerly access reduces the safety concern regarding U-turns. A full access including turn lanes is being provided with the upgrade of Powers Boulevard to access the site. A trailway will be provided on both sides of Powers Boulevard with an underground pedestrian crossing at the existing culvert located north of Lake Susan Hills Drive and south of Lake Drive East. Staff has raised the neighborhood concerns regarding pedestrian crossing at the park and Lake Susan Hills Drive intersections to the County Engineer for consideration. MISCELLANEOUS maintained free and clear amend the city teles, fire 110r-tants and- gate vies from a • - r.- - . . - . the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures. The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows numerous plantings and berms within the city's drainage and utility easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. This area needs to be maintained free and clear around the city manholes, fire hydrants and gate valves from a maintenance standpoint. The applicant may work with staff in redesigning a landscape and berming plan that would be compatible with the city's maintenance responsibilities. Landscaping within the drainage and utility easement would be subject to an encroachment agreement whereby the city would not be responsible for replacing any landscape materials that may be lost due to the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures. The house sites adjacent to Powers Boulevard are approximately 10 feet from the City's utility lines. The applicant should be made aware that no decks or portions of the dwelling will be allowed to encroach upon the City's easement. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 17 EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. 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 1/2 park fees. No park land will be required with this proposal. RECOMMENDATION PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD#87-3 and Site Plan Review#94-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street. 2. Change Lot 51 to Outlot A. 2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing powers boulevard, through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span. 4. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. 5. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of park land dedication. 7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 18 8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. 9. A lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. 10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site. 11. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. _. - - i Y. 12. Fire Marshal conditions: a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. • b. Submit new street names for review and approval. c. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. 13. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 15. All utility efid—msFeet improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The street shall be constructed in accordance to the city's private driveway Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 19 ordinance for multifamily zoning (Ordinance #209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. • .-- - •, • - - • • • -- -•- • -- •• - •• -- • - • • - 18. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 21. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 22. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 20 23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 25. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. 26. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 27. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 30. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the City's drainage and utility easements. 31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to accommodate public safety vehicle turning movements. 32. The plat should be redesigned as follows: u. The northerly cul de sac shifted to effset to the east. b. The street system realigned to provide meandering streetscape. c. Realign -Lots 1 8, Block I parallel to one another and slide the westerly units (Lots 3 6, Block 1) east. d. Remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. of Powers Boulevard." Powers Place September 7, 1994 Page 21 PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat PUD #87-3 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of PUD and site plan." ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced concept PUD. 2. PUD contract. 3. Narrative from applicant. 4. Letter dated August 31, 1994 from neighbors. 5. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated August 30, 1994. 6. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated August 22, 1994. 7. Memo from Mark Littfin dated August 10, 1994. 8. Draft copy of Declaration of Covenants. 9. Retaining wall cross section. 10. Planning Commission minutes dated September 7, 1994. 11. Plans dated September 23, 1994. • tom• ii. 0 , .A Lam•.j�(-t 1 6/ T L� ' 0......‘ IC. / �� 0 a-� CITY Po Q le_ L OUTLOT A �I I L�/' 1.16.1 INC Vso T... O e...DC•.Pi rte` �O • a1L (S,z s e41B 7 LI.S,o.,G. A � �� pp _ 01 ��w 3rd fit• I �$II %a o �:" - �•"____ ,,,,,,,,a, ,�," 11ea ,4► otrrLoy ft. MN 1111111M WA 2 -, ,..,/<;4:5,4y;::,%ttilk V 45g Wroo , fr ILO(Ira mu) r f, 11112MIMI frr. Cli yr Till �� ag �jtr$st Agoilk CoQ IMO �� aes 11 i I� a ee1111101e�� Vie �-� s /� itoo---, �� m iligglimg ; . Ern woo_ "wog. goo 1 111111 11111P 411* 4: In MIN Ali WE .f51 4r ....,Kim - MI WA111013 P.Th ' •Iff ..." - - It..,,v,,, , . ., • . La 0 //is 111110 ; /4'.' ')7 , , 44P v ....,47, .. : , iitiL. AAA* atto 110 i 0 ItTe,, Aipm Ilv.i 6 wit 44ZAi v.1: IV ' :: ......--.....".. ��:..1100.4,41141111111 ikalp erre.14114011) • � / , .a= dmeoe �� 4�a1"1•ti.Crt :11.1t 411111P l 17./V pui�fG `V, S /� j�! Dc , , On 11 tL`.`. Ma.t....•NN 1M Q a •�i17 j /Wit I.I.. /NI sell.rJ IIu.MT 14* l; `` ` 4 d M ..n...J 611=e al c",LI tl•.IUI I.I. V^ ` ` !' O ` •NA..•1 l ~ C .•w .!.or r V1� ```\ /. t/1 /It••C. ..reser• .fl.ser I. V Leer••I•. t. \ '� n �lTl llt MO 11..K. • •wse..•1.•...r•.«r.•••••r J ` �� II./•t. IPea ..1..111•1. .�.....••••••• Irr I...NTI I.O.4••I .•••.••... ....... •::I \` tet... Ma K. •l!r•.-erre 1•.11. .•I.•w•.••f/44 ll 1 ((/ J� ` .Nall .M.•K. 11:: Ir 1w... Se•1M t.• r qr ..44 M.r 1.•.8 ,'Ire.w.• •«. .. 10;1 I 4 r ,�/ I I , ` PI.I.L..101 14.11 ...e 0..0...4. t .• erre«..t.«.:�4.». A «�____ad , . •M:•••4••rl..•r•.. .••.•.• I 1 J I IN'•IM WON 1.I. •Kt 601 11.1N I.I.WI•11110!•••■ .••.«•..••••••••». 1114 Coos"•w••... LVM04`! t....'...71 �� \ IV .....t.NNN fly 4jA.64. _ •••••••./.1; S I•N •T•. .••:::::•••• .rM•r• f . r. .I~4..•W.••. sew••. »•l.•i1 I. . .., / i2 _ _ .M•.N'/.•.•./N••N•t 11 . nP Na.CR .......7.; ATTA cr>'inE�v7 -� James R. Hill ince11 .N-p -.I� • _•••I• r N••. _-_«— / l�Rt Aug.**1Illus ��ATM<ASMI� lam[[ Mimi MIIU 1_"�`r -` 1....lr PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS tem;NM•w■,... b... ATT-A.CAAVII.XMLi-,17 ki 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 dwelliniXemats9f NOV 1 9 i387 r11 /16/87 CITY OF cCHANNAsSE,y �-A J / 77A 1,71 E/1 rr'- 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- • ie 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-sacswhen 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- 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- 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 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. -7- /� 5 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: c"----4-f--?-1, �:,'� -�v►-7 C1 A partner JAMES A. CURRY 5Q/ C.tNUI 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 OFA'.:': ,,-C x... ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / day of, •�/ !�/.•�%,.� 1987, by ��;�.;� .;� ;�� c iv a partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnership on, its behalf. • 1. .: ` .. BARBARA FIS HEA NOTARY PUBLIC ✓ fL NOTARY FU:LI^ _ miNNESQTA :` W HENNE?IN r;C�. NTY �1 fly Comrmswon upiros Baty 10 1:92 -8- - STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ,.i t. ( ss. -. COUNTY OF '-tt.`� . ) ..,• .::....... .. . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I day of Dfcer,h•,.: , 1987, by JAMES A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife. /-,NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: Grannis, Grannis, Farrell & Knutson, P.A. 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul , MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 • C� yyr OWNER/DEVELOPER Jasper Development 235 West let Street Waconia, MN 55387 SURVEYOR/ENGINEER REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Narrative for POWERS PLACE POWERS PLACE will be a 50 lot single family twin home 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 total parcel is 9.7 acres with individual townhone lots varying from 2,130 square feet to 2, 190 square feet. The units are served by two street connections to Powers Blvd. One cul-de- sac and street connection serves 8 units on the south end. A tee shaped street with two cul-de-sacs serves the remaining 42 units. This layout was developed after discussions with City Staff. Mature trees are saved by having two connections to Powers Blvd. and not developing the area between the two southerly cul-de-sacs. Powers Blvd. sanitary sewer will serve the site from an existing 8" line. A new manhole is required at the north end on the existing line for connections. An existing manhole will be used in connection of the southerly cul-de-sac. Each unit will be eewered separately with a 6" P.V.C. service. Water service is provided by three connections to the water lines within Powers Blvd. ditch. 6" watermain will be. looped through the northern portion of site tying into Powers Blvd on both ends. 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 on the east side. All storm sewer will be RCP. The drainage will be directed to the north end of the site to a sedimentation pond. The pond is sized using NURP standards. Treated runoff is then directed through storm sewer to a 24" culvert which crosses Powers Blvd. to the east. Grading will be done over the entire site at this time to balance the excavating and dispose or make use of existing materials. The site varies from 916 on the east to 952 on the west. All silt fence and ponding must be in place prior to starting grading operations. Topsoil varies from 1.6 feet to 2. 6 feet in depth with poorer soils being encountered in the lower part of the site. Fill has been placed or. part of the site. Soil correction is required 4. 5 feet below existing grade at 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. 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 mass 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. HPCA 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. Two twinhome types have been designed specifically for this site to take advantage of the existing topography and landscape, and to complement and enhance the neighborhood as a whole. The Voyageur(1280 sq. ft.) is a slab on grade design and will be used on the flatter portions of the site. It features an upper level master bedroom and an open first floor plan with vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The Itaska(1140 sq. ft.) is a walkout design accommodating the steeper portions of the site. It includes a first floor master bedroom as well as vaulted living, dining and kitchen areas. The lower level will provide space for optional bedroom and family room areas. Both unit types feature premium quality maintenance free vinyl siding and a light dimensional asphalt shingle roof. Shingle style siding at gables, continuous white banding, and use of complementary siding colors add texture and interest and serve to scale down the massing. Deep overhangs with columns define the entrances and add rhythm and depth to the facade. Cupolas, gridded vinyl windows with wide trim, columns with trim at base and capital, and optional decks with similar treatment add the final touches in providing a traditional flavor to these twinhomes. August 31, 1994 Chanhassen Planning Commission Chanhassen, Minnesota The Lake Susan Hills West community met informally Monday August 29 in the Tom Rasmussen home. This gathering of concerned citizens was prompted by a Twin home development proposed by the Jasper Development company. The general concerns voiced at this meeting included: child safety, health, traffic congestion, quality of life, the local ecology and the possible structural damage to existing homes. Out of this meeting came the universal question "what does the city or even our community gain from this development?" Our community is fortunate to have many children of the formative age. One of our concerns is the retaining wall planned at between 8' - 14' high to separate existing homes from the new development. With the wall just 25' away from existing homes there is a very high potential for accidents to occur. For example, kids will naturally gravitate to the retaining walls and view it as a object to play around. What safeguards is the developer offering to protect our children? Also there is concern with the retaining wall falling as happened in Bloomington during the super storm of 1987. Many expressed concerns about who will fix it and be accountable for its upkeep. Association maintenance fees have not proven effective in this area. There are concerns about health regarding the "Sedimentation Pond" a.k.a. Retention Pool. Stagnant water is a natural breeding ground for mosquitoes. The Lacrosse Meningitis outbreak was traced back to mosquitoes bred in retention pools in Lacrosse Wisconsin. In addition, concerns were raised about the possibility of raising the water table in the Egret Court cul-de-sac where all homes have experienced problems with either water in their basements or severely cracked floors and foundations. The proposed development will result in four (4) driveways within a 1/2 mile and contribute to what is becoming a traffic safety issue. Once the High School is built on Pioneer Trail and the Byerly's construction is complete in town, County Rd. 17 will become a high traffic thoroughfare with the additional driveways adding to the congestion. Many residents chose lots specifically for the picturesque view it afforded of nature and the local wildlife. There is concern that what is currently a view of trees, wildflowers and wildlife will become a view of either a retaining wall or the rear of someone's dwelling. These dwellings should become a part of the natural setting and not detract from it. There is consensus the excavation method proposed could compromise the structural integrity of the homes located above the proposed development. The removal of such a large quantity of earth so close to the existing homes will cause shifting of foundations, resulting in cracks in floors and foundation walls. Who should the residents hold accountable? What steps are Jasper Development taking to ensure this doesn't happen? The residents feel if there is to be development of this land the planning commission should ensure development is done correctly to the benefit of the community and not just the expediency of the developer. Along with the concerns the residents offer the following recommendations: . Decrease the number of units to prevent densification and traffic congestion. . Increase the value of the units to promote stability within the development. . Expand and utilize the retention pond northeast of Lake Susan Hill Drive and County Road 17 to service this development. . Require more "Green Space"- preserve wooded area and as much nature as possible. . Require berms with trees and shrubs instead of retaining walls with fencing. . Require maintenance free exterior. . Institute the same maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills West. . Provide additional recreational space for Powers Place and Lake Susan Hills West so residents are not forced to cross County Road 17 to use available recreational facilities. In conclusion, we look forward to the September 7 Planning Commission meeting at which we intend to pursue this matter further. Lake Susan Hills West Community PN:SL ATT: Lake Susan Hills Community Petition Lake Susan Hills West Community NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER h-1 kr k `'J g C:cancvl S'44/ r�ret Ct. 3G-G-ci5ci4 0-,------(11)1 5(1y-k,___ _ raj rye.t C ` 3(.E 35ac ,y,/4 k pe . Ye/2 i c 3&8 3S 2-() ,} 12 1 '` bt,t,t, 1✓r,ti j 5 / a-� S-S' 'i (4, f f 5 -0 c.„, _.q ''�Y- �1:� . .,� c_—, 1a V/j 'y� o.- , e&a 0/r--�Ge-� -� , •)_ - _) _-s i1K Sql 01 lcirLi' Dy«i) : - a kP-3 • TELEPH s DISCUSSION NOTES GoMONTGOMERY WATSON • Subject: / ji�4N /1/244 Gv •ST-�O2/liCiA//r"#,•/ef"'Si776,✓ Discussion: /-/hPE ,,g1'-ic:: /-7 ,v — / ; f /A<yThs<-, C1 yy -3 .�� Pq.��'_ \) ,� r. 8s-bo MerlvosEr ;.r-L /Re- SL/75- 0, i U, i 1` Vw ct. JC (cih:. ov\ c6S%I t-ler` a - Lit-IS -21o0`1 t.+5_j y L.)/ . ,-AE) )k(A)3 /61/ La A 5u5,52,t I ice Y4a-- 67... �_ ` )& e 26L JSzl L,. Soso 4Vtk Dr . 36g -Li 32-1 err' 70Ppr•3 g96/ ?Ecicei.) G. WS- G y0 7 r , v) yr W i I IIGm S 153) LK. Susav, 14I CJs Dr `(yg= I SO S sw. , ov.. 0- Z-c b-e t t (--)C 1 1 5ox., Ef;(C5 D r '8'.-kitAif R:J}L' Pier-e, 11/ & . 0..S041 geU3 1)r QS/- Le5 _fiziit itA'Lco/,) ,R11//66I2F7' r. y /6c PAIF_AUy4AJN SouvAti,vAc47-hz /(o/ L01,6, susa., h;i2sj,- 3ci- 9J39 m /ice ic-cl /5_ c_k._ ,Sr_,scr,--t ,,!7/ O.` 3c b - v,36, c, ode_ Sc-J.,e., kr 1230 L.41-0 5j54N nIL-4--c bi- 3(03'-33'17 A4---/ ,c✓-c- / /,S-A7 - Js.9p✓ car Z.e. a6 8-516 __7 3 0,,e6 �Gf'le c /5 7//9,Ze_e sysy„ c s SZ -7/6.3 c C��yr. r vert(,(-- I30j L �1, cr� 7L /Jc fir. Y(1?-69SO L JERG- R . EL P-181 LAKE SUN wills CR 3( S- 319 I , M �. . CA,-, C',, .: : rr ` ..? j- j,cjhe. . ..i5ah VI,Ii5 Dr Ag - 33q7 TPrfy f�c i� � �S`iSI Pe- I.c(..x cc.J.-4- 144+ - 7611 MontgomerylWatson Party Other Party Project Name: Company Name: Project No.: Billable? Yes, No Address: Employee Name: Phone No. ( ) Date: Time: Person Name: Call Placed by: Montgomery Watson Other Party GO-60 Lake Susan Hills West Community NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NUMBER ! ','/ '-, , ' ,'s� ( - 1 •of-/ -1 /- .r'l, r-. :i_ „lia2 _.i, : i :‘,..2-. Ig:o ?c, ', 4 ..)____, .:(1-'c O Pai. A-i-,_ (17Z. 4 4_(7z.{ , -i.. ic, �� All � y�- �.--- /iso La ke S03c �► Us 1 3Gc - 74-111`i L ,, -�'i\t., "1` k kttt, .5(:_c_thq 11& r ?'"6 2-' + `l CITY TF 04:4'40r. . CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer % ;� DATE: August 30, 1994 SUBJ: Powers Place - Jasper Development Corporation - LUR File 94-19 Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated August 1, 1994 and prepared by Rehder and Associates, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS The City's Wetland inventory identifies one ag/urban wetland on the northern boundary of the property. This wetland has been significantly altered, however, the wetland should not be impacted further without proper mitigation. There is another low lying area in the middle of the site that was identified on the national wetlands inventory map that should be investigated too. The applicant should have a qualified wetland's delineator investigate the property and stake all existing wetlands on-site. These areas should be included on the grading and drainage plan. Buffer Strip A buffer strip is required around all wetlands in the City. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 2 Alteration/Mitigation The city recommends that the applicant first try to avoid impacts to wetlands. If avoidance is not possible, the applicant will have to follow the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), the city's Wetland Ordinance, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The city administers the WCA and the city's ordinance. The Army Corps of Engineers administers the Clean Water Act. If mitigation is necessary, it may be possible to coordinate mitigation activities with the Powers Boulevard reconstruction project. Keep in mind that half of the mitigation may be purchased in the city's wetland restoration bank that is being established as part of the road project. The other half of the required mitigation has to be replaced in upland. This area should be on-site or purchased. The farther away the purchased land for mitigation, the more mitigation that is required. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies. from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. Storm water runoff from the site shall maintain the pre- developed conditions for a 100-year, 24-hour storm duration. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 22-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 3 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for water quality systems. Dedication will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the applicant is proposing to construct water quality basins, these fees will be waived. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a user fee for different land uses based on average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Multi- family medium-density developments will have a fee of$2,975 per acre. Less wetland areas, the proposed development of acres of multi-family residential would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $28,857.00. The city will apply credits to the applicant's surface water quantity fees for construction of improvements in accordance with SWMP which include such items as outlet control devices, trunk storm sewer pipes, ponding, land dedication, etc. DRAINAGE The SWMP shows a utilized storm water pond along the northern boundary which qualifies as an existing wetland. It is recommended that this degraded basin be used as a storm water pond and the wetland be mitigated for off-site. If this is not possible, the wetland should be protected from further degradation and all storm water pretreated with a sediment trap prior to discharge into the wetland. The SWMP also shows a storm water quality basin in the general vicinity where their northerly access is proposed. This basin is necessary as part of this site development as well as containing off site runoff from the Lake Susan Hills development as well as possibly Powers Boulevard. The existing 24" storm sewer underneath Powers Boulevard has been extended and upgraded in conjunction with Joe Miller's Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition. In addition, Joe Miller's development constructed NURP basins to pretreat the runoff from this development and others prior to discharging into the wetlands downstream. This water quantity basin is important to maintain a desired level of flood protection for the area. It may be possible to relocate this proposed basin area with the existing wetland to the north and the whole system controlled by a storm sewer outlet and pipe system to the wetland in Joe Miller's development. The applicant has met with staff to discuss this possibility; however, the applicant needs to address this further with their engineer to see if it would be feasible. Individual catch basins are proposed within the private street for conveyance of storm water to the pond located in the northerly portion of Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 4 the site. The calculations shall use the 10 year 24 hour storm event for storm sewer sizing. The pond shall be sized in accordance with the city's Surface Water Management Plan. Any additional ponding area provided outside the required amount for this development will be credited back against the applicant's SWMP fees. The applicant is proposing drainage swales to convey runoff from a portion of the streets into the county ditch. This will require a permit from the Carver County Highway Department. It should be pointed out that at this stage, Carver County is working with BRW in preparing detailed construction plans for the upgrade and widening of Powers Boulevard to an urban street section. This work will also include installation of storm sewers which will pick up the runoff from the proposed streets. Staff recommends that prior to final platting, the applicant and his engineer should meet with the city, county and BRW to discuss the specifics on pond design and access to the site. GRADING The site is almost entirely associated with steep slopes and is difficult to develop without extensive site grading. In addition. with the lot configuration it is difficult to expand the grading limits to soften the slopes. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls to minimize grading and combine construction limits to within the property limits. The applicant has suggested potentially staggering the walls to reduce the height. As proposed, the retaining walls range from 8' to 14' in height. Staff is also concerned with the height of these walls from a safety standpoint. Building codes require engineered drawings of retaining walls in excess of 5' in height. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans and met with the applicant and shared the concerns with regard to the amount of site grading, retaining walls, and the row effect of building units along Powers Boulevard. Staff suggested, at a minimum, to rearrange Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the units to the east to minimize grading and tree loss. Staff also recommended that the northerly cul-de-sac be shifted to offset to the east, similar to the southerly cul-de-sac bubble, in an effort to pull the units down off the hill side. This may result in the loss of a unit. Staff also suggested an alternative, in an effort to break up the row house effect along Powers Boulevard, by placing the private driveway closer to Powers Boulevard and meandering the street and placing all the units to the west of the private driveway. This would provide for adequate screening along Powers Boulevard and break up the row effect of houses adjacent to Powers Boulevard. In addition, we believe it would not cause any more grading and in fact would most likely reduce the amount of grading and slopes to the west. The applicant expressed concerns that they would be losing desirable walk-out type units along Powers Boulevard, not to mention the loss of a number of units and anticipated equal amount of grading. With the anticipated lot grading into the side of the hill, it is most likely subsurface drainage will be exposed and need to be dealt with by means of drain tile and/or storm sewers. The applicant Sharrnin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 5 should be prepared to install minimum drain tiles along the perimeters of the retaining walls as well as behind the curb of the private streets for the individual units to discharge their sump pump into. Installation of retaining walls along the wooded area will require tie backs into the bank as high as the retaining wall is. For example, if the retaining wall is 9' high, the limits of construction will extend 9' back from the base of the wall. This will involve additional tree loss which may not have been anticipated by the applicant. EROSION CONTROL In conversations with the applicant's engineer, erosion control measures were inadvertently left off the grading plan at this time. Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and drainage plan and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to construction. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the city's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to prevent erosion. The catch basins prior to the first lift of asphalt shall be protected by means of hay bales or silt fence. UTILITIES The site is easily serviced by sanitary sewer and water service from along Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer and water service along the private driveway to service the individual units. Since the streets will be private, the utility installation, maintenance and ownership will also be private. All utility lines shall be installed in conformance with the city's latest edition of standards, specifications and detailed plates. The city's Building Department will be monitoring the inspection and permit issuance for the utility installation portion of the project. Fire hydrant layout shall be in accordance with the city's Fire Marshal's recommendations. STREETS Access to the site is proposed in two locations from Powers Boulevard (CR 17). Since Powers Boulevard is a county road, Carver County Highway Department has jurisdiction on access points. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Powers Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial (Class II). The required right-of-way for this type of street system is 100 feet. The right-of-way as shown on the plans indicates a 150 foot corridor which is more than adequate for an urban 4 lane roadway system. Carver County Public Works Department has contracted with BRW for design services for the upgrading and widening of Powers Boulevard. The plans are in a very preliminary stage at this point. The proposed access points have not been approved by Carver County. Safety concerns such as sight distance will be looked at to Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 6 determine whether or not a full access can be provided or the access points be limited to a right in/right out only on Powers Boulevard. In any case, the applicant shall be required to construct the driveway approaches to be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard). The city has received a memo from Carver County regarding their concerns on this development which has been related in the staff report (see attached). MISCELLANEOUS The landscape plan provided by the applicant shows numerous plantings and bermings within the city's drainage and utility easement adjacent to Powers Boulevard. This area needs to be maintained free and clear around the city manholes, fire hydrants and gate valves from a maintenance standpoint. The applicant may work with staff in redesigning a landscape and berming plan that would be compatible with the city's maintenance responsibilities. Landscaping within the drainage and utility easement would be subject to an encroachment agreement whereby the city would not be responsible for replacing any landscape materials that may be lost due to the result of maintenance of the city's infrastructures. EASEMENTS The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as storm water ponding areas. Specific review of these types of improvements and concerns will be conducted with the final plat and construction plan and specification review process. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines will be performed by the city's Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 7 Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. 4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 7. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit. the state Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 10. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. 11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall Sharmin Al-Jaff August 30, 1994 Page 8 be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 13. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. 15. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. 16. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. 17. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 18. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 19. The plat should be redesigned as follows: a. The northerly cul-de-sac shifted to offset to the east. b. The street system realigned to provide meandering streetscape. c. Realign Lots 1-8, Block 1 parallel to one another and slide the westerly units (Lots 3-6, Block 1) east. d. Remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. e. Street access points shall be compatible with the future widening and upgrading of Powers Boulevard. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer 4 CITY of 001 . _ _ 0, CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ‘• _, DATE: August 22 , 1994 SUBJECT: 87-3 PUD & 94-7 SPR (Powers Place, Jasper Development) I was asked to review the preliminary plat for the proposed Powers Place plat stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; AUG 02, 1994; CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " Analysis: Street names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. Building setbacks. The building code requires that walls of single family dwellings within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction with no openings . The building code further requires that projections (overhangs) within three feet of the property line be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. Walls and overhangs shown on the submitted plans will be within three feet of the property line and will not meet code requirements. Property lines should be adjusted so that each pair of lots is 74 feet wide, thereby enabling either model to be constructed as shown (windows in end walls and six inch overhangs) on any lot . Otherwise the proposed buildings could be downsized to achieve the same effect. Recommendations: 1 . Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department , Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . 2 . Adjust property lines and/or buildings to enable compliance with 1988 UBC 504 (b) , table 5-A and 1710. This should be done prior to final plat approval . ,,,- a::.. _.._n r:ar. -'^=` —.7 1 { CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 10, 1994 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills Drive - Powers Place Jasper Development Planning Case 87-3 PUD and 94-7 Site Plan Review I have reviewed the site plan for complying with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, and have the following code or policy requirements: 1. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall be relocated with equal spacing. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. 2. Submit new street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 3. A twenty foot wide fire lane must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy 06-1991. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF POWERS PLACE THIS DECLARATION, made this day of , 1994 , by Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, Inc . , a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter called "Declarant" ) , and (hereinafter called "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 4pr the benefit of said neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Declarant caused the incorporation of Powers Place Townhouse Associate. ••. under the laws of the State of Minnesota as a non-profit co ation, which shall own the Common Area and to which shall be - % . gned the powers and duties of maintaining the Common Area an. ertain other portions of the property, administering and a'•.rcing the covenants and restrictions herein, and collecting .i. - disbursing the assessments and charges herein created. WHEREAS, Bank holds a mortgage on the b 'ect � property and for the purpose of passing clear title does4hereby 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 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 Powers Place Townhouse Association. Section 2 . "Common Area" shall mean of Powers Place, according to the recorded plat thereof and such additional areas which may be designated as Common Area and is made subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions . 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 . "DecTant" shall mean Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, aesota corporation, and its successors and assigns if such successo or assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot for the p pose of development. "7 Section 5 . "First Mortgagetr shall mean any person owning a mortgage on any Lot, which mort` e is first in priority upon foreclosure to all other mortgages w.ijich may affect such Lot. Section 6 . "Unit" shall mean a L upon which a dwelling has been constructed. (4e Section 7 . "Member" shall mean a Mer of the Association as provided in Article III hereof . Section 8 . "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 9 . "Property" shall mean the real property described in Article II, Section 1, hereof, and such additions thereto as may hereafter be brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. Section 10 . "Lot" shall mean of Powers Place, according to the plat thereof and such additional areas which may be designated as Lot(s ) and is made subject to this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions . 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 : 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 C er of a Unit, all such persons shall be Members . It shall be th uty of each Owner to register his name and the nature of his merest with the Secretary of the Association. If an Owner fails register his name or interest, the Association shall be under no' ity to recognize his ownership. s Section 2 . Voting. The Assocation shall have two classes of voting membership: S'0 y Class A. Class A Member(s ) shat, be all Owners, with the exception of the Declarant, who shall- e entitled to one vote for each Unit owned. When more tha' .one person holds an interest in any Unit, all such persons Or#11 be Members . The vote for such Unit shall be exercised as { hey 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 3 (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 : ,n9 (a) Ingress and egp.ss including the right to use the private streets'' occated within the Common Area. (b) Parking in designatd areas . (c ) Utilities , water and server. (d) Enjoyment for recreational, purposes . v 6 Every Member shall also have an exclusiveM',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 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. 4 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 Df the Association to suspend the enjoyment rights of anMember for any period not to exceed sixty ( 60 ) days and to'`armpose a fine not to exceed Ten Dollars ( $10 . 00) for each infraction of its published rules and regulations . Nothin4 , contained in this paragraph, however, shall be deemed tkp deny an Owner easements for access and utility purposes . 6iturthermore, any such fine may not exceed $50 . 00 for all consec`+i,tive infractions arising out of the same violation of publishW rules and regulations of this Declaration. c` (d) The right of the Associate� l to charge reasonable admission and other fees for the use OT/..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 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 5 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 ea except by prior written consent of the Association. If an ' shall violate this Section, the Association shall have the rightO,io restore the Common Area to its prior condition and assess the coa* thereof against the Owner who violates this Section, and such cos jshall become a lien upon the Unit of such Owner which is due a4, ayable upon demand. The Association shall have the same right' .nd powers to collect the cost of such restoration as provided in icle VII hereof for the collection of delinquent annual asses - :;;nts . If any Owner interferes with the right and privileges * nother Owner in the use of the Common Area, except as provided h in, the Association or the Owner may commence an action to enjoi Ouch 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 . 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 streets , parking areas , driveways, sidewalks, trees , flowers and shrubs , patios and decks, and docks ; together with all lines , pipes , wires, conduits, systems, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, irrigation lines or other utilities which are installed on 6 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 Unit, 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 Unit 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 . '` p the extent it deems advisable, the Association may obtain and pa ,for the services of any person or entity to manage its affai&s, to fulfill its obligations hereunder, or to enforce this Declaration or the By-Laws . The Association may arrange with otters to furnish water, trash collection, sewer service, and othi common services to each Lot. G Section 5 . Personal Properf* for Common Use. The Association may acquire and hold for t*use of all of the Members tangible and intangible personal propertis and may dispose of the same by sale or otherwise. Every Member y use such property in accordance with the purpose for which it • intended and without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rictcts of other Members . Section 6 . Rules and Regulations . 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. 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. 7 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 ( V) days after said plans and specifications have been subm ,ted to it, approval will not be required and this Article shag).. be deemed to have been fully complied with. The prevailing Ayty in an action brought by the Association pursuant to this Sect4n shall be entitled to recover from the other party reasonable att neys ' fees together with all necessary costs and disbursemen � incurred in connection therewith. -G,y Section 2 . Use of Lots . Eac kLot shall be used for residential Unit purposes only, except th the Declarant shall be entitled to maintain model townhousesthe Property. No structure of a temporary character, traile ,tent, shack, or other building shall be used on any Lot or the Coon Area at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permane ly. 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 Units . 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 and the By-Laws of the Association. No Owner shall subdivide any Unit or sell or lease only a part of a Unit. 8 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 asses'ed against such Owner. Such cost shall become a lien upon the Lot of such Owner which is due and payable on demand, and the Assoc3,ation 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 . cam.. ARTiC,'I,E VII ASSESSMENTS Section 1 . Creation of the Lieir_and Personal Obligation of Assessments . The Declarant for each .Itq,t owned hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptaie 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 the value of the Property, and to ensure the enjoyment of rights , privileges and easements with respect to the Common Area. 9 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 provided herrn as to all Lots on the first day of the third month followingonveyance of the Common Area to the Association. Until January )%1>of the year following the conveyance of the first Unit to an Owner, he maximum annual assessment shall be $ per Lot on whi,h there is a Unit which has been issued a certificate of occupancy,. (a) At the time each I4U on which has been awarded a certificate of occupancy is so by Declarant the Purchaser (Owner) shall pay a capitalizati fee to the Association of $ '°Or`. (b) The Declarant shall, after' -the commencement of the obligation to pay assessments , pay lig,, 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 affirmative vote of a majority of the membership approving such an increase. 10 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 def r�e ! ng, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconst tion, unexpected repair or replacement of capital improvements orx`the Common Area, exterior surfaces of Units, or utility lines s� ing more than one Lot . Any such assessment, however, shallt be approved by a vote of Owners representing seventy-five pert ( 75%) of the Units at a meeting duly called for such purpose, "*itten notice of which shall be sent to all Owners at least thirttx) ( 30 ) days in advance . Section 7 . Uniform Rate of klfessments . Both annual and special assessments shall be fixed sCt a uniform rate for all Units . 61 Section 8 . Record of Assessments 1'i The assessments against all Units shall be set forth on a roll 61 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 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. 11 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 himsel4from liability for contribution toward the Common Expenses by waver 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, without deduction for depreciation or coinsurance, of all of the Dwelling Units, including the structural portions and fixtures 12 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 . Public Liability and Other Insurance. (a) The Association shall carry public liability insurance with one or more reputable insurance companies in minimum amounts of $1, 000, 000 . 00 for any one occurrence in connection with the Property and in aggregate of $1, 000 , 000 . 00 in connggtion with the Property. (b) The Association,shall carry fidelity insurance with a reputable insurance cam any covering the acts of its Officers , Directors and Empees with a limit of $50, 000 . 00 for any one occurrence. ss Section 3 . Replacement or Repaf . of Property. In the event of damage to or destruction of any art of the Common Area improvements, the Association shall re .ir or replace the same from the insurance proceeds available . If-csuch 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 4 . 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 5 . 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 13 made for issuance of certificates of physical damage insurance to mortgagees . Section 6 . 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) from a single occurrence, or whenever damage with resp to any Unit covered by a mortgage purchased in whole or in Sart by FNMA or FHLMC exceeds One Thousand Dollars ( $1 , 000 . 00 ) . 'cp9 Section 7 . Individual Owner-4;:s Insurance . Insurance coverage on the furnishings and other personal property belonging to an Owner and casualty and public liabii y insurance coverage within each Unit shall be the responsibility'of the Owner thereof . Each Owner may obtain insurance at his own eltpense providing coverage on his personal property and for his per*onal liability, provided that any such policy shall contain a .waiver of subrogation comparable to that referred to in Section 5 -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 14 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 provided in Section 1 and 2 of Article VIII, then the Board of Direcrs shall levy a special assessment to meet such deficiency '.49 costs, which assessment shall be fixed at a uniform rate f 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 unless11his Declaration is revoked within ninety ( 90) days after the4 .ate 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 15 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 subs tially similar to a case involving damage or destruction by cas Ity. ARTICLE X PARTY WA LS 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. 16 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 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 fRST MORTGAGEES For the protection of First -l$grtgagees and their assigns, the following provisions shall take`;-, precedence over any other conflicting provisions of this Decl6tation: 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 17 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. (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 Areas and property on a current replacement cost basis in an amofi t not less than one hundred percent ( 100%) of the insurabltp value. (based on current replacement cost) . (e) use hazard insurance procQeds 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. 18 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 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 Unit. 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 19 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 covQnant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deeii a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. r Section 4 . Notices . Any notice required to be given to any Member or Owner under the provisLgns of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly give; 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. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration the day and year first above written. JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF WACONIA, INC. a Minnesota Corporation By: James E . Jasper Its : President . a O, By:Sr Its : STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by James E. Jasper, known to me to be the President of Jasper Development Corporation of Waconia, on behalf of said corporation. Notary Public 21 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss . COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1994 by , the , of , a , on behalf of said Notary Public `yam THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Melchert, Hubert, Sjodin & Willemssen 121 West Main Street PO Box 150 Waconia, Minnesota 55387 (rlh) ( 612 ) 442-5155 1st draft 8/1/94 U/trish/powers 22 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Jasper Development Corp of Waconia OWNER: ADDRESS: 235 W 1St Street ADDRESS: V,aconia, MN 55387 TELEPHONE (Day time) 442-5611 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading!Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. . Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs 5100 + SSCP = $150.00 9. x Site Plan Review $250.00 + $5 x 50 X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNARJWAP = 5500.00 $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. x Subdivision 5400.00 + $15 X 50 TOTAL FEE $ 1800.00 = 51150.00 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. 8W' 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. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Powers Place LOCATION West Side of Powers Blvd @ Lake Susan Hills Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION 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 aro-sect 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 atter 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. Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. _ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. .1_,...- 1 ...- v-ilopLi iii., 4-, i a. _. ,., pip War.A1 ♦ ',‘� / IOP 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC �� ,- ......_ HEARING - - v� AMC PLANNING COMMISSION !: • ��" MEETING '4.w°�` „,.. :.: . , � 0!�� r' r�_� CAKE Sl/SAN y SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 '4'`'` Wednesday, % ...��`�ir, � �� RD at 7:30 .m. ' CityHall Council Chambers ------,;-17 1� _ ''• - '� P 690 Coulter Drive 1 , - Project: Powers Place .`� �:01114. a w.. • Developer: Jasper Development /�� - z_V. 1 r� # . _ .J ! Location: South of Lake Susan &fro pAR;O/ MI Hills Drive, West of I `IOM p Powers Boulevard * I l I I I r ! "marl Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 25, 1994. Jasper Development Corp. Patrick & Wendy Nelson Joseph M. & Jane E. Miller 235 1st St. W. 8411 Egret Ct. 8421 Egret Ct. Waconia, MN 55387 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Bernardino, Jr. & L. Lanzi Mark A. & Julie A. Goeman Joseph M. & Jane E. Miller 8431 Egret Ct. 8441 Egret Ct. 8421 Egret Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kenneth & Michelle Deforest Joseph Miller Construction Inc. John B. & Ann M Sichak 8430 Egret Ct. 3459 Washington Dr. 1251 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eagan, MN 55122 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Moune & Sompong Khakham Donald L. Hunter Arthur M. & Arlene C. 1261 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1271 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1281 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Stephen P. Neurerer Richard R. & Brenda Nelson 1301 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Michael P. & J. Smithson 1291 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1311 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Scott C. & Julie A. Bergquist Joseph T. Treleven & Kurt G. & Kelly H. Vondebur 1321 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Lisa G. Williams 1341 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 1331 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jon A. Nyland John L. & Amy M. Goedert John C. & Maureen Jensen 1351 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1361 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8480 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy C. & Barbara Larson Kevin & J. Roquette Thomas & Nancy Martinson 8470 Pelican Ct. 8460 Pelican Ct. 8450 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Gary C. & Sharon D. Condit Terry W. & Barbara A. Bolen Jeffrey J. & Merrilee Zahn 8440 Pelican Ct. 8451 Pelican Ct. 8461 Pelican Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Darryl & Alicia Laube Scott E. & Marica Boutilier Wade & Yvonne Schneider 8471 Pelican Ct. 8481 Pelican Ct. 1230 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hamid R. Hoodeh Kirk Sampson Patricia M. Lewis 1240 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1250 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1260 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Richard I. & Jeanne L Derby Robert J. Crawford John M. & Kay M. Polster 1270 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1280 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1290 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Gina Hamari Roger A. Lesser Peter A. & Melissa Sattervall 1420 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1430 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1440 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mark F. & Renee C. Dawson Char A. Jeurissen Kwok Wong & Lu Lee Ng 1450 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1421 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 8550 Merganser Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Patrick & Beth Victorian Thomas & Cheryl Rasmussen Douglas & Ramona Jacobson 8530 Merganser Ct. 8531 Merganser Ct. 8551 Merganser Ct. Chanhassen. MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jerome & Mary Gen Reutzel Craig M. & Janet L. Cariveau Nathan & Elizabeth Jenkins 1481 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1501 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1511 Lake Susan Hills Dr Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David L. & Donna J. Clough John & Pamela Williams Bruce & Shirley Bowman 1521 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1531 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1541 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Thomas M. Bums & Ronald E. & Bonnie Ziebell Chad W. & Carla Sedlacek Julie M. Kreger 1561 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1560 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 2551 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd M. & Karen Bimberg Thomas & Joyce I. Mancino Erik M. & Alicia C. Johnson 1460 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1470 Lake Susan Hills Dr. W. 1480 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Joseph R. Hoope & Neil R. & Mary Spieker Gene Richard Meier Deanne M. Schuler 8550 Tern Ct. 8570 Tern Ct. 8530 Tern Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Eric O. & Michelle K. Ross Brian & Darlene Fredrickson Robert B. & Cheryl J. Ruby 8571 Tern Ct. 8551 Tern Ct. 1520 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 David Leslie Wasson David & Nancy Obermeyer Robert & Christi Nordby 8789 Flamingo Dr. 8787 Flamingo Dr. 8640 Kingfisher Ct. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy M. & Lois M. Vold David &Tammy Dehne Mark William & Kerry Engel 8620 Kingfisher Ct. 8551 Flamingo Dr. 8561 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Douglas & Lavonne Becker Erik Boden Pedersen & Todd E. & Sally M. Bergum 8571 Flamingo Dr. Rosemarie O'Donnell 8591 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 8581 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Timothy J. & Linda A. Kosir Lonny L. & Norine Remund Argus Development Inc. 8780 Flamingo Dr. 8772 Flamingo Dr. Suite 204 Chanhassen. MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 3459 Washington Dr. Eagan, MN 55122 Christopher J. Sones & James H. & Teresa O. Giusti David M. & Julia A. Wise Judith A. Martinez 8750 Flamingo Dr. 8746 Flamingo Dr. 8756 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 553'17 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Philip A. & Gayleen J. Jessen Dan D. & Lisa L. Boyum James M. & Debra K. Wilhm 8779 Flamingo Dr. 8771 Flamingo Dr. 8763 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Argus Development Inc. Daniel W. & Barbara R. Hoff Karl A. & Susan L. Meier 18133 Cedar Ave. S. 1120 Dove Ct. 1130 Dove Ct. Farmington, MN 55024 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Donald Diamond Jr. & Bobby Rogers & Wayne M. & Roberta J. Foner Amabelle Y M Diamond Loleta Tolliver-Rogers 1581 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1131 Dove Ct. 1571 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Daniel E. & Ronda S. Pierre Pheavanh & H. Souvannalath Duane H. & Karen Anderson 1591 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1601 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1570 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Robert D. & Robin Hajicek James R. & Catherine S. Scott Philip D. Jensen 1574 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1578 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1580 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd R. Loader Sreang & Sophom Song Bang Joseph Gibney Jr. & 1584 Lake Susan Hills Dr. 1590 Lake Susan Hills Karen Stein Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1594 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kounthone & 0. Souvannakane Lake Susan Hills Corey J. & Ruth Weikle 1600 Lake Susan Hills Dr. Suite 200 8744 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 7600 Parklawn Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Edina, MN 55435 Gregory D. & Shireen Kahler 8742 Flamingo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612)937-1900 Date: August 2, 1994 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II Subject: Preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard, just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. Planning Case: 87-3 PUD and 94-7 Site Plan Review The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on August 1, 1994. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Councilt This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on September 7, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than August 22, 1994. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments "8.)felephone Cor a` 'a, City Engineer (US WestUmted b. City Attorney . City Park Director 9. Company d Fire Marshal (or MN Valley) e.Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinatorr._ 10. Triax Cable System 6 Watershed District Engineer 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 3. Soil Conservation Service 12. er County G../Engineer 4. MN Dept. of Transportation b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 13. Bonestroo Engineering 6. Minnegasco 14. Other- 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRES INTO 50 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 25 STRUCTURES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWERS PLACE, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address David L. Wasson 8789 Flamingo Drive David & Donna Clough 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Betsey Jenkins 1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive A. M. Stene 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive Ronald Ziebell 1561 Lake Susan Hills Drive Philip Jensen 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Mona & Doug Jacobson 8551 Merganser Court Mary Beth & Jerome R. Reutzel 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive Bruce & Shirley Bowman 1541 Lake Susan Hills Drive Craig & Janet Cariveau 1501 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jeff Zahn 8461 Pelican Court Terry Bolen 8451 Pelican Court Gary & Sharon Condit 8440 Pelican Court Lolita Tolliver Rogers 1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive Wendy Nelson 8411 Egret Ronda Pierre 1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive Todd & Marianne Loader 1584 Lake Susan Hills Drive Leslie Jensen 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive John Williams 1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive Pat Victorian 8530 Merganser Court Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some comments at this time? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Phil Youngbuth: My name is Phil Youngbuth. I'm with Greatland Homes and I'd like to introduce myself in this way because we are in a joint venture with Jasper Development on this particular property. They are the developers of records. We will be building the units, both in terms of the design and construction. We are formerly from Joe Miller Homes. Working with Joe for several years. I've been here before. I would like to make a couple of points that hopefully will help to clarify some of the issues. As to the actual size of units, the units are 67 feet wide and 65 feet wide fitting on 71 foot lots and 73 foot lots. And the reason I bring this up is so you don't get confused. It shows on the plat the lot size, okay. And the reason the units are narrower is because you have to have a minimum of 3 feet from the lot lines to the windows. So that's why we're narrower than the actual lot size. We have tried to do our homework in designing this particular housing unit. I did meet with Sharmin a couple months ago and from our initial meeting I did take the original plan that you see here and we've designed a few more architectural elements into the plan to make them more interesting. Work a little bit better with the neighborhood. They are a rambler sized and what we call 1 1/2 stories. This keeps a lower profile if you will so that from the street you're not seeing 3 decker townhomes or something similar. And for the folks on the hill, they're not going to be staring at 2 and 3 story homes. These are nice low sillohuettes. We've added things like gables, dormers, decks, patios. There's optional 4 season porches to the plan. Scott: Yeah, you might want to tip it one way or the other because I think it's glaring on the camera. Yeah. That will work for the folks at home. Phil Youngbuth: I can hold them up too. Scott: That's fine. Phil Youngbuth: As you can see by the porch, which is an option, the deck is standard. And it's not just your typical cedar 2 x 2's...2 x 6's, etc. It will be a smooth cedar with some turret posts...things like that so that they're a little more interesting. A little more fitting with the kind of traditional flavor to them. Not just your slap them up kind of porch. That alone makes for a more interesting back view if you will. Several of the units back up to Powers Boulevard. They are walkout style so from the back, this is a rambler with a walkout. This is the front elevation and you can see some of the things that we've done to make them more inviting. Friendly. On the back you can see that we've changed the roofscape. We've added gables to extend the gables as to bring out a porch over the deck. There are many windows so that in other words we're talking about something that's more interesting and pleasing to look at versus...or something like that. More interesting side elevations, etc. Additionally the product itself is probably, you know the final prices aren't in yet but we're looking at $110,000.00 to $120,000.00 base price. I know that, in the early stages of conversations 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 these were talked about being $80,000.00 townhomes. Now I know that affordable housing is a necessity. It gets to be more and more difficult to do that and please everybody. So they're intended for single, single professionals. Perhaps not retired but a little older people. Easy to live type of homes. Again, the density that we're talking about is an important factor to be bringing up like we did. When we're talking about, what was it, 9.3 units per acre. The reality is, there is a way to get to that with 30% or 35% coverage. And it happens just down the street and that's when you start building up. So I think that this is a reasonable and well presented answer to a unique site and I'm hoping that together we can move forward and get this job completed. That's my report. I think it looks good and we'll help with you. Do you have any questions? Mancino: Yes, I do. Thank you. I see that you have two type style houses. The Itasca and the Voyageur. Can you tell me, as I look on your preliminary plat, I mean the houses that are on the eastern side of this development, they'll line themselves to Powers Boulevard? That's all one style house? Phil Youngbuth: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So we're going to see a row of, the rear elevation from Powers as we're traveling. Phil Youngbuth: Correct. I'm glad you bring that up. What's nice about these particular townhomes is that although they're identical, they'll be in several different colors. Okay, but they're not like all pink or you know. Mancino: And what are those colors? Phil Youngbuth: Well, there's only about a half dozen colors that are even earth tone. Reasonable light earth tone colors. Mancino: Do we have samples? Do you have samples of those here? Phil Youngbuth: I don't have those here. They're vinyl. It's vinyl siding, called Greenbriar. It's a very smooth, high quality premium siding. And we're looking at white windows. Or I should say white windows with white grids on all of the units. As far as what one may look like from the other, the reality is that they're no closer together than any of the single family homes you see here. Between the units is 15 feet. Single family homes, from one to the other is typically 15 feet. And if they were all split entries or multi-family, or I'm sorry. Multi-level and split entries, they're very similar in design. Especially from the back. So what I'm saying is that this is not much of a variance from that. In fact it might be more 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 pleasing because it will be constantly maintained. This is a maintenance free exterior with a homeowners association. Mancino: Staff, did you ask for samples to be brought so that we could see the siding and that we would know exactly which ones of these lots have what colors because I know that we've brought up several times, especially when they're in rows, we want to see a variation of tone and color and not just. Do you know what I'm. Al-Jaff: I recall asking for the rendering. I really can't remember if I asked for samples. Mancino: Do you also talk a little bit about landscaping or is that someone else on your? Phil Youngbuth: Well, we can talk about it. Mancino: Can you tell me a little bit about the, those are walkouts on the back? Phil Youngbuth: On the Powers side. Mancino: On the Powers side. And you have balconies there that will put some of these up high. How are you going to screen the back of those walkouts from such a big street and the noise and the traffic and the lights? Phil Youngbuth: Well my understanding is that there will be berming all along Powers Blvd, at least from some kind of a meandering berm that's to be worked out with the staff and whatever trees that they are recommending that go in. At a minimum that's what's happening. Additionally we'll be doing extensive landscaping around all the units. Mancino: And that's something I think that you have in your conditions? Sharmin, to work with the developer on that. Okay. Those are my questions right now. Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Do you have someone else on your development team that would like to make a presentation? It's not a requirement but if you would like to do that, that's quite alright. Al Rader: Thank you. I'm Al Rader with Rader and Associates and we're working on the civil engineering and the land surveying portion of the plat. And I guess I can answer any questions you might have directed related to that, you know those questions but basically as far as the roadway system goes, being that this site is up higher on this end than actually Powers Boulevard, would bring the grades up on the main entrance here. Bring the grades up...this cul-de-sac. Running them back down at a slight grade to turning down on that 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 northern cul-de-sac. And that water will actually, the drainage pattern will run the same way so the water will come down, be picked up by an intermediate...down to a pond at this corner here which will have an overflow...storm sewer system. The units along Powers have their garages directly entering onto the internal private drive here. These units here, here, these two clusters have their own private little driveway...and the southerly most cluster of the 8 units of 4 buildings, they'll just be one short cul-de-sac. Basically that pretty much defines with the water pattern will be. There will be retaining walls needed along the back side of some of the units here and those will be engineered walls. They'll be handled by an engineer...and probably be a terrace type thing. Scott: What's the, one of our big concerns with any sort of development is the impact on the neighbors and I'm familiar with that area. Basically what is the difference in grade inbetween let's say the top of one of those units and perhaps, I know there's a number of homes along the side. Just roughly. Are we talking 20 feet? Al Rader: I guess I can't, I really can't relate to the top of it. Scott: How about just grade to grade. Al Rader: Grade to grade difference being about a 9 and should reach...as far as we've shown with the 954 and we have 939 for a garage so about 15 feet. Over on this side it looks like it could be 20 feet. Scott: Any questions or comments? Okay, anything else? Al Rader: The other thing I had was, any of the wetlands, the ponding, we'll address it with the city staff...and those are all pretty much issues that they'll do and tell us... Conrad: Talk to me a little bit about the retaining wall. It's hard for me to visualize what you're doing there. I guess I wish I saw a profile of this project versus, it's really hard to understand what you're doing with the retaining wall. Al Rader: Basically we've got to take up the difference in grade along, this is the property line of the project here. It's kind of a random pattern here. We've got to take up the grade difference between the property up here and the maximum you can get these up to so there's a percentage grade we can share. We've got it down to the property line to a point where we've got to stay away from the building a certain distance so the difference between those two will be taken up by the retaining wall. Some of the walls will be shorter but in other areas there will be higher walls. But it won't be in one wall. It will be a stepped, terraced type pattern. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Conrad: Is this a wood? Is this concrete? What is this made out of? Al Rader: I guess that would be up to the design engineer. What they recommend and what the developer wants. I'm assuming it would be a pre-fab concrete...field stone retaining wall. Something, but it's going to be done well so that it's going to be fairly, it will be maintenance free. They're not going to have to repair it. Conrad: And it's set into, at the top of that retaining wall, is that where the grade takes off again? Al Rader: It will take off at the top and go on up to the common property line with the adjacent neighbors. Conrad: So given you're backed up to a neighborhood, how do you prevent, you know again. It's hard for me to visualize this. Are we, we've got an 8 foot berm or a 10 foot drop? Al Rader: 10 foot. Scott: Per step? I'm envisioning. If I lived there, I would be falling in there. Mancino: Are these planted? Are they going to be planted terraces so that kids can't, I mean kids come to the edge of the property. Al Rader: I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. If they should be planted or be left wild, native grasses. Native plantings. Conrad: But how do you prevent, and again. Maybe this is not a big deal but how do you, as you abut a neighborhood, how do you keep people from actually being injured? Is it just that obvious. You can see it. You know that there's a wall there. A retaining wall and you're going to be careful or is it a hazard? I guess that's something that I'm not convinced of yet. Nothing's been presented to show me we solved a drop of 10 feet or whatever. Al Rader: Walls are used on a lot of subdivisions. If you look on a lot of subdivisions they'll have the same type situation. They're stepped but they'll have the building pad elevation will drop down 5 feet to another building pad and drop another 5 and that's basically the same thing we're doing here except for you're not going to, you probably won't have that 90 foot spread building pad. You'll have a landing terrace. I'm sure the city staff will have some recommendations on it because they're going to be reviewing this. They're going to have to look at what we design. And work with the construction... 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Do we have any indication as to the position of adjacent homes relative to this? I mean that's something that we're sorely lacking in basically every package we've received in the year and a half I've been here. We do not have a clue as to whether this is encroaching on neighborhood's property lines. We don't have a clue where the houses are. We have no idea, and I mean I look at that as a potential hazard depending on how it's handled. And you know once again, if we can't, if we don't see it, we can't do anything with it. Aanenson: Well you can't encroach on the neighboring property line. That is the plat line. Scott: Yeah, but we don't have a clue as to where the homes are located in the whatever addition of Lake Susan Hills that is. It'd be nice if it were just sitting there with nothing around it but there's no clue. I don't have a clue anyway. Aanenson: You have to have at least a 30 foot setback. Al Rader: I assume that those lots would be 140 feet deep. You take 30 foot from the setback and take about a 40 foot house so you've got 70 off of there. 40 feet and probably have a 50 to 70 foot range back yard on those adjacent properties. Mancino: What if somebody built their house back a ways? Scott: So are there, the entrance, I don't know what the street is but the entrance. Is it, you have your two entrances and then there's another entrance into I think it's the 4th Addition or Lake Susan Hills West. I'm just trying to get a picture of where the houses. Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills Drive. Scott: Lake Susan Hills Drive and I know there's a home kind of set up on a hill. Is that the closest? I'm just trying to get a clue as to. Okay, you've got to do it so north is west. Mancino: The house is back. Scott: Okay, so there are houses back in that entire, okay. Al-Jaff: This is the concept PUD. Scott: Okay, because I don't think there are homes built on the north side. I'm just trying to get, okay. Al-Jaff: No there aren't. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Okay. Where do the homes actually start? Is it about maybe a third of the way from Lake Susan Hills Drive. Al-Jaff: I can try putting these side by side. Scott: Well those are platted lots but I don't know if they're built on. Al-Jaff: There's Lake Susan Hills Drive and again this is Lake Susan Hills Drive. The lots, the first lot is right here. Scott: Those all have homes on it. Al-Jaff: And then it goes all the way down and around. Which is fairly similar to this. Al Rader: Basically I guess just you know, on a preliminary plat I was showing where the lawns are actually located. I'm not showing houses but you can see how many houses are lined up along the edge of this subdivision. Any other questions? Scott: None? Al Rader: Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else from the development team like to make any comments? Good. This is a public hearing and I would like to have a motion to open. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Bowman: My name is Bruce Bowman. I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. I'm the 7th one of that. Coming up from the south side. South side of...7th lot. Al-Jaff: Lot 10? Bruce Bowman: Yeah, right there. I have several questions regarding this but I notice the time and I notice that at 11:00 you just stop. Scott: That's unusual when we stop at 11:00 but we'd appreciate concise comments. Bruce Bowman: Well I just didn't want to get us all involved here and going and so forth and then find out that we had to stop in the midst of it. So that was my main reason for 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 getting up right away it you wanted to. Thank you. Tom Rasmussen: My name's Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and we've done a lot of the homework already on this. I had a meeting in my house approximately a week and a half ago in which I had most of the residents along that side there and also some adjacent properties come over to my house and we discussed amongst ourselves the issues relating to this development and what we've got here is kind of a summary presentation, if that's alright. Instead of everybody speaking, we'd like to tell you what our issues are and at this point I can't believe staff is making a recommendation for approval of this at this stage and we would like to go over and make a presentation. Helping me here do this will be Phil Jensen and also Ron Ziebell. What I'm first going to do is talk a little bit about our association. We passed around a petition addressing our concerns and we've got 50 residences. Not individuals but 50 homeowners. Everyone along the strip, and some others beyond it, that are concerned about this development. Have signed up and agreed upon what we're discussing here tonight. So it's not just me. It's 50 residences. Why are we here? Well first of all when we heard $80,000.00 townhomes we all had a heart attack for that. We were the ones that were concerned our property values might decrease. We are the ones who have children living there right now that could potentially be injured by this development off the retaining walls. We are the ones that are putting up with safety and noise issues along County Road 17. Right now. Today. We are the ones that have to live with the decisions of your commission and of the City Council. And why are we here? Actually because we care about improving the quality of life, not only for ourselves along the sides there but we do have a concern. We know what the neighborhood's like for the people that will be moving in here and we do look out for their interest too. Not just for ourselves. For them. What we're going to talk about are safety issues first. Environmental issues second. Development issues third and we have come up with a list of recommendations. We didn't want to leave anybody hanging for that and I'll conclude with that at the end here. Phil Jensen: Thanks Tom. I'm Phil Jensen. I live at 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd like to make one comment. I feel a lot better...so it's nice to see Phil. I've known him for years. The first thing, our concern on safety happens to be that we're a young community of course and of course a picture's worth a thousand words and Phil is familiar with Joe Miller Homes and he built a community for us and he had all the block parties that he celebrated with us for. This is the...I'd like to pass around. Just in one short block, the first very short block there, there are 28 adults and 26 children. Just in the first block. Not to mention the rest of that street that backs up to the property and our first concern primarily is to how we will be able to handle our children and our perspective was no different than your's quite frankly. That we didn't know if these retaining walls were going to be 20 foot drops or what they would be. We were very concerned about that. We'd like to see that addressed in some fashion. Whether it's a profile of it or something so we feel a little bit more comfortable 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 there. Then in addition to the block wall, as I scan from my outline here. In addition to the concerns we have about the retaining wall, is that we have all experienced structural damage. Most of us have experienced structural damage in our community, whether it's by sod or wash away from our own soil or water drainage into our home and so on because of our community. We've got those bruises that have happened. We don't want that new community to have those same bruises. We want your building, that you're building, to go through the same experiences that we went through so our concern is in this engineering design of these retaining walls. That if they're not done correctly, of course it takes the pressure away from the hill that we're all living up and around, if it takes away the pressure that's holding the land in place, we may see some pressure coming away at our foundations and the hill above it starting to show some stress problems. Some seal problems and so on. In addition to that, our watershed and I would just utilize a couple more pictures in this that I would hand to you and these are just a couple illustrations of local yards of what we experienced from watershed from above when we were laying sod. We'd have a stake cutting party quite frankly where as soon as somebody laid their sod, dog gone it, we just got out there the next morning and we'd take our bucket and we'd cut out a bunch of stakes and put in the bucket and we'd go to our neighbor and help restake his new yard and that's because that watershed will just pull all these thousand rolls of sod right off his yard and go right down the hill. I personally used my kids toboggan to pull back over 1,000 rolls of sod back up the street. I don't want my new neighbors to have that same problem so I'm very concerned as to how this retaining wall will affect that. In addition to the retaining walls and drawing children to that, we have the traffic concerns as far as our safety. And if I could get that one graphic back up first on the. Actually that one will work just fine. Let me walk over here and I'll point out exactly what we're referring to. And that is that CR 17 is becoming an expressway and one thing that our community is aware of is we know it's going to go to 4 lanes. And that's to be to get everybody to Target and Byerly's. Well that's great. It's going to go to 4 lanes and help with the traffic flow and all this other jazz but what we're concerned about is the driveways here in these different spots that have access to it. If it doesn't turn to a 4 lane highway, these driveways will be a one way turn only. They're not going to be able to cross 2 lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn across on a 4 way as we envision it and street lights we don't feel are an answer to place that's 50 mph speed limit now that people are traveling. There's already people that wait at Lake Susan Hills Drive, right here at this corner as much as 10 minutes in the mornings trying to get on CR 17. Just trying to get onto it. And that's because there is no stop sign. We're not advocates of street lights. We don't want them. We'd just like to see the speed limits come down and stop signs. I'm already consulting Larry MacKenzie at the Department of Transportation for Minnesota. He informs me that we merely need to request to the County an audit be done. They in turn will ask the State to audit it and they will tell us as to the date what the traffic flow what should be designed for that, for 4 lanes and whether stop lights exist or not. So in this area of outlet to this Lake Susan, they're going to have to only make right hand turns and 50 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 then they're going to get down to a sign where they're all going to make U turns. So we're a little concerned how that traffic flow goes and we'd like to see how that is going to be developed by our city or the County or whoever is involved in that. The next thing is that... We really hope that there's nothing but families that join our community because we're really, really supportive of that. We want a whole pile of kids to be here. Well if all these kids are here, they're going to want their own park. Well if this is a 4 lane highway and the park is supposed to be here, how are they going to get there? Well, I'm not going to bore you with the photos but I've got all kinds of photos and one of the first things we heard back was they can use the tunnel. Have you seen the tunnel? Do you know where it is? We had to find it ourselves. It's, I'm guessing but it may have been a tunnel that was used for cows back when there were farms here. It is not passable and I have the photos to prove it that just, they were taken last week. So the tunnel's not an idea to get people across to this park and I certainly am not going to send my kids across CR 17 to get to that park and I sure wouldn't want my new neighbors to do that. That's not a good idea. So we're here to recommend, as Tom gets into the second part or the third part of this, what our recommendations are to gain access to the park. The other side is we're going to be crawling the retaining walls we don't know about yet and trying to get through our yards to get to the other parks. So we want it to be a safe environment, not only by the traffic flow but also by some type of a profile of those walls. The last thing I would have to say is, in my commentary is, school bus loading area is also right down in the bottom of that hill where I point out first is the very bottom portion of that graph. That's where the school bus stops and this is also where that traffic blocks up today because there is no stop sign on CR 17 and that speed limit is 50 mph. I don't want to get too emotional but dog gone it, it's my town and this is our town. It's our community and people are just passing through it. We live there and we would strongly ask you to make recommendations to the county for them to have that section of highway audited for it's traffic flow with our new neighbors joining us and the new neighbors across the street coming, we want to make sure the speed limits come down and we have the proper stop signs there so they have access in and out of their community and that makes it safer for our kids as well as their's. I guess from the safety standpoint, I think I've addressed mine and I would pass it back to Tom. Tom Rasmussen: The next thing on our outline here that we'd like to talk about would be the environmental issues and our first thing, as you've heard a million times already tonight are the issues of trees. We don't have much but we do have a beautiful little cluster right in the middle of this development and although they have made some efforts to retain those, if you look at their grading plans and their landscaping plans, they have homes that are encroaching into the trees on both sides and if you also look closely at it, they're planning on removing most of the under shrubs and only keep a few of the larger portion trees there of that. Our recommendation is they just leave the whole thing as it is with brush and everything along in there and we have pictures showing the trees and how they sit right there. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Our recommendation is that they don't encroach into the trees and they don't go in there and start thinning them out either. The next issue that we have is on the grading plan they're showing a wet pond, retention pond. Whatever you want to call it. I've got a problem just reading the grading plan. I see, what is the elevation the pond's supposed to be at. There's no invert elevation shown on the 12 inch outlet pipe. We don't know what the normal, the 100 year flood elevations are. We don't know what the emergency overflow elevation of that is. They have got some serious problems already along Egret Court along there with drainage problems already and this pond is making those residents extremely nervous, as it is right there like that. Right now the other issue that we have is that there is poor soils in the vicinity of Egret Court. As Phil had mentioned, they've led already to drainage and structural problems. All you need to do is drive in there, in that Court and see for yourself. But they want assurances that they're not going to get any worst. We don't feel comfortable right now at all like that. Those residents recommended...were their concerns. Other concerns with this pond were raised about stagnant water. Odor problems. Mosquito breeding grounds. All of those things. The residents along there feel that the city and developer need to address these issues and get answers back. The next thing here is something I haven't heard mentioned yet, although I can't see why it wasn't. There is wetlands present down there where this pond is supposed to go in. That is a wetland in my mind although I have not seen a wetland delineation and assessment report yet to document that. I realize we need to have the vegetation. We need to have the soils. You need to have the hydrology to classify it as a wetland. I have not seen a report that does that. However, we did go out there. We surveyed the vegetation there. There's foxtail, reed canary grass, aster, cattails, marsh golden rod. All of those types of vegetation that indicate it is a wetland. There is standing water there all along the line. I have not seen any delineation report yet. I think it needs to be done for that. I think the hydrogology must be there or else this wouldn't be existing. The question then comes along the lines of soil. The next thing is that there is approximately about a 1/5 acre of wetland located in the middle of the project. Fairly small but however under the wetland conservation act, anything less than 400 square feet area can be filled in. I believe this exceeds that. And again that should be part of the wetland assessment report which has not been done. Thirdly we get into the area of, we mentioned this already on the safety. However under the areas of erosion control...This tells you the type of soils we're dealing with and these are moderate slopes. Not even close to the slopes they're proposing for the development. These are the type of issues that we have come across already. Like that. Slope failures are inherent to the neighborhood and I don't want that happening below my house like that. Next, if this is determined to be a wetland where they're proposing this pond, we need to see some on site sedimentation basins to protect that wetland as is required under the wetland preservation act. With that, the other thing that we want to see is some type of implementation schedule that after they go and do the grading, how long do we have to stand around and wait until they start...seeding, putting the hay on the ground and protecting along those measures there. I know Joe Miller's development across the street had 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 that stuff but I watched it every single day and I thought that was fairly poor erosion control measures across the street there. From my eyes. Lastly we do, we talked about percent impervious and all the density and stuff like that. In our minds, when we look at the plat, we think it's being crammed in there. That's from our eyes. That's what everybody along here has...so although the developer threatened in my mind, about how they could build more and build the units like going up next to Byerly's here, we still think that there's an opportunity to provide more green space and less dense units in here. Next we'll get into the development issues. I'll turn it over to Ron. Ron Ziebell: Ron Ziebell, 1561 Lake Susan. Lot 13 on the southern end. I really like to shorten this. One of them's already been addressed. We're concerned, first of all with the maintenance free type of environment, both from the building and the landscaping. My reading of the proposed plan of the back of my lot, which now has a slope. Incidentally, the slope runs from my lot down to CR 17...extensive excavation to put the development in there. And I don't have a real problem with that except from my lot down to the steepen and down there will be some retaining walls and...14 feet down to 8 feet. And this will be...others will be close to it and Fm concerned with the safety issue with the children of the neighborhood. Some sort of a safety measure, whether it be fencing or whatever. Natural vegetation...to help terracing is a big relief to me. I think that would help and anything along those lines. With respect to maintenance free, with the retaining walls and the steep slopes, I'm concerned with the maintenance of the property itself. The retaining and...development area. We're concerned also with the property becoming rental units. We would like to maintain them as an owner occupied with some assurances along those lines. We would suggest items like building sprinkler systems to enhance the maintenance free aspect of the property but also to give some assurances that the rapid development for ground cover and retention of the soil for the development...excavation and slope that you're going to have to build into it. And we're concerned with the planning. It may not be the maximum density permitted. We feel that they are a little bit crammed in and the cookie cutter approach to the units. We'd like to see a little bit of variance on that. Across Highway 17 and Powers Blvd, there are some townhomes in there... In fact there would be no reason why similar units couldn't be integrated into this particular rental unit here. I guess...the proposal part of it and... Tom Rasmussen: One of the things we thought of is we don't want to leave you hanging here thinking what is on our mind. What do we want to see for that. So therefore we have come up with some recommendations to kind of put up along there. This is something that we decided and talked about. We would like to see, personally we want to see the elimination of all retaining walls and steep slopes and we want to retain the existing slope coming down from our units as much as possible. Like that. We want to decrease the number of units to prevent intensification and traffic congestion issues that are along CR 17. We want to require more green space. We want to preserve the wetland. We want to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 preserve the woods and we want to preserve any type of green space, especially along the slope as much as possible. Like that. What do you do with water from the site? We're recommending that you put a pipe in across from the development over to CR 17 to the existing ponding system with the Joe Miller Homes development. There is ample storage in there and we believe that that would help solve all those issues. That helps...before it goes into Lake Susan. We would like to request that a closer look be taken at County Road 17's traffic and safety issues. We would like to see the speed decreased. We want to limit the number of access points coming out from this development. We want to install 4 way stop signs at both Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17 intersection. And what we would like to see is we would like to see a pedestrian foot bridge coming from this development across to the park over there. We see this as the only alternative to get over there safely. Right now there is no green space. The children can't play in here. We don't want them coming through our yards...There's a nice park proposed across there and we think that that's the only natural safe spot...Again our recommendation is that they continue on with the maintenance free exterior and trim and I was part of a townhome before I came out here to Chanhassen and believe me, the underground sprinklers are an excellent idea ahead of time. The time to do it is before you do any grading out there and think about that. When we first started off we hired some children, or some kids that were off during the summertime and you get such an erratic pattern of the way the development looks. It's just a nice, lot cleaner, better looking development to just go ahead and work those in from the beginning. Right now we're under some maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills on the west side there. We'd like to see at a minimum those type of guidelines be applied to this development. We would also like to see along the edge here, where we've got in here, is we do want to see some type of a buffer. We want a year round screen. That is not proposed right now on the landscaping plan in any manner whatsoever. We feel that that's a must. We addressed the issue already about no recreational space within the development for the children and we also want to recommend that you impose stringent townhome association guidelines so we can be assured that they will have the capital necessary to take as much pride in maintaining their buildings and their yards as we currently do in our's for that. Right now in conclusion we're asking you to table this. Right now none of the plans we have seen, they don't have any of this tiered retaining wall system. They haven't done anything like that. No berm is shown along CR 17, although I heard a lot of stuff being mentioned from the developer. I don't see it on the plans. Sorry. But right now you can't give approval to anything that's not on the plan and has a chance for us to review it. We've had a lot of patient people here tonight. Waiting. We've had two meetings in ourselves to try and eliminate the time that we're here talking to you. Along those lines, we've come up with a design we think is feasible with one access point. One common driveway that has a berm between there. Then you just go ahead and rotate the units in. This way you preserve the slopes as much as possible and the units could face each other where these arrows are would be a common driveway. Thank you for your time. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Mancino: Excuse me. How many units are you proposing? Tom Rasmussen: Well, right now it's just a schematic but I just thought that, if you look at the pictures, there's the slope coming down and there's a flat area. All their recommendation is is that they sit there and try to work within the flat area as much as possible. That way you don't need to do the retaining walls and if you sit there and you rotate the units in a little bit, you can maybe like the larger blocks might be units, maybe 3 or 4. Instead of twin homes they could be maybe units of 3 or 4 townhomes and the smaller ones might be the twin homes and have them served by a common driveway there. That way we get a little bit more... What it is, I'm just throwing it out as a schematic but to me this type of a design would address a lot of our concerns. And that's why we wanted to throw something back that they could possible work with. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. Wendy Nelson: My name is Wendy Nelson and I live at 8411 Egret Court, which is the first lot. Up at the top in the northern part. And my husband and I really have concern about the retention pond. I'm not too familiar with retention ponds except that I know that there's water which generates mosquitoes and da, da, da, da. But I'd like to know, and I don't know if the engineer can tell me this, how close this is to my property line. Because from where I sit, there's not that much room from my property line and CR 17. So if someone could kind of tell me. Scott: We have the scalemeister is calculating it as we speak. The only problem is with something like that, it could either be 100 miles, 100 feet, 100 yards so but being the competent individual that he is. Hempel: Scaling it off the plan, it appears to be the normal water level of the pond would be approximately 20 feet from the property line at this point. On the proposed plan but I have to back up a step and maybe address a couple of the issues that have been thrown out in terms of storm drainage and wetlands and so forth. The staff report does take into account wetland delineation and storm water ponding issues on the site. We've made some recommendations very similar to what the association had concerns with and some of their recommendations...at our's. That is classified as a wetland area. It's a very significant graded wetland area. There's been a sanitary sewer line run through it approximately 3 to 4 years ago. It's been regraded and filled in to maintain the drainage from upstream in Egret Court down to the county road. It has taken back on it's wetland characteristics as a pond...through that area. That area is designated as a surface water management pond as part 55 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 of our city wide comprehensive storm water management plan. The applicant would be required to...banking the city or another developer. We're looking at some banking area would be Powers Boulevard...involved in that project. There's also another storm water pond potentially in the center of the site which we are considering buying the...to limit the number of ponds on the site to one. That area may be a wetland. It's something that we've required...have a professional biologist and wetland...and research the site and come back to us with a survey of that. Storm water pond will be tied back into the Joe Miller's 9th Addition which is on the east side of the street. We made provisions for that development to take the storm water runoff from this side of the street. It pretreated the water quality treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands there before into Lake Susan. So we have a step up on that. Wendy Nelson: Well David, the retention pond, you said that's 20 feet from my property. Hempel: Property. Wendy Nelson: Property line. Hempel: That's correct. Tom Rasmussen: Is that normal? Hempel: That's the normal water elevation. Tom Rasmussen: How high would it be with a 100 year storm then? What's the emergency overflow? Obviously you got better plans than what was given to us. Hempel: It appears to be about 5 feet away. 5 to 10 feet away from the property line. The 100 year flood elevation of the pond before it would overflow and go out to Powers Boulevard. Scott: And then as part of our surface water management plan, all of the retention ponds have got minimum slopes. Or maximum slopes. 1 to 4. Mancino: 4 to 1. Scott: Yeah, 4 to 1. It starts to taper and my guess is, as far as mosquito control, because that's obviously important to everybody. From what I understand, and I'm not a mosquito expert but I believe that these ponds are designed so that it doesn't allow for the shallow calm water the mosquitoes to breed in. But I think usually because of the size of the ponds, 56 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 it's really not a good environment because it's usually exposed to wind and wave action which is not the best place for mosquito breeding but you know, there's our expert over there. I think that has something to do with it. Hempel: There's a couple different design parameters that we can employ. We do employ a safety aspect of it...where we have a 10 to 1 slope for the first 1 foot of water to provide a bench around the pond. That area does occasionally grow vegetation, cattails and so forth in the shallow water. The other type of ponding design, they've come out with a 4:1 slope. A more gradual slope that doesn't provide that shallow water shelf. It's a gradual slope. So if someone was to fall in, it would keep...3:1 slope. Those are some of the things that we... Wendy Nelson: Is it normal for retention ponds to be that close to the property line? If that is normal, could you give me an example somewhere in Chanhassen so I can have some idea. Aanenson: Lake Susan has plenty of them. Scott: Yeah, it's real common. Hempel: All the storm water ponds in your neighborhood. Directly across the street. The water treatment ponds that are in the back yards... Not the property but it's in the back door. Wendy Nelson: One other thing. I know Tom mentioned the problems in our cul-de-sac. I don't know if many people are aware but there are lots, I don't know how many houses are in that cul-de-sac... Yeah, and out of those seven, how many have had problems? Five. So that's another concern about the building in that area. Because we are shifting of land. If anything were to happen, I mean who would be responsible for the houses that are still standing there and aren't having any problems? Where will we go if there's a problem? Scott: Good question. I don't have an answer for you but I think that. Wendy Nelson: Major problems in that cul-de-sac. Hempel: We're familiar with the problems. You've been having soil corrections way back apparently to they oversized the house pad on the lot type situation, is my understanding... Mancino: So that we're sure when this is built, that that will be investigated to make sure that it certainly won't repeat itself. Hempel: Well certainly if the soil corrections that went in, it's difficult to determine the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 ramifications from this development alone to this existing neighborhood. Scott: Is this something where soil borings be one avenue of determining that or? Hempel: Right. We do require some soil borings from the applicant. Any kind of soil correction measures...prior to issuance of building permit. Scott: What about, is there a permitting process for retaining walls? Hempel: That's correct. I believe the ordinance is for any kind of retaining wall that exceeds...obtain a building permit prior to construction. Depending on that height, if it does exceed 5 feet, I believe it needs to be engineered by a professional engineer, structural engineer. For safety measures. Scott: Okay. Well thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? Loleta Tolliver Rogers: Hi. My name is Loleta Tolliver Rogers. I live on the south side, fourth house off the corner. I know we said we wanted to keep our comments short and sweet...or whatever but this is a burning issue and we as a neighborhood have not been presented with all the facts. As we came in today we were told that townhomes were going to be $80,000.00. The developer says $100-110,000.00. As we were told we were going to have retaining walls, we don't know what they look like. We don't have a perspective of them. I personally have two children. One 5, one 3. Very curious. I can see them playing in the back yard saying, I race you to the top of the wall. And what's going to happen when they fall over? Once again, where is the liability? Who's going to assure me that my children are going to be okay? I think when it back to their representative today, a flyer from what we need as an association have been given are not the same. We have not seen the... paths and before this can be taken any further, I feel that we as a development need to see what's really going to happen. He describes this, the back of these homes are going to be against Powers Blvd. Multiple colors. I was born in a large city. That sounds like row houses to me. I did not move out here to live in row houses. I did not move out here to live in a section divided. To live with a different class of people. There are too many unanswered questions I think that need to be resolved before this can go any further. Thanks. Scott: Good. Thanks for your comments and that's the reason why we have public hearings. So your comments are appreciated and we do pay very close attention to what people say. Yes sir. Jeff Zahn: My name is Jeff Zahn. I live at 8461 Pelican Court which borders the property. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 I just had a couple quick things. ...approve this project when retaining walls haven't even conceptually been thought of by the developer. Not materials. Not whether it's tiered or what so I'm a little amazed at that. A lot of talk about water drainage but I haven't heard much about the upper lots. How that water can flow down into this development. My back yard, when it rains, it pours in just like a river back there flowing down that hill. The retaining walls there, I don't know where that water's going. I pose that question. Just one last thing. This developer, and I'm not even sure who they really are. They talk about a joint venture. My concern is they're going to be doing major excavation right next to my lot. I want to know who they are. Who their contractors are doing this excavation and whether the city requires liability insurance...to protect us in the construction process. Thank you. I guess that's all I have. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else? Yes sir. Gary Condit: My name is Gary Condit and I'll just point up here where I am. I'm Lot 24 here. It goes from this corner to this corner. Just very briefly, I think the issue of the retaining walls has become a major issue. You can see how the land juts out. If you've got a map there with elevations on it. I have maintained the mode that the whole top of that hill around, I planted trees on it and I see from our lot line, the back of these homes, 25 feet. Now if you take a peak at the elevations, it's 20 feet down and 25 feet this way, what's that? ...it looks like a 45 degree slope. Now if you go out 25 feet and down 20, that gives you an idea of what the kind of steepness in this retaining wall is going to be. And I think at this point it's a major design error and I would strongly recommend, like our recommendation before is to move them out more into the flat land area and go with more of an idea like that. Scott: Thank you. Yes sir. Bruce Bowman: I guess we're on a first name basis by now. Bruce Bowman. I have a house that backs up to what is going to be continued woods, or woodland area. That's one question. The retaining walls are something I cannot get through my head. It's going to be a lasting thing, first of all. And secondly, how in the world it's going to be safe when they don't even know if they're going to have any fencing, trees or anything else. I think that at best it's a very premature thing. My personal opinion, looking at that rendering, they didn't take into consideration the topography of the land. They're taking dirt out of there and as someone already said, if you're going down 20 feet or 14 feet or something like that, and then just a short distance to the back of the house, I don't know how that would work. I have another concern. I like to work in my yard. Everyone else along that street likes to work in their yard. At least keep it up. Have pride in ownership. What's going to happen to these woods? That they're going to leave there. Are they just going to forget about it? Is there a homeowners association that's going to take care of this? What's going to happen? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Chanhassen is a nice community. I moved here in 1978. I lived in another area. When I moved away in 1989, the area I live in now wasn't even there. But I think that there needs to be some more planning. Personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more planning on this situation before they just blindly go in there, start digging dirt out. Making walls and making no apparent safeguards and no apparent way of making it into a part of Chanhassen as we know, a valuable area and a nice community. I thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Ron Ziebell: I'd like to expand a little bit about what I said before for the record here... The wooded area, if you draw a circle around that, is an area that slopes from Bruce's back yard in pretty much a uniformed grade down to Powers Boulevard. The retention of the wooded area is going to cause some problems that should be addressed in the plans. First of all that the woodland is going to be retained, that means they're not going to be graded. The land right next to it is going to be graded rather severely and...retaining walls and the...and the woods. The consideration should be for overall landscaping. How do the woods blend into the retaining landscaping, particularly along the top of the or along the border between the existing housing and the proposed development. There should be some sort of a planned landscaping scheme that considers the retention of the trees and blending of that particular area in with the surrounding neighborhood. Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Where do you begin? I can't personally pass this along. I need to see it back. I need to see stuff on the retaining walls. I'm still new at this game Kate but I see, there's a lot of stuff in this report I don't think most of the residents have seen in your recommendations are there to address the issues regarding wetland and landscaping and everything else. But I guess there's enough issues and enough concerns I'd rather see it back with some of those issues visualized for us so that we can better respond to the concerns of the residents. Rather than to move it on and not have a chance to see it back. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I guess I have quite a few questions. Thank you for all your remarks and questions. Dave, can you talk a little bit to all of us about Powers Blvd and the 50 mph 60 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 speed limit. It seems to me that in Chanhassen we have a lot of big wide roads that just encourage us all to go faster and we have them through our neighborhoods. I have a huge concern about that. We're building bigger, wider roads. People are going faster and they're right in the middle of our neighborhoods. And this is one that I think a lot of citizens here tonight have brought up and what can be done about it. Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, there have been steps taking already in fact to address the speed limit issues on most of our major highways within this city. This past spring or summer the City Council, in a joint effort with the Carver County public highway department petitioned the State to perform speed studies on all of our county roadway systems in the city. Galpin Blvd, Powers Blvd. To review these. They haven't been reviewed in a while. Plus all this development we've had over the last few years. Have a lot more traffic. Lot more residential neighborhoods abutting these streets so it is being addressed. Will be looked at by MnDot here and we hope to have something back shortly. Powers Blvd is in the process of being widened and upgraded. The construction plans are being drawn as we speak. Carver County is the lead agency...participation. The consultant engineer that the County has hired, I did speak with them on this issue with regards to access. They are undecided at this point where they'll be limiting the access points to a right-in to a right-out or one of the access, maybe the...will have the full turning movement. That's something that we're looking at taking the sight distances and distances between access points. Carver County did supply us with a memo based on the access issues. The storm drainage issues so these will be addressed here in the upcoming month here. Their construction plans and the developer. I think one of the conditions that we put in the staff report was the applicant meet with the County and the City to review the access issues and storm drainage issues and so forth. Powers Blvd definitely will include pedestrian trails/sidewalks on each side of the roadway. There's been some talk tonight about accessing the parcel on the east side of Powers Blvd. It's my understanding that they're looking at a pedestrian crossing with a tunnel. There's an existing cattle passage if you will, on the north end that's been used. It needs some work. There's some erosion that's occurred...bad shape. There's a similar proposal I believe to occur on the southerly portion of Powers to access and provide a pedestrian access across Powers Blvd without having to cross. The pedestrian bridge, great idea. The cost of something like that unfortunately I think, we're well aware of what's taking place in the downtown with the price tag of that one so I don't know if that's reality. There is another park system that's essentially larger and it's probably going to draw these neighborhood children as well and that's in the Lake Susan Hills development...hill. That's already been developed and the Lake Susan Hills residents are enjoying already. I'm sure they can all use little parks... Mancino: And that's being addressed. Will the stop sign issue on Lake Susan Hills Drive as it goes into Powers Blvd be addressed? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Hempel: I did ask the consultant and they're looking into that. There was no immediate talk. They didn't feel that the warrants were there to justify a signal intersection. They will be looking at that though. They will be providing the mechanisms in the construction of the upgrade of Powers for future signalization so I don't...warrants are met. But at this point we don't consider any traffic controls at this intersection. Mancino: Okay. Do you have any time line when you think MnDot will get to act on the speed limits on Powers and Galpin and our major roads. Hempel: I'd have to check further into that. See where they're at. Mancino: Retaining walls. Sharmin, did the developer and staff, I mean how does staff feel about and do we have it in other places in Chanhassen where we have 14 foot retaining walls abutting? Al-Jaff: We...with the applicant and we expressed our concern over the height of the retaining walls. Mancino: What was the applicant? Aanenson: That's why we want to terrace them... Mancino: Okay, to go with the terrace. Al-Jaff: We also...put fencing in. Mancino: So fencing at the top of the highest point of the terrace and besides fencing, because we also know what fencing looks like. Some sort of arborvitae or some sort of conifers. Al-Jaff: ...approval. Landscaping plan. Mancino: Okay. Did the applicant look at all about doing a sloping down a little bit and then terracing? Come down a little bit more gradually, and I know that that would probably lose some land for developing but was there any creative look at that? Developing it that way. Al-Jaff: When we met with the applicant, which was Tuesday of last week, we recommended that they revise the plan. That they show us a terraced retaining wall and we left the design issue with them. That they would have to come back to us with a design that was 62 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 satisfactory. Mancino: And we don't see it, right? Hempel: Maybe if I could expand on that a little bit. Nancy, I'm sorry to interrupt...we did throw out some suggestions to try to break up the row of houses. Meander a street through there. Possibly providing all the units onto the west side of the street. Move the street closer to Powers Blvd and act more like a frontage road if you will and provide sufficient buffering then between Powers Blvd and that frontage road if you will. That resulted in losing quite a few units there. They felt it was going to, they thought the grading was going to be approximately the same. They still have the units on the west side but, bring that road closer to Powers Boulevard. If you bring the units down the hill somewhat and I think reduces some of the impact. But it does knock off quite a few of the units being proposed. Aanenson: Can I just comment on what Dave is saying too. I think there's an appearance that this was dropped in our lap and we just reviewed it. We've been working with this applicant almost a year. This thing has gone through many evolutions. It's a very difficult piece to try to develop. There's an inherent density in there and he feels there's an inherent value in that property. Okay, so we're trying to come up with...resolve but it is, there's some tough issues there. We're trying to... Hempel: I'll touch on that a little bit more. The applicant was given the opportunity to revise his drawings...he'd like to bring it out onto the table and see what issues are actually out there so if they do go back, they can take into consideration all of the issues and go from there. Mancino: That's helpful information. Aanenson: This is an opportunity to get public input. Go back and respond to it. It goes back to that thing, should we put it on or wait until everything's fmalized and then come back and you get them in a different order or bring it out in the public hearing and get some direction from everybody and go from there. Mancino: I just have a couple more questions. Sharmin, on the tree plan here. Are we suggesting that there be custom grading in some of the areas where it abuts the existing trees? Al-Jaff: Yes. They would lose some trees... Mancino: On that side. And quite a few on the north. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Al-Jaff: Well it will probably be more than that. Mancino: So you're going to take off about a quarter of the trees that are there. Al-Jaff: Correct. However, all of this will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 as required by ordinance. We are also requesting additional trees being placed on this site. One thing that might help is, by realigning those units, it could potentially minimize grading with those units and it could also minimize impacts on the stand of trees. Mancino: Trees. Okay. And when I see this tree plan, it has 10 trees that look like this. What's that telling me? I mean they're going to take all of this but what does it mean? Are those the specimen trees? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. . Aanenson: Going back to the canopy coverage. Mancino: So these are the trees that are larger than 12 caliper inch that they have designated they've shown. But the rest of the underbrush, the saplings and everything else will be saved and they may not go in and clear cut the underbrush? Aanenson: If that's how we define the conservation easement outside of our grading limits. We've indicated that some will be taken out that are shown on the plan. Mancino: Okay. But then the rest en masse will stay. Excuse me, I wrote down notes as everyone talked. I think that's the end of my questions. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: As far as retaining walls are concerned, another aspect that I'm interested in comes from what I'll call the Oak Pond effect and after seeing those townhomes go up, I'm just wondering what really happened there. But the retaining walls are going to be a major visual feature if they're built and I want to know exactly how they look when they go up because those will be viewed all along Powers Blvd, if indeed this gets constructed like this. So I think that's going to be extremely important. This is a PUD and I think it's important that that be very well defined and we understand how that's going to look. Comments regarding the landscaping. Staff has indicated the deficiencies. I guess I would like to, when this comes back I would like to see a very detailed landscaping plan which resolves those 64 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 deficiencies. I think the plan is quite difficult to follow and I think it could use a lot of improvement there. The idea of the retaining walls going into the treed area. To put in those retaining walls there's going to be all kinds of grading beyond those areas. Equipment and essentially many, many of those trees would be lost in that area so you know I would not support those retaining walls within that treed area. I think that probably defeats the purpose. Let's see. I guess overall I think the residents had a lot of good comments and I'm not going to try to respond to each of those other than I think many of them have quite a bit of merit and I'm sure we're going to go over those in detail. They've put their thoughts down on paper which I think is great. They're very well organized and have a good handle as to what they feel is important for their neighborhood and I certainly appreciate that. The one thing that was, or another thing that was brought out was the runoff from the upland area. The other neighborhood and I would, we really haven't addressed that anywhere in the staff report that I've seen and I know it's a matter of course to consider the watershed regardless of where the property lines are but I just want to make sure, in this case I think it's extremely important because there is a tremendous amount of water that will come off from the upland area that I want to make sure that gets addressed. I'm sure it will but just to emphasize the importance of that in terms of incorporating surface water control features into whatever retaining walls are built or whatever and that would be kind of tricky. But that would have to be done in this instance. I can't imagine for stability sake water cascading over those retaining walls so, that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good. Ladd. Conrad: You know when you look at the footprint that we got, it wasn't bad. When you think that this has really been negotiated to have 9.3 units on it, it wasn't bad. It's coming in at 5.1 and unfortunately it's probably not meeting the real need for, the real reason for having medium density and that becomes affordable housing. And if we're at $110,000.00 which, as a minimum. I'm sure the neighbors appreciate that more than the $80,000.00 unit but really when we put in a PUD and we put in medium density, the reason was to make affordable housing and we planned that for years and years and years. That's why we do our plans so that people know. It's there. It's been there for years. I said that and then I look at the retaining wall and I look at some issues when you start playing around with landforms, that if you were here when we talked about other parcels and that starts to bother me. When we start playing with the landforms again and putting in a retaining wall. That's when, what I thought to begin with kind of breaks down. It's to the point though where I want to see if it works. It looks like it could but I'm not totally convinced of it, and that's why the applicant has got to bring back some better. We have to visualize what this looks like. We have to, as planning commissioners and as neighbors, have to understand what we're doing with this retaining wall. We have to see how the landscape plan affects that and how it moves from this medium density to the neighboring low density. So it may not be acceptable but on the 65 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 other hand it just may but given what we've been given tonight, I don't have a clue. And given that fact, we have to table this. We have to. There's just no doubt. We have no other choice. My only other issue, I think a lot of the issues from the neighborhood, I think they're resolved or they're close to being resolved. If you saw the staff report, we've dealt with, you know the staff is dealing with speed limits. Staff is dealing with tree preservation. Staff is dealing with wetlands. I think we're concerned with construction and I'm concerned with construction and what it could potentially do to the neighbor's houses and liability there. I think we have to let the neighbors know what it is. Who's accountable and we'll do that. My only other issue though is the variety of designs that abut the street. You know I really don't, I really don't want a row. It's not what we need there. I think generally I didn't have a real problem with the house designs. I think they're, but I don't want a row of houses abutting that street. There's got to be some kind of variety and I don't think it's just color and I think the developers have tried to put some gables in and some different variations but still they've got a great potential of a lot of units sitting exactly the same distance back from the street and it is, it's a wall. That bothers me a little bit. So we need to see it back and see what the developers can do but the big deal is, we have to visualize what your perspective is of that retaining wall. We have to see it because you're changing a landform that we really don't like to, or at least I don't like to play around with the land that much. I kind of like to leave it as it is and if you're to change it, then we've got to see how you're doing it so we can all say, yeah. That makes sense. So anyway, because again I started out, the reason I started out with density, they contractually can put that kind of density in here and you have, there's some other alternatives. It may not be economic for them to do it right now. There may not be a market for the higher density right now but they have some, contractually we're liable for putting in some units so when they come down to 5.1, that's not bad. So we just want to make sure they're the right 5.1 units that are going there so again, I say that to the neighbors. There's some other options that aren't as good but again, we have to make sure that this works. In a transition to your area and that's why I want to see it back. Mancino: I'd second that. Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am. Mancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff...some direction about and that's impervious surface. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impervious surface is over what the PUD states. Scott: Is it 30 on the PUD? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Mancino: It's 30 on the PUD and they're at 34%. Conrad: We can enforce that. Yet on the other hand, we could enforce that. Aanenson: We went over on the other one... Ledvina: I think I'm willing, personally I'm willing to be flexible on that given the type of design that I see. If we were looking at another design, maybe 30% would be more appropriate. So I think the staff recommendation as it relates to that is appropriate for, in my opinion, for this particular development. Conrad: Yeah, I agree with Matt. Mancino: Well it's probably one of the reasons why you get the row of houses also. I relate the impervious surface percentage to that and lining up the roads. Ledvina: It's very, I would agree with that and I think something needs to be done to break up the wall. And if that means losing a unit and staying...or losing more units or however it's done and also in relation to the severity of the slope differentials. In the final analysis, retaining walls may not be the appropriate way to develop and the density would come down. I don't know but I think more sensitivity and analysis there will provide some answers. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table action-on the preliminary plat to subdivide 9.7 acres into 51 lots twin home multifamily development for Jasper Development Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this back as soon as the applicant can do what we've suggested but just in summary. I believe it would be very helpful for us to see a perspective view, a westerly view of the, not necessarily the whole development but at least significant sections of the development where the difference in grade is very severe. Number two, if it is at all possible and we all have to understand that this piece of property is pretty much a basketcase to try to develop and I think that this initial pass that we've seen is a good effort towards it but if there's any way that we can get the street to meander a little bit so we have more of a wave effect instead of just the row house, that'd be important. We'd like to see building materials at the next meeting and. Mancino: Detailed landscaping. Scott: Yeah, and the other comments I think are on it. Okay, good. Thank you all very much. We appreciate your. The public hearing is closed sir. I'm sorry. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Resident: I understand that but I need to ask one question. Can we get the information that we're asking too? Can we as homeowners? Aanenson: Yes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes were available due to a copying machine problem. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on what occurred at the City Council meeting of August 22, 1994 and the Commission had some questions regarding the Entertainment Complex presentation. Mancino: My only concern, publically, is that they reviewed it much like we did. Remember we reviewed it. It was very long. We started at 5:30 and we went until 11:30 one night or 12:00. Aanenson: But this is just a concept. This is just to say, we should spend some money to do some drawings. Mancino: Exactly but I also want to say that it was too bad that I think that they did it like at 1:00, 12:30 at night too. So I mean there's nothing to be done. I'm just saying that it's too bad that. Ledvina: Was it really that late? Mancino: Yes... Aanenson: A 2 hour snowmobile issue... Kate Aanenson also reviewed the legal issues involved pertaining to gifts presented to public officials with the Planning Commission. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director 68 CITY OF CIIAHAE 11/02/94 and 11/16/94 N CC DATE: 11/28/94 CASE #: 94-14 SUB, 94-7 REZ, . 11 • "•-• STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, and preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, located north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1/4 mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Z Highlands. VQLOCATION: North of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard, in the SW 1/4 of Section 10 and the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23 West. Carver County, Minnesota. CL a. APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Jack Lynch Q Lotus Realty Services BRW P.O.Box 235 700 3rd Street South Chanhassen, MN 33917 Minneapolis, MN 55415 934-4538 370-0700 PRESENT ZONLNG: Agricultural Estate District, A2 / Highway Corridor District, HC-2 ACREAGE: 49.9 acres DENSITY: gross: 2.62 units per acre net: 3.56 units per acre ADJACENT ZONL'NNG AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Windmill Run and Royal Oaks subdivisions S - A2, OI - Elementary School, Highway 5 E - RR, vacant QW - A2, single family farmsteads, Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site, the southern portion must petition for sewer extension as part of the Bluff Creek Sewer project. F. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is rolling farmland with a highpoint of 1013 feet and a low point of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek corridor which is located in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A10- 14(1) on the City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site adjacent to the proposed north Highway 5 collector road. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) -LAKE rilliPP4. NPAY - -_—i ►— N. 'Th c a;KE I 1 HARK/SDN ` ,1 LAKE LUCY 4 A► f 4 n W \\ RE U a . SHC m "AA 1 (, LAKE ANN \ _-i a HLOCATION 1 4KE ANN PA4K i I I tie, . ,1 _ imik lilt' L. '� - AR -OR . BOULEVARD ilw,, 0, W I ( I I i� ! CO(JR T R I ' WI afei I - 1` IC cG�YNh RQb;. liit1IliT,m.E.y,,L lia Com, ,� lit011111 • F � Ak0 I ��' POND P ..: Imo~ '4,q-� fr,Roc � c'''..". � H i i ' j . '1E milkl S C- Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 2 Due to a Public Hearing Notice error made by the Chanhassen Villager, the Public Hearing for the Lake Ann Highlands subdivision will be held on Wednesday, November 16, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. However, because notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the project, the city will accept public input and comments. No decision will be made until after the Public Hearing on November 16, 1994. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the rezoning of the site from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density Residential, R4, which permits either single-family or two-dwelling units. The proposed net density of 3.56 units per acre is within the net density provided in the City of Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan. The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the site into 92 lots and 2 outlots. Outlot A is guided in the Land Use Plan for medium density residential which permits a net density of 4.0 - 8.0 units per acre. Outlot A will be platted at a future date. The applicant is proposing development of the northern half of the site in two phases. The first phase would consist of 38 units and would include providing roadway connections to Galpin Boulevard and an extension of Windmill Drive. This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-2 District. While single family residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the district, the project must still comply with the highway corridor district intent which is to attain high quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting, texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept; must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening, buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the conditions of approval contained in this staff report. The applicant has stated that they do not have a specific builder at this time for the development. It is their intent to market predominantly single level living. Based on the subdivision design, there will be multiple orientations in the housing units. Staff would recommend that we require that there be a variety of colors and materials used throughout the development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures. The proposed northern Highway 5 access boulevard, which is proposed to run from West 78th Street to Highway 41, dissects the property. The Highway 5 Corridor Study recommended a Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 3 mix of land uses with single family residential setbacks from Highway 5 and multifamily residential abutting Highway 5 with medium density residential providing a transition from the single-family (see attached North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept, Figure 8.4). The applicant is proposing a development for this transition area that is less dense than what was envisioned as part of the study. The study also recommended the access boulevard location. The City Council recommended the southerly access boulevard location, but the final Environmental Assessment, EA, hearing has not been held. Staff has directed the applicant to work with the northern alignment. This alignment goes through the John Hennessey property. The Highway 5 Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended the northern access boulevard alignment. The preferred access boulevard is a 32 foot wide urban section (see attached Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1) with a 10 foot pedestrian trail and boulevard landscaping. Development of phase II of this project is contingent on the construction of the access boulevard. The applicant could construct this segment of the roadway or they could petition the city to have the road constructed. Development of this phase and construction of the access boulevard will require that a connection be made to Galpin Boulevard either through the Hennessey or by crossing over Bluff Creek and transversing the VanDeVeire property on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard. Until the access boulevard is constructed, access to this project shall be from a local road connecting to Galpin Boulevard and via Windmill Drive. Outlot B is serving no function as part of this development. It should therefore be combined with Lot 16, Block 2. A 10 foot drainage and utility easement shall be granted over this corner. Access for the Hennessey property shall be provided via the future access boulevard. Staff is recommending that this development be approved subject to the conditions of approval. BACKGROUND Currently, there are 218 twinhome units within the city. Housing types are distributed as follows: detached single-family homes, 4,475 units (81%); twinhomes, 218 units (4%); townhouses. 309 units (5.6%), and multifamily, 529 units (9.6%). The proposed twinhome development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city and provides housing alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing Availability Policy No. 8 of the Comprehensive Plan states "The development of alternate types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes." SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 4 resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre- developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 212-inch rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual catch basins will also be required. DRAINAGE • • The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of Bluff Creek. Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge point at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is also a DNR protected water. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100-foot buffer to maintain a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor. The site falls into two watershed districts (Figure 1). Approximately half of the site drains naturally to the east branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west branch of Bluff Creek. It appears that the proposed grading and drainage plans intend to maintain a similar drainage pattern. Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater should be anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically be extended to the street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump pumps in the streets created hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the winter as well as algae buildup in the summer. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 5 Phase I of the Development The stormwater runoff for this phase of the development will drain to the east branch of Bluff Creek. The proposed temporary sediment basin will be sufficient for the interim as long as the discharge is allowed to run through a grass swale before entering the creek. The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch basins. The proposed temporary sediment basin shall be maintained until the downstream permanent nutrient pond is constructed. Phase II of the project may not proceed without this infrastructure in place. Phase II of the Development The proposed temporary sediment basin will be replaced by a downstream water quality basin designed to meet Walker standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This pond will be sized to take the runoff from this site in addition to the fully developed runoff conditions from the rest of the watershed area that drains to the creek. Again, this ponding basin must be in place or constructed as a part of the overall Phase H improvements. According to SWMP, a water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this development to treat stormwater runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek. The basin is sized to take the runoff from the southern drainage district on the property (Phase II) in addition to the to lots along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this water quality basin is to be used and modified to pretreat the runoff from the southern half of the development as well as the west branch of Bluff Creek. In order for Phase H to proceed this ponding basin must also be in place or constructed as a part of the overall improvements in Phase II. The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer. Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage areas and individual catch basins. The proposed temporary sediment basin should be replaced with a permanent nutrient pond as discussed above. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 6 Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of S2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge has been estimated at $1,421/acre for low density developments. This proposed development of 35.2 acres would then be charged $50,019. This includes a land cost estimate of $21,000 per acre. The City will need to be petitioned to construct the downstream ponds and a project ordered by the City prior to Phase II approval unless the applicant constructs these downstream ponds. If this is the case, the applicant would be credited for the work. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Lov, density developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The proposed low density development of 35.2 acres would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $69,696. Wetlands There is one agricultural/urban wetland on-site that will be impacted by the proposed frontage road alignment. The applicant should avoid impacts, and if they can not, they will have to complete the necessary sequencing and replacement plan application process for the City and the State Wetland Conservation Act. Since impacts to this wetland would occur in Phase II of the development, staff suggests that the wetland alteration permit application be postponed until that time. If the City is petitioned to construct the road, then the City would be responsible to apply for a permit. Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban wetland located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 7 EROSION CONTROL Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. UTILITIES Utility service is available to Phase I of the development. Sanitary sewer and water is available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has limited serviceability to only Phase I. Phase II is proposed to be serviced with the extension of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer which is proposed to follow the Bluff Creek corridor through Outlot A in the southwest corner of the site. In order for this trunk sanitary sewer to be extended, the applicant will need to petition the City and have the City authorize a trunk improvement project to extend sanitary sewer undernea:r Trunk Highway 5 from the south. Currently the sanitary sewer is located at the end of Stone Creek Drive located approximately 3/4 of a mile south of this development. The City is proposing to extend the trunk sanitary sewer line in 1995 up to the elementary school located just south of Trunk Highway 5. It may be possible for the City's project (Phase II) to be expanded to include extension of sanitary sewer service underneath Trunk Highway 5 to this project. The applicant is proposing to extend the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive down to the future frontage road along Outlot A consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water Plan. The applicant should be given credit for installation of this 12-inch trunk water line. Typically. the applicant would need to only install a 6-inch or 8-inch water line. Therefore, the applicant should be given credit for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line. The exact alignment of the 12-inch watermain shall be determined with review of the final construction drawings for this development. Sanitary sewer service to Phase II is proposed to be extended in two locations from the future trunk sanitary sewer line along the west branch of Bluff Creek. Staff believes that one of the lines could be eliminated. This should be further investigated by the applicant prior to developing construction plans for Phase II. Along the westerly portion of Phase II adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an existing homestead abuts this development. The applicant, in conjunction with Phase II of the development, should intend on providing sewer and water service stubs to the parcel. The City will reimburse the applicant when the parcel connects to sanitary sewer and water. The exact amount will be determined at the time when the parcel connects. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 8 Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final platting of both phases. Construction drawings shall be developed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In addition, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval of the platting process. Fire hydrant placement in both phases will be subject to fire marshal review. These types of reviews are typically at the time of construction plan and specification review. The applicant shall relocate or add fire hydrants as necessary in accordance with the fire marshal's recommendations. STREETS The preliminary plat proposed to dedicate necessary 60-foot wide right-of-ways and 80-foot wide right-of-way for future frontage road. Street design appears to be consistent with the City's urban street section which is 31 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curbs and gutters. The preliminary plat proposes three fairly sharp curves which do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design speed. However, staff is not opposed to this layout since the curvilinear design adds character to the neighborhood and helps reduce speed. The appropriate traffic control signs will be installed by the City upon completion of the street project. Access to Phase I of the development will be by extending Windmill Drive from the north and another connection back out to Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Since Galpin Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department, an access permit will be required. This should be a condition of final plat approval. Prior to Phase II commencing, the applicant should be required to have the frontage road constructed from Galpin Boulevard to provide another access point. The applicant may wish to petition the City to construct this segment of roadway; however, depending on the scope of the project and City Council support it may not meet the applicant's schedule. The applicant may want to consider constructing this segment of the frontage road themselves from a scheduling and cost standpoint. The frontage road is also listed on the City's Municipal State Aid Route; therefore, the street must be constructed to meet State Aid standards. A trail/sidewalk will also be required along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. Phase II of the development proposes two cul-de-sacs with landscaped islands. Whereas the City is not opposed to the idea, the City does have concerns with regards to maintenance of the islands as well as parking within the cul-de-sac areas. Typically, the City requires that the applicant list in the homeowners association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities. In addition. the City will require that no parking signs be posted within the cul-de-sac areas. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 9 This is to ensure adequate turning radius for public safety vehicles. The City Council will have to adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sac areas. Galpin Boulevard is listed as a collector-type street in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing the necessary right-of-way as well as a trail easement outside of the right-of-way consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Construction of auxiliary turn lanes or bypass lanes on Galpin Boulevard may be a possibility contingent upon Carver County Highway Department review of the plat. Spacing between the intersections of Phase I and the future frontage road is adequate along with spacing between the Windmill Run development as well. Staff has previously made remarks with regards to the future development of Outlot A. Staff is concerned about future street access points off the frontage road. Staff believes the appropriate access point would be at the intersection of Windmill Run and the frontage road. There is a physical topographic separation (Bluff Creek) between this parcel and the one to the east which may result in a long dead-end cul-de-sac when Outlot A develops. Staff just wants to bring this to the applicant's attention at this time that there will be limited access points on the frontage road. It appears street grades within both phases area consistent with City ordinances. Street grades appear to range between one and seven percent. Street grades are laid out to provide a very rolling affect through the neighborhood. This, combined with the curvilinear streets, should provide for a very unique street layout similar to Lundgren's Near Mountain development in the northwest portion of the City. Direct access to all lots should be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or the frontage road. GRADING The site is currently employed in agricultural use. The entire site with the exception of Outlot A is proposed to be graded. It is unclear whether both phases will be graded with the initial phase. The applicant should provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork calculations and the schedule of grading events. At a minimum the City will require grading of a temporary sediment pond with Phase I as shown on grading plan to provide an acceptable level of water quality treatment and flood protection downstream. Adjacent to collector-type streets (Galpin Boulevard and frontage road), the City does require berming and screening. The applicant, on the landscape plan, has provided some screening along Galpin Boulevard as well as minor screening along the proposed frontage road. However, no berming has been indicated on the grading plan. The grading plans should be Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 10 revised incorporating undulating earth berms along the frontage road and Galpin Boulevard outside the City's road right-of-way. Landscaping plantings along the frontage road should be maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION There are few trees within the developed portion of the site. Staff estimates that there is approximately 18,875 square feet of canopy area within the northern portion of the development (excludes Outlot A) primarily within road right-of-way which represents a 1.2 percent baseline canopy coverage. It appears that all of these trees will be removed. City Code section 18-61, Tree Preservation, requires a 25 percent canopy coverage for low density residential property with 19 percent of less canopy coverage. Forestation requirements for the site require the planting of 334 trees (1,529,134 sq. ft.times 25 percent minus 18,875 sq. ft. (existing canopy) divided by 1,089 sq. ft.). In addition, a replacement planting of 21 trees shall be required (18,875 times 1.2 divided by 1,089). The total tree planting requirement is 355 trees. Of these trees, at least 20 percent must be evergreens and no more than 33 percent may be from one tree species. Staff has reviewed the preliminary landscaping plan and notes that the plan does not meet the minimum requirements for tree plantings. An additional 19 evergreens must be provided, bringing the total evergreens to 71 or 20 percent. Staff recommends the use of 19 Arborvitae. The plan provides 128 deciduous trees, 284 trees are required. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include these additional trees using the following species: Oak (Bur or Red), Norway Maple, Black Locust (which would do well in the site soils and is an interesting tree because it leafs out late and retains leaves longer in the fall), and Japanese tree lilac (as an additional ornamental choice). The Sugar Maples within the planting islands should be deleted because they do not tolerate heat and salt. As a substitute, Hackberries or Norway Maples should be used. In addition, the plantings within the landscape islands are to close and crowded. The plan should reduce the number of tree in the islands as well as mix small and large sized trees. Finally, trees should be planted in groupings rather than in a linear fashion. The final landscape plan must be prepared by a landscape professional. Staff recommends that the additional trees be provided in the following priority: 1. Along the northern property line. 2. Providing additional screening along the Highway 5 collector road. 3. In the front yards of Lots 21 and 22, Block 3. 4. On corner lots to provide landscaping on both street frontages. No plantings may be within the corner site triangle. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 11 PARKS AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission met on October 25, 1994 to discuss this development. They recommended that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. REZONING/COMP PLAN The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density Residential, R4, is consistent with the Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) guide plan designation of the property. Staff supports the requested rezoning of the property. COMPLIANCE TABLE CODE FOR TWO-DWELLING: Area - 10,000 sq.ft. per unit, Frontage - 50 ft., depth - 125 ft., Setbacks: front - 30 ft., side - 10 ft., rear - 30 ft., and access boulevard - 50 ft. BLOCK LOT LOT AREA FRONTAGE DEPTH 1 1 10,050 68.5 138.9 1 2 10,034 66.58 145 1 3 10,018 64.6 155.7 1 4 10,284 60.98 170.4 1 5 10,330 49.82* 188 1 6 11,422 50.16 208.6 1 7 16,560 59.69 237.2 1 8 19,026 60.62 275 1 9 12,627 79.97 184.1 1 10 10,478 55.03 190.5 1 11 13,356 56 199.7 1 12 14,164 56.64 213.8 1 13 15,676 35.01* 190.5 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 12 1 14 11,151 35.01* 157.2 1 15 16,359 31.85 183.3 1 16 13,316 39.14* 188.1 1 17 13,867 46.14* 167 1 18 14,813 42.95* 197.7 1 19 14,959 100 160.3 1 20 14,386 105.1 160 1 21 13.628 35* 204.2 1 22 14,302 54.4 167.9 2 1 16,631 80 209.4 2 2 10,387 55 • 188.9 2 3 15,407 71.54 167.5 2 4 12,242 89.07 152.4 2 5 17,522 177.92 136.8 2 6 14,895 136.67 142.3 2 7 10.009 78.87 134.4 2 8 11,139 76.32 153.1 2 9 12,608 51.02 186.4 2 10 18,580 47.72* 209 2 11 13,529 54.61 192.6 2 12 13,086 53 170 2 13 12,724 70.01 161.7 2 14 12,416 70 157 2 15 11,607 69.35 151.5 2 16 13,036 71.18 167.9 3 1 10,046 63.93 162.3 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 13 3 2 10,215 77.38 172.6 3 3 10,151 60.02 168.5 3 4 10,017 60.26 166.5 3 5 10,033 66.06 134.1 3 6 10,041 60.92 132.3 3 7 12,605 64.78 139.7 3 8 12,322 84.83 151.2 3 9 12,136 79.23 178.8 3 10 12.121 81.61 175.5 3 11 11.311 36.1* 184.2 3 12 15,412 35.82* • 181.4 3 13 12310 40.98* 175.2 3 14 10.185 42.28 152.2 3 15 12.203 138.57 122.4# 3 16 13.099 108.2 144.9 3 17 12,991 61.3 163.7 3 18 10,391 66.51 159.9 3 19 10,119 66.51 155.7 3 20 10,071 68.04 151.4 3 21 10,240 92.27 170.5 3 22 10.638 78.91 200.9 3 23 11,272 84.6 204.3 3 24 10,765 108.49 177.3 3 25 10,181 72.1 151.8 3 26 10,000 61.9 143.3 3 27 10,016 73.41 137.0 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 14 3 28 10,003 74.06 135.9 3 29 10,008 72.04 141 3 30 10.420 r 70.49 151.5 3 31 10,648 81.29 164.6 3 32 11,755 76.74 176.5 4 1 12,836 76.12 155.1 4 2 10.107 r 69.89 145.9 4 3 10,034 71.29 141.3 4 4 10,060 71.11 142.2 4 5 10,020 68.32 148.3 , 4 6 10.690 r 68.4 158.9 4 7 10.020 60.47 168.9 4 8 10,466 60.08 174.0 4 9 10,151 58.04 174.7 4 10 10,020 58.79 171 4 11 10.927 66.94 164.3 4 12 10,457 67.19 156.7 4 13 10,600 64.39 151.7 4 14 11,524 52.6 160.8 4 15 13.487 41.1* 196.6 4 16 14,124 47.68* 248.3 4 17 16,722 43.06* 240.9 4 18 13,237 40.38* 190.9 5 1 4 14,642 53.95 179.5 5 2 13,390 71.67 198.5 5 3 14,726 71.67 218.3 Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 15 5 4 16,776 74.33 239.8 Subtotal 92 1,125,509 (25.8 ac.) 51.8 % of site lots Outlot A 643,360 (14.8 ac.) 29.6 % of site Outlot B 1.306 (0.3 ac.) 0.06 % of site ROW 402,325 (9.2 ac.) 18.6 % of site TOTAL PLAT 2,172,500 (49.9 ac.) Sotes: x Complies with the width requirement at the building setback line. # Does not comply with City Code requirements FI\DINGS Subdivision 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance: Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District with the exception of Lot 15, Block 3, which does not comply with the lot depth requirement of a minimum of 125 feet in depth. Either a variance request for 2.6 feet from the 125 foot depth requirement must be requested and approved or the lot needs to be reconfigured to meet the minimum requirement. In addition, the development does not meet the minimum landscaping requirement of section 18-61 of the City Code. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan consistent with staff recommendations. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The proposed net density of 3.56 units per acre is within the density range allowed within the Residential - Low Density land use designation of 1.2 to 4.0 net units per acre. The development complies with the City's Highway 5 corridor plan. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 16 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure subject to compliance with the conditions contained in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Findin : The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure based on compliance with the conditions of this report. Wetland Alteration Permit When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to: 1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the wetland. Lake Ann Highlands October 27. 1994 Page 17 Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland along the north Highway 5 collector road. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed district as part of the city's wetland banking system. 2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland within the alignment for the north Highway 5 collector road extension. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the impact of the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complex. 3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland activity and its implementation. Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity. Finding: Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining wetlands. the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland. 5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420.0530 to 8420.0630. Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland within the north Highway 5 collector alignment. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 18 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following motions: REZONING "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning #94-7 rezoning 35.1 acres, encompassing the land north of the north Highway 5 collector road, from A2, Agricultural Estate District to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District. consistent with the Chanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan" SUBDIVISION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #94-7 subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 5. The landscaping plan shall be revised as follows prior to final platting: a. An additional 19 evergreens must be provided, bringing the total evergreens to 71 or 20 percent. Staff recommends the use of 19 Arborvitae. b. The plan provides 128 deciduous trees, 284 trees are required. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include these additional trees using the following species: Oak (Bur or Red), Norway Maple, Black Locust, and Japanese tree lilac. c. The Sugar Maples within the planting islands shall be deleted and substituted with Hackberries or Norway Maples. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 19 d. In addition, the plantings within the landscape islands are to close and crowded. The plan should reduce the number of tree in the islands as well as mix small and large sized trees. e. Trees should be planted in groupings rather than in a linear fashion. f. The final landscape plan must be prepared by a landscape professional. g. A landscape buffer shall be provided from the property to the north. h. Staff recommends that the additional trees be provided in the following priority: 1. Along the northern site boundary. 2. Providing additional screening along the Highway 5 collector road. 3. In the front yards of Lots 21 and 22, Block 3. 4. On corner lots to provide landscaping on both street frontages. No plantings may be within the corner site triangle. 6. Combine Outlot B with Lot 16, Block 2, and grant a 10 foot drainage and utility easement over this corner. 7. Full park and trail fees be required pursuant to City Code in lieu of land dedication 8. The applicant will incorporate a variety of colors and materials throughout the development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures. 9. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 20 12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 13. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 15. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 16. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 18. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. 19. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance with the construction plans. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 21 20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate the frontage road right-of-way. 21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 22. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 23. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 24. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. This proposed development of 35.2 acres is $50,019. 25. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The proposed multi-family residential development of 35.2 acres would be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $69,696. 26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 27. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 100-foot wide conservation easement over the southwesterly 100 feet of Outlot A. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot. 28. Prior to Phase II receiving final plat approval, the downstream permanent nutrient ponds shall be constructed or scheduled in conjunction with Phase II improvements in accordance to the City's SWMP and the frontage road shall be constructed or scheduled for construction through the site out to Galpin Boulevard. No building permits shall be issued in Phase H without these improvements completed. Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 22 29. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain along Windmill Run. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12- inch water line. 30. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service stubs to the Hennessey parcel located west of Lot 16, Block 2. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of providing the service stubs when the property connects to the system. 31. The applicant shall list in the association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities of the landscaped cul-de-sacs. If the islands are not maintained, the City reserves the right to remove them or continue maintenance and assess the benefitted properties. The City will adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sacs with islands. 32. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin Boulevard or the future frontage road. 33. The grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with Windmill Run and incorporate berms along the future frontage road and Galpin Boulevard outside the right-of-way. 34. Landscaping along the future frontage road shall be maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards. 35. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork quantities and a schedule of construction events. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit #94-6 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils. 2. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign." Lake Ann Highlands October 27, 1994 Page 24 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94 3. Letter from Ceil Strauss to Robert Generous dated 9/27/94 4. Letter from Richard J. Pion to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94 5. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List 6. Letter from Mark and Sharon Pryor dated 10/24/94 7. North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept, Figure 8.4 8 Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1 9. Watershed Districts, Figure 1 g.\plan'bgvakeann.pc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Lars Conway ADDRESS: PO Box 235, Attn: Brad Johnson ADDRESS: 4415 Fremont Avenue South Chanhassen Minneapolis, MN 55409 TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-4538 TELEPHONE: 635-1535 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12 Variance 3. Grading'Excavation Permit 13 Wetland Alteration Permit n� 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. V. Rezoning 7. -A- Sign Permits _ crnn 5. 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs c y 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost' $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR!WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. x Subdivision , TOTAL FEE $ $2325 $400 + $145 A Ilst 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. 81r2" 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. • Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME Lake Ann Hi ghl ands LOCATION NE Corner of County Rd 117 and Arboretum Blvd. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached. PRESENT ZONING Acri cultural Estate REQUESTED ZONING R-4 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Up to 4 units per acre REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R-4 - Two-Fami 1 y Homes REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Define use and zoninc in accordance with exi cti ng Guide plan and proposed plat. This application must be completed in full and be typewntten 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. _ y Signature of Applicant ate L ( « -Z CJ 9 Signature of Fee Owner Date Y Application Received on 9-.) %Y Fee Paid $ ' 4 Receipt No.51(y� (. 5/(.514) The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. cEFJT E NF•_HITECTLIr<i iL r1F.'TS 9-19-94 4: 1FM 2 ilii= 612 97.7 6" :ti EXHIBIT "A" That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range and that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows : Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 10; 'thence on an assumed bearing of South 01 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds East on the west line of said Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1213.40 feet; thence North 88 degrees 03 minutes 20 seconds East, a distance of 1190. 41 feet to a point on a 3452. 34 footcenter of circle of said curve bearing North 79dius d 30greesvminutes 09 seconds West from said point, said point also being the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence Southwesterly along said curve, a distance of 383.79 feet central angle 6 degrees 22 minutes 10 seconds ; thence South 71 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds East , a distance of 301 .07 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 minut 40 seconds West , a distance of 466. 33 feet to a es after referred to as Point A. point that is here- the point of intersection t Point A is described as beginning at Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 5andhe narline Northerly 11 ne r measured at right angles to and parallel with the centerline of ly of Carver County Road No. 117 degrees 17 minutes 40 secondshEast,oandnparallel bearing of centerliner18 of said Carver County Road No. 117, a distance of 725.00 feet;the thence South 65 degrees 12 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance feet to said Point A; thence from said Point A South of 268,73e minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 406,27 feet; thence ce4u12 degrees 55 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 500 feet South 27 less to the south line of said Southwest io m10; or thence South 0 degrees 00 minutes 05 seconds East, aSdistan 10; 68. 13 feet more or less to the Northerly right-of-w linenencf said Minnesota Trunk Highway Na. 5. Minnesota line ofh Trunk Highway Easterly along of er Southwest g ay Nc. 5 to the east line ofid said21 seconds Quartereslof Ssctiond as0;l thence North 2 degrees 04 minutes section 1s, a distance of 1e2s.fl1 feet;of the Southwest Se minutes 05 distan Westeet, thence North eQuarter 20of said Southwest seconds of on a line parallel to the northlineof to a point on a 3452. 34 footcradiusion Othe center of ]416.95 feet said urve bears North curve, the of circle said point; thence Southwesterly 24 minutes 20 'seconds West from 174. 92 feet central an i y along said curve, a distance of point of eenig e 02 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds to the or less and is sub,�ecthis tract to right-of49,7 acres or subject to any of land roadre and all easements of record. existing county and ecord. 4 • r3_ .,_ ). ! ''''---" ------- ---, \ . • 74'. ui, j \ \ -- • ^� Wit , if ! I1\ II ▪ 3 - X1' + �.. a.:- e.►. ` �- 1 f�� IYi _ 30 i ilsw .. ,..- -, -_.-. % o- iiiir-IN: ; . \ gi a CI) j' . . ' 1 i _ :1. / .......7, si.t. -- or , vi,,,_. ..IMEMPLI37,...e' !-. ...",,r,, _.,, i I *-r. i ,_ : = ;,. • -------.,, ';•-... 1: tikar..70*/ ;.,;:viiiiirr.,t.„ ,, , ),., II I : . .- ----- - *,.. - • ,,,. #•,,-,, rrig• --._____ • ti, 1 I % ▪ 1 i , -........e. ,t'..":2,..:Y., 1' ri!E ---- I i' \ • k - • • -- 1- - -i--'is!. grOi‘i!•‘. .tc,;40541,-'sv- ,Wdr 4445 - .lam^ Ai• ,• 4"el I r.,>.,`: te13112V1 d,. rr -- ,A, 2;.__-- . :... Iwr - Afsv = . ' Iyi, r32. /"' 1' Sl •r :S � St . �J i I i i � — � 3'k W:i .t 1i ' _ L V, . -_i i 1.• -!. . .‘ – , ---- Ifti— ii• 4 HI - .'•tfr.. _ FIs ^� j w•��•.. . ! ---:1•---- .ii ! •.. i w.eln -_--J; -t I\ ---- -- - - - i' i - ...c:*.7).)., r'c ri II . . *:--:- -------' .. -, • ' / 7 ----__..." ' - _ - --. r- -;sem,. J i btrr.. �� t • -- • t ! i1 . if} IU1S •tigalliIiiiiiiI iil{ iiiiiiliE1E11tlj�� = . t (t ` 1=ili llert Fa ! r 1 tiVilitifilliiirirfilhill rfi 2 l'' 41:11:Filtilleizi 4.ig•iltjtA l' Ln r ► R!Aff i11111111itlitiliiIitittiillilll Iii. Lc i�ie� •��•}�}} Ef ��;�ll F ;p (t;'it 4e ae triliE�Ei� ft 14.1lila£:j is IF �M�,. f±§`•3 t} o i i I i { ttlfl t I Eii e — i� : }.. ite , I I I1 i i IMI : < IIIEIIIURIUUIIUHththIEI ;;Eels = , ,• iii - e I i�i• # i ii' • .:.. :��EI ii E 1 I ..' ' 1 fill iiiiillil11MMI _\�1 • _ _ CITY OF 0:411 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEN TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,\ •�� ;� 1 • 1• DATE : October 3 , 1994 SUBJECT: 94-14 SUB & 94-7 REZ (Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highland' s) I was asked to review the development plans for Lake Ann Highland' s stamced "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20 1994 ; CHANHASSEN PL -.... LEFT. Analysis : Elevations . Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments . Dwelling Type . The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . Soils Report . In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents . Bob Generous October 3 , 1994 Page 2 Recommendations: 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits . 4 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department , Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . enclosure : 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo a'v.,r.=..,os'•,p1an\lkeannhi_bg1 CITY OF ClIANIIASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORAN:P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLU or PLO Designates Pront Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SL: Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. ( $E SEWO WO F� or RLO 111 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. 0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER STATE OF ili =7= Th, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO September 27 , 1994 Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Lake Ann Highlands, Bluff Creek, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Mr. Generous: We have reviewed the preliminary site plans dated September 15, 1994 (received September 21, 1994) for the above-referenced project (Sections 10 and 15 , T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is adjacent to the proposed site . Any activity below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff Creek which alters the course, current or cross-section of protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. 2 . It appears that some of the stormwater is proposed to be routed directly toward Bluff Creek with the outfall approximately 100 feet from the channel of Bluff Creek. Stormwater sedimentation/ treatment basins, or other appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included in the plan. If stormwater is routed directly toward the creek it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that are detrimental to the creek's wildlife values and water quality. 3 . Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary/urban. The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the bank, or the width of the floodplain, whichever is greatest. The development must be consistent with the city shoreland management regulations. 4 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Robert Generous September 27 , 1994 Page 2 b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296-7203) . d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Please contact me at 772-7910, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist CCS/MM c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Robert Obermeyer U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann City of Chanhassen Shoreland File minnegasco. A Division of Arkla,Inc. September 28, 1994 Mr. Robert Generous Planner II City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: 94-14 SUB and 94-7 REZ Lake Ann Highlands Lotus Realty Services Dear Mr. Generous: Enclosed are your prints for this project with the location of Minnegasco' s natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this property from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at this time unless requested by a developer/builder/ owner. The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s Residential Energy Services, 525-7607, to make application for natural gas service. Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal . Sincerely, 1 Richard J. P.ildn, P.E. Senior Administration Engineer Engineering Services 612-342-5426 cc : Mary Palkovich Terry Jencks CITY C7 700 West Linden Avenue P.O. Box 1165 Minneapolis.MN 55.140.1165 c I .W J� NOTICE OF PUBLIC CO ft HEARING (; PLANNING COMMISSION - , N ` MEETING i 1IlIa ��r Wednesday, NOVEMBER 2, 1994 = Insi II!J111ki at 7:30 p.m. • i///1111Hi116: City Hall Council Chambers LOCATION 690 Coulter Drive h Project: Lake Ann Highlands * , Developer: Lotus Realty Services I Location: North of Hwy. 5, 'A .i 4:ry mile on the east side of ,! l Galpin Boulevard Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located north of Hwy. 5, approximately 'A mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 20, 1994. r G4��.lv Bluff Creek Partners Hi-Way 5 Partnership Michael J. Gorra Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire c/o Dennis Dirlam 1680 Arboretum Dr. 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E 15421 Creekside Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 David Stockdale & Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte Angie McBryde Stockdale 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 John Hennessy & D. Rengers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P.'s Links, Inc. 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera Chanhassen, MN 55317 Michael & Kristine Perry Mark & Sharon Pryor Jean Kingsrud 7521 Windmill Dr. 7541 Windmill Dr. 2027 Brinker Street Chanhassen, M1 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kevin & Joan Joyce Robert & Carol Obersigner Brian R. Erdman • 2043 Brinker Street 2075 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Jeffrey R. Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Collin & Desiree Brown 2103 Brinker Street 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street Chanhassen. MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Julie Wojtanowski The Rottlund Company Kathleen Hademan 2145 Brinker Street Suite 301 2059 Brinker Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 5201 East River Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Fridley, MN 55421 October 24, 1994 Mark and Sharon Pryor 7541 Windmill Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sir'Madam: We would like to take this opportunity to outline our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of 49.9 acres of property currently zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential of 92 twin homes and one outlot referred to as Lake Ann Highlands. We recently built a home at 7541 Windmill Drive, in Windmill Run, a Rottlund development. As such, our home would border on the proposed development of Lake Ann Highlands. Before Sharon and I made our decision to build in Chanhassen, we looked into both Chanhassen generally, and into the area surrounding Windmill Run in particular. We talked to a number of long-time Chanhassen residents, and we were assured that Chanhassen had a reputation for controlled development and that a long term plan had been developed outlining the intended use of areas that had yet to be developed. Sharon talked with a member of the City Planning Department regarding the land immediately around Windmill Run. Sharon was assured that the long term plan was to develop the land around Windmill Run as Residential - Low Density (single family homesl. In addition, we have reviewed the "2000 Land Use Plan" which also indicates that the plan is to develop the land around Windmill Run as single family homes. Sharon and I relied on the information provided by the City, born in terms of verbal assurances from the City Planning Department and in the "2000 Land Use Plan" in deciding to make a substantial investment in building our home. We are now very concerned that this requested zoning change, at a variance from the planned use, to construct twinhomes rather than single family dwellings, will reduce our property value as well as to reduce the use and enjoyment of our property by having it border on property with a much high concentration of population per square foot than we had expected. In addition to concerns about the placement of medium density property in this area, Sharon and I have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of the proposed twin home development, and have concerns about the Preliminary Plat itself. The Preliminary Plat calls for the development of 46 twin homes, or a total of 92 families, in the development over two stages. This would be nearly three times the size of Windmill Run. However, the Preliminary Plat does not call for any streets which would exit directly onto Galpin Boulevard. Thus, all of the traffic both going and coming from the twin home development would travel down Brinker Street and Windmill Drive. Thus, we can expect to have traffic from all 92 twin home "units" (none of which are in our development) passing directly in front of our home. In fact, in reviewing the Preliminary Plat, it appears that the primary goal of the developer was to see how many lots could be "jammed" into the 50 acre space. We feel very strongly that the City should stick to the plan as outlined. Many people have made significant decisions based on this plan. This is not a question of opposing higher density housing in general, but rather, simply requesting that the City follow the plan which it has established for controlled development. The City of Chanhassen had the foresight to develop a plan for future development. The residents of the City deserve to be able to rely on that plan in making their decisions. Thus, we urge the City Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request. 7 Sincerely, Map & Sha on Pryor Al ' 1 •1 r� I� 4i. ( ' , i • . w IC:?-"\-.."--r r ,_ _ ., '",--)1) ;7-7"i 1 ;-. ••• t n7.7 , 4.1,7 . ‘. •i _ „ r . , , . ,,.N. . ,. .„,l Ri.. . .,;. ' _...._-•0-../-,.....', - opo -. , .. ,, , ,, -zz_lic44 .4' ./ , , ,7 ,/ 1C', 15 'i1i _• /--- ,,, 14C„,„..1) Liz11 2 1.: Vii' I i. Y i IN '- ^ \` �i , i l_ r-- , I w "144;41 1.2 , Z 1 / - i ,,--- 'ij k et wC v7 1" ' f '� i : • C M Allitimm. ,t, . f.i i .. . ......%, .. Irp! , ,,,,„A , _____ Nr •••••A11144.101 \moi • . �'� j .. . _. . _ „\\ , . Ce _ `�y`�ys `L"-�:J lb ia: �� 4, E ` �` ` ,,A1.1itM� . • '''''''‘‘NNNN‘,..„...,vdA. •, -/`vim - r.• ` ` ; 1 ,..w,/, ,..4, \ • __-_ Mai.r an , , r-i- ,' \-A-,_ - ' ..- -1 - -% ,,,,„, , • .„,.. 4,4•_,- i ri !2 � , rte` ;IS VI •I M_ _ r t= , _ \ ;�'• t U ` .i � M O I : 2< .......• ) , \ h II b II a . ?!'4 14"414*e .' _.4 tt.":•:. . sl. .. . .., • '1/4141... {'4�'111, ,,r� �' y ,... ,...... ,j o. ,..... ff{ - , .77,All'i% } u�jl yy ,., . , i\ - , 1 ,_ ...: _ge,„ , L Y ) . u \ , e,„ :,t ...., - _____ . = ,,, `�� 1111 t. --„_„-- .,:„ , ., ._ < ... ...„: i: ...___ ..,, .. .. I <„,... , `�,:e , i C l ;tiff fit` I , i, 1 t • ••a . - s,- J. ; :\ \ :. 1 . . . •• . . L - - I ACCESS BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES II • -4-L: ;i wet! } ~r c. F I • , ... . t. -_ ..., Igi4 : 1 � 1 r. Ito wr. s _� I ={ naw. q r-r 1r 0 114r s{ 11.11f } 111.4r1 t-r an i A. 28-0' WIDE - URBAN SECTION I = : .x ,z. •V r AO wI ^ r....... R0 w I rw _ 1 ,�1 I'll 1 B. 32-0. WIDE - URBAN SECTION • I ...:p4 t rt,.tL'Ilft3ti r. r 4' `y P I ®. 4 11ow; I "r 4 r-r i a- W-r• 11.11' RAW ll C I 4•-e'r o-r 4,4-e 111'4P-I_ • Jr-r 1 s-* I .ft o.w C. 36.-0' WIDE - RURAL SECTION ^ r.514 *As a--. to I • ii . :1„: , , � 1 � .. V i �_ Rawl I 1 . If'4" W.41' I fri Ir-I i .W- I Stir R0.w D. 60•-0' WIDE - URBAN SECTION Wawa.w. E...--r�rm t-f� —it FIGURE 3.1 Eft - ---------- - - -_ ---..� ..R.w/11..mr 7 ;,, \-MINNMAHA CHEEK DISTRICT wart It ran >mewl ff isir w a. mi 2aams ;,.,: terra.+ s s�aa ar er�x:ac> sr r,*a 4 > ik 'tr,t iv-re.l -ft''s.i ` r- .-� r a, sis A9.r 0eo a 4-_-,--- ��MC3.4 i , Ct2.3 - !ra .-/ • l 13d 2 IC-1•48 2a C12.2 • 327•; `- 2 \� ''' M MC4.691. 0 ��4' 1.1.41.g •5 NC3.2 2�MCa.3 24-� _7 ,a000MC-�v.! °MC`a C4-PLS 3(f 7.0/977 24� �� ChR.I O "- 1S cr .c MC-A3 �� MCa.,� �c�. 1.. �ope 9s9. ` 011... � C4-M. i'4J� dk l_ MC3.1 __ 7u•R.l ..1M-P1.8 ur-rr 7 t2.-XI •f� j 4.-a 24 e•t ) �ts..p L ct-Ala C I i,; 955.s 9Sa2 3 +07s.0 +017.7 1e 4"t 2' Osaa/9aao � .2 .tom 24 L1It., LU1. .,. 43.1 t7 co-r►.! ctr ;. 3, 2. R... LM1.7 ''' `' r I i ` b.s 24 id�+L1.11. t t LU 1. T{ 0 1000. 1 .0/96..9 1 . 4 2g /"/• 041.1 iLM1.9B • �N� is-� -Al 2r 'k LM-PTA �// `` Z��Lu,'a `�'• c�R. 4 ` 2 t a.or9eea =1 x,24.LU 1.. • : s9a3 cr.-R.Q 1 1.3 It 24" ` u►n 4•w1. 70_77;-;a. _c'-."4 72-0 4.• Rctrrcro LM1.9a 072.0 ,0293 , a "(1s r - i•-_.:,:fsC •'14/I 0 2 a•t , --ell( �2J Ja LU5.1 t 7 ..�� 1 Id 1 07-5.04-4 ` LMI.t 2. - ` TT 3C, -- LV-P1.4 1T ` 1 ttFRr e �I,•16 .'-r 1 W-R.! - a►%.9 it !93.7/1,95.0 W-K t'-sol v j 97x.3 7SJ __ auI.."4. LNi-7Dt3d .4 L 099, LU1.i1 !t!-R.! ( -ALa W A a 7 LW.7C• ''-': 1 •-5 4 ut-R.s 33 :-. -t ` 9Q,0/srt. + �� 2a. rs. /:. 2 ins. ---s ♦ -. w- .•7r X 1 '+ t LM1.782 1✓ y. - 1 1 (W2 5 c '. 2a. l LU1.1 3d .: ` �t2� ^ • LU3.3 )2114,042.6 :C: LU,., • 5 - :, , r -.0 9a30 Oa' Q ••••.-...-1/4,-1.- 4 1 '36, 6 3 •\ \3C i.w Rr IJ/ w. C 21 r 1 i r r • •' 36 99 çrnj ':, - LU3.12� �a ` _ <c . 6trr-/6.! 'fit ` iv-w �p7o.o 97So - �} w.7 1516241 24.U3.- '-24' 24- �, -A6 , . �` �` � LU5.9�2 LAKE-.LUCY . :TRICT " 4L,D. L112. ,..,_,02.411141 ` 411-MI. ru-7t LU3 9j� - 020 ,023.9 /�. ii _ t 9 J- \--10-Te 2 r lu ASN LAKE �� r BCI.t�2s ` -til:- 1 ,' i 1018-71:117,-21 .. Ta t0.9 � R.a 7, Ct.2 O :n+ a LU3.4 4.LLtD.i( IC-PEI - 11J-16.1�/" lY� 0 a `� _ `� tU3.4 .'r-i pct6. _ MC-rrS�2.0/l9i6 717-16r o 4�x t•4 2a� ,2� 990.0 99,.s /1 rrtr6Q 3. , ia- - It-R.r lila / ;BC t. / ce7.o/9nJ-e O LU 6 _ :� t 5" �. i ar t _ •� is r . s-R.7 2 2 r - )) 992.4/ •.-2 BCt.. LV- 51 . LAKE. '-R.l 9 BCt.t• ‘kBc,. �_ , ,r �9/� • �_rs- . , 24. ..,. 'Y" 9ANN3 BM]] i2 � O (gelTom'`, c Zr 2a f4- \ BCt.7 IC-11.8 L L • E. AI�I� ,IS • Lilo. •36" i 0 1. 1 9a24 U BCt.t BCt.2Q,,, 4- . 11 24 24.1 T88'' _�^ • 10.1 1111 ‘ BC3.1:\ • V . s. rs` 2/ 1 ( rll 124 V-R. 24 ! A. �� ( MC-PLR -. -M BC3.3S•24 C3.2 - u 2a LA,.,i lit �� S3.4 LS3.1702e; 939.7 90.3 V::- =..‘611-0- -....6 . ... 3d 1.4� •,..,.---.,-4,..--.--.- �.L�N.• BC3.4 \ BC3-5 x RCP/ 4' L53.t •_. 4 _ 1.2A . ' 2. ,. } 1 >Z L5312rs Rr c r - BC2`2 1 24 8C I.t 9 -J 8C3.6 2," l .7 144-12 2 . L7-.-.r L53.2 24 • 24"x_n,` llr-••.r i raa 53.3 L53.9! 3'} L53 14 '. X7.0 za 949.0 949.9 ` BC-Al K�r.>r '1954-° .i T BC3.7,' 73 !'a-.►_,36 2 3-t0 r - 2a' 802.3 934.0 \ -' ` • L3-ALI L53.11T =tar . :._1`_, , -\ 937D/940. 44 ALI or _ 5 21'it- .s _ - LS3.31 • N ! w fir �- ass_3a .39.0 _- t IC2.t5 BC2.`16 0 BC1.26 1) V3.17�J 3.1 u-/n.>t SSSS 2 BC2.1: .f4 C2.17 7 "' 30.411 v 4 �b a nn d 909 QOM f _` L53..1 * ^ 969 h ...e•-•=,%_ X79-/a#ti li l.°c'.�'= �s.19 z` ti ecs.,..� an "'-a • sr.lor -., 9°2.01909.3 i BC,.2w 2°• 1.28 s i & 0 Bc3.15 LS3 8 - „J., :y LS= . 7 30 BC 1 32 30- 2- ? • ' i' ti •c-nQ 9x.0/937.9 1 r -- 4 •, r',•` '-- ` L53.72 ' ` 54' ----J1 12 BC1.z9' le BC-A3Li_ ts3.7o ; �C` 3 it. is-1810 ` .....t..)„. ,L r. BC3.2, �� eC�.a • 53. •• • y•'-- 4 � y • {24• 2s ` 9,',,�o ,7.,/ r Lake Ann Highlands ;�, `. • t k.4.0" 3d '01" ,13°- 8C3.,:30- C • FIGURE 1 77 ; L.�-___.c.4. 24 1 tE ;�� 60-aBCt.19 1r- _ 2.2-_14• 1 BC3.28 ° r9ure :- - :CI 20 3 -__ `. BC 3.99 - 4 CITY o CHANHASSEN <•"" 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission r FROM: John Rask, Planner I7 • ' DATE: October 26, 1994 SUBJ: Recreational Beachlot Zoning Ordinance Amendment BACKGROUND At the October 10, 1994 meeting, the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance allowing gazebos to be located on recreational beachlots. This issue was prompted by a recent conditional use request for a beachlot which also contained plans for the construction of a gazebo. The City Council did not take final action on the conditional use request in order to give staff time to draft an ordinance revision. Both the City Council and Planning Commission felt that gazebos should be permitted on recreational beachlots. ANALYSIS Section 20-263(2) of the City Code prohibits structures and shelters on recreational beachlots. Staff believes that this section of the ordinance was intended to prohibit structures such as: garages, changing rooms, campers, and shelters for the storage of boats, not gazebos designed as a landscape element or to provide shelter for human use. The general intent of the recreational beachlot ordinance is to recognize that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may conflict with neighboring uses. Further, beachlots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. An ordinance amendment allowing gazebos and unenclosed structures would not violate the intent of the ordinance if appropriate standards are adopted. Staff has developed standards that recognize the fact that gazebos and unenclosed structures may have potential visual and aesthetic impacts as well as further impacts on adjacent residences. Planning Commission October 26, 1994 Page 2 Section 20-263(13) of the recreational beachlot ordinance currently requires that all beachlots have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, vegetation, distance (width or depth), or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. The City may also require additional measures to ensure appropriate buffering and maintenance of the site under the beachlot ordinance. Therefore, staff did not provide these requirements under the proposed amendment as they are already addressed within this section of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and make any additional changes and recommend the City Council adopt the following amendment: Sec. 20-263, Recreational Beachlots, is hereby amended as follows: (2) Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos and unenclosed shelters) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beachlot. Add the following: (18) Gazebos and unenclosed shelters may be permitted on recreational beachlots subject to City Council approval and the following standards: a. Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo or unenclosed shelter shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. e. Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high-quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. Planning Commission October 26, 1994 Page 3 f. Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall be properly maintained. Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired or replaced by the homeowners or beachlot association. Attachments 1. City Council minutes dated October 10, 1994 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 housing and I said, why didn't the city have the foresight to buy that. So from Lake Lucy all the way down to Lake Ann Park, that watershed stayed open. Well now there's, well it's all paved over now. And then Lake St. Joe. One of the big pictures at home is my family on our bikes with the sun coming up on Lake St. Joe and the hill in the background. Now I just checked with staff a couple weeks ago and that hill is gone. It's all houses. You know what are we doing? What a mistake so what we're doing here is no longer forward thinking. It's reactive. We're either going to preserve the land and some of the amenities, or it's going to be gone. That's the decision and I'm not saying that we're going to vote to save the land and the amenities but I just want to be on record as saying I am very enthusiastic about this and if you're going to raise my taxes, this is where I want them raised. Mayor Chmiel: As long as you're going to write that check for S250,000.00, we'll accept it. Councilman Wing: Anyway, thank you for letting me make that comment. Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded that the City Council will hold a work session to discuss the 1995 Park, Open Space and Trail Acquisition and Development Referendum. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEN DURR. John Rask: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members. My name is John Rask. I believe I've met you all at one point or another but it's probably been a while. This beachlot is a part of a Minnewashta subdivision. I believe you saw this last. it received final plat approval on March 28th of this year. At the time of the subdivision approval, Oudot A was guided for a recreational beachlot. However, no formal application was submitted at that time so that's why the applicant is here before us this evening. I'm going to just briefly go over a few of the improvements to be constructed on the beachlot and give you a general overview of the beachlot. There already has been a pond constructed on this site. This pond was constructed for storm water management purposes. The applicant has proposed that a fountain be constructed in the center of the pond. A gazebo has been proposed towards the center of the lot. Staff has recommended that a gazebo not be allowed as Section 20-263 prohibits structures on beachlots. This item was talked about extensively at the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed with the staffs interpretation. However, they would like to see this Section of the Code amended to allow for gazebo type structures on beachlots. In addition there's a toilet facility proposed on the beachlot. It will be screened from view with a fence screen and landscape plan as shown on the site plan here. Service contract has been provided. The applicant will be required to get an annual permit and remove the chemical toilet from this site on an annual basis. All requirements of Section 20-263 must be complied with also. The applicant proposes one dock with a maximum of 3 boat slips. Access to the dock will be provided by a paved surface trail. The whole area will be sodded and an irrigation system installed. The proposal also calls for 4 canoe racks to be located between the pond and the lake. All the natural vegetation as shown on the site plan will be preserved and additional landscape plans will be added, at least in the number shown on the plan here. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 21st to review this beachlot. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the 5 conditions. I guess in general the applicant has demonstrated the proposed use to...requirements and standards of the ordinance. The beachlot preserves the natural vegetation as well as provides additional landscape to buffer the site from surrounding properties. Staff believes the beachlot will serve as an attractive entrance to the subdivision and is thus recommending approval of it. We're here to answer any questions. 34 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Is the applicant here? John Rask: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anything you wish to say from what's already been said? Ken Durr: I guess the only thing that I'd like to address is the gazebo. The Planning Commission I know felt very strongly that it would be a great asset to that beachlot. As much as anything provides a design element almost like an arbor or a trellis or some piece of design element as much as anything else and it would add immensely to the appeal and the character of the area. We can live without it but it's something that we feel would just do it up a little bit better. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Richard. Councilman Wing: I would just go with the staff recommendations with the exception of number 4. Specifically to allow the beachlot and instruct staff to go ahead and change that ordinance accordingly. And is that going to open the door for other ones? Kate, the only warning I think is that whatever gazebo goes up, it should be of a quality structure because other ones that may come in and want it, and frankly I think it's a good idea. Kate Aanenson: ...conditional use, they have to come in and demonstrate, just like they do the chemical toilets. They have to be anchored...different criteria. That be architecturally something be done with the structure. I think when this was developed it was the intent that people didn't pull their ice houses and store them on the site and that sort of thing. Councilman Wing: And a garage. • Kate Aanenson: Exactly. I think what Mr. Durr is trying to do is develop it as part of the beachlot so I think we can develop some... Councilman Wing: Yeah. I would approve it with the gazebo. Also number 5. I think when we look at the Choctaw problem where we had that beach coming up on the curve and cars parked and dropping kids off and all the problems we had there, I think that if it can be worked out. at least a turn off is really a good idea. Looking back on that Choctaw problem we had with that beachlot there, where there's no parking. Councilman Mason: Even a widening in the road. Councilman Wing: Whatever. Yeah, I don't care. Kate Aanenson: A slip off area... Mayor Chmiel: That's pretty much as I...go ahead. Ken Dun:: The concern I have in widening the road, that we may encourage off site, invite for use of the beachlot. We want to discourage that as much as possible and in our covenants we're discouraging street parking entirely in the covenants there. So that we don't want somebody just pulling off Minnewashta Parkway and saying geez, this is a neat place for someone to go down to the lake to have a picnic, which would be I 35 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 think a real hazard. So widening the roadway there I feel would not be advisable. The slip on as was mentioned by the Planning Commission for dropping children off or bringing something down to the beach, I think we could accommodate very nicely. However we're not encouraging heavy use of that. The covenants are discouraging heavy use. It's a way of, what we're trying to do, we designed a very attractive element for people to walk down to the lake. Not necessarily to spend the whole day there with the family but a pleasant place to come down, relax and enjoy...the lake. We don't want it to be heavy usage. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Councilman Wing: Ken, also on the swimming raft issue. I was thinking of suggesting that we change that to one permitted but given the angle of the beach. I think a swimming raft out there ties up an enormous part of the lake and I'd like to see that one adhered to and a swimming raft not be part. It's, a swimming raft is not part of this but for future thinking, I think it should remain that way. I think a swim raft out there really would tie up the lake and it's a very awkward position because of the lay of the lake right there. So just for your future thinking on the swimming raft. I think not having it is in the best interest of everybody. Ken Durr: I agree. We didn't ask for a swimming raft. I don't see anything wrong. Councilman Wing: Good. thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen. • Councilwoman Dockendorf: No comments. Mayor Chmiel: Michael. Councilman Mason: No. No comments and point well taken about widening the road there. My only concern, so how. I agree. I think the gazebo would look very nice there. However the code, how does that work out? Kate Aanenson: Right now we can't do it. We'd have to amend the Code to allow it. So if we approve this, the recreational beach permit tonight without the gazebo, you'd have to go back and amend it so we'd recommend that you table this at this time and go back to the Planning Commission and ask that the ordinance be revised to allow for a gazebo and then bring that forward so they're both tracking together and we can approve this permit with the conditional use in one motion. We had notes on the gazebo. We weren't sure how the Planning Commission was going to react and they recommended favorable...at that point so we wanted to get your reaction too. If you wanted to...I'm not sure what Mr. Durr's timing on this is but I wouldn't think that it should be an issue... Mayor Chmiel: I think the amendment to the Code is something that probably should be done by the Planning Commission and then it brought back to Council with that and I guess we don't see any real problems with what's here unless there's a time restriction but I think legally. Kate Aanenson: I think what Roger's saying is, if we approve this though, you'd have to go back and amend your recreational beachlot permit anyways so we might as well hold this as long as there's no pending. Ken Durr: Can I ask? 36 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Ken Durr: The only thing I can see with that is if it went that we are marketing the property and the statements that we would make to perspective purchasers. We do not know for certainty that we could say that we have a recreational beachlot or know at this juncture. Would it be possible at all to approve the recreational beachlot? Okay, fine. Kate Aanenson: You've got to go back and amend to put the gazebo in it so. Roger Knutson: What you could do if you wanted to, and this is Mr. Durr's concern. I think what Kate says, procedurally it's less fussing but you could, if you wanted to, approve it tonight and then simultaneously you would have to apply, fill out another application to amend this conditional use permit. Have a public hearing on that amendment. Plus a hearing on the amendment to the zoning ordinance. If he wants to, you can do that. Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like it becomes a little more cumbersome. Councilman Senn: Why don't we just approve the recreational beachlot tonight and hold the processing of the paper until the ordinance is submitted? I mean that doesn't create any additional work for anybody. He's not asking for the paper. He's just asking for the approval. Kate Aanenson: He's asking for a vote of confidence. Councilman Senn: No, I think he's asking for the approval. I mean he can't go out and market to residents based on a vote of confidence. He could get sued real easy if it doesn't come through. Kate Aanenson: Well what Roger's saying is you're going to have to go back and amend the beachlot so we'll have two hearings... Councilman Senn: Well we have to do another hearing regardless. Councilman Mason: Can you hold the paperwork like Mark said? I mean is that. Roger Knutson: That's tabling it, yeah. Councilman Senn: No, I said approve it but everybody's just saying let's hold the paperwork so nobody has to go through extra work on it until the ordinance is amended. Kate Aanenson: But to approve it you still have to go back, Mayor Chmiel: You still have to have it done beforehand to make it even approval with acceptance of it, is that right Roger? Roger Knutson: It's unusual. I suppose what you could do, what Councilman Senn is saying is the motion would be to approve the conditional use permit yet hold the application in front of you to consider the condition of the gazebo at such time as it comes through for public hearing from the Planning Commission. Councilman Senn: Nothing wrong with that is there? 37 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 Roger Knutson: No, I guess not. I guess you could do that. It's unusual. Councilman Wing: Well if it's cumbersome, why don't we just delete the gazebo on number 4 and approve this and then let the process run it's course and then just amend this on the consent agenda if we have to. Roger Knutson: The concern someone might have is if you want finality to the process. If you're saying you approve it subject to changing the conditions within the next few months, as soon as it comes back in front of you, then if you could change that condition you can change other conditions and the applicant wouldn't have that certainty as to what he's getting. Councilman Senn: Plus this has already gone through the public hearing process and everything with this there. Roger Knutson: The gazebo? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Correct? Kate Aanenson: Yeah but technically you haven't held a public hearing on changing the code. Councilman Senn: Changing the code I agree but we don't need another public hearing on this if we take that other approach. Kate Aanenson: But you do if you... Roger Knutson: Yeah, you need that hearing. So I guess the motion would be to approve it but to hold open the issue of imposing a condition on the gazebo pending the hearing before the Planning Commission and just roll it to you. Councilman Wing: So before we...we should move that. Councilman Senn: Move it. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilwoman Dockendorf: What he'd say? Mayor Chmiel: It's only 10:00 but that's alright. Councilman Mason: I know and it feels like midnight_ What just happened here? Roger Knutson: The motion would be to approve it in the form presented by the Planning Commission subject, holding the condition open on the gazebo following the public hearing before the Planning Commission and recommendations you wanted to see on that issue when it's in front of you. Councilman Mason: If everyone's in agreement. Mayor Chmiel: That should give you some kind of a certainty...We have a motion on that. Second that.. Councilman Mason: If there isn't, there is now. 38 City Council Meeting - October 10, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion with a second. Any other discussion as per Council's recommendation. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit#94-5 to allow a recreational beachlot on Outlot A in Minnewashta Landings Subdivision, subject to the following conditions: 1. All provisions of Section 20-163 pertaining to recreational beachlots shall be adhered to. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. The dock must be within the dock setback zone. The dock shall have a maximum of three (3) boats docked overnight with a maximum of 18 canoes stored on shore. 3. The applicant shall apply for a permit from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. The portable chemical toilet shall only be permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. The width of the trail and the location of the landscape plantings shall be designed to allow for the annual removal of the toilet facility. 4. The Council shall hold open the issue of imposing a condition on the gazebo pending the public hearing to amend the City Code before the Planning Commission. 5. Consideration should be given to the construction of a pull off lane so a;not to create a traffic problem along proposed Landings Drive. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY. Jill Kimsal: Good evening Mayor and Council members. I'm Jill Kimsal, the forestry intern...Staff is recommending an ordinance that covers diseased elms...The ordinance basically helps for the removal of...what can and can't be done by the homeowner and whether... On September 21st the Planning Commission unanimously recommended the adoption of this ordinance. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jill. The question I have, and in going through the ordinance under Section 13-28, Forester. Thereby creating a position as a forester within the city. I'm not in agreement with that. I don't know if we really need a city forester on a full time basis. I think there are other ways that we can do that kind of review with county or the DNR. Kate Aanenson: Or a part-time intern. Mayor Chmiel: Or a part-time intern. That could come on board during the given year. Kate Aanenson: We do not...require a full time position... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, but it doesn't really read that way. Jill Kimsal: Well it does give an option. City forester or tree inspector... 39 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He gave a brief description of the role of the Planning Commission and asked each of the Planner Commissioners to state their interests and reasons for being appointed on the Planning Commission. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI REGARDING THE SIGN ORDINANCE. Public Present: Name Address Randy Herman 2791 Piper Ridge Scott Danielson U.S. Bench Leonard Thiel U.S. Bench Kaye Benson 2211 Sommergate John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Good. Thank you very much for your report. Comments or questions from the commissioners please. Harberts: Can you give mea definition of what you refer to as a bus bench. Rask: Yeah. The ordinance doesn't really contain a definition. What we're trying to I guess prohibit here is just a proliferation of bus benches for advertising purposes. Harberts: Well what's a bus bench? Are we speaking benches that may be in error considered a bus bench? What's your definition of a bus bench? Rask: Well I guess right now the ordinance just prohibits advertising on bus benches. They're not looking to define a bus bench necessarily. I guess a bus bench could be anything 1 whether it's outside of Festival or Byerly's or the parking lot. I guess the ordinance, the sign ordinance is prohibiting advertisement on these benches. Harberts: Would it be correct to clarify that the ordinance is referring to benches that are outside? I think it's in error to refer to it as a bus bench. Rask: Certainly that we could look at changing. The wording of that. Harberts: Yeah. I'm just, bus bench doesn't clarify what we're speaking of but I think what we're speaking about is benches that are located outside and I would just offer that as a suggestion to consider because I believe a bus bench is certainly misleading because I think it's just a name or a label that's been in error assigned to a bench that may be sitting next to the street or something. Mancino: Excuse me, I have a question on that for Commissioner Harberts. In the Park and Ride glass buildings, there aren't benches in there, are there? The ones I've seen have chairs. Harberts: No. In the park and ride location within the shelter, there are benches located in the shelter as well as passenger benches located outside the shelter. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Mancino: A question John. One of the things that we asked as we were reviewing this was in the section when it got to be the total square footage of signs for different buildings in certain zones. We asked to see some visuals there so it would show to us what is 15% of the 600 wall areas in square feet and to have some actual visuals here in our ordinance. At some point. Rask: Yeah. We were still working on the diagrams...some of the definitions. We reserved spaces that we're going to insert diagrams and because of the short timeframe we weren't able to get all this. Mancino: Will we do it? Rask: Yes, we will do it. Mancino: Can you tell me looking at the, we have a new building up, the new Byerly's building with a new Byerly's sign up in front that faces 78th Street. Where is this in the general business district and central business district? Generous: In the general. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: So it would be Section 20-1303. And which category would that particular building in that wall sign. Generous: It's the highest...up to 230. Mancino: Is that about the size of the Byerly's sign? Generous: Of the Byerly's sign, yes. The total size on that I believe is 840 with the Fine Foods, Open 24 Hours, and Wines and Spirits. Mancino: So then this 40 number only stands for one of the signs or? Generous: No. It would be for the entire front of that area. Mancino: Okay. But that one's bigger than 240. Generous: Right. They requested a variance. Mancino: Okay. So any business can, if they want to, come before us and ask for a variance? Generous: They always have that option. Whether or not we grant it is another thing. Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing so if I could have a motion to open the public hearing, I'd appreciate it. Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Anyone who would like to speak at the public hearing please, yes sir. Step up. Introduce yourself and give us your address and let us hear what's on your mind. Leonard Thiel: Gentlemen. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Leonard Thiel. I live at 6643 Green Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota. I'm here representing U.S. Bench. Mr. Danielson, the President, wanted to be here. He got mixed up and we thought the meeting was going to be two weeks ago...out of town and he apologizes for not being here. However, his son Scott is here if you've got any questions of him... I'd like to make a few comments if I may relative to these are benches. U.S. Bench is operating in 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 approximately 90 to 100 communities in the metropolitan area and operate only at bus stops. They also, most cities have a separate ordinance for this and it's not incorporated in their sign ordinance. Most of them have separate ordinances simply because, as interpreted some time ago by the Attorney General that, and may I read from that to kind of further clarify our position. I did speak before your group but I don't know if I, I must have done a fairly poor job and didn't explain myself too well. May I read partly from this is the Attorney General's opinion and this opinion came out of the result of taxing a sign. I think the question has to be analyzed in terms of what is the primary purpose and function of the bench because clearly the bench is serving... It seems to me the primary purpose or function of the property is to provide a place to sit or waiting for bus transportation. It's secondary purpose is that of advertising for the retailer who places the bench there. ...to matchbooks...bags and numerous other items distributed for public convenience. Even though advertising is placed thereon, I don't think anyone would deny that the primary purpose or function is to provide matches, litterbugs and so forth. Often times people do not even notice the advertising but merely use the property for it's intended purpose. I think too, with waiting benches there it is an aspect of assistance to the public which should be encouraged. The retailers could place a normal advertising sign, billboard on the corner and it would be the...but providing the small advertising signs as an item of public convenience. Not only are billboards eliminated but the public expenditures for...are assured by the retailer. This should be encouraged by recognizing the primary function is to provide the waiting benches and only secondary as an advertising function. If you want a copy, I will certainly provide you one. The governor, then governor quite some time ago wrote a letter too. As Governor of Minnesota I commend the U.S. Bench Corporation for the 25 years of public service they have rendered our state. This firm has provided courtesy benches at bus stops and it is a fine example of private companies helping the community in cooperation with city officials. This locally owned Minnesota corporation has provided the much needed public service without cost...for a generation. The importance of mass transit cannot be minimized in today's society. The service the transit company provides a necessary component of a successful transit system. I noticed in, it referred here, the Attorney's opinion and what have you it refers to in the... planner here. I have copies of that and actually I think it does make it confusing if it's a part of the regular sign ordinance. I noticed also that the purpose of signage of your ordinance, which is a good one by the way and I do want to, I think you're in an exciting period. Your city is growing. I spent...part of the city to grow from 1959. Spent 18 years in a city growing and it's an exciting time and a challenging time for you and I compliment that for your enthusiasm to be a part of the city and always remember as a worthwhile thing to do. I noticed on your purpose and findings. There isn't anything here, anything...belabor it too much. There isn't anything here that is in conflict with U.S. Bench. There isn't anything in conflict. U.S. Bench will not take advertising for liquor, tobacco, or political. They also restrict florescent colors and reflective material. U.S. Bench has their benches at bus stops. Only in bus stops and between 90 and 100 metropolitan communities. Many of these 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 communities have a separate ordinance for bus stop benches and I think that's an important item because I think it isn't, as I pointed out before, it doesn't quite fit into the sign ordinance because it is a multi use. And many of these cities, they charge a license fee for the bench. The cities charge a license fee and pay a license fee to the city. In various amounts. One example for instance is Bloomington which has a lot of them, may charge $1.00. U.S. Bench also has a million dollars of liability on them. Insurance policy for which the city is named as an additional insurer. And as you know in today's society, it's not uncommon to have lawsuits come up over nothing and so the city would be protected for of U.S. Bench's that would have. That may create a problem. And also do the maintaining of these benches which, and I have some pictures I'll show you in just a minute. It's also an economically way for the local small business person to advertise for a reasonable cost. It's also a way for the small businessman to supply a service to the community and small businesses are the heart of the city. They encourage, as you well know, they encourage residential development...small businesses for residential development and commercial development, which let's face it, helps you maintain the tax base that's healthy and good for the city. I think that I would like you to seriously consider a separate ordinance or recommendation for a separate ordinance just for that. There's a lot of examples of any number of cities I can get from any city you want and what they use as an example and it wouldn't require a lot of your time to work one of those out and I certainly would recommend that to you. As I look through this and I think it would be the easiest way for this to be handled and then it would not be conflicting with what your planner brought up with what the City Attorney said. There'd be no conflict there. I'm sure of that. I have a picture here that I think you'll find interesting. This is at 50th and France in Edina. Next to a bus stop and a shelter and we have a special, for certain areas U.S. Bench has a special bench that they put out...and then I have one that's regular. May I pass that around? Scott: Sure. Leonard Thiel: I think I've taken quite a bit of your time and I thank you for your kind attention. If you have any questions of either myself or Mr. Scott Danielson, why we'd be glad to try and answer them. Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? Well thank you very much. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing regarding the sign ordinance? Randy Herman: My name is Randy Herman. I live on Piper Ridge Lane in Chanhassen. I'm the sole representative tonight of the Chamber committee that worked on the sign question, as you can probably see. I'm really here I think to ask a favor and that is, since the notice came out last Thursday we have been unable to meet as a group to review the final draft. Part of it is our own fault. I was the only one that was aware that it was on tonight's 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 agenda and we had a very brief opportunity just before the meeting to kind of quickly go over it. I realize you want to move forward with this. If it's possible, we would like to ask to be able to have until the next Planning Commission meeting to review it and to prepare our comments. In our quick glance over tonight, the overwhelming feeling was that it looks really good. We made a ton of progress I think in the weeks that we met. There were a couple issues that we'd like to look at a little harder. I don't know if that's possible or not but that's the request I'm coming with. If not, I guess we'd prepared those comments and address them at the City Council level. But again, I guess the overwhelming feeling that we talked briefly tonight was we've come a long way on both sides. We made a lot of progress. A lot of it seems to make a lot more sense when you do it. And it seems thinner to me. I don't know if that's true or not. Scott: No. Randy Herman: That was one of the goals... Scott: Good, thank you very much. Ma'am. Kaye Benson: Hi. I'm Kaye Benson. I live on Sommergate in the city of Chanhassen. I wasn't here for this issue but...In your ordinance for the signs, will you be addressing any of the issues relating to traffic? In particular my experience has been, the intersection. It would be the northeast intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. It's kind of a depository for signs and I drive a fairly low car, a Honda, and there are times when there are so many signs that it really does obstruct your vision of the traffic coming, especially from the east. Is that being addressed anywhere? Scott: Yes, there's a section and I'm not able to quote the exact numbers but I'm sure that John will find it before I get done with my sentence. But we've noticed that too. We've set up an area, a triangular area at an intersection where there can be no more than 4 signs of a certain size and shape and that's exactly right. As a matter of fact that very intersection was brought up several times at our work sessions. But yes it has been addressed and I think John probably can find it. But we're looking at limiting those kinds of areas to relatively small signs and then the larger ones for development and so forth are usually at the entry points to those. But yes. The answer to your question is yes and if you'd like, maybe when somebody else is commenting, John can show you the actual section of the sign ordinance so you can review that for yourself. Good, thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I missed some of the presentation and the public hearing. I have some general comments that I think...in particular I think that I'm still uncomfortable with some of the philosophical issues and how they translate to what we do. I use a case in point to the Byerly's building that was passed over here. I think that the issue is well pointed out is the unnecessary duplication of signage. That he's facing front and we argued about that for quite some time and I think rather than deal with each specific building, there should be a philosophical intent of what we want to end up with, and I'm not sure even their intent statement here covers the issue of unnecessary duplication of signage. It is always good to have more in business than less than what you need, and I suspect in this case, there still seems to be some confusion even after reading this of what we're going to end up with. Do we want 20 foot pylon signs down 78th Street? Even if it happens to be a big development. It seems to me that some of the direction that we started out with with reducing those signs and making them more monumenture signs down 78th to try and keep the small town feel. We're not arriving at that here. Striping on some of these buildings, on the Taco Bell. The issue of what constitutes a sign and what constitutes a building. .I don't think that we've defined that quite yet here. I think one of the ways that we approach that, perhaps in this ordinance would be to incorporate the square footage of all this banding and the bright colors around the building to bring that in with the overall square footage of the sign and that would be a way to monitor it. Again, I get back to what is the intent of what we want to wind up with and it seems to me that our intent is to provide opportunity for the business persons to advertise their goods or services and locations and at the same time moderate what we wind up with so that we have an uncluttered city. There's a lot of bad retail advertising done and a lot of it is ineffective. There are several members in this commission that I think combined maybe have 60 years in advertising. And the fact is that there's a big difference in an environment that is created by signage and it sneaks up on you. Especially in a developing town because we start multiplying the effect. You start adding more and more retail buildings. More and more banners. More and more outside clutter. More and more window displays. And once it's done and it starts adding up, it creates an image. The image of downtown Lake Street is different than the Oxboro development in Edina. It has a different image. Other than it has to do with signage. A lot of it has to do with clutter. A lot of it has to do with what the community wants to wind up with in the end. And getting back to some specifics say on the bench advertising. I guess since I don't see Chanhassen as being a huge bus operation, I'm going to support the staff on that. I don't think that's a huge issue in front of us. I don't think that it's there yet. I think this is maybe 90% there. There's still a couple of issues that I think are still, to me, important and not addressed here. And although we've discussed them, I think some of the verbiage, even just getting back to the intent statement. Talking about the right to advertise. Equitable opportunity to advertise. I think 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 the intent to me is not to advertise goods or services but signage should be identify location of the goods and services being offered. There's a difference and we've argued about that infinitum. Again, I think it goes back to the beginning, the intent. Is it to locate and advertise for the consumer the location of the building or is it to tell them that they have beer for $12.69 a 6 pack. I don't think for instance on the window display advertising...yet thought out correctly. There's been a case in point made that if the Riveria is being penalized by the original approach that we took on that because they have a 6 foot window space. Whereas MGM has 70% of their front surface is glass and they have a much larger capacity so therefore if you take a percentage of that window space, MGM winds up with a much greater percentage of space than somebody by the Riveria. And so anyway, I'll pass on. I'd vote to table this. It needs some more work. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I guess from my perspective, the sign ordinance has a significant impact on the business community and I guess we took the extra steps measure to hold the work sessions with the chamber and other representatives of the business community to try and work through some of the issues here. I would move to table also for the purpose of hearing any additional or final comments so we have a chance to work through those issues in the same spirit of cooperation that we attempted to achieve at those work sessions. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: Well I have some discussion points and I'd actually like to hear other commissioners opinions on that are in the ordinance and would be fine to again table this and listen to the Chamber's. Have them participate in it too. But certain big areas that I have are in the height of the pylon signs which is on page 16, which is Section 20-1303. And it's not whether I'm for or against pylon signs but I think that tying the height of a pylon sign to the square footage of the principle structure just doesn't make sense for me. I think that the height of a pylon signs should be, you know where the road grade is and where the grade of the building is and whether it needs to be like Target. Be maybe a little taller so that you can see it from the road. But when you have the same grade of the road and as with the building is, then I think that 10 feet is tall enough. So I would like to revisit that area in the pylon signs and how tall they can be. And I would like to hear other people's comments on that. Couple other areas would also be, one that Jeff brought out on page 12, which should be general location restrictions which is Section 20-1265 on window signs. Again I don't think that we're being fair to people who do not have windows at all. And I think that windows are as much an architectural element just like a brick. Just like another rock surface and we're not allowing signs on those. So what is the difference and how can we be equitable to businesses who do have windows, glass surfaces, and those who don't. And I'd like to 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 rethink that. Another area, and I think that Kaye Benson brought this up. On page 8 under off premise directional signs (c)(2), and I think the Chamber did bring this up and I'm not in agreement with it. They wanted us to remove "there shall not be more than 4 signs per intersection". Now these signs we have increased from 24 feet to 32 feet, because they have asked us to do that. But whether it's 32 feet or 24 feet, I think the same premise that she brought up. When you get to Galpin and Highway 5, you have not limited how many signs can be on that poor intersection. This statement clearly says that we have taken away a number maximum and I would like to rethink that. Retalk about that and put in a maximum number of signs per intersection. I would also, on page 6, 9(g) under temporary development project advertising signs, I would like us to decide at the very bottom. Such signs shall be removed when the project being advertised is completed. I would like the word completed to be defined very specifically. Or after 3 years. I'd like to add the phrase, or whichever comes first. And the last area that I'd like to, when we talk about at a work session when we meet with the chamber is on page 9(2). I'm sorry, page 10. Number 5. When we talk about search lights. I would like to make sure that we have hours set on search lights so especially when there is a neighborhood commercial area, etc, that they cannot be on late at night for the adjoining neighbors. I think it's just intrusive and invasive, and I'm not even sure I like the ideas of search lights to tell you the truth. Because I'm so concerned about neighborhoods. So those are my areas of concern and I could, I would like...those areas. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: As it relates to the benches, I guess I would support staff in terms of their recommendations regarding the report. I wanted to ask Diane if the Southwest Metro, I mean do you contract with U.S. Bench to have benches installed or how does that, is there a relationship there or no? Harberts: We don't have any relationship with U.S. Bench or any other sign company or bench company. Currently it's the policy of Southwest Metro Transit that we do not allow any advertising at our park and ride sites or bus stops or even on our buses. But it is an area that we are reviewing because there is revenue opportunity and I think one of the comments brought up in the public hearing was the fact, and I guess I'll just kind of sum it up as a partnership between public and private. It gets to be a significant cost savings to a government entity when they can go into partnership with a private company and both in a sense accomplish their goals together. And I'll certainly speak to that in a little bit more detail when it's my turn. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I guess some of the things that Jeff had talked about as it relates to the duplication of the signage. I think that we could perhaps have more discussion of that. That seems to be a reasonable thing to add into the intent statement. The way I see it and as 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 it relates to color bands being defined as part of signage I think, I don't know. That seems to be a very touchy kind of thing and a very difficult thing to define. I'm not saying that I'm against something like that in terms of trying to get a handle on that but I just think that's an area that can be very difficult. I don't know how we deal with that. I think we can have more discussion on it as it relates to that. I guess that's the extent of my comments. I don't know how we want to handle it in terms of dealing with these issues but if it means that another work session is appropriate, I don't know. I mean because there are some philosophical things that we're looking at too and I mean, re-opening issues like window signage and, I mean those are some things that took a lot of time to even get where they are right now so I don't know. I don't know where we go from here to be honest. I can sense that we're tabling it. That we will likely table it but maybe somebody, someone else can provide some more direction. Scott: Okay. I will. Ladd. Conrad: I think we should table it, and simply because I want to hand the City Council a pretty good package because I don't want you to go through what we've gone through. And that's very honest. I don't know if we're going to make much of a difference as we dissect this again but I think we should let the Chamber come in and Randy, I'm real disappointed in the Chamber. We've worked 3 or 4 sessions and spent a lot of time and not to have you able to have the Chamber respond it's sort of a disappointment. Randy Herman: Were we wrong in thinking that we were going to get a copy of this before it hit the public hearing? Conrad: You should. You should have. Randy Herman: Well nobody did. I picked up my copy at the city... Conrad: Yeah, I would have liked to have you had that copy because I do want your input. We worked real hard with you. I think we made it a workable sign ordinance. It's maybe not as pure as some people would like but on the other hand, it's probably better than what we've had. And I think there's still a few issues out there that I think we should talk about. But on the other hand, talking about it doesn't mean that we're going to, you know I think if we do have issues, I think the Planning Commission should come prepared to talk about those issues and not just throw them up. That you come with specific proposals because we'll never get this off our desk. And my perspective is, we're not going to improve signage in Chanhassen a whole lot more. So we're splitting hairs and we have to move this through and some of us have spent a lot of time working on this and again it's not perfect. But I think it supports the business community. It also supports the residents of Chanhassen in terms of 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 helping to develop a decent community in terms of the signage so, not belaboring the point. There are some issues I still have with it. I think if we all picked out own little issues, nobody would pass this ordinance on. There's some things that I really don't like. Being in advertising, there's some things that I really, you know they're restrictive. But on the other hand I think so far it's turned out to be a little bit of a compromise. I think we should come back and take a look at it. I really don't want a special work session. I think we should be able to handle this right here and with proper direction of staff, to either explore something and bring it back or does somebody come in to the next meeting and say, this is what I want. Case in point. I don't know if window signage 33%, you know we could talk about window signage for the rest of our lives and still wouldn't get to the bottom of it. And I don't want to. I really don't want to do that. Window signage can be real offensive but so far nobody in Chanhassen, I've been here a while, nobody's talked to me about window signage. Really haven't. I think more people have talked to me about maintenance of signage. How big is our maintenance section in here? It's two lines. And who's out there checking our maintenance? But it'd certainly be easier to go out and check how much window signage we're going to have per square foot. You know again, let's make sure our priorities are right here. I think the ordinance is pretty good. I think the Chamber of Commerce believes it's getting better. I'm going to make a few quick points and I would hope that staff would follow them up so when it comes back one more time, that we can talk about it. Permit and variance fees. Page 2. I think our intent was to make sure that it said it covers the city cost. It wasn't trying to be prohibitive of taking out a permit. It was trying to cover the cost of managing permits. A lot of us had a concern about permits in general but I think generally we felt let's keep them but not have them be so big. So again, I'd like an intent in there saying what we're trying to do in terms of the cost. I don't want a cost in there because they're going to change but I think we need an intent statement. When we say bench signs are prohibited, that's okay right now but transit and transit shelters need to have the opportunity to advertise. I don't have a problem with a bench sign being prohibited but I think, if I interpret, because we don't have a definition in here, I don't want this generalized to transit in general. So I'm comfortable with the way it reads but that's only because we don't have definitions, which means it's a bad ordinance. Scott: Or that part is bad. Conrad: For that part, thank you. Thank you Joe. I've worked too hard on this to mean the whole thing is a bad ordinance. I'll tell you, we're not going to do that anymore. Totally agree with Nancy's opinion on search lights and the hours of operation. Absolutely. I don't know how we missed that. Under maintenance and repair, there are 4 lines. Geez. Maybe we haven't thought it. We've tackled all the numbers in here but maybe we haven't tackled the issues that really are significant. You know I didn't see anything that said the Chanhassen Bowl sign will be improved. Maybe we don't want it to be or maintained but the 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 words rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, defaced. Does that mean faded? Does that mean flaked? Does that mean, what does that mean? You know I'd really like staff to make sure that there's some teeth into maintenance of signage. Same page 13. I really don't buy the 15% of the sign display area for corporate logos. I don't get it. Now maybe that went over my head in all those meetings but Byerly's sign is a logo. Target's sign is a logo. So I don't get the 15%. I don't have a clue how to interpret that. Other than that, heard some other comments from commissioners. I think we should revisit those but again, if not just to kick it around, I think it's bring in something. Be ready to talk about it. Give us some specifics and let's react and Randy, I apologize if you didn't get the ordinance ahead of time. You should have. We really want, I want to hear what the Chamber is thinking about where we are today so that's why I would like this tabled. Mancino: And I'll add onto that specifically you'd like to hear from the Chamber. If there are areas, you would also like to hear very specific solutions. Conrad: Yes. Yeah. Thanks Nancy. When we come back Randy, it's like here's what we want. It's not like we don't like this, and I think you've done a nice job of doing that in the past but the next time we meet, I think we just have to say. This is what we're recommending and we just have to, unless the Planning. You know I'm just speaking for myself but I honestly, I've watched the sign ordinance over many years and it's really tough to come to a conclusion. It really is. There's so many different cuts at an ordinance. It's the toughest ordinance that the city has to write and we'll never get to the bottom. And really, the Chanhassen signage is not all that bad. But we're trying for some improvement and that's okay but it's never going to be perfect. Scott: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I would just basically to my comments earlier, as well as agree with Ladd's comments with regard to transit. I'd like to, I guess my feeling here is that there's a good chance that this may be tabled and so this might give an opportunity for staff. Don't you love that word, staff. Yeah, I know it. It's a new 4 letter word. 5 letters. To maybe revisit the element of bench signs as it's then refers to transit, and I guess the question is, is it so much the problem of signage or perhaps where sometimes the benches are placed. You know I'll take for example in Chanhassen I'm aware of only two transit related passenger benches which are located at the park and ride location at Paulys Road there. Those are the only two passenger benches associated with Southwest Metro. I'm aware though of numerous other benches in the community though that may have an advertising that may be questioned as to their location. But I've also seen these same other benches used by the general public. I know one instance the bench that's located at Laredo and 78th Street. It's in that thing of trees and plantings. I noticed a walker or runner, whichever, was using the bench as a place 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 to rest. And so I guess as long as this is being tabled, I would certainly encourage staff to perhaps review some of the other ways that the other communities handle this. It would be interesting to know that Chanhassen is, would be the only community that I'm aware of in the metro area that wouldn't allow any signage whatsoever. Maybe it's just a matter of revisiting that. I said there's a lot of benefits that can be achieved for the general good of the public, or for the benefit by having a partnership so maybe it's just a matter of better defining what we're talking about, what we're speaking to. Is it indeed signage? Any kind of signage on a bench or is it perhaps the location of a particular bench and how it looks, whatever. I'm not advocating for U.S. Bench. I do not have a, there's no professional or business relationship with them between Southwest Metro Transit and them but I'm just speaking from my experience in the bus industry. The transit industry and from a revenue generating perspective, it's very advantageous to transit and basically what it allows is the transit revenue dollars be put into more operating of buses rather than for anywhere from find a bench to maintaining. Even to the liability of it so I would just suggest that perhaps staff might be able to talk to other communities and I'm sure Southwest Metro would certainly be available to assist you with that. My thoughts. Scott: Okay. I'm going to try to, I guess for staff's benefit, I'ni going to go through some of the notes that I've taken to make sure that we've covered... If I happen to miss an issue that some of the other commissioners have brought up please, I don't have to ask you to speak up because I know you will. Obviously Diane's question about a better definition. Originally we wanted a better definition of a bench, vis a vis it's transit capabilities. Additional diagrams that spell out relative size of signs to building. Wall surfaces. Something in the intent statement to reduce duplication of signage, i.e. banding or striping with corporate colors. In 20-1252, purpose being to cover the city's administrative cost for permit and variance fees. Application fees. On, this is now 20-1255, Section 9(g). Better definition of when a project is completed, and then there's a section, after 3 years, whichever comes first. Now in Section 10(c) of the same area, item number 2. Off premise directional signs. Put in some limit. Right now we're, there shall be no more than 4 signs per intersection. Have that included again. The search light section. Set hours of operation. Let's see. I'm not going to say anything about window signs. And then also some additional definition as to maintenance of signage. And then in Section 20-1303. Have some work done on, instead of relating, the height of the pylon size to the square footage of the principle structure. Have some sort of relationship with the distance from the roadway. Perhaps the classic roadway, i.e. the speed limit and then the difference in grades between the roadway and the base of the sign. What did I miss? I'm sure I missed something. Mancino: Ladd's 15% of sign display. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Oh okay. Where their sign is a logo. That's 100%. Okay. Any other comments? If not, then I'd like to have a motion please. Conrad: I move to table the sign ordinance. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the sign ordinance. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: And if you could add Randy Herman, Moore Sign, would you like that delivered to your office? Randy Herman: That'd be great. And I'll get it distributed to the others. Scott: Okay. That will go out with our, we usually get the Planning Commission packets on Saturday? Friday? Generous: They come out on Thursday. Scott: Thursday or Friday, something like that so you'll be getting your's just after Halloween. Rask: ...same time you received it so if possible we will try to get it to him earlier this time. Scott: Good. Thank you all very much for coming for that item. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION. Public Present: 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Name Address James Hoben Hoben Corporation Perry & Pat Harrison 2221 Sommergate Charles Spevacek 6474 Murray Hill Road David McFarland 6341 Murray Hill Road Paul & Betty Burkholder 6370 Murray Hill Road Kaye Benson 2211 Sommergate Peter & Lisa Staudohar 2204 Sommergate Robert & margaret Cristofono 2210 Sommergate Lynda Kuzma 2241 Sommergate Richard Herrboldt 6464 Murray Hill Road Keith Boudrie 6482 Murray Hill Road Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions. Mancino: Yeah, I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things. Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there won't be a lot of grading because it is so flat. The roadways...proposed 30 foot easement. There is a location of the housepad that could be...the setbacks and conservation easement along the north property line...I think the applicant has... Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you like to make a presentation. Jim Hoben: Sure. This is the... Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: Or just hold it in front of the stand. Jim Hoben: Very quickly I probably should mention first, because I was asked by several people, my name is Jim Hoben. Hoben Corporation. I've been a developer for 35 years. Commercial, office buildings and warehouses and stuff like that. The Wayzata First National Bank in Wayzata. The Citizens State Bank. I've been building and developing residential since the mid 1970's. I'll pick that up in just a second. Since the mid 1970's. We built in the Deephaven...property. I've developed the Hollybrook Townhouse they call it up in Wayzata which is 60 some units over there and we've built homes in Orono, Plymouth, Wayzata, Deephaven and then in Minnetonka and areas such as that. In looking for land in which to do an neat little development, this came to me, which we're always on the lookout for. We came upon this nice wooded property up there. I've been working with the staff as to what the requirements are and we have put together...approximately half acre lots. I don't know if anybody's familiar but basically something like the Villages which Fazenden did over in the north part of Plymouth...but that's generally what we're doing. Putting in this with we established a private road with the 4 residents that facing in on it. I'm using setbacks greater than the required. The 40 feet which Mr. Generous spoke of is shown on there and it's being used. We also used a more than 30 feet, which is I think is the requirement. We've gone to about 40 feet as this property backs up to the Burkholders which are on the other side... We've met and exceeded I think the requirements as to the lot size. As we pointed out the utilities are all there. The grading plan as I understood it would be there before the final plat which... There isn't that much grading on this road to be done as he said with this plat. We acquired the outlot or the means to acquire the Oudot B which abuts Sommergate Road and having, in doing that, that 40 foot setback allowed him which we also were able then to move the intersection, private road over so that the trees that you spoke of is not getting touched. We talked about that large cottonwood tree. That's off to the left hand side now and we've got a problem. I'm ready to answer any questions that you might have. Scott: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? None. Do you have anything else, any other comments you'd like to make? Jim Hoben: No. I think none that I'm aware of. I've tried to work with the staff to meet the requirements and I think we've done so. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and if I could have a motion please to open the public hearing. Harberts: Can I ask some staff questions first? Scott: Sure. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: This might be a Dave question. With this private driveway agreement, I'm guessing that's that blue. Is that actual. Jim Hoben: You turn it sideways. This is Murray Hill Road. This is the private road. Harberts: Okay. Is it a road or driveway? Hempel: It'd be a 20 foot wide private driveway. Harberts: And so it would be a private driveway to at least 3 parcels, if not 4, is that correct? Hempel: No, that's not correct. We currently serve up to 3 homes. There's one home that would maintain existing driveway access off of Murray Hill. I believe it's Lot 4. They right now have a horseshoe type of driveway. Jim Hoben: That was not stated...all entrances would be off this road. Harberts: Well it goes back to my original question. Are we talking a road? You know in reality here, or is it in a sense just a driveway? Hempel: It is just a driveway. Harberts: Are we going to be, if it's the only access point to the homes that are proposed, am I correct on that so far? Is the 20 foot going to allow for 2 way traffic? You know if someone's coming in and someone wants to come out, is 20 feet big enough for that? Hempel: It would be, yes. Harberts: Okay. And did public safety, in terms of the fire department and all those people take a look to concur that 20 feet was okay? Hempel: That's correct. That's your normal, standard driveway width. Harberts: And how does the, at least the public safety vehicles go in there and turn around? Hempel: That was asked by Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal, and he tells us the length of this road is not long enough to warrant a turn around for the fire truck vehicles. Harberts: Even if they turn in there by mistake? I don't know, I'm just asking. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Hempel: That question I guess has not been answered or addressed by Mark Littfin. Mark's comments were that he didn't feel that it was appropriate to require a turn around for this length of driveway. Harberts: Okay. And it seems to me based on some other proposals that had come forward in terms of, we didn't call them private driveways. They were like shared driveways. I think that's what it was. And I always, it's my feeling that that was one of those things that Chanhassen didn't feel very comfortable with unless there was some unique situation so I guess I'd be interested to, do you recall any of that conversation that took place at the commission level here Dave? Hempel: No, I don't think I do but the ordinance does state that if we are saving vegetation or reducing grading and so forth by doing a private drive, then it would be warranted. I think in this case, as Bob Generous indicated earlier, there are some significant trees on this site. Some maples and walnuts and also the 50 some inch cottonwood that are going to be saved as a result of the narrower pavement width. Harberts: Right. I just wanted to just kind of remind people on that. I guess the only other question I have with regard to, there was a couple of letters or one letter in here with regard to the local residents raising concern about the, that perhaps the integrity or that there would be a change within the environment. If I'm correct, I think I read in here in one of the findings that this is within the zoning allowed for the area in terms of having 4 homes there. • Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirements. Harberts: So they're meeting the code or the zoning requirement? Generous: Yes. Harberts: Okay. That's it. Scott: Good. Jim Hoben: Dave when you say driveway, I've got a townhouse development where the blacktop is 20 feet for 220 or 225 feet width and there's plenty of room to... Harberts: Just one more, and maybe this is a Bob question. I know it said somewhere in the staff report about some kind of cross use agreement would be. Generous: That's required under the... 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: And if I recall, that includes maintenance understanding, all of this. Generous: Exactly. Maintenance, snow clearing... Scott: Okay, good. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Public hearing is now open and we invite members of the general public to step forward and let us know who you are. Let us know your address and go from there. Yes sir. Paul Burkholder: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Paul Burkholder and I live directly to the south of this property, 6370 Murray Hill Road. I moved to Chanhassen about 6 years ago after living in Deephaven for about 10 1/2 years. One of the reasons I moved to Chanhassen, and in this particular area, was because of the large lots and the mature trees and the fact that...and it was just a very nice... Our neighbors next door was the Grautmans. An older couple who loved their yard and planted lots of things and... environment for wildlife and birds and their garden and it was a very nice place. They've passed on and a few years ago the property was sold. On my lot and on their lot there were things like woodchucks, raccoons, well there's raccoons all over, but all kinds of squirrels. In my yard there's black walnut trees. I think in the yard in the subject property there is perhaps 6 or 8 black walnut trees. There is this magnificent cottonwood tree right in the middle of the yard. And fruit trees, there are wild flowers. What Mr. Hoben is proposing is totally out of context and out of character with the neighborhood. It is basically a cluster home concept. One driveway and I agree with Commissioner Harberts that it's a driveway. A shared driveway by 4 houses. I say to myself, after looking at Mr. Hoben's plan, if this property were allowed to be developed, what would happen on Thanksgiving and Easter, Christmas time when all 4 of these homes decided to have a gathering and all of them had 6 or 7 cars and a fire started in one of these homes? Again, I didn't hear any clear answer whether this proposal has been run past the Fire Chief and how he feels about getting a fire truck or emergency vehicle here in a situation such as that. I'd like to know about that. Secondly, we have a problem with the topography is rather flat. The southern end of Murray Hill Road is higher than the rest of it so the water flows northward in heavy rains. When we first moved into our property and the heavy rain, the water would come down our driveway and make almost a small lake. We had the city, when they were out doing some blacktop repairing, we asked them to put a little tiny, 3 or 4 inch curbing to direct the water a little further down. Now Murray Hill Road, for those that live there, every time it rains there's a torrential amount of rain that goes down that hill and they're constantly trying to fix it up down there. It's a terrible little winding country road. Now we're talking about in this 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 particular situation, of bringing in another 8 to 10 cars with 4 homes. There's another site to the south of me with 2 1/2 acres which I believe will probably, someone will be appearing to try to develop that one too. Using this property, this particular situation as precedent to squeeze as many possible homes on this site as they can. Mr. Scott, the Chair at the meeting here, he mentioned Lake Wobegon where everything is perfect and that Chanhassen is growing and I know that and you're going through these sorts of problems and I realize that the people next door to me are attempting to maximize as much money out of their property as they can and perhaps this is a way to do it. Try to cut it up into 4 small homesites. I know that they meet the requirements but I am very much against it. Again I'm going to be redundant and say it will change the total character of our neighborhood. If one looks at the plat map, you can see the lots are much larger than what is being developed in some of the PUD developments currently in Chanhassen. And nobody is making a lot of moves. I know over, just recently over on Hummingbird Road. A lot of property was sold by the Rainey family. They did not go in there and try to maximize that property and cut it up into as many small lots as they can. They sold them in big, large, over an acre piece of property maintaining the integrity of the trees and everything that's in that area. Again the 4 homes on this particular property I think would create a real water problem. We're going to have a lot more water runoff from these properties. The soil will no longer be able to absorb the rains up there and it is flat. I get water in my basement even though I'm on top of the hill. I mentioned that I lived in Deephaven for 10 1/2 years. I don't mean to compare Deephaven with Chanhassen but Deephaven back in 1973, facing somewhat, I think problems somewhat similar to what Chanhassen is facing now, changed their zoning requirements in some of the older areas... requirement at 20,000 square feet. And out in Northome, they raised it to 60,000 square feet and in the area where I lived in the 10 1/2 years, I built two homes there, the lots were 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hoben I'm aware...during that time and he did build them in a 40,000 square foot area but I'm not saying that 40,000 square feet is the ideal site but it does make for lovely home sites and the kind of homes that come in the price range of the homes are certainly at an addition to the community in general. I guess I don't have much else to say about it except I'm here to object to this cutting up of this property into 4 sites. I would have no objection to it being 2 sites. I know when the Grautman's, when Mrs. Grautman passed away and I thought that the property was going to be offered for sale in the open market, I checked with the city here and found out there were two sewer stubs put into this property when they installed the sewer and water back in the late 70's, or early 70's rather. So I thought possibly at that time probably the thinking was that that site at some time would be developed into two sites and that seemed reasonable to me. Four sites to me seem unreasonable. It's a cluster home type situation. I'm concerned about the private road. I'm concerned that these houses will be facing out on Murray Hill Road or onto Sommergate like the rest of the homes are and I guess thank you very much. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Well thank you. Dave, if you could just address the public safety issue and then Bob, if you could talk about the zoning of the adjacent property lot size and so forth. Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman. Again I did look through the staff report. There is a sentence or two in there that says something about there should be a turn around acceptable to the Fire Marshal and I think that that got put in by mistake, to be honest with you because I did have conversations with the Fire Marshal in regards to hydrant placement as well as the turn around. He felt that the driveway length of approximately 180 feet long which did not warrant taking a turn around on behalf of the fire truck scenario so. Then I'll just touch on one other point that Mr. Burkholder had concern with on the drainage in the neighborhood there. Certainly it's always a concern. With developers and such increasing impervious surface for the private driveway which is a narrower street from a city street, the adding of the two home sites would not dramatically increase the amount of runoff on this parcel of land. The runoff from this development does flow north to Sommergate where it is picked up with storm sewer system and conveyed to a storm water pond on the north side of Sommergate...the runoff along Murray Hill Road is a maintenance problem with the city... Generous: This area is zoned residential single family which permits lot sizes down to 15,000 square feet. The development has an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of the lots are over 20,000 square feet. The development immediately west of this, Eight Acre Woods is 16 lots. Their average lot size is 20,744 square feet. From that standpoint it is very consistent with the area. Mancino: Well it is for those west but for those across the street that are east of it and the old parcels are much bigger that really abut this property also. And that are south of it. That is one part of that whole area, which I live very close to, has a very open, old mature tree, very narrow street, old neighborhood feel. And it is something for us to be considerate of it and I think you have been too. Staff has been too. Scott: Okay. Sir. Keith Boudrie: I just have a question. Scott: Oh, please step up to them microphone and identify yourself. I don't like to do that either. Keith Boudrie: I may have more questions but my name is Keith Boudrie and I live at 6482 Murray Hill Road. We've been there for a little over 10 years. We were the first residents of the new homes that have gone in in that area. My question is, you keep referring to a subdivision and I'm not sure I know which one that is. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: It's the one off of Sommergate Road. Keith Boudrie: The one off of Sommergate Road? Generous: Yeah. Now that's the access for it. Resident: At the end of the cul-de-sac. Keith Boudrie: Oh, okay. So it's the Sommergate development? Mancino: Yeah. Keith Boudrie: Thank you. Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Dick Herrboldt: My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road, which is directly south of this, right close to the Boudrie's and the cul-de-sac that's south of this proposed development. I'd like to address a little bit the concept of the trees that are in that area and what provides for the neighborhood. These are all mature trees and one of the things that drew myself and my wife to the neighborhood. We've lived now in the area for 7 years. We love it up there. We love the peace and the quiet, but most of all we like the trees. And as I looked around my cul-de-sac, or the cul-de-sac that I live on and my lot, after the construction process in the development, you're going to lose trees. I, myself have lost about 5, even though we spent a substantial amount of money treating the existing maple trees. When I look around the cul-de-sac, all of the houses have lost magnificent trees that have resulted from the construction. If you start driving earth moving equipment, trucks, etc, over surfaces of land where there's mature trees, you're going to lose them and I would suspect, I haven't looked at the plat that closely but I would suspect that if you do construction in this area where this cottonwood tree is, after a couple years, you're going to see that cottonwood tree go. That's one of my major concerns because we're looking at an area in Chanhassen that's a mature residential neighborhood with magnificent trees and you're going to substantially change that environment by allowing a high density development to go in. The other concern I have is Murray Hill Road, which is a very narrow road. Maybe many of you have not been on that road but again times of family gatherings, I don't see that these houses are going to have adequate parking. What you're going to wind up having is traffic flowing over on Murray Hill Road. Parking. Blocking other vehicles and again in the case of an emergency, which was brought up, I don't know how a large fire truck or other safety equipment would be able to navigate up Murray Hill Road. So I'm concerned about the overall environment and what a project of this type would do to that area. Again there's 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 a lot of wildlife. There's a lot of birds up there. You're going to lose, you're going to change the entire environment so those are my comments. Scott: Okay. I think I can respond to a couple of those. And I don't know when your home was constructed. My guess 5 years, 10 years ago. Dick Herrboldt: Probably about 7. Scott: 7 years ago. One of the things that we've recently done as a Planning Commission and as a City Council is have a very restrictive and very detailed tree preservation ordinance. The old way of doing things is you'd wrap the trunk of the tree with snow fence and then hope that if somebody ran into it, it would be okay. And at that time that was state of the art. What we've done now is we've, because we have a forester on staff now, we're concerned about not allowing any compaction around the drip line. So now we have snow fence going around the drip line of the tree. In the case of a cottonwood, from my understanding, that is one of the species of trees that is the most tolerant to compaction and also to severance. That's obviously, the staff report had a paragraph on that particular tree and what we're trying, we're not trying to manage on a tree by tree basis. We're looking at it as the overall canopy coverage. But I think the commissioners would agree with us, we've gotten a lot better at tree protection and understanding the needs of various species and so forth. So I think from the tree standpoint, that's a major issue in the project. I guess from what staff has told us and from what I've seen of the property, I think that's obviously going to be an amenity that is going to allow this development to be a lot more profitable for the developer. So that works both ways. From what I'm looking at where the house pads are to be positioned and from a, I'm concerned about public safety. One of the things I think that, the way it looks here is that there are going to be driveways extending off of this common drive which usually in houses, these are probably going to be 2,500 square foot houses. In that roughly, 2 to 3 car garages. My guess is, at least at my house, we can get 4 cars in our just parking area so my guess is, you'd probably have to have 4 simultaneous, pretty huge parties before you'd even back out onto that private drive. That's my sense but hopefully those comments will assist you. If anybody on city staff, if you've got some other comments to make, that might help. I think the way this is laid out, it is, the lots are 30% larger than what is required by the ordinance and it appears that the public safety and the vegetation concerns have been dealt with. I personally feel fairly well. So I mean if there are any other comments from staff on there or commissioners on that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank you sir. Yes sir. Chuck Spevacek: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Chuck Spevacek and I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road. I'm Mr. Herrboldt's neighbor and Mr. Bourdrie's neighbor and pardon my voice. I'm fighting a cold that my children have had for 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 months that they've just gotten over and I've picked up. I echo the sentiments of the other residents in the neighborhood that have spoken, which I understand will continue to speak tonight. I do believe that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. What we have now is a blend of large and small homes in an open, natural setting and what we're proposing is a parcel of property with 4 homes, sitting 2 deep with the front or facing houses having their sides facing towards the street serviced by a common drive. And while the lot sizes themselves might have enough square feet to meet or exceed the zoning codes, there is nothing in the vicinity remotely like this development. And I know that the reference has been made to the houses on Sommergate. That if you just want to compare square foot to square foot, then we're talking apples and apples. But if you want to talk the way the homes are situated on the site and how they present themselves to the neighborhood and the community, what's going on in Sommergate is really totally different than what's being proposed for this development. Despite the size of the lots in this development, the property itself is very narrow and the lot size comes from the property's depth. Thus the proposed development is one that gets it's lot size by stacking the houses 2 deep off of the street. Servicing them with a common drive and again having the front facing houses not presenting themselves to the street but presenting their side yards in the side of the house to the street. And while the lot sizes are large, this type of arrangement is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood and is more attune to the type of cluster type homes you see in an urban setting where land is at a premium. Now in addition, and as I've indicated, this proposed development is inconsistent with the type of development that has recently taken place in this neighborhood. Both the Sommergate Addition, while lot sizes are similar, they present themselves to the neighborhood much differently and much more consistently with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. That's particularly true with the Melody Hill development or the cul-de-sac at the end of Murray Hill on the south side where my house is. There are some extremely large lots. There are some more modest lots but again, in that situation we don't have a situation like you'd expect to see...where you have 4 home sitting 2 deep off of the street serviced by a narrow cul-de-sac. I'm convinced that anyone driving through the neighborhood will reach the same conclusion that the proposed development is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the way...now. I understand, and can trust me I have done my own independent check on this where the proposed development is not inconsistent with the present zoning ordinances. And therein lies the fundamental problem I think for myself and the remainder of the people who live in this neighborhood. Because what this is telling us is that the zoning code doesn't reflect the character of how our neighborhood. It may be a zoning code that has applicability to the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen. But the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen isn't our neighborhood and our neighborhood is a neighborhood of mature, developed foliage, trees, homes. Again, that gives one the flavor of a mixture of modest and substantial homes in an open, natural setting and one where a subdivision where you're stacking homes 2 deep off the street is inconsistent even if the lot sizes meet the technical requirements of the zoning code. Two homes on this 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 parcel would be consistent with the precedent set by recent development. Sommergate came in by the development on Murray Hill. I truly think 4 homes on this parcel of property, despite it's ability to accommodate large lots because it's a deep, still shadows that precedent because of the way that they present themselves. Finally, while I understand this issue is not directly before this commission, I trust that the commission bases it's decision not just one any particular parcel it's dealing with but also what the effect might be on other potential development in the neighborhood. There is another parcel of property just on the other side of the Burkholder property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, the Woida property, which has been on the market for sale and as I understand, although this is pure hearsay, that the Hoben Corporation has an option to purchase and develop this property contingent upon the success of the present development. And that might not be true. But regardless of whether that's true or not, this is a 2 1/2 acre site. It sits at the corner of Murray Hill and Melody Hill. Right at the entrance to the Melody Hill subdivision that Mr. Boudrie and Mr. Herrboldt and I live in. No more than 50 yards from the subject property, and if the approval of this development is in any way deemed to be precedent for what must be allowed on the Woida property, or the property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, we're talking about someone coming in and saying I want to stack 6 homes in this property and telling this committee that in terms of pure square footage, it meets the zoning regulations. And those of us who live here will think more than ever that the zoning regulations don't reflect what the nature of our community and what our neighborhood is for putting 6 parcels of property on that piece would truly destroy the ambience of the homes that are at the south end cul-de-sac on Murray Hill. And I know that the county or the city or whoever is in charge of this must think highly of the ambience of the homes on the south cul-de-sac of Murray Hill because in the 2 years that I've lived there without making substantial additions to it, my assessed valuation has gone up over $60,000.00 and that would truly reverse if you toss the 6 homes on the Woida property. To conclude my remarks, I understand that technically there's enough lot size to sustain this development. But technically that exists only because you have a property that's narrow and deep. You can look around this neighborhood and you will not see anything at all remotely resembling what's being proposed for this property, and in this case the zoning ordinances do not reflect the character and nature of the neighborhood we live in and we believe our neighborhood will be diminished by allowing more than 2 homes on this parcel. Where we live now is an above average section of this community and this proposed subdivision is truly average and it will not help bring us up any. It will do nothing but bring our subdivision down to a level where it hadn't been before. Two homes is consistent with what we've established and what other developers have tried to do here...thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else, yes sir. Peter Staudohar: Good evening. My name is Peter Staudohar and my wife Lisa and I live at 2204 Sommergate. As David referred to, the drainage area there happens to be my front yard 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 so I'd rather refer to it as my front yard rather than the drainage area. I'm right here. I'm sorry, right here if I'm understanding this correct. I have a couple of questions and then I have a couple of comments. The outlot is a concern of mine. I live directly across from the outlot and I'd like you to address the issue of what will happen to that if it's acquired by the corporation. Generous: It will be designated as a tree conservation easement. Peter Staudohar: Which means what? Generous: The trees that are there will stay there. Peter Staudohar: In it's present form? Generous: Yes. Should maintain... Peter Staudohar: Okay. If I am assured of that, that helps some of my concerns a little bit but my wife and I moved into this area in March of 1994 and one of the express purposes of moving into this neighborhood was, as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the aesthetics. The way it presents itself and the development that you're suggesting presents itself completely different to the surrounding area. I can say without any hesitation, because we looked at an awful lot of houses. An awful lot of new developments. We wouldn't have moved into this neighborhood in March of 1994 if the proposed development were in place at that time. Without question. And I think if you went around the room to the other people that live on Sommergate, their comments would be the same. If they would have known 5 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years, 2 years ago when they built their house, they would not have built a house in a neighborhood that was going to have a development across the street that has a cluster of homes. I'm not very excited about getting up in the morning and walking out my front door with the dog and going for a walk and looking at the back of 2 houses where there now is woods. Or in the winter, at the very least, there's a little red, attractive farmhouse that my wife and I happen to fall in love with when we moved into the neighborhood and would have probably gladly purchased it and updated it if it would have been for sale at that point in time. I'm confused about one other item. We keep referring to the development west of the proposed development and you suggest that's the houses on Sommergate, on the south side of Sommergate? Generous: It's that whole development. It's called Eight Acre Woods. Peter Staudohar: Okay. Because that area was referred to as north of the development earlier. Sommergate being north of the development. David, I do have another question for 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 you. I'm a little bit concerned about the drainage. If you would have been at my house during a few of these rains, you'd been a little bit nervous as to the level of the water. It's crept up dramatically as the summer's gone on and that concerns me. If we put 4 lots in there, we're taking away some locations for the water to settle into the soil. What's going to happen to my front yard or my drainage area based on your guesstimates? Hempel: The drainage area in your front yard has been sized to take on the neighborhood drainage from this area. The increase of 2 additional homes...common driveway. If you have 4 separate driveways, there's more impervious surface. Therefore a common driveway makes more sense from an impervious surface standpoint. Those calculations for the storm water are going to be supplied to us with the final plat just to verify that we will not exceed the capacity of that ponding area for the storm sewer system down the street. We don't anticipate any problems with the additional 2 lots which are being created with this proposal. Peter Staudohar: One last issue that may or may not be appropriate to bring up at this time but the gentlemen before you mentioned the appreciation on his property based on assessments. Based on the tax bill. I've had the same benefits as I moved in in March. I'm very happy to see that for a lot of reasons. My question and concern is, what is this cluster of homes going to do to my home value and I'd like to briefly have the gentlemen proposing the development speak to the size of the homes. He said 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and values of the home, which is extremely important to a lot of people concerned. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Scott: Would you like to answer that question Mr. Hoben? Jim Hoben: I'd be glad to have an opportunity to answer that. One of the main reasons we chose this site to go ahead and do this, I can't imagine that anybody's houses will be depreciated from that standpoint because I'm looking at an entrance coming in here where we'll call this Woods. There will be a little brick thing on the inside and it is. You call it cluster homes. Well cluster homes sometimes is a phrase used to demean a development and that's not the case here. These homes will be in the neighborhood of $300,000.00. $310,000.00-$315,000.00. That's the idea. It's not, I don't build and have not been and I think even Mr. Burkholder knows that. Go in and build low end housing. If I didn't think that we could go in here and build homes in the neighborhood of $300,000.00, which is... the studies that we've made of the homes both on the cul-de-sac where Curt Osterman built and where the other gentlemen built up on the other cul-de-sac and also with the Eight Acre Woods, I wouldn't be interested in the site. So again, we would go in the trees that were attractive to the area. We'd work with the staff. It's not my intention to go in and knock down trees indiscriminately. We will save all the trees that are possible and I think planning 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 showed most of the trees being saved there, except for the...pad where the house will sit because that's what will add value to the...to the homes so in no way will we be demeaning, setting down the value of the homes for surrounding. Harberts: Mr. Hoben, I have a question for you. Will you, your firm be acting as both the developer and the builder? Jim Hoben: Pardon? Will I be the builder as well as the developer, yes. Harberts: And I'm ignorant in this area. So if someone comes in and they choose a lot. Will they be able to choose the type of home they want to put on or will you already have that established. Is it like a package deal? Is it like a package deal? You get this lot and you get this house or do you buy the lot separately and then decide separately on what house you put on there? And I'm really ignorant in this area, sorry. I apologize. Jim Hoben: We will have 2 or 3 home plans that will fit on these sites. I mean is your question that you have to take this house? Harberts: Well is it a package deal when they go in there? Do they buy the lot separately and then they buy the house separately or do they, if they're interested in purchasing, do they buy the house and the lot at a given price? Jim Hoben: Yes, because that's what we'll be doing.but they will have a choice of a couple of different plans to put on that. Harberts: Alright. Well you know based on my experience when I was looking, we were looking around for a home, you'd go out and buy your lot for x thousand and then you'd go and find a house and then they'd have a builder. Or you bring your builder in so I was just wondering if that was the case. Jim Hoben: No, you won't bring your builder in here. I will have 2 or 3 plans...would look at and this has been done in Plymouth and so forth. Again, I go back to the word cluster. Cluster homes and doing this intently with the idea of pointing them into themselves so that they have their own identity. Harberts: So is it, so am I understanding that these probably will not be custom homes? You know an individual's choice. Jim Hoben: Yes, they will be custom homes. Absolutely. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Harberts: But I'm understanding you to tell me that you're going to have 2 or 3 different designs and they can pick from one of those to put on there. When I'm speaking of a custom home, they bring in their plan or their idea in terms of their dream house. This is what I'm asking. Jim Hoben: If you brought me, for example, if you brought me in a plan that would fit on that lot and the square footage of it was such that after I constructed it, it would be in that price range, compatible with what I'm talking about, yes. You could do that. I'm not going to...somebody you've got to take this plan, if that's your question. Harberts: Well it's more the question. Jim Hoben: You would have to conform to the. Harberts: I understand that. It's more the question is, is it a package deal or do you buy your lot separate and then the house is another separate transaction in a sense, or whatever. Jim Hoben: No, it's all one transaction. The lot and the house would all be. Harberts: No, that's fine thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Perry Harrison: I'm Perry Harrison. My wife Pat and I live at 2221 Sommergate. Just down the road from Peter. And some of my fears have been allayed here through this discussion but I guess I still have two primary ones and I guess they both focus around what this gentlemen so eloquently said about the integrity and nature and the ambience of the neighborhood. As he so well pointed out, this is "cluster" or whatever you want to talk about the layout of these homes is totally different than our area. Having 4 homes positioned there that have most, all but 1 home facing the two major roads of that intersection, which is Sommergate and Murray. And I can envision and I assume other people on Sommergate would be acceptable to having 2 homes where they be both sitting at the west end of the property facing Murray Hill. Therefore having minimum exposure to the sides or the backs of their houses to either Sommergate or Murray Hill. Otherwise right now, the way it's laid out, you're going to have 3 homes with their backs or sides of both facing the road. Every home in that whole area, 5 or 6 lots in a mile or two circumference around that area, has their homes facing the main road. There isn't a single house that has a side of their house facing one of those roads and it just establishes the integrity of the neighborhood and the naturalness of the neighborhood. We're now looking at the back of somebody's house or deck or an undeveloped barren back yard. Now the other part of that I think is you can't help but tear 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 down a whole lot more trees with 4 houses than 2. I mean you just can't fit for the 2 and there's some big, beautiful trees on that lot and I can't envisioned where you'd keep this many trees as the 4 would do, so that was... Scott: Would anybody else like to speak for the first time, and if we're clear there. Sir, if you've got another comment you'd like to make. Keith Boudrie: Well I just want to come up. Keith Boudrie again, 6482 Murray Hill Road. I really only had one question earlier. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Again, I don't think there's an objection at all by any of us to having change on that lot. It is a cute little red farmhouse but I think we all realized coming in there that, even 10 years ago when we built there, that someday that would probably change. The indication and what we were told by Mr. Curt Osterman at the time, was that lot was set up with 2 stubs and would eventually be 2 homes in the future. And apparently we relied on that explanation as opposed to looking into it further. I think that you're hearing objections here and I think technically we have nothing to object to. I think emotionally and I think that there certainly are more taxpayers sitting here that are concerned about it than potentially taxpayers that are coming in on these 4 lots. We're here because we love it here. We like it here. We've invested in the neighborhood. The developer's coming in strictly for profit and he's coming into the area on the basis that our homes are there. Our homes are going to help attract potential buyers that he's looking for. I think the price range of the homes that he's building are fine. I think the square foot of the home that he's building is fine. My major objection is the stacking. Cluster was used. It's an obvious...to be able to get 4 homes in place of where 2 should go. That's my objection. We've lost 5 large trees on our front yard. Maples about this big around and we did everything possible to try to protect them and not lose them and 2-3 years after the home was built, the damage shows up. So I think in every effort that he makes to save these trees, I would be willing to guess that 80% of them will probably be lost. I think that's been the experience of the neighborhood. I think Dick Herrboldt can speak to that. I can speak to that. Jeff can speak to that. We all made every effort possible to save the trees and even with our efforts, we lost them. The comment was made before hand, two homes probably fit more logically on that lot. That's all I have to say. Scott: Okay, good. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Kaye Benson: I'm Kaye Benson again from 2211 Sommergate. My neighbors and people in the neighborhood have spoken very eloquently of all the issues associated. My husband and I live in the property that is directly adjacent to this development and I just thought I should at least stand up in front of you and say that our feelings are certainly echoed by everybody that has been in front of you tonight. I think in a little bit broader perspective, the next agenda item is going to be another huge development that's just south of us. Just off of Galpin 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Boulevard and that too is going to change the whole nature of that particular area, which is really country. So I guess if this is only 4 houses, and the next one's only 37 and then the next one's only 37 but it all adds up and impacts people that are there and they impact our future. Scott: Good, thank you. We'll have one final comment from this gentlemen then we'll close the public hearing. Chuck Spevacek: I had a final comment and then I had a question. The comment I think after you were having to hear a lot of the people in the neighborhood criticizing what's been proposed, and in particular of the planners, I guess I want to say something positive. We do appreciate the work that the city has done to preserve the trees. To see that the outlot that was along Sommergate would be set off as a nature area and not be developed. I think this shows a true sensitivity on the part of the city and it's planners to a lot of concerns of what is there. The fact is, that doesn't change that we still think there are 2 more houses that are going to go on this lot than there should be...central character of our neighborhood doesn't change but I wanted to express, at least from my standpoint, our,appreciation of the steps that were taken to address some of these concerns. The last concern however wasn't addressed and that is that 4 homes stacked 2 deep is really inconsistent. I also know that the planner who was responsible for this isn't here today but I spoke with Sharmin on the phone about this and I was very impressed by her dedication to her work and the effort that she put in on this so I don't think any of us here want to let you think that we're unappreciative of the efforts that you took. And I think that you understand, as well as we do the purpose of something like this is for us to express areas where we still have concern and this is a very serious area of concern. That's my comment. My question is now for the developer. Whether there are going to be restrictive covenants on this property that will specify the minimum square footage for the house size or is the idea of the 2,500 to 2,000 square foot house the initial hope that would economic factors or perhaps the... Is there going to be a square foot minimum restrictive covenant put on the property? Jim Hoben: ...restricted in the way that I build them, yes... Chuck Spevacek: But if there are. Jim Hoben: The restrictive covenants will be as required by the city and obviously even from my part...to the road. The maintenance and up to the road which would be... Other than that, the individual homes can do their own watering of the grass and cutting of the grass and all that sort of thing. In fact it's a little bit different than a townhouse development where they don't...and that's in a townhouse development. This is a single family. But it's the 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 same type of concept that I'm proposing here and actually I think this is in character in my opinion... Chuck Spevacek: I guess my question was whether there's going to be some sort of guarantee with the development by the developer that there be a restrictive covenant on the property that would require homes of a minimal square footage or whether this is just a developer's hope that if there are no takers of that size...And I guess what I'm hearing is the guarantee that we have now of larger homes, which obviously if I'd rather be for, I'd rather much have them be four $300,000.00 homes on this property than three $150,000.00 homes on this property. It's dictated by economics. If they can sell four $300,000.00 homes, then we have our guarantee. If not, then I guess we don't know what...Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: Well I have, I did not receive the grading plan and apparently one was not available so that, and that's one of the things that I like to see when I'm evaluating a plat. I feel fairly strongly that even though we're looking at somewhat of a flat parcel, I think it still in every case it warrants knowing where the dirt is being moved so from my perspective I feel that I haven't evaluated it entirely without that plan. Listening to the neighbors, I can certainly understand their concerns and in general I agree that a development with this density is not in character with the neighborhood. I think, I can't argue that point whatsoever. I think that if this plat would go through as it's laid out with the 4 homes, or the 4 lots, I think potentially what could be done would be to provide some more screening or buffering along the property boundaries here to maybe isolate it somewhat and typically we see landscaping plans with our subdivision plans. But saying that, I don't know if that would actually work in this instance. That that can work in many times in terms of providing the buffering but when we're talking about relatively smaller lots and relatively larger homes, there's not much area to do the buffering and still space physical distances does become important. So I feel that can be used as a factor to help mitigate some of the concerns as it relates to the surrounding property owners. The proposed driveway, I guess I would agree that that makes sense from a grading perspective and impervious surface. I don't know, I guess I'm still a little bit concerned about the safety issue and Dave, did you mention that the Fire Marshal has looked at this in terms of specifically from a safety perspective and in terms of getting emergency vehicles in there? 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioners...access standpoint. Access the site...have to go into that driveway with a fire truck. The other thing is that...sheriff's or paramedics or the fire chief himself who responds to the site as well...as far as access goes. Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Unfortunately I didn't go out and tour the site. This does meet all the specs that the city requires and I've been sitting up here trying to understand or trying to determine is there's some good rationale, good logic to change it from 4 to 2. And I'm struggling with that. I've heard what the neighbors said. I empathize with what they say. I've gone through that many, many, many times in my neighborhood. I think the staff report is good. I think the staff is preserving what we're trying to preserve. It's hard to fault what they presented. The one issue though is, what I haven't done and that was to visit the site and if I thought that this was really out of character with the neighborhood, then I think I'd have a reason to change the density. At this point I don't because I haven't been there. So if this gets tabled, I will make a point of going out there. But at this point in time, not looking at the site, knowing the area however. I'm not unfamiliar with the area. I just haven't looked at this, I think the plat as presented is acceptable. Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ladd a question? Scott: Sure. Mancino: I think you raise a very good point and should we table and go out and look at it. But my question is, I mean I hate to see it. However, this is going to come up again in that neighborhood. It may come up in other people who own larger lots. Acre, 2 acres or 3 acres. I don't have an answer to this. I'd like to say to the neighbors, be mindful of who else is selling and go and get your money together and buy the lots and keep it that way. But it will keep coming up and I think it probably will in this neighborhood. We've seen it for the last, I mean even thought of us who lived in a neighborhood when Sommergate came up. That was a big deal. Conrad: Major deal. Mancino: A major deal so, and it will keep coming up. Conrad: And everybody that's here tonight has that opportunity to subdivide their lots. If they're bigger, they can do that. When we've gone out to ask the public for input on lot size 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 and we've tried to zone larger, we've never had enough public support to zone larger. We've tried to do that. So it's not that we haven't looked at those issues. We haven't seen a demand of people beating the development to the pass, so to speak. Where you come in and say our area, we want a different zoning. You haven't done that so on the one hand we've looked at zoning. We've paid attention. We've suggested some 40,000 square foot zoning blocks but I don't think the public's ever come in and said yeah, we endorse that. What we have today is 15,000, which is still decent. This is 20,000 which is 30% more than decent and it's always an issue. It's always an issue when it's in your neighborhood and you're looking at it. I don't particularly care for smaller lots but that's really a very practical thing and every one of you has that opportunity and unfortunately you say no, I won't do it but we, those of us who have been around for a while, the people who said no, we won't do it. They come back. They want that right to do it so. Hard to restrict development. But in this case it's hard for me to hook onto something. I think what we try to do is preserve what we've got. Can't preserve density very much, other than using our standards that we have but we can preserve the natural surroundings. We can preserve some of the slopes. This one doesn't have any. We do have ordinances in place to preserve the natural assets of Chanhassen. I'm real comfortable with that. I think the staff has prepared a report that looks like we're preserving. Tree coverage of about 6,000 square feet of trees or canopy coverage is taken out but I think some of that is put back in. It's a better proposal than a lot of things that we've seen. That doesn't satisfy you but there's some good elements in it and partly that's because staff I think has done a pretty good job on this one. That still doesn't say that I agree with the 4 however. I haven't seen the site. I haven't seen how it fits into the neighborhood and that's the only key thing that I think the neighbors have said to me that I guess I just need to take a look at. Now if everybody else has taken a look at the site and feels comfortable that it's out of character, then I think we have something to hang our hat on and to change density. However boy what, I'll listen to what you have to say. Ledvina: Can you say it's out of character and say oh, then there should be 3 lots? I mean is that a basis for... Conrad: In my mind it is. In my mind we're trying to fit things into a neighborhood and not destroy, the people who live there really, I think we cater to as much as we can. They are there. We want this to fit in their surroundings as much as we can. I think we have that control. But there's a lot of definitional things. What fits? You put a 20,000 next to a 30,000 square foot, does that fit? Or is it 20 to 40? So defmitionally it's just real tough. And usually when you look at it you can really tell what fits. I think we're going to have another, well we'll have some other exercises in what fits tonight after this warm-up. So anyway. Scott: So your thought is to. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: I don't know. I'm interested in what everybody else. If you've seen the site, I think you should respond to what the neighbors are saying. Doesn't fit. Out of character. But I don't think you can use square footage as the factor here. It's does it really, has it changed the neighborhood. Has it changed the character? Not square footage wise but in what that neighborhood is now. Is it changing? You've got to tell me. Scott: Okay. Diane, tell Ladd. Harberts: I would certainly support a recommendation to table it. And my feeling is one, I guess the other commissioners noted they didn't feel that they've had a complete package and it certainly is our responsibility and our task to look at the package completely and then pass it up to the Council. If we pass it up without doing our job. Well if we pass it up to the Council in this form, I don't believe we are doing our job. Second, I would be interested in looking at where the proposed house pad locations would be. Also with regard to the, I don't know where the potential drawings are for the particular homes that would be available for this site. Just to publically share then what type of houses are being considered for this. So if that's available, I'd certainly like to see that in terms of the sketches or whatever. I'm still uncomfortable, from a safety perspective, with the private driveway. I certainly support the ordinance. The intent in terms of saving or hearing the integrity of the vegetation and things like that around there so I can support, I'll support the public driveway in that sense. One question Dave. Is there a stop sign? When you have a public driveway, can you put in traffic control signs like that on that type of location? Is that to be determined? Hempel: It's really no different than a single driveway access I guess. Some certain...we have added stop signs. Harberts: So it can be added? Hempel: They can be added. Harberts: Traffic control or safety things can be added. Well and I guess if this gets tabled, see again going back to design. Are we talking 3 car garages? Are we talking 4 car garages? I mean what's the average, I'm a single person at my house and I have 2 vehicles. That's what I'm saying. Scott: $100,000.00 a garage. Harberts: Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. I guess I'd like to see what we're dealing with and with regards to that private driveway, and should we extend the concern or the covenants or the restrictions or whatever within the city that they have for private driveway agreements 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that perhaps we restrict to some or no parking of any vehicles on that driveway simply because of the limitation and size. Because I'm guessing, because of the limitation in size, that any parking that's going to be on the vegetation and isn't that what we're trying to be considerate of? So I guess if this is tabled, I'd like to extend a potential restriction or whatever. A condition of the agreement that there is no parking on there unless it's public safety or the city vehicles or whatever purposes. I don't know if we can do that but again also with regard to traffic or public safety signs or whatever is needed. I'm not too familiar with the amount of traffic on Murray Hill Road so that's where I raise the concern about stop signs. And is it going to, depending on how dense it is, with the turning traffic, from what I'm hearing from the residents and from what I've seen it is a narrow road, are we causing a lot of traffic problems perhaps with turning in and out? I don't know that. So again that's part of my justification to table this until I get a little bit more information on that. Is that clear Dave? Mancino: Want me to go ahead? Scott: I was just waiting. Are you finished ma'am? Harberts: Oh yeah. Mancino: Okay, a few points that I'd like to make. First of all I think that staff has done, Sharmin has done a very good job of looking at the site. Of asking for a 4.0 foot conservation easement on the northern side of the property. It is the whole north boundary line of Lot 1 and 2 and I hope that the neighbors know that. That that steep slope that goes into Sommergate will all be kept natural. That that means that nothing can be taken out of it. Now there is Bob, in the conditions, it does say under condition 2 that all healthy trees over 6 inch caliper, 4 feet height shall not be permitted to be removed. I would like that line taken out and just no removal of any vegetation so that some of our second and third generation saplings can grow and mature and become healthy big trees. So that we're looking ahead to the future. But Sharmin isn't here tonight but I would say that, and she also worked with the applicant on another conservation easement bordering the Lot 2 and Lot 1, 55 feet to preserve that area too. And I would say that I have a little different view than some of the other commissioners about the private drive, and I think the private drive is also used to, and has been stated to preserve as much of the environment as possible. That there won't be any driveways coming up to Sommergate that will go and will obliterate and damage that steep slope. That you will have the visual screening there and it will be there all year round. Now one of the things that we may want to add is year round coniferous trees to that screening from Sommergate. But I think that her efforts, keeping it somewhat narrow. The 30 foot right-of-way and having 4 houses come off of it, was a very good plan. And I think it will keep the integrity of the neighborhood much, much better. I do have the same concerns Ladd 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 does about how compatible it is for the rest of the neighborhood. I would favor tabling it so that everyone gets out there and looks at it and comes back and talks about it next time. And I also favor tabling it because I really, as I said earlier, would like to receive completed packages and that is with grading, with house pads so I can see exactly which trees will be removed and which ones won't. So I would like to see it again and take into account all of what the neighbors have said. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I can keep my comments brief because I think most everything has been covered. I guess to get to the issue of density, I need to understand where the house pads are going to be. How things are situated and then to look and say, okay here's what it's going to be here. Dealing with the issues of being compatible with the surrounding development. I haven't been around here that long but I do know that we have given that issue serious consideration with other developments here and for me it's a struggle. You've got the density of the residents who spoke here tonight and then you've got the 2.1 per acre to the west and where do you bridge the gap when those developments come together. And does that mean that one wins and one loses or is there some compromise to bring it together so it flows a little bit better. There's no way for everybody to be a winner on the density issue. Someone has to give somewhat but I am hearing positive comments to the, if the development does fall in the $300,000.00 plus area, that that in and of itself is not so much the concern. It's just the number of units per acre and how that visually impacts the amenities of the area. So I'd like to see it back with the details that Nancy spoke of and Matt spoke of and then assuming we get our package next Thursday, or Thursday-Friday before the next meeting, have a chance to then go out and lay out the map and say okay, here's how it's going to be so I would move to table and go forward on that. Scott: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I don't have much to add. You can table this but it's still going to be 1.8 acres. It's still going to be a square. And it's still going to be smack dab in the middle of a bunch of large lots. There is no solution for this. As Ladd said, earlier in the 80's Chanhassen toyed with the issue of having a second single family zone for large lots. I think it was 2 acres or higher or something like that is what they were throwing around. There are pressures on the opposite end of this, and I don't know if our citizenry knows that because they have large lots and they're not perhaps watching as closely but there are a lot of pressures on municipalities to reduce the size of lots, both from the funds that they get from the Met Council, from County and the State, which pays for your utilities and so on. Their pressures are to make as many people as possible fit in the least amount of land as possible because these things are such enormously expensive. And developers come in here constantly 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 and say that 15,000 square feet is...developers come by and buy small acreage that may crop up in the middle but also some of your neighbors may sell the property. I think the average piece of property in Minnesota is owned 7 years. So what may happen is that your neighbor may sell and the person who comes by to purchase that property, if you don't, may finance that property by looking at subdividing it. And over a period of time, that's going to happen. You don't see a lot of 5 acre lots in Edina and that area developed after World War II. You don't see a lot of big lots even in Eden Prairie anymore. There's a reason for that. Because eventually they get divided up to the minimum requirement and I'd like to see the hobby farms, because I'd like to see those open spaces. I've lived in Chanhassen a long time and I'd like to see that kept but the only way that's ever going to happen is for the city to look at a larger lot, and as Ladd said, there's been very little support for that. In fact there's been a considerable amount of support in the opposite direction to not only allow I think developers who would like to see always the maximum allowed of housing on a piece of property as possible, but also there's a move afoot now to lower the price of housing. To have cheaper housing in Chanhassen. And land and the cost of housing are, you can't separate it. So especially in Chanhassen. The price of our housing's going up and the comments that you asked, we can't sit here and ask the developer what's the price of the house. That's not legal. That's not something that we should be doing. We can't say well, there's a $300,000.00 house here and therefore we're going to legislate that you're going to have to have an equivalent cost house next to it. We deal with minimums. Whether that's fair or not that's, the ordinances deal with the minimum requirement. And then it's up to the developer and the economics of the marketplace to decide what's going to go in there. And I don't know if that's going to be solvable by making that 3 houses On a square lot. I'm not sure that that's going to solve anything other than to say making a compromise. I would like to see 2 houses on there but I have nothing to grab onto and say that that's what it should be. Again, if it was a larger scaled development I could say, well let's see more of a buffer here like we have in some other developments. But it's so small that it's difficult to hang your hat on these days. As to the driveway, 20 feet isn't that much. Are we putting parking restrictions on that driveway at all? Are we going to get parking on both sides of the road if there's a party or construction? Hempel: I believe the ordinance does cover parking lots and... Farmakes: Okay. The developments that I've seen like this, the square I'm thinking of is the one on Lake Lucy Road and CR 17. I don't, there are 4 houses and there's a driveway splitting it in the middle and you see delivery trucks or something and it blocks the whole road going in there. Whether that's temporary or not, it doesn't look very nice. These are somewhat bigger lots but the road's about the same size. So as I said before, I don't know if there's a solution to this is going to solve the problems for the neighborhood but I empathize with the fact that if I had a 4 acre hobby farm, I wouldn't want to see...city density in the middle of our hobby farm area. And I'm not opposed to the city to look at trying to maintain 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that. It seems to me that some of that may be spitting in the fact of the other direction that it's going but on the other hand, looking at the comprehensive plans, that does maintain somewhat the character the people profess here that they want to see so I'll leave it at that. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that we table Case #94-15, which is the Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition. Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the development. Is there any discussion? Mancino: No, the only comment I was going to make was, I don't know if there was a neighborhood meeting with the neighborhood and the applicant. That might be a good idea too between now and then. Scott: Another comment too is that if there's one of the neighbors could identify themselves so that when the next package that the Planning Commissioners get be sent to one of you folks. You can just speak with Bob Generous and get the address and then you'll have it the same time we have it and then we can run the process at the same time. Resident: When is the next meeting? • Scott: It will be I think the 2nd of November. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-15, Hobens Wild Woods Farms 1st Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: The motion is tabled and the reasons behind it has to do with needing more information. Grading, drainage and also tree inventory and house pads and so forth. Thank you all for coming. Landscaping. And one of the things that I wanted to mention just briefly is that before a development gets to the point of public hearing, there's a tremendous amount of work that goes on so the form in which a development comes to the city sometimes does not resemble what it is at this point in time and sometimes it does not even resemble what our friends at the City Council will see. The final decisions are not made here. We make the recommendation to the City Council so please follow, continue to follow your issue and I have a feeling you will. Thank you all for coming. 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 (Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the remaining items.) PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS, WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address John Dietrich RLK Associates Michael Duffy 30E 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 John Dobbs 450 E Co. Rd D Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any questions from the commission. Mancino: Bob I do, just a couple. Just to help me remember a little bit of what came to us before because quite frankly I've forgotten. What I want to know is why staff has changed it's mind about the placement of the roadway and not wanted the road closer to the wetland which would reduce the grading in that northern third of the steep slopes and it would also, as you say, give it more of a public kind of a roadway and in looking out at Bluff Creek and the whole area and we're very concerned with Bluff Creek and having it be a community area. So why is it that the staff has said this is okay instead of keeping the road alignment the way it was and pulling off cul-de-sacs. I don't understand what we're getting for giving that up. Generous: We'd rather have the diversity and the...trail on the rear of those lots to give the public access to the wetland complex and then have the dedicated land in that forested area. 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: But couldn't we still get, have the forested area and move the road closer to the wetland and have the trail on the other side of the road? Generous: I suppose that's an option. I don't know... Mancino: Okay. I just wondered background. Generous: We still think that we give a lot of the same benefits. We will have view corridors between the housing pads so that people can see into that. We believe with the access that will be provided to the trail easement... We wanted to have the sewer system go through the, either along that corridor and the city road because of the soil conditions down there and so we believe in looking at this development, that curvalinear street does have a lot of benefits to it... Mancino: Instead of going straight through it. Now we are buying, the Park Board is buying these lots, correct? Generous: Well they would buy the land in excess of the dedication requirement. They have to provide 2 acres of dedication. Mancino: So we are paying for it. It's not being dedicated to the city. Generous: Right, for the excess. Mancino: Yes, okay. Thank you. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments. Ledvina: The NSP easement along the west side of the property. How far does that go into the property? Generous: I believe it's a 40 foot easement. Ledvina: Okay, so there's 40 feet in Timberwood and 40 feet in Heritage, is that correct? Applicant: According to our research, it is an 80 foot easement. Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any measurement of EMF that you're aware of? Okay, maybe I'll ask the developer to review that when he does make his presentation. The Oudot D area, what's the fate of that? What's the rationale for that? It's toward the southerly. 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: 1.47 acres? That was a...provided as part of the Stone Creek development... Hempel: That's a water quality and treatment project which was developed with the Hans Hagen Stone Creek development. It will also provide some treatment for a portion of this development. Ledvina: Okay, so it's adjacent to the wetland then? Hempel: That's correct. I believe Outlot D does cover the wetland and the storm pond. Ledvina: Okay. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you for the staff report. Would the development team like to make a presentation? Please identify yourself and let us know what you have to say. Michael Duffy: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Michael Duffy and I'm an attorney with... I'm here representing Heritage Development. Also on behalf of Heritage Development is Mr. John Dietrich. Specifically he is the land design architect with RLK and Associates and Mr. Dietrich has prepared the plat that is before you this evening. Also on behalf of Heritage, Mr. John Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs is Director of Development with Heritage. First off I'd like to express Heritage who'd like to express it's appreciation for the staff acceptance of the road realignment and express'it's appreciation for the staff's recommendation as this preliminary plat...approved. Mr. Dietrich and I however have a few comments with respect to the staff report. After Mr. Dietrich and I have made our comments, we are going to ask that the staff approve the plat as submitted this evening... With that I'm going to step aside and Mr. Dietrich is going to give his comments with respect to the conditions set forth in the staff report and then I will be making some more comments after that. John Dietrich: Thank you. My name is John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would like to briefly talk a little bit about the history of the site and then go into some of the details and the characteristics and components of this site that we are pleased to present in the preliminary plat format. In order to do that I will be walking between the overhead projector and the microphone...can be heard well enough from the overhead projector, I'm going to just stand there. As Mr. Generous had mentioned, is that loud enough? Ledvina: That's fine. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: Had mentioned, the site itself is a 39 acre parcel and it's bounded on the west by the Timberwood Estates. On the north by the property that's currently defined as Chanhassen Corporate Center. On the west, or excuse me, on the east by a large extended wetland that does go into the site. And on the south, Stone Creek Subdivision essentially on the southwest corner. Along the southern border is the Twin Cities and Western Railroad tracks. Approximately in a location parallel with the north/south line along the west is the underpass under the railroad tracks that is to be included as a part of the comprehensive trail corridor for the city of Chanhassen. It is the intent of this subdivision to meet the requirements of the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance for the site as it would be rezoned from A2 to a residential single family. The lot minimum for residential single family is 15,000 square foot lots. The lots that are proposed average 21,000 square feet. That was very important that we wanted to increase that size based on some of the comments when we received when this came through in the preliminary PUD last spring. Just to redefine some of the edges. Timberwood Estates is along the edge with tree cover and large single family lots. They currently do not have sanitary sewer located in this subdivision. Bluff Creek comes down and forms the northerly border as well as the eastern tributary of Bluff Creek and then the creek runs along the eastern property edge. The red line identifies the delineated wetlands that are existing on site. The green area identifies an area of overstory mature growth which principally occupies the southern one-third of the site. There's a cluster of overstory trees in the center and one isolated wetland up in the top portion of the slope. This entire area has been pasture land and is currently farmed for a portion of it. The development will have the opportunity to meet the storm water ponding and wetland protection so the opportunity for Bluff Creek and the entire Bluff Creek corridor includes water quality will be greatly enhanced through the development of this 39 acres. Lastly, this little wetland to the south will also be protected and there is currently a pond down on the very southwestern corner that will take runoff from approximately the lower portion of the site and the Hans Hagen site into that pond, pretreated before it would be discharged into the wetland. Secondly, there will be a pond area to the east of the wetland area which the majority of the site will flow into and that again will be pretreated according to the city's standards of Best Management Practices before discharging into the wetland corridor. We propose a storm water pond north of the creek to handle the northern portion of the site and that would also be developed in conjunction with the development to the north of Bluff Creek. The roadway system will extend from Stone Creek and through the site so that the roadway system will extend from Stone Creek subdivision, meander through the site. Have two public cul-de-sacs and then it's proposed to extend north across the creek into Chanhassen Corporate Center to the east/west frontage road which is currently under development by the city. That will be serving the school site and discussions as to how far east that will be extended will impact the timing and development of this roadway connection to the north. If I may briefly touch upon the comprehensive plan. This site has utilized the comprehensive plan as it's basis. This year 2000 land use plan, taken from your ordinance, identifies the site outlined in red. It 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 is scheduled for residential single family density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Our development is proposing a net acreage or net density of 1.6, which is close to the lower end of the residential range. The designated open space development principally lies entirely east of this site, except for this northern knob, the entire site is programmed in your comprehensive plan to have residential single family on it. And the park and open space development will occur to the east. As part of our development we are proposing that the parkland dedication extend the comprehensive trail system from the south, under the underpass and would allow trail access around the site to bridge an area between the wetland, the ponding and the residential single family development. It is our proposal that that 2 acre park dedication, as it's identified on this site plan in green, complies with the ordinance and meets the objectives of the park dedication requirements. It will also protect the slopes that are along the steep corridor of Bluff Creek while providing a sense of variety of spaces...open space, ponding areas and along the wooded areas to the south of the site. Mancino: John, could you give me a description of that park dedication area as far as physical as elevation. What people would do there, etc. John Dietrich: In terms of the park dedication, the topography has a low point at the southwest corner. Comes across the wetland and then we would anticipate it raising up in the range of 8 to 10 feet along the southern, southeastern corner. Coming back down along the east side of the creek and then from this point it is in the wooded area. It would then be fairly flat as it would go through the ponding and wetland area. We anticipate it to be a 8 foot trail within a 20 foot buffer area that would have wetland and ponding along side. It is this segment of the trail that would be fairly flat. It would have a rise of a couple of feet as it would need too to have access up to the north/south roadway. And as it would start to ring around the site to the northeast, the elevation has an opportunity to go up along the slope or follow the creek which is quite a bit down the side of the slope. There are very steep slopes along this side and we would definitely want to work with the city and Park and Recreation Director to place that trail appropriately. We have even talked at one time that we would suggest a trail physically crossing the creek in this location and move the trail on the other side of the creek. You may have an opportunity for a better trail here. In terms of the site itself, the city would be looking at grading the northern portion of the site and taking that down. We are concerned about the Timberwood Estates and the transition that will occur between them. The large lots to the west would allow those items to have very little impact from this development. By taking the slope from the property line down, we would allow the views from Timberwood Estates to basically remain as they are today. The pads coming west of the north/south roadway would have elevations of anywhere from 20 to 25 to 50 feet below the elevations that are currently on that knoll. We are taking this hill down and anticipating moving it south so that we have an undulating roadway experience. As part of the contours that are anticipated to be shown on, we've put together a 3D model of the site. 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 This is looking at the site, essentially a bird's eye view if we are southeast of the site. With this it would allow the existing knoll on the north and it shows how the bank is running through the site. The proposal with the roadway wrapping through would maintain the western edge. Hopefully come down and we will have a bench for the homesites. Roadway. Another bench for the homesites and then the slope would project a bit closer to the wetland on the northeast corner and then taper back in around the ponding area and as we would reach the tributary to Bluff Creek, which extends up into Timberwood Estates, we would try to match grades as close as possible and as we would move into the wooded area on the southern one-third of the site, we will keep grading to a minimum so that it will have a minimal impact to the trees. There will be trees removed on this site. We understand that is part of the development process. However we want to make sure that we have the correct number of trees calculated when this roadway project goes in...and we will work with staff to make sure that we compensate any tree removal according to the woodland management plan. With the site itself, we are looking forward to an approval that would talk to the merits of this project. The sensitivity that we are providing for this site and the opportunity of providing 48 home sites in the Bluff Creek corridor while maintaining a public presence with the trail which comes along the east side of the road. East side of the homes and the public nature of the wetlands and the ponding area. Both on the east and on the west side. Mancino: John, could I ask you a couple more questions? John Dietrich: Certainly. Mancino: First of all I'd like to thank you for presenting this and having it for us. I'd just like to ask a couple questions on it and make sure I'm looking at it right and understanding it. As I go from the existing view to proposed view, where you're putting the road north and south, you're actually building up a ridge, especially towards the middle and going north, that the road sits on and then on each side are walkouts. Is that correct? John Dietrich: Not on each side. Mancino: Just on the wetland side? John Dietrich: Walkouts would only be on the east side of the roadway. Mancino: Okay. So that's why the ridge is, you kind of built up that area? John Dietrich: Yes. Mancino: You filled in. 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: We have filled in east of the roadway in that northeast section. Not on the north side where the steep slopes are from the Bluff Creek but as we start to round. As we begin to round the site more to the east, this area is fill. Along the north we are making the grades match for those walkouts because. Mancino: It works that way? John Dietrich: We need to stay 50 feet away from their center line from the creek for grading and 100 feet away for any structure and this plan achieves that. Mancino: When you get up to the northern edge of a property and to the west of that road it, to me, looking at the existing view, it looks like mountains you know and then when I look at the proposed view, it looks like there aren't too many mountains to the west there anymore. Are you looping off, how many feet? 20-30 feet of those slopes? John Dietrich: We are taking the slope down approximately 20 feet in a couple of locations and on the average it would probably be in the range of 8 to 12 feet across that. Mancino: And have you done anything to protect and preserve those? I mean have you thought about instead of going in with regular sized cul-de-sacs? Doing private drives. Placing the lots a little differently. John Dietrich: We have gone through a number of design alternatives. We previously have looked at a plan with the private drives trying to service the lots so we would have an opportunity to have the steeper slope going up the hillside. That was basically rejected by staff when we discussed it previously. We feel we have looked at the alternatives. We have tried to work with the slopes. Work with the engineering department to have the slope as low as possible for the sanitary sewer but yet try and minimize the cuts and fills on the site. Mancino: What's the balance? I mean what is cut and fill? What do you come up with over the whole project? John Dietrich: Over the whole project right now we are a little long. When I say we're a little long, we're in the range of I would say 20 to 25,000 yards long. We anticipate trying to work with the grades along this center portion. Bring those up a little bit so we can have a balanced site. Mancino: Thank you. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 John Dietrich: It's getting late here. I'll try to quickly go through a few items that I would like to touch on. The items that were, that begin on page 23 of the staff report, that being the conditions of approval. And for the most part we are in agreement with a great majority of them. However I... To begin with on page 23 of the staff report. Number 1, Michael will address that one on his closure. Number 2, we will definitely attempt and retain the natural character of the slopes and the site wherever possible. We will have to work with the grades to make this site balance. Especially on the north side. The woodland management plan will be provided. We have submitted a landscape plan that staff has counted and said we are maybe about 30 trees off in terms of replacement. We will work with staff to make sure that we are in concurrence with that woodland management plan for the tree removal. In order for that roadway to go through, there will have to be trees removed. In order to have home sites in the wooded area, there will be trees removed. We would like this woodland management plan to be comprehensive and address even the individual lots and right-of-way so that when this plan is finally approved, those individual lots will already have the calculation of trees that would be anticipated removed when the private development moves forward on this. Item number 4. The revise the grading plan. We will not have a problem revising the grading plan to try and keep a balance site. We will also make sure we identify each and every floor elevation according to the City of Chanhassen Code. We use a different numerical numbering system... Item number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, we would have no problem with. Item number 11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3 and bring the total number of lots to 47. For an overall site plan I'm going to show a detailed area of this area that talks about Lot 24 and 25, that are essentially along the tributary of Bluff Creek. As part of the approval or the plan that was submitted did not identify easements for the tributary of the Bluff Creek and the property line was defined by this line here. Staff has recommended that the property line center along the Bluff Creek tributary center line, which is this heavily dashed line. The red hash areas would represent a 30 foot easement centered on the tributary center line. The green line represents a 50 foot setback from the center line of the creek that has been suggested to be added as a buffer to the tributary for water clarity issues. The Lot 25 is this shape with a private drive coming in. We suggest that based on the tree survey, there is an opening of significant trees in this area of Lot 25. We previously had identified the house pad within this area. We would propose, without changing the property lines up to the center line adjustment, the home pads could move to the south and still have more than 4,000 square feet of space for that house to be placed. It would be a bit askew. However, we would anticipate any of the home sites within the woodland area would be of a higher quality and individually placed within the site. Additionally Block 24, had the opportunity to move that home pad 60 feet to the south and still be well within the boundaries and setback requirements whereas also Lot 26 could possibly shift down... By adjusting the home sites within this wooded area we feel we still have the opportunity to have those floor elevations. A minimum of 3 feet above the flood stage and still have adequate home sites without unduly, or without sacrificing the natural 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 amenities that this creek corridor does have and we would also not lose any other significant trees by maintaining these two sites. Mancino: Would you be custom grading those? John Dietrich: Yes. These would be custom graded and also, for example Lot 24. I identify 3 trees that are within that 60 x 60 foot pad. I also know the right-of-way...identified this cluster of trees to be removed. We would work with staff so that any trees within the home pads and access to them would be included as part of the woodland management plan to allow a development to proceed and we would anticipate that would be a worse case scenario on these individual lots and ideally as they would be initially graded and designed, more of the trees could and would be saved. Such as the home site could wrap around the site and definitely save these... Those would have to be addressed on a lot by lot basis but we wanted you to have the tree calculation figures into the final plat of the process. Scott: How would that lot be serviced? Would that come off of, would it be a driveway off of the private drive? John Dietrich: Lot 24 would come directly off the access. They would have to have their own driveway. A private drive only allows one lot to be served. This is really not a private driveway. It's almost like a flag lot. So only one residential unit may be served to accommodate the flag lot. Mancino: That area isn't covered in our grading plan. John Dietrich: On the grading plan that is part of the package, we did not put the grades on there. Mancino: So we can't tell how many of the trees will stay or go. John Dietrich: At this time, in order to make a calculation we would say the trees that are within the designated home pads that were put into the calculations as removable. Generous: That's what my estimates come from... John Dietrich: If I could continue so we can get out of here. Item number 12, Mr. Duffy will address. Item number 13, the site plan does identify the 100 foot setback from the center line of the creek and all structures will be beyond that 100 foot setback line, and that is identified both the 50 foot setback for grading and...setback on the site plan. Items number 14 and 15 we will happily comply with. Item number 16 we will comply with and the pond 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 has been designed to provide slopes of 10 to 1 at the high water...proper water elevation. I need my engineer to tell me those and with the remainder at 3:1 slope. Item number 17 will be fine. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 we will all comply with. Item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to issuance of the building permit. We will show a grading plan that will be minimal for those lots. We want those trees to be saved wherever possible and work with the contours that are in there. We will include the potential for those individual home buyers to know what trees and the conditions of development are on those individual sites instead of leaving that up to the individual home buyer after the site is... The 60 x 60 pads is probably a worst case scenario. That's 3,600 square feet. If we start building homes that are 3,600 square feet floor area, it's going to be tough. We anticipate these to be two story homes and the floor plan be quite a bit less than 3,600 square feet. Item number 25 and 26 and 27, we will comply with. Item number 28, the southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway. We have looked at a private driveway in an earlier submission that we did pull because of items that were not fully addressed. One of the issues staff brought up was the number of units that were serviced off the private drive access and serviceability to fire safety. We have not redesigned this site to incorporate public drives in both of the cul-de- sacs so that we will have a better and we feel the best plan that can be put together on this site. The public service and fire safety and not meeting conditions of approval or encumbrances and cross easements, will make this a much more sellable and attractive subdivision. Item number 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary. If I could go back to this item. The Bluff Creek tributary is centered right here. There would have to be significant tree removal along this easement that's outlined in red in order for that sanitary sewer stub to be taken to the eastern, western property line for potential servicing of the Timberwood Estates development. The need for moving the lots and home pads on Lots 24 and 25 was to retain the natural character and amenities and tree cover along this tributary. It is our desire that sanitary sewer not go in for the disruption that it would put on that area and we feel that the trees that would be removed will not grow back easily. The trees that will be removed, they have to be replaced with smaller trees and that's why we're trying to minimize the number that we would have on this site. Scott: Dave, on that particular point. Is the rationale for that stub, is that to service another or future development? Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman, that's one of the viable routes to provide gravity sanitary sewer service to the Timberwood Estates development at some future date when those larger lots reconfigure down into smaller lots. Short of installing a lift station or two in that area to service it, which is a great cost and maintenance problem for the city. That would be the alternative. 49 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Dave, we've done that though in other areas like Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition because of the preservation of trees and other things. We went in and did a couple lift stations. Hempel: I am not recalling any off hand. I can use an example of the sewer line, one of the existing street areas. In fact there's one in the Bighorn Shadow Ridge development which you couldn't even tell that we were in there. That was done about 6 years ago. Mancino: But how long does it take to get back natural? I mean is that a 5-6 year? I mean it's not really natural. Hempel: The life of the sanitary sewer is determined in the field based on the existing trees. They can be, the sewer line doesn't have to go perfectly straight. It can meander along there to avoid significant trees if it stays within this corridor. The depth of the sanitary sewer line will be relatively shallow. Less than 10 feet because we don't need the great depth that we put in... Mancino: The shallower the less wide you go. Hempel: That's exactly right. Mancino: What about coming up from Stone Creek? I mean why wasn't there, when that was developed. Hempel: We did explore that avenue as well. There are two low points on...drive where sanitary sewer would actually daylight with the gravity system. Short of the lift station... We did look at, when Hans Hagen was developing Stone Creek and felt the only other alternative was this corridor through this tributary to service it. Scott: Okay, thanks. John Dietrich: Item number 30, we will definitely show grading contours for the storm sewer plan proposed in a temporary fashion on the north side of the creek and we will also look closely at the need for the elevations of that crossing in order to accommodate a storm sewer as it would cross the creek in order to maintain the proper flow. The extension of, number 31. Extension of the north/south street be extended through to the frontage road within 3 years. We would have no problem with that condition on that the city has also extended the roadway to that point and to the east. Currently that roadway is not there and we would need a roadway to hook up into. But it is our desire to have that as an access for the anticipated traffic flow and circulation for this entire area. Number 33, the trail alignment around the 50 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 wetland along the Bluff Creek corridor. We would definitely work with staff to have that placement within the defined park dedication area that we are proposing. Item number 34 we will concur with. Item number 35 we will use retaining walls. We anticipate they will be field stone quality from boulders and rocks unearthed during the excavation. And item • number 36, we would adjust the property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary as we had shown on the overhead as necessary. And we still feel we have the opportunity to maintain that number of lots and maintain the natural amenities and significant tree population for those two lots. And lastly I'd like to point out the sketch plan that was identified in your planning commission packets was a discussion of the plan that Heritage Development presented to the city a number of months ago for discussion only. That plan was never officially submitted and the plan that we are proposing at this time we feel is the best plan that is available and meets the objectives of the subdivision code and the concerns that the Planning Commission did address when this was initially proposed as a concept PUD plat. And conditional use permit and wetland permit alteration, items number 1 and 2, we will also concur with. And with that I'd like to turn it over briefly to Mr. Duffy for a couple points in closing. Michael Duffy: Thank you John for your presentation. Members of the commission, as you've heard from Mr. Dietrich's presentation, this preliminary plat complies with...with all code requirements and ordinance requirements that have also been established by staff in the staff report... There are a number of things however, and conditions that the staff has set forth that are not requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance which I'd like to go over at this time. The first one of these set forth is number 1 on page 23. This is the condition that the staff has put with respect to approval of the plat. This is in respect to incorporating design components for the proposed Bluff Creek watershed plan. It's Heritage's position that simply put, it's Heritage's position that it is unreasonable for Heritage to have to comply with a watershed plan that is not yet enacted. It's unreasonable. We do not know what the watershed plan is so for us to agree to comply with this plan would be unreasonable. We do not know what the plan is. It does not exist and in fact would be retroactive. In effect requiring us to comply with this would be retroactive application of law. Another condition I'd like to refer you to is condition number 12 on the next page. This is in respect to the condition that the staff has asked for that more property be dedicated for park purposes. At this time as Mr. Dietrich has explained, the plat as it has been submitted to you does comply with subdivision ordinances...ordinances such that Ordinance 18-79(i). The formula there when you apply that formula it requires that there be 1.92 acres of dedication in this subdivision. As Mr. Dietrich has explained, there are 2 acres that have already been dedicated. If the city so desires to buy the property that the staff has recommended be dedicated, there is nothing that Heritage can do to stop the city's powers of eminent domain but Heritage will not agree to dedicate any more than what is required by the park dedication ordinance. I'd like to turn your attention lastly to condition number 32. This is a condition 51 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 that states that the developer and any property owners will waive any and all procedural and substantive objections in respect to special assessments for the city's public improvement project #93-26, including claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. Heritage is willing to pay it's fair share. Fair and equitable share with respect to these assessments but is unwilling and is unreasonable without knowing what these assessments are, to waive rights, especially when those assessments may exceed the benefits to the property. In this case this is unacceptable to Heritage. In sum, these 3 conditions that I talked about are conditions that are not required by the subdivision ordinance. They do not have a rational...with respect to approving the plat that is before you today. What we ask that you do this evening is approve the plat as submitted in accordance with the comments that both Mr. Dietrich and I have made. We hope that you're prepared to approve the plat tonight as it has been submitted. The one thing that we ultimately ask is that this not be tabled this evening. You have a couple of proposals in front of you. You have a proposal with conditions from the staff. You've heard our comments in respect to the staff conditions and the way we would like it approved. And we hope, I think that's enough information for you tonight...and we respectfully request that you would make a decision this evening. If you have any further questions, I have nothing further. Thank you. Scott: Any questions or comments? Mancino: I have a couple questions, unless somebody else does first. To Bob. It must be getting late... Explain to me again, and I'm looking on sheet 2 of 7. Do you have that in front of you? Okay. I see in the eastern, northeast corner it says park dedication, 2 acres. And it's also Outlot C also? Generous: No. Mancino: Would you take a few minutes and explain to me where this strip goes and what Outlot C is? Outlot C becomes a NURP pond? Generous: Yeah, that's a ponding, storm water pond. Mancino: Okay. And the park dedication starts at the northern tip of the roadway and comes all the way around to, it ends at, between Lot 11 and Lot 1. Correct? Lot 11 of Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2. Generous: No, it actually ends at the western property line in the southeast corner. Mancino: Oh okay. But you can access it between those two lots. 52 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: Between 11 and 1, yes. Mancino: And how wide is that? Again is it. Generous: I don't know. John Dietrich: It's a minimum of 20 feet. Mancino: Thank you. Make sure I understood that. Thank you very much. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Ledvina: As it relates to measurements of EMF from the NSP line, has there been any effort to do that or can you comment on concerns that you would have as it relates to the power lines in that area. John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs, Director of Development for Heritage. I have...we'll probably do it in the course of...extremely high tension lines that we've asked for and received a number of issues from NSP supporting that but we'll probably do it subject to the people who will consider moving there...We'll probably do it as part of the marketing... Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the voltage that's going through those lines, what are you looking at there for voltage? . John Dobbs: I have no idea what the voltage that runs through that particular set of lines. I know that the...from 345,000 volts...and also they had a number of different levels of lines that go back. The amount of voltage is not necessarily a geometric ratio to the amount of EMF that comes out of that. Ledvina: It's the current essentially. John Dobbs: Height and as well the current... John Dietrich: If I may add commissioner. The larger, I'm going to say the larger transmission lines, the ones that have holes that run along the tracks, comes to the site and then heads south, north of the tracks is a much lower voltage line. It is on wood poles, double standards that come all the way up to Highway 5. So I know the larger ones carry much higher, greater number of lines but the ones along the western line are of lower caliber. 53 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Anything else? Would anybody from the development team wish to add anything else? Okay. This is an item for public hearing. Is anybody here from the general public wish to speak about this project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I missed the meeting where this was at before. Can you explain to me in regards to the park why that particular site was considered the 2 acres up above. I believe it was 2 acres for the park. To the exclusion of the wooded area down below by the wetland...the south end. Generous: Because the applicant wants those wooded sites for home sites... Farmakes: So this is the area that we're considering? Generous: The city would have the wooded land. He wants to dedicate the land along the wetland. . Farmakes: Is that discussion at a state of maturity or are you positioning here? Generous: Well the Parks Commission wants to have more land. Farmakes: Okay. So is the city's position aggressive in pursuing that, I guess that's my question. Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Can I follow up on that? Is it a trade off between the trails or that other wooded area to the south? Is that what we're looking at? I mean could you say. Generous: Well that's what we were looking at. That trail...roadway alignment as proposed in this plat...and we would do the dedication of the parkland in the southeast corner. Ledvina: But as it exists now, they're dedicating that strip as, and that's where the trail is going to go, is that correct? 54 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: Yes. That's, they're dedicating that for their 2 acre requirement... Ledvina: Okay. But we could say that area is not acceptable and not have the trail in there and then get the 2 acres in that southerly portion. Is that the other option? I mean would that, I mean we have a question of the ordinance here in terms of the amount of dedication. Am I making sense? Generous: Yes. I don't know how to answer. I don't know if, we would like to have an easement for that on top of the drainage and utilities...so we can have our trail system down around the wetland corridor and into... Ledvina: Okay, so what we're requesting that the developer do is not dedicate that strip along the corridor as a park but get us an easement to build us a trail in that area. Generous: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: That was my concern too. Is the difference between easement for a trail and a park and I see what you're saying. So this is not as aggressive as we would like to be to develop that resource. Ledvina: But if we did it that way, then we would, the city would be in accordance with their ordinance in terms of the park dedication. But at the same time we have the ability to have them provide an easement for that trail. Okay. Scott: Do you have a question for the development team? Farmakes: I still have another question in regards to the park. Does this encompass all of Block 2 or is this a portion of Block 2? Generous: It's just those lots. The area where those 4 lots are. Farmakes: That would be Lots 8, 9, 11 and 10? Scott: 9, 10 and 11. Farmakes: ...24, 26 and 25? 55 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Just east of the road. Generous: No, along the east side of the road. 8, 9, 10 and 11. And we would require, whatever the code requires in dedication and the city would purchase the remainder. Farmakes: Okay. Then so, in looking at the pads then for everything to the west of the road, then they would follow, those trees would be removed then, correct? Generous: Yes. Farmakes: There isn't a distribution of quality of the trees in the report that are on the schematic here. It doesn't talk about percentage is oak or elm. Not being a forester, the quality of the woodland there. Generous: Is very good. Farmakes: It's very good or are we talking more oak than box elder then? I would encourage the city to pursue that to fall in line with what's going on with Bluff Creek and I'm not sure, not having benefitted from the presentation of the developer in the past meeting...making judgments based on the staff report, other than the issue of parkland. I'll pass on the rest. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I guess some of my questions with regards to the park dedication have been answered. Is the city able to, listening to the developer's comments, I'm not sure if I heard them saying that the maximum they are required to give up by ordinance is 2 acres? Generous: Yes. 1.92. Nutting: And what is the Lots 8 thru 11 encompass? Generous: I believe the park...is 2.7 in that area. Nutting: So the city is proposing that they would purchase the additional .7 thru whatever means. Condemnation if necessary. Okay. I'm not sure, in terms of the issues that the applicant is not in favor of in staff recommendations number 1. Incorporating the design for the proposed Bluff Creek. Again, I'm a little bit of a novice of this game but I've listened to us incorporate this as it relates to the Highway 5 corridor. As it relates to Bluff Creek. As it relates to numerous other issues that are in progress. I don't know the legalities of that but 56 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 I don't think I would depart from our present approach in terms of making sure that we have developments that doesn't incorporate the future planning that's going on right now. Number 28. I don't know Bob, I'm hearing the developer say that they had originally proposed a private driveway concept which staff was not in favor of. And now staff has turned around and said give us a private driveway. Where does that all fall? Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioner, maybe I can address that. That came out of my staff report. I don't think it's the same, exact location or the same number of lots being serviced by the cul-de-sac. I do recall trying put the...previously but I think this is a different scenario. This has two of the lots, the house pads back into the wooded areas which results in tree loss. My thought is to try and eliminate the tree loss as well as help reduce cost... the developer, some of them prefer actually the private driveway versus the public street as well so it provides some diversity out there on those lots. I thought it was a win/win/win solution but maybe I'm not hearing that from what the developer is saying so I guess I'm open just from the standpoint that this is the...save us some additional trees and pulling those house pads down from the wooded... Generous: ...this vicinity. The other one the housing... Nutting: I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to touch number 32. Where that one goes. I guess I'd like to listen to the comments of the other members before pulling together my final thoughts. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, in your report on page 2 you have a couple of sentences that I'm reading here. Paragraph 2, sentence number one. This plat meets minimum code requirements for a single family development but falls short of ordinance requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and scenic views. Can you talk about that a little bit? Generous: That's part of the conditions. The 100 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as a buffer area. With the recommendations in the staff report...that's primarily what we were looking at. Mancino: And are we doing mass grading on this? Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape. 57 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: And how are we preserving topography? If we're doing mass grading and especially in the northern part where there's steep slopes. Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, I'd be happy to address that one. The variety in elevations...balance earth work to develop house pad elevations. And also provide streets that meet our city code for street...Or provide a bench for a house to go on and... Mancino: But if we have said in our ordinances that we're preserving and protecting...those areas, shouldn't be less densely developed? Isn't that how you preserve and protect? Hempel: That would be one alternative to it I guess. Mancino: Is there any other alternative? Hempel: By trying to reconfigure the street alignment through there would be one method but again...increase the grade elevations. Mancino: And haven't we gone to 10% street grades for special areas like this? Hempel: In some areas we have. I haven't felt the need to do that to this road. To maintain a variety of slope...grading plan, they are still trying to reproduce the rolling terrain effect that you have out there today. Not to the extent that you have out there... Mancino: Would that northern cul-de-sac do less grading if it were a private? I mean if it were a smaller. Would that help at all Dave? Because that's where you have some of the steep slopes on that northern area. Hempel: The driveway grade, or I should say the street grade already is proposed at approximately 7%. 10% street grade...little bit of elevation off the top of the hill there but I don't know if it would be significant enough to warrant a private driveway. Mancino: Okay. Secondly Bob, oh I'm sorry. I have another question. Bob on that same paragraph. You said while staff believes that the road alignment for the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership. Is that still the thinking of staff? That is the preferred route? That is still the preferred route, okay. Generous: We are compromising to get this to move forward. Mancino: So we're compromising really where we want the road just to move it forward? 58 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: And take a good look. We also want to work it out so, the developer's agreeable for our parkland dedication area. Mancino: But the developer isn't. Generous: We'll find out. Mancino: But according to what I see in front of me the developer isn't. Generous: What you see in front of you and what the conditions of approval are aren't the same thing. Mancino: Okay. My last few points, questions are, when we saw this before on page 3 of the staff report we asked for 4 things. Or the Planning Commission denied it. It was just I think the sketch plan. On 4 points and I just want to bring those up again. Number 4 was, we wanted them to minimize grading. Topographical disruptions and working with and maintaining some of the steep slopes. Number 5, provide a transition from Timberwood to Heritage. We were concerned about lot size directing abutting Timberwood. 6, we were concerned about the overall density of the development and we were also concerned about minimizing tree loss. And I have concerns about all 4 of those and actually whether they've been done with this new plan. The minimizing tree loss, we have a road going through the only place where we have trees. Mature trees. And we have lots going in there and I think this is pretty much what we saw the first time that we looked at it so I don't see a big improvement on that area. Overall density. Bob, what has that done? Generous: What did we do? I don't remember what it was the last time. Under the concept plan for the PUD they were able to go down to 11,000 square feet and average 15. They are averaging 21,000 now so. Mancino: So that has happened. Generous: Yes. Mancino: Good, good. And the lots that abut Timberwood, have those also increased in size? Generous: We believe so. They have the flare now back sides on the cul-de-sac. Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you. 59 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Ledvina: On the plan, let's see sheet 2. Looking at Lot 1, Block 1. We have 100 foot setback from the creek and I see the line and it essentially cuts right through a buildable area on that lot and I'm wondering can we still get a house pad in that area? Generous: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So you can get in a 60 x 60 foot area into that? Generous: At this time...about 4,000 square feet. Ledvina: 4,000 square feet within the triangle? But people don't build houses in a triangular form. Generous: They can make it L shape. They also don't have to build a 60 x 60 house. Ledvina: No. That's true but that's the standard for providing the house pad. Okay. So you're satisfied that we can meet the requirements and also provide a buildable area in that lot. Okay. I guess I would like to hear from the developer specifically as it relates to the park situation. You mentioned you were anxious to make a comment and I'll let you do that now John if it's okay with the Chairman here. John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. In regards to the park dedication area, we are proposing we'll meet the intent of, we will meet the tode requirements of the 2 acres which will essentially be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer strip running along the entire eastern side of this development to provide access up to the east/west roadway and then run along Bluff Creek to the southern portion of the site and then west along the southern boundary of this development towards the underpass. Go to your comprehensive trail plan, which is stated, your trail would be in conformance with the comprehensive trail plan. That is the area that we proposed for park dedication and we feel meets the most closely intent for the comp plan. Secondly in terms of, if I may address a couple of the other issues that were also brought up in terms of this private drive. We will propose to maintain the public drive access in order to have proper frontage and access that would be of a public nature. We feel it would be best for all citizens and homeowners in this area to have public driveways. Or public cul-de-sacs. The 50 and 100 foot setback is met on every lot north and south in terms of grading within 50 feet of the creek and the structure setback within 100 feet. In order to preserve the topography of this site we are not grading along the entire northern area of the site where the steep slopes are along Bluff Creek. We anticipate there would not be any grading within this area so that steep corridor will be maintained in a steep nature and present condition. The slope will be projected out along this area and we will maintain the elevations along the entire rear of the property. In terms of transitions to Timberwood, the existing plant material 60 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 will provide a buffer that is already on the site and would be stepping down. We will have a transition so that the homes will not be right back up against the property line. With the NSP easement of 40 feet, we will be at a minimum of 40 feet. Most cases more than 40 feet off of that property line. Ledvina: Thank you. The area along that north high point, have we evaluated those areas in relation to the bluff ordinance and do they need any requirements there? Generous: The closest point is in the northeast corner of the lot along the trees. Ledvina: Okay. Okay. I did want to speak to some of the issues that were raised as part of the conditions. I guess number 1. Condition number 1. Generally I feel that we want the developer to deal with those elements of the design but I can definitely see their point in terms of making them accept something that doesn't exist and I guess I wouldn't support condition number 1 as it reads in the staff report. Maybe we can soften that to say the applicant shall attempt to incorporate design components. I don't think we should make it a definite condition and I think the developers have worked to provide some amenities and be sensitive to the Bluff Creek in their design as it exists right now, Especially with the setbacks. I think that they've demonstrated that so I don't know that we should hold their feet to the fire as it relates to that. So I see some nodding heads over there that that maybe is a way to go with that. Mancino: Matt, what if we put a date on it and said that in the next month or two, if this plan is done with and they're still in the preliminary going to the final, they could incorporate it. And have it some way. Ledvina: Well, if there's something that we have as a standard and that we can look at and compare it to the plan that we have, then I would say yes, But I don't like these interim kind of things. I realize that that's a transition but I don't think that that works for me. I feel that that trail should be looked at in terms of an easement and I believe that the city is justified in that perspective. And the specific parkland dedication should be as the staff has indicated in terms of that southerly area so I would support that. Going to, let's see there was another here as it related to the assessments. Can you speak to that Dave in terms of asking them to waive their due process on something that doesn't exist yet. Hempel: The project has actually been petitioned by the property owners. Feasibility study's been looked at and I was going to touch on that a little bit...Without the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer lines the development doesn't have sewer capability so we've left it optional for the developer. If he wishes to proceed extending this trunk sanitary sewer line to the development, then we'd reimburse him the cost of the lateral line and the trunk line. The 61 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 city has to put it in. We have to go through...public hearing and ordering the project, calling for plans and specs and ordering and so forth. What happens in the process, the property gets platted. It gets 40 some lots out here. You've got 40 some potential owners that could be closing on the property at the time we're holding the assessment hearing and where the language comes from is from the attorney's office. All these new property owners weren't notified of the public improvement project before and...problem with the public hearing process and the appeals and so forth that would occur from it. The project would not proceed ahead without a feasibility study that laid out the assessments for these parcels. The assessments may vary but they can only vary at a rate of 10%...So that would probably clarify what... Ledvina: Well essentially it's for the developer's good, right? To benefit in terms of keeping things moving. Hempel: Yes. From that approach, yeah...I think this came from the hearing standpoint... Ledvina: Alright. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Bob, tell me about the transition between Timberwood and Heritage. ...Last time we talked about what's the transition. We're concerned with it and I see all the vegetation and the landscape plan going on the road. I don't see anything going between the two areas so obviously you must feel that we don't need a transition. That's taken care of. I don't... Generous: Except...for all the additional landscaping... Conrad: And we don't have that? We don't know what that is. Generous: We don't know... Conrad: So we're moving from 8 houses in Timberwood as I count to 14 houses in Heritage that they abut each other, and I guess that's okay. But I am specifically concerned about houses that are close. I see a couple close houses in Timberwood that I'd be concerned with and I just don't know that we really got a good buffering plan. Maybe it is Bob. Maybe in the future it is. I don't see it right now. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. We talked about grading and that was a concern we had and it looks to me like we're really doing a lot of grading here. Balancing the site. Dave says that that's what we've got to do to make it usable. Boy. Bob, what's the Bluff Creek watershed plan? What is it and where is it? 62 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: It's still in the process. Conrad: And who's doing it? Generous: The city...We lost out on the grant money to pay for... Conrad: So it's not even close to being done? Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape. Conrad: What could the potential impact of that plan be on this? Generous: Larger setbacks. Maybe they'd say 200...We don't know. Conrad: So it's really we don't know. Okay, then if we're not even close. Usually developers that we work with are usually pretty, even though we're doing things in the future we want them to support what we're doing and if, you know I think it's just a good cooperative spirit. I didn't notice that when you were talking. But on the other hand if we're not close, there's nothing that you can pay attention to so I guess I have to take number 1 out and that's not what I thought I was going to do. But if we're not close, I'm not going to, I'll test this plan on other issues and not waiting for something that's really not close to finalization. The difference really from the concept stage to the sketch stage is, we've reduced some houses and we've curved the street and staff is hopeful that we'll get a park out of the thing. Do we know what trees are going down? We don't know what trees have to be cut at this point in time, do we. We know what trees are there but. Generous: Approximately. We estimated it...reduce their building pads in that wooded area... Conrad: So how sensitive is this plan to the trees that we have there? Is this the only plan that will work Bob? Generous: The alignment of the road in the southern end... Then the rest of the site...there's a stand of trees in the middle. Whether or not they can or can't save those. Even under the PUD we want to show... Conrad: Nancy, I agree with all your comments. I don't know, I don't think our comments from the first go around have been really incorporated and maybe we were just sort of being real nice and philosophical. Practically speaking there's got to be a road going through there. Scott: Where do you think that road should go? 63 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: Well, I don't know. There's trees down there and you've got to bring a road through and I just don't see any solution. Scott: I'm thinking once it gets to the point when it's the wooded area, and I was quite taken by the initial kind of thumbnail sketch of having that road go along the Bluff Creek area and then having the grading effect of that road be very close to the 100 foot setback. Something in that. Roads are rarely amenities. But if they can be placed in proximity to a natural resource. So you do have the views and it performs it's traffic function and a trail can be incorporated. I mean that was kind of what my vision was of this particular piece. And now it's... Mancino: It's kind of like going down Lake Lucy Road and being able to see the view because of the wetlands. You know one...going from Galpin east and then the closer when you get to Powers. One of the nice parts about that is that you have some wetland views. And this is such a gorgeous area. Scott: I'm not going to speak for the Parks Department, parks group. Just a thought that there seems to be a lot of push and pull at the parkland dedication as a trail. And maybe one of the points we could discuss, not at this forum. Okay, if it's going to be 2 acres, talk about relocating the road and then have that dedication right along side the road and they'll have their, they'll be able to develop the higher buck lots down in the wooded area. The roadway I think would, that would be pretty spectacular and even as a thought process but I was, you take a look at where the road is now and I'm kind of going, well. We can do much better. Mancino: Which is what staff came up originally. Scott: Yeah. So that's my. What do the other commissioners think about the road position? Nutting: I guess I'm just trying to resolve staff getting from the original proposal to where we are now. I hear staff saying, or in the report it says to compromise to obtain the easement for the trail. Is that. Mancino: For the parkland. Generous: Park dedication. Nutting: But then staff says in the next sentence they're going to, that parkland is it regardless. Whatever means is necessary. 64 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Generous: We looked at the idea, we can't get... We want our 2 acres in the woods. Let's push the road back over. The developer is not willing to work with the city. Then we have our public access for the...roadway alignment and the sidewalk going along there. But they were willing to compromise that and let him get his walkout in the Bluff Creek corridor... Nutting: The only other comment I have is I would amend my original comments with regards to number 1. Perhaps it's the hour but as I sit and think about the Highway 5 corridor, we at least had a document which had some direction. It wasn't finalized. It has been approved by Council and I guess I, sitting and listening to Matt and Ladd, I'm saying yeah. I mean I don't see how I can suggest that we put restriction number 1 in this document. Conrad: What's our vision of Bluff Creek? It's a, who knows. What is Bluff Creek? I don't know what it is. I honestly done. It's too bad. It's hard to tell whether the plan's good or bad when you don't know what the... The amenity is that you're trying to preserve and what you're trying to do with it and I don't know what that is. You know if Bluff Creek, we're just going to have a trail down there. I really wish we had a view, a vision of this or maybe somebody, I wish I had it. I don't. Therefore it's hard for me to preserve something that I don't have that vision for. Farmakes: Some of that is covered though Ladd in the preservation ordinance... Conrad: Tell me what Bluff Creek is? Do you envision Bluff Creek as a public walkway? Farmakes: Probably a part of that is presentation when we're talking about that. We're talking about trails going to the north/south. The creek goes down to the Minnesota bluff area. Conrad: Do you envision it as an isolated experience or one with traffic next to it? Farmakes: Well as I understood it, with the trail going through it, obviously there's public access to it. And again, that trail system coming up from the south crossing over TH 5 and coming into the north. It's been a while since we went over that stuff. As I understood it, the slide show was brought in here and they went through the trees and so on and the locale and obviously it gets wilder as it heads down towards the river. But at some point in time it seems to me that that is where the trail is. Conrad: And who endorses this concept? Is that Park and Rec? Is that their vision right now? 65 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Farmakes: Well it's MnDot's vision. We've got a connection going under the highway there. Mancino: A wonderful bridge culvert. Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any further but I'm looking for, so Park and Rec basically said they want a trail going through there. They didn't say they cared if there was a road next to it or not. Mancino: And the roadway I can see, you know I don't know what happens down south but it meanders and it can come close to it at times and other times you know...so it's more of a trail in the woods effect. Farmakes: From what I've seen in some of the more wild areas of that creek, some of it you never can put a road next to it. Some of it just goes down vertical for a considerable ways so. Conrad: Okay. I'm having a tough time dealing with it because I don't know if it's an isolated experience where you try to get somebody away or you're just having a trail next to a little stream so I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to stop talking. I guess I don't have a real good feel for this project. It looks like moving a lot of earth around. It didn't seem like we were real sensitive to the environment. The developer on the other hand has reduced the number of lots. My only issue right now, I think in terms of the staff report. Number 1's got to be out. Number 32, which the developer had some problems with. I don't have a clue how to handle that one. Again, it seems like something that, if I were them, I'd want it out. I don't know how they can run their business with the way that was worded. Maybe there's a better way to express it. My biggest concern is transition from Timberwood. I don't know what it looks like. How it's done. I don't know how certain houses are protected. I think somebody should know that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back again? Conrad: For that one issue, I don't know. I guess if there are other issues. For that one issue, I might be able to say send it to City Council with a staff recommendation or a report. If it's just that one issue. If there are issues tagged on to that that we're concerned with. Road alignment maybe. Park. Maybe we want to see how the park works or something else. Maybe if there are other issues, then we should table it and bring it back. We haven't passed anything tonight yet. I see no reason to change it. Just work until 2:00 in 2 weeks. If there are other issues, then it should probably come back. 66 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, I think there's some specific issues. I mean I don't see compromising the road alignment. I'd like to see it come back and move the road alignment. What the staff had originally asked for. And it would be meandering and follow the bluff line. And also I share Ladd's comments, which I kind of brought up earlier too about the Timberwood transition. And I'd like to see also if that can minimize some grading. Scott: Can we have a motion? Conrad: Joe, where are you at on the street? I don't want to send something back and screwing around with if we're not going to move it someplace. Scott: My major issue was the road alignment. And I was, there's intent of ordinances with regards to park dedication and then there's the letter and my thought is that, I think when most people think of a park dedication, they're thinking of something that is not straw shaped. I think when the Park and Rec or when that ordinance was put together, I think we were thinking of something kind of like a square. Something that was contained so I mean that to me looks like a by the, very by the book interpretation of our parkland dedication ordinance. Which is perfectly legal. Perfectly legal. But to me that doesn't seem like that's the intent. I think what the Park and Rec people were looking for is more the intent. It's an amenity and it's very nice to see them as, they've moved I think in the last two years I think that I've personally been working with them, moved from thinking of parks as an active scheduled, flat situation and now they're looking very seriously at doing what we see here as preservation of wooded areas and so forth. And I think that's the intent of that particular ordinance. So I'm looking at those two things are my major issues. Then also too, we were just looking at our bluff ordinance. In the two pages that I see here, I don't see anything in here that says 30% slope over 25 feet. Ledvina: Because that's the old version. Scott: This is the old version, okay. Well that makes sense. So I took a look at a couple of areas up here on the hill and there's a number of areas in a 25 foot stand. There are 8 foot changes and I'm just, I'm looking here at the topographic map. The thing that was very striking to me was to see that 3 dimensional view and so yeah, I have a lot of...what I believe from looking at the topographic map. From doing the measurements and using the scale provided me and using the bluff ordinance, there are bluff areas in the northern part of this thing and somebody's going to have to prove that I'm incorrect before I'm going to move off of that point. So that's where I'm coming from. And we've got another 2 hours tonight so. That's where I'm at. ...that based upon our bluff ordinance, cannot be graded. Plain and simple. 67 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Nutting: When are we going to move this forward? I mean your comments about the park. Staff has made recommendations which are supportive of your direction. It comes down to the issue of the road, is the biggest one I'm hearing which throws this whole thing back to the drawing board basically. Scott: My major concern is the major topographic changes up on the north side and I think that some of those areas are protected by ordinance. Nutting: But staff, Bob you said you have looked at that? Generous: Yes. When I was using the 30% and 25...elevation change. Scott: Yeah, I was doing the same. I was using an 8 foot change in a 25 foot span and I came up with. Generous: You've got to have a 25 foot change in... Scott: No, I was just using the 25 foot span and the 8 foot change. So it's basically 33% or 32%. Generous: That's not far enough down. It's not a large enough change that way. It has to be a total of 25 feet in... Scott: Alright. Nutting: So if that addresses the bluff issue, then we're down to the road. Mancino: Well and transition between Timberwood. I move that we table. Michael Duffy: Excuse me. I'm sorry to speak out of order. Scott: Excuse me. Public hearing is closed. We're considering a motion so. Mancino: We can say no to it. Scott: Yeah, which we can say no to. So, it's been moved that we table this. Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second. 68 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yeah, the road issue. Nancy, what would you expect back? Mancino: I would expect back to see a different road alignment and one that meanders with the bluff, the natural topography and it's something that I think the staff has and the applicant talked about, meandering through here and seeing what kind of development proceeds from that. Actually I...on page 2 of what the staff has written for the advantages to that. Conrad: So you would ask the developer to move the road next to? Mancino: I haven't seen it, yeah. I mean I'm sure that they have done some of this. While the staff believes road alignments of the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex. I think the only, the sense I got from Bob was the only reason that they were still behind this and still think it's the best road alignment. Scott: Then also too, I think that road alignment in conjunction with the park dedication along that road alignment, I think it would be a good trade off versus having the dedication of the wooded area plus having the city buy 7/10ths. Nutting: So you're saying give up the south area then? Scott: I think that would be. Ledvina: I wouldn't support that. I would like to see that area incorporated as a park. I think that's important for this development. Just my thoughts on the road is, as I look at the road, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to change the character of the road. We do have ordinances as it relates to the maximum grades and such that we have to deal with here so I don't think that there are a lot of options with this road. I know we want to be sensitive to topography in that instance but if you're going to put a road through it, you're going to have to grade it. Mancino: But don't you have to where it is now too? Ledvina: Pardon? Mancino: You're saying there would be a difference between putting it along here versus where it is? 69 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Ledvina: Not much of a difference. Mancino: Okay. Grading wise. Ledvina: That's what I'm seeing from some of the topography that I'm looking at here. Mancino: So it couldn't change fairly easily. Ledvina: No. Mancino: Oh! Ledvina: It can be changed but you're still going to have the grading to meet the slope requirement. So the value. Mancino: It's more of a community value. Ledvina: Yeah, right. That's the kind of thing you're looking at. It's not an and or, it's not a real clear cut option in terms of put the road down here and you don't grade this area. That's not the trade off. So I guess it gets back to, what does the road do in this area. I mean does it provide a scenic view off to the east of the bluff area which is quite, goes quite steeply down and then steeply back up so what do you see. I mean I don't know. You don't see that much. In terms of being able to view the whole bluff. I mean I don't, it's not, it doesn't have a real good visual for me right now in terms of seeing exactly how the road. Driving along this road in it's easterly position is going to be such a huge amenity. Mancino: It won't have a natural amenity to it. I mean much like you would. Ledvina: Well the area from the other side of the, the areas on the other side of the bluff won't be developed. Mancino: But again, that will be 100 feet away so you have a couple hundred. Ledvina: Yeah, 200 feet actually. Right, but you're not going to have a vista type of situation. Mancino: It won't go on and on. Ledvina: Right. So I guess I see the trail as providing that experience with the bluff area and the Bluff Creek area and I don't know. As I look at the site, I see that the position of 70 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 the road as reasonable. In terms of that view amenity or whatever we're considering there. So that's my thought on it. Nutting: Unless you've got views of substance that are coming from that road, it's going to be a local amenity as opposed to one that's an attraction. You know that's going to bring...the trail or the road I guess is where I'm coming at it. I think if we've got the trail, if we have the trail and we also have that park down to the south. The trail through the easement with the staff's conditions. I guess I'm not having as much of a problem with that as maybe some of the other members. Maybe... Scott: We've got a motion on the floor. Discussing a motion. Do you want to? Conrad: Yeah. Well this is important because if we don't know where we're going with this road, then there's no point pulling it back. The developer doesn't want to change it. Obviously he's not going to. If we had that vision of what we wanted, then we could stick to it. Joe you're concerned with bluffs and grading. Was that tempered by anything or are you still concerned with the bluffs and grading at the north end of the project? Scott: It concerns me. I think that's, if there's anything I think we're real clear on is preservation of features, topographic and vegetation and that's a concern. However you have to...that the developer and staff have worked hard enough to come up with the best possible solution so what we can do, why don't we vote on the motion and see where that goes and. Conrad: Well again, I'm trying to understand if we have some real valid things that we can send staff back to do. I know they can show us, and the developer can show us the transition stuff. We need that. I don't know, you're working next to the biggest area subdivision we've got. I don't know why this place isn't packed. They've been packed for every other thing that we've done close to them. They've been here. They're not here tonight so maybe it's because it's 10 after 12:00 but again. Mancino: Was there a neighborhood meeting? Conrad: I'm just amazed that they're not concerned and maybe they've worn me down after all the public hearings but you know, I think that's significant and maybe this is just fine but we don't know right now. I don't have a clue on it. Ledvina: Can I just say something to that? I think one of the things with the grading in this area is that you take the pad elevations down and the Timberwood people are seeing well over these roofs and it's not affecting them. 71 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, see I think that's true. I think there's some real validity to that, but I don't know. Again that's one of those, I don't know. Ledvina: And also, with the NSP line in there, I think that creates a buffer. It's a strange buffer but. Conrad: Just don't walk under the power lines. Ledvina: Yeah. Well it's there and there is that easement and it does create a separation. Mancino: Matt, how do we know that? How do we know that they can't see because these things go up 35 feet? 20 feet. Ledvina: The houses? Two levels is what? Mancino: Yeah, but most peaks of the roofs have...so I don't know what Timberwood is. Ledvina: Well okay. Most of these buildings are at 950 or roughly. The northern one half of this lot in here and well, we can be looking at probably 930. I don't know. I guess you're right. You can't really say but you know that there's 20 feet of difference and if you have 20 feet, that's quite a bit in terms of providing a visual buffer and also a physical buffer too. Combined with NSP. I don't know. I just feel that the separation issue is there. It's been addressed by this plan. • Conrad: Might be. Ledvina: That's my thoughts. Conrad: Yeah, might be. I don't have a clue. I see some houses that are real close. And here they've got 2 1/2 acres and we've got a house going up to, 2 or 3 in fact abutting that. So Joe you're still concerned about the bluff grading. That's still a valid issue. You want Bob to be going back and looking at that? Scott: Yeah. Conrad: And then street wise, you want a different plan? Scott: Well I think in my mind that would be preferable to have a different street location. Conrad: Putting it next to the creek? 72 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Yeah. Conrad: Your intent is not to reduce the number of houses. Your intent is to move. Scott: No, I don't have a problem with the density at all. Especially because they've got larger square footage lots on the western side. But we have a motion on the floor to table and let's vote on that. Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table the Rezoning, Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Heritage First Addition. All voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Scott: The development is tabled. Now specific directions for staff and the developer. Zeroing in on the transition plan. Very specifically what do you want to see? Conrad: I just want to see the transition between the two areas. How they show it. . Scott: What about when Byerly's was in they showed the top of the Byerly's building. The development behind. Something like that. Conrad: We need some kind of schematic. Scott: Yeah, cross section to say here's the houses in Timberwood. The closest house, how's it going to line up. Because that's, something like that's a quick view. Nutting: From my perspective that's the issue from my support of tabling, that's the one issue that I guess I could come to terms with is saying we're giving that a lot of consideration for other developments that are coming through. I think it's only appropriate that we give it the same here. Scott: Yeah. My major concern is the grading on the north side. You talked about private drives and so forth but that seems to be custom grading private drives are about the only tools that we have. Mancino: Steeper grades. Scott: Which as far as the cul-de-sacs, I know that, of course it's mostly the south cul-de- sacs or streets that run north and south, we're more willing to allow steeper grades because in 73 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 the winter and so forth. The way this property is set up, I don't think we quite have that opportunity so. Mancino: I think we were all in consensus on parkland. We really feel that that area should be incorporated into it. Conrad: And I think Bob and staff should review points. The ones that the developer has cared about. Point number 1. It just shouldn't be there when this comes back unless there's something on the horizon. Number 32 should be taken care of. Scott: Now if there's something with the Bluff Creek group that is to the form that the Highway 5 document was, that was something that people could use very, very easily but if it's not there, it doesn't make sense. REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE. Staff Present: Name Address Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd. Sam Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Tom Owens Minneapolis Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Now do we have another grading plan that was submitted today? Generous: Yes. The applicant's engineer provided that...We did hire Bill Engelhardt to review this... 74 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Did he review, have a chance to review this? Generous: He reviewed the previous plan and this one... Scott: I'm sorry. Has he reviewed the one, October 17th? Generous: Yeah, the one you have tonight. Scott: Good. I'd like to note for the public record that Commissioner Mancino is stepping down and will not be participating in, as a Planning Commissioner on this particular item. Thank you. I don't know, I'd be real interested in hearing Bill Engelhardt, if he's still here. I'd like to hear your comments and appreciate the cut and fill drawing that you did for us was very, very helpful. But unfortunately that doesn't apply to this plan I understand so. Bill Engelhardt: Just briefly, for Planning Commissioners that don't know me. I'm Bill Engelhardt. I have an office over in Chaska and do some work with the city and we also do private development work. The City asked me to take a look at this. They had three basic questions that they asked. They wanted to know how did the site balance. How did the cuts and fill... They wanted to see a rough sketch of how the property could possibly be laid out in a different fashion...grading and then the balance of the...so what we did is we prepared the drawing that you have with the residue contours on it. And what that does is it takes the grading plan that Mr. Charles Plowe, their engineer or designer developed, and accentuates the cut areas and the fill areas. The fill areas are shown in blue. The number inside the contour line, that number is basically the amount of fill. The elevation and the amount of fill that would be going in those areas and the contour lines...amount of cut in the area. So when you look at the plan that was originally prepared, they have...various fill. One was called the northeast cul-de-sac. Southeast cul-de-sac and a line along their north/south road and the very southerly edge where you see the blue contours, that was fill. And then their major fills were along the south side of the Lake Lucy alignment to just south of their Outlot B. The cut areas are shown in read. There's some knobs here. Some fill that are on the property and they were using that as their... The first plan that I reviewed and that you were looking at for the last month or so, really balanced the site. In other words, tried to equal the cuts and fills and the amounts of material. Our calculations came up that they were over 100,000 yards short of material. There's two ways of dealing with that. One is that you can adjust the grade of the site by lowering it. Lowering the amount of fill required and lowering the cut areas. The other way that you can adjust the site is to...grade it. The later one is a very expensive proposition when you're talking about those kinds of... We did receive on Monday, we received another grading plan where they had done adjustments to the grades and we went through and did the same analysis on that one that we had done on the first plan and that particular plan did balance. They had dropped down so if you want to compare plans, where 75 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 in the let's say James Court or the northeast cul-de-sac, that particular location the maximum fill was 16 feet. The new plan and the maximum fill is 10 feet so they reduced that. Then if you go down to the very south portion of the property and the red contours where they're cutting, they're mass cutting that area...and now the maximum cut is 20 feet so you can see how you could balance the site. You drop it a little from here and put a little over there... over the site. They're still moving 140,000 yards of material... As far as how could you look at this piece of property in a different fashion to reduce those cuts and fills. We did a rough sketch plan and I think you've got that. I didn't do a grading plan. You've got to understand this is a very limited review or very limited sketching of this piece of property. It's a very difficult site. It would have taken a lot more time and a lot more effort to get a real good plan but I think what I did do was to show you you could develop the site. Pull your roads up in the grading plan and then using the natural terrain as your walkouts. My plan's not 100% perfect..roadway which probably wouldn't work real well. The bottom line is that you could make this site work a little bit better from the grading standpoint if you could use the existing contours a little bit better and you would lose lots. That's the bottom line. If you try to maximize the site, try to generate as many lots as possible, we've got to do the grading and that's really simply the nuts and bolts of this. And the approach they took was they're going to get as many lots as they can on it. When you do that, you have to grade. They're showing their Lake Lucy alignment farther to the north. I did the original feasibility study for the city on Lake Lucy Road. I always wanted to keep it south. But we left enough flexibility in that alignment so that if the Ryan's were to develop their property and were to come up with a plan for their property, that flexibility was there so Lake Lucy Road could be moved north or south. It could work both ways. My preference in my feasibility study was to stay south. So what I also did is where Lake Lucy Road connects into the west into the Gestach-Paulson property, that's where the steeper slope is and what I did in that particular area on my plan kept Lake Lucy Road south. And these large lots...the slope area, intended to keep the house on the top of the slope and using the private drive on top of the slope coming... It does not work to come off of Lake Lucy Road and go up into those sites with a cul-de-sac. There's going to be just as much grading that way... Other than that I'll be happy to answer any questions. You will see another drawing. The brown line is the zero line and the zero line gets a little bit crazy in some areas... The red...that does show you where the cuts are and where the fills and it tells you how much to do. Scott: Good. Any questions? Conrad: Who's is this? Bill Engelhardt: That's mine. Conrad: That one's your's, okay. 76 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Bill Engelhardt: We also took the liberty of doing everybody's property around it. Conrad: Why not. It's easy to put the lines down there. Bill Engelhardt: That's exactly right and you have to understand, it's very easy to put the lines on. What we tried to do is just see how things would fit and approximately how many lots would we get. Conrad: Yeah, I like your plan very much. Scott: Bill, let me ask you. This is more of a computer related question. This, for me is extremely helpful. I can visualize exactly what's happening to it. My guess is that, how prevalent or how widely installed, or first of all. Which software package does your firm use to generate this? Bill Engelhardt: Well we have an auto cad system that does the drawing work and then inside the auto cad is a civil engineering program that's called...Softdesk but I know it as BCA. And I think Chuck uses the same...same capability. In order to do this kind of stuff you have to have the earth work module of the BCA and unless you're doing a lot of dirt projects, it's very expensive to buy that module. So to do some of these things, you may have the BCA program but you've got to buy the extra module to give you... Scott: Yeah, I was just trying to get a handle on how widely installed this is because if it's something that developers who regularly do this kind of work would have, this might be something, and I'm thinking from a potential ordinance standpoint. We talked about the visuals and so forth. I would like to, and I think everybody else would concur, that I'd like to direct staff to at least do a little bit more investigation to see how often this tool is available and I think this would cut the time that some of our developers spend in front of us if we could see something like this that shows exactly what happens. This would be very helpful so, you may be the only engineer that has it. Bill Engelhardt: Oh there's quite a few. This is not...relatively fast. We did do it faster the second time because Charles gave us a disk that we loaded right into our system here and was compatible. But the first time around and we actually had to digitize the contours and that takes a lot of time. I like this from a design standpoint. I don't want to keep you too late but from a design standpoint, we use it to determine how to balance our sites. Where we're getting out of line as far as cuts and fills. So we run this out on all of our grading plans and then we look at them and say, oh geez. This doesn't look too good. We've got a 20 fill. Maybe we'd better adjust it, but we know where to adjust it. Charles can do the same thing... 77 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: Okay, good. Questions, comments. This is not technically a public hearing but I think I'm going to take the lead of our City Council. This was not a public hearing at the last City Council meeting either and what I'd like to do is if each, if we could have a representative from the applicant speak for, how much time would you like to speak? I'm just trying to balance this off so we can. Charles Plowe: It will be fairly brief. Scott: Okay, 10-15 minutes. Is that going to work? And more with questions. Okay. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, before you do, I have to leave. I've got a meeting in about 5 hours so I'm just not going to stick. Just want to make some comments and I don't think we're voting on anything tonight but just for the record and maybe the City Council person that's here. My position really hasn't changed. Lake Lucy Road should still be where it is. Where we asked it to be, to the south. I think we're tampering. This development is not a good development as it stands. It's real clear. As we take a real beautiful piece of Chanhassen, and this is one of the prettier pieces. I think we're really tampering with it. I think our ordinances support not allowing it to be graded to the extent that we're seeing in the plans. I said that before and I'm just as committed and convinced of that. We've talked about some marginal other areas tonight but this one is just an extremely pretty area and I don't think the plan has taken into consideration the natural amenities. So I'm going to leave on that note. I'd sure, you know the plan that Bill showed us, sure it doesn't give as many units but it sure treats the land the way it should and definitely the part to the north somehow should be connected to the Mancino's development or property for future development. So anyway, those are my comments but I'm real, I wanted to leave you with those and hopefully this doesn't come back to us again. I think we've seen it enough. I think we were pretty clear the last time. It's more definition to what we're seeing in terms of grading but bottom line is, things haven't changed. Scott: Okay. We'll wrap this at 1:00 so if you'd like to pass on some new information and then we'll have new information and go from there. Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Plowe. Project Engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. Most of you have seen this plan enough where I don't have to go into a lot of detail. Everyone that's here today has seen the plan before. Was present at the last... As you know we've adjusted Lake Lucy Road a number of times and we're here to try and work with this topography and to work with the tree line and so on. And the thing that wasn't on the plan the last time that you had seen it. We shifted it an additional 30 feet to provide us a wide bench for the collector road boulevard, and to give us a comfortable 3:1 slope up to the tree line stopping short of the tree line. In doing that you 78 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 also had to adjust this cul-de-sac street that was there for pushing it southerly to the point where it became too tight with the edge of the wetland. So working with staff we came up with the 4 lot private drive system there taking out one of the lots in the cul-de-sac. I believe in addition to that we moved this private drive down out of the trees. The tree area which we had previously showed it in the tree area. It's been reviewed and agreed by staff that the southerly alignment versus the northerly alignment with the cul-de-sac or private drive scenario as we're showing it, the northerly alignment is preferred and they in fact have recommended approval of this alignment based on a number of conditions. I've mentioned this before and I guess I could mention it again about the alignment of Lake Lucy Road having some gradual curvature to it. I feel it does provide actually a safer road as far as speed is concerned. This is a long ways from here to there and a straight wide road does tend to make the drivers speed. It will tend to happen frequently. I'm sure you've probably done it yourself. This does tend to alleviate that a little bit so potentially it's a safer roadway as well. We've done a number of things to maintain the sloping character of this site with the design in grading. For instance the use of private drives. Increasing the slope here with the private drive to reduce the fills. And also placing Lake Lucy Road where you see it rather than pushing it further north, you get more room and more lots. We've pretty much resigned to the fact that this is the best alternative allowed this area...normal flat area would probably amount to four lots you know but it's an outlot. It's not going to be developed and we realize that and we think it's a good plan. We did maximize the grades on the street to reduce the fills which I'm trying to accommodate the existing topography as much as possible. I just want to...the plan that you're looking at that Bill presented. It's been previously discussed. The Ryan's are really not interested in waiting for another development to happen before they develop their land and they are interested in developing, not...piece of property. So the plan that's you know the sketch plan that was done does not really not fit in with what they're proposing. It includes the large lots which is you know not consistent with what the Ryan's want or is not consistent with the city's land use plan for this area. And we've got to keep in mind too that the grading of Lake Lucy Road is going to, Lake Lucy Road will be constructed whether the Ryan's develop or not and the grading of Lake Lucy Road along with the other plan that you were looking at, the grading of Lake Lucy Road does involve a big part of the total site grading. If you look at the cut fill plan that Bill had prepared, there are 16. Is this the current one Bill? There are 16+ foot cuts going through the high ground on Lake Lucy Road. So you can see that the cuts and fills you're looking at are involved in the Lake Lucy Road alignment and that we're looking...a good part of the grading of the site happens with Lake Lucy Road. I guess if the Ryan's are going to receive a collector street through their entire plat, which is the long way, you know whether they want it or not, it's going to happen. So I guess they kind of feel that they have the right to utilize that street with the plat that meets all the requirements and that's a sensible plat and I think we have worked hard with staff to come up with a plan that are actually over sized lots that equally... plan. The concept that Mr. Engelhardt prepared really I guess I don't feel that 79 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 it works. With or without the adjacent plat developing with it, there are some problems. The lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road would require a variance, which we were denied the variance. The lots fronting on the county road would not be allowed because the county does not allow that if there's an alternative and they'll want one access... I know Mr. Engelhardt hasn't spent a lot of time in detailing all that stuff out but these are things that obviously we looked at the plan right away. The existing house doesn't have a lot of...but that's just a note. The cul-de-sac street on the north property line that goes up the hill, that would be a temporary cul-de-sac until... That would be just, there's no grading that's been calculated on this plan so but in looking at that, that's the highest part of the site so it will be difficult for that street to be constructed without some substantial grading and also some loss of substantial trees in that same area. I guess I don't feel that we've maximized the lots on here. Like I said, we could have narrower lots. We could have a lot more lots on it. We have most of them are well above the minimum area so we worked with the topography and we've worked with the area the best as we can and we have a lot of open space. We've got a lot of separation between homes and I think we've done well as far as keeping the plan together that we best utilize the property and definitely did not maximize the lot counts. I guess I didn't recall Mr. Engelhardt talking about the, one of the things that he was going to look at for the city was alignment of Lake Lucy Road up here versus staying down here and using the same scenario that we...plan in developing this particular area. But his findings were such that the roadway being down here did not work. Having cul-de-sacs go to the north... I guess I really don't have any other comments. Ed, did you have any comments? Are there any questions of me first? Scott: I was just going to toss something out. It seems like a lot of the major fill that goes on is probably caused by the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac. I'm just looking at James Court and Alcove and so forth. Just it appears that you've used private drive very effectively to service 4 homes off of what, I don't know if that used to be called Mary Bay, no. I'm sorry. Chuck Plowe: This one? Scott: Yeah. Chuck Plowe: Gwendolyn Court. Scott: Does it make any sense at all to do the same sort of a treatment on the other cul-de- sac serving the 4 lots at the end? Or do we get into public safety concerns about having turn arounds. I'm just thinking, it seems like that's where the big filling is going on and it may be caused in part by the grading necessary to put a cul-de-sac turn around. And I don't know if we're causing ourselves problems, or I'm causing problems by suggesting this but it seems 80 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 like we can put 4 homes off a private drive. Private drives tend to have less impact from a grading standpoint. Chuck Plowe: I think if you look at the, we've reduced the fill in this area from the previous plan. That's one of the big things we did too. Scott: Yeah, see I'm looking at this other one. Chuck Plowe: Yeah, so you don't know what we did as far as how much less fill...Is this the correct one? Scott: That's down 6 feet. Chuck Plowe: ...so we've tried to accomplish some of the same things that were of the concern, along with the balancing of the site. As Mr. Engelhardt has pointed out, we were sort of material. I was aware of that but to the extent that we were short, I guess I wasn't quite aware of that. Scott: And then you just balance that by cutting more. Chuck Plowe: Essentially the biggest change in the balance was reducing the fill here and reducing the fill here and actually I see your computer, I have to plot one of those out in black and white. I don't have the nice color. Showed a large cut over here and there's a glitch in it somehow so...but it shows like at the 24 there...but anyway, we did really improve the situation here from what was on the previous plan and the glitch we had... has been reduced by 6 feet. Actually we exceed the maximum grade which is allowable. Scott: Okay, good thanks. I just thought... Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan. I'm the owner of the property. My wife Mary is here tonight and I guess I'll be very brief because I know that we've all been working hard tonight. I just want to make a very brief comment and that is that when we subsequently worked with Bob and Kate and subsequent to our City Council meeting, they instructed us to try to clarify, try to identify the project better so you would have a better understanding and so would the Council. We received a call that said, why don't you hold up on it. We're going to have Bill take a look at the plan in detail, and which you have before you today. The instruction from Kate was specific. It stated that the layout, the two alternative layouts. The southern alignment that you saw before and the northerly alignment should be compared looking at the southern alignment with the cul-de-sacs. Then we should make a comparison with the grading. Also look at the grading issue from our preliminary plat to see what kind 81 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 of improvements we can make. And from that let's look at the site in terms of balance and see what kind of balance exists and if there are inequalities, let's make sure that's addressed. The first issue was addressed and Bill recognized that the northern alignment is preferred. Is better than the southern alignment. He stated that. Is that unclear to anyone here? Planning Commission: Yes. Ed Ryan: Okay. Bill looked specifically at the southern alignment with northern cul-de-sacs and found, as the staff did, that our alignment is preferable. Is that not true? Bill Engelhardt: No. That's not... Ed Ryan: Okay. Let me go to the script then because, I'll go back to the, I have copies of all the script and the findings from what Bill has completed is that, from an engineering standpoint the proposed development prepared for the Ryan's is a feasible alternative. Meaning when Bill looked at that comparison with the southern alignment to the northern cul- de-sacs, it didn't work as well. Am I wrong? That's what you specifically stated in the meeting that the staff meeting that was held several days ago. Am I? Chuck Plowe: I think number 3 Ed. Ed Ryan: Yes. The extension of the roadway to the north from the southerly alignment does not work to preserve the slopes. That was the conclusion you drafted. Bill Engelhardt: If you put cul-de-sacs in there. Ed Ryan: Right. The comparison was. Bill Engelhardt: You have to understand Ed that what I'm saying is you're going to lose some lots and that's the bottom line as far as my analysis goes. I like the southern alignment with large lots on the slope with no disturbance to the slope. When the question was asked, does the southern alignment work with cul-de-sacs to the north, I answered no and the reason for that is because instead of filling that slope, you would now be cutting the slope. So it's got to be...so you're kind of twisting around a little bit where I'm saying the northern alignment is preferable. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the southern alignment is what is preferable to me with some other concept on how you do the lots to the northerly alignment. Ed Ryan: Well, I'll certainly apologize if I'm misstated you Bill because I certainly wouldn't want to give that. 82 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Bill Engelhardt: I just told you is exactly what I said. Ed Ryan: Okay. So I guess my reading of the study that was done by staff and Bill was that, when they flipped the situation around, they found that our northern alignment was preferred and I think that's true because the cul-de-sacs don't work. But Bill is saying, I still like the southern alignment because of larger lots. Is that correct? Bill Engelhardt: I'm saying I like the southern alignment with a different concept for the lots to the north. How you do that, I'm not the designer of the plat. I'm not going to design your plat. Ed Ryan: Okay. You're not going to design it. Bill Engelhardt: I like the southern alignment. If you can do something with the lots to the north to preserve the slope. Ed Ryan: Okay. Specifically returning to what Kate had indicated that Bill should look at. I guess we were surprised to find that there was a new design for our development. That included the Mancino property and the Carlson property. I guess that was something that was a surprise to us in that we were not aware of this kind of a development being considered where the 3 of our parties would be as one. And this is something that Mary and I have never even considered because our primary concern was to develop a plat that would work with the road alignment and be pleasing from a neighborhood perspective. And I guess that's what I believe we've accomplished. So I guess those are the comments I wanted to make and I'm certainly happy, or Chuck is certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. I know we want to keep it very brief but I felt it was important to share that. Thank you. Scott: Sure. Questions or comments? Pick one person and. Tom Owens: Commission members, my name is Tom Owens. I'm a real estate law specialist from Minneapolis and I'm appearing tonight on behalf of 6 of the neighboring property owners. As an initial point of order, you indicated a few minutes ago that we would only be going until 1:00 and I need at least a couple more minutes. Scott: Yeah, I think why don't you just take like 15 so we can kind of balance the time out a little bit, like we're trying to balance the cubic yards of dirt. Tom Owens: Thank you. I trust that will include some time for questions. Scott: Sure. 83 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Tom Owens: Sure... I'm here tonight representing 6 property owners. They are Jerome and Linda Carlson, Peter and Mary Davis and Sam and Nancy Mancino. Usually in this position I'm representing developers or people who want to intensify or alter the use of their land. I'm taking a night off from that and representing some honest, hard working people. Your citizens and taxpayers. Scott: Well I'll pass on that comment. Not that I disagree but I don't think it...very well for the Ryan's so, I'll let that go. Tom Owens: Alright. A very serious disadvantage that was just demonstrated by the little contact that you had with the applicant. The applicant has very simply failed to heed the recommendations, in fact the requests of the City Council to provide more practical, visual information about the impact on the topography and landform that his plans will provide. In fact, in just the last 48 hours, although now it's getting later enough that we're closing in on 72 hours, that it is that the applicants came forward with a brand new grading plan which we haven't even seen yet. This one magically corrected a 111,000 cubic yard shortage or imbalance in soils that otherwise had it not been discovered by Mr. Engelhardt and corrected in the last couple of days, would have required the purchase off site and trucking them on site. I understand that at 10 yards per truck, that would have required many thousand of trucks to bring on site. I can't match the wizardry of these corrections that they've just made but I do have a few comments about Shamrock Ridge and then we'll be happy to answer your questions. I've got a letter I'd like to distribute to you. And two things should come as no surprise to you tonight. One is the thoughtful and principled nature of the opposition of my clients that you have before you tonight. The second is the great number of non technical legal grounds that you have for recommending to the City Council to deny the preliminary plat before you. I'd like to take you on a brief tour of those grounds, and if you will look at page 1 of my letter at the bottom you will see, paragraph number 1. The very first reason for denial is that this subdivision simply does not comply with the city ordinances because of the mass grading and destruction of topography that it wreaks. At the top of the second page, I've pointed out 4 very specific city ordinances that would be violated by this plat. These are 4 of the 7 necessary findings that the City Council must make in order to approve a plat. Now the city staff has worked very long and very hard on this project for many weeks generating a multitude of reports and revisions reviewing a myriad of documents and revisions from the developer. They've really walked a tight wire here in trying to respond to these ever changing plans but at every turn, in every report, the staff has ultimately criticized and recommended against this plat because of it's impact on the topography and landforms. And I'd like to quote to you from the very latest revision of the city staff report. That is from page 19, and I just want to review a couple of sentences. Section 18-60(d) of the City Code requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. While alternate site designs may provide 84 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to lessen the impacts of the development on the site. That's hardly a recommendation. A little bit further down in the page you find this sentence. The steep slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best, based on the development proposal, due to the severe slopes. That comment has never changed throughout the course of this plat and winding it's way from the staff to the Council to the Planning Commission and back again. Let me also remind you that these terms that we've been...about, topography and steep slopes, appear several times in the city code and that they are usually related to their preservation. In the last plat before you, you had a lively discussion about this so I won't spend any more time there. But I would like to remind you that the City Code instructs the Planning Commission and the City Council and in order to approve a plat, all of the applicable City, County and regional plans must be complied with. Not just some of them. And that all of the 7 findings must be made. Not just some of them or substantially all or that the developer must come close. At the bottom of page 2 of my letter I cited a few key provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. These goals and policy statements are why the city has a more sophisticated and detailed set of requirements in it's city ordinance than many other cities. The reason simply is to satisfy the desire of the citizens for a more aesthetically pleasing community. Taken together the comprehensive plan any the city ordinances make it very clear that the old fashion subdivision method of mass grading is a thing of the past in the city of Chanhassen. On the next page of my letter I've indicated that the third reason for denial of this plat in it's present form, and it's one that I have considerable professional experience with. I've stated approval of the plat in it's present form would set a dangerous precedent for future subdivisions. If this plat is approved in it's present form, it will come back to haunt you. You will have other lawyers like me. You will have my colleagues in front of you citing this plat 6 months, 12 months, 3 years from now as precedent for that lawyer's and his client's plat, which ravages steep slopes and does not comply with the city ordinances. I could almost guarantee you of this result. That's one of the jobs of a real estate lawyer in representing a developer that's investigating the actions of the Planning Commission or Council over the last couple of years to see what precedents have been established. And the precedent clearly will be don't worry about steep slopes. The City's already indicated that it's not dealing to preserving that. Now I made a couple of other points there, items 4 and 5, indicating that this applicant could have asked for a variance or could have gone through the PUD process. Perhaps it was a mistake. Hind sight is always better than fore sight but frankly this maximization of the intensity of development of the site has been the choice of the developer from the beginning. There were other avenues. It could have been developed less intensely. It could have gone through the PUD process. A variance could have been requested from the very start. Those things were not done. My last reason for denial is that this proposed plat aligns the Lake Lucy Road extension contrary to the comprehensive plan where you will find the maps drawing it in the southerly alignment, as well as the recommendations of the City's consultants and staff. If you care to stay a bit 85 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 longer, we have a sketch that we could show you. An alternative design for a southerly alignment that reduces the intensity a little bit. We also have a couple of other props and we'll be happy to show them to you, depending on how much time you want to spend and your questions. One of them is a model that Sam Mancino has spent a tremendous amount of time on and I think you'll, I hope you'll appreciate it as a very painstaking effort to do something that this applicant has never done, and that is to demonstrate the actual impact of this plat upon the land. Sam's model shows in cross sections and with a variety of colors, exactly what is going to be cut out and what is going to be filled. I'll admit there's one little problem with his model. He didn't have time to make a new one that shows exactly what the new grading plan, which we haven't even seen yet, does. This is pretty dramatic. My guess is that the new grading plan, while nicking a couple feet out of here and adding a couple feet there, is not going to change very much. This is still a project in the old fashion, mass grading, don't leave a clod of dirt unturned, style. Let me conclude by reminding you of our two jobs tonight. I hope I've done mine by showing you that my clients are not just a bunch of crazy nimby's running around saying no, no, no. There can't be any development. Had a proposal come forward for 30 or 35 or 40 lots in a sensible configuration, they certainly would have gone over it carefully and fine tooth combed it and undoubtedly had some comments. But that's not what happened. I hope I've indicated to you that my clients objections to the plat in it's present form are thoughtful, reasonable, based in law, and that they're very strongly committed to them. The second job is your's and that's the most difficult one. I hope and trust that you will recommend to the City Council that it deny this plat because it's your job to enforce the city ordinances and because this plat is not what the future of Chanhassen is about. Thank you. Scott: Thank you everybody. Nutting: Mr. Chairman, what is our direction in terms of this tonight? I'm reading this page here saying that rather than a denial, the Council would like specific planning for approval or denial of the Planning Commission recommendation. So we're voting again to approve or deny? Scott: Yeah. Nutting: And then detail reasons why. Scott: Yeah, I was at the City Council meeting where this came out of and they're basically, there were two things. One was a feeling on the part of the City Council that they didn't have the tools in front of them to make a determination one way or the other. There were a lot of concerns. Some of the same concerns that we have. And then also, because we had 86 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 just basically a quorum that day, they wanted to get input from the other commissioners. Off the top of my head, all I can say is I was there. Matt was there. I think. Farmakes: I was not there. Nutting: Jeff and Diane were not. Scott: Okay, and you were there. So I guess as a part of our charge to the City Council, let's maybe start with some of your thoughts being in abstention the last time we reviewed this matter. Farmakes: Are we ending the public hearing? Scott: This is not a public hearing. But it was, and it wasn't a public hearing at the City Council but they chose to let them make comments. Farmakes: My comments are, I walked the property. I decided readily apparent what was going on here according to the city. The issue here to me is, the beginning issue is where does Lake Lucy Road continue. And from there then comes the rest of this. The grading and the site design. I agree with the city staff recommendations as I've read it. Hearing there's different interpretations of this but as I interpret it, the southerly alignment, it makes sense all around for this site based on both the City's existing criteria and I think our past practices, to the greatest extent possible. And I'm going to vote to deny that and I'm going to vote to, as far as information goes, tell them that I think that the southerly alignment of would it be proposed on that property, for that road, is where it should go for a host of reasons. And I think they've been listed here so far, and have been listed in the past. It was just a situation that I think similar to the daycare situation. We've listed that out somehow that there's a point in negotiation here where we communicate and the fact is, it takes two to communicate. If you have a situation where you're discussing your concerns and the other party chooses not to respond, they choose not to respond. So it seems to me as a commission you can point those out, and then vote to deny it, as we did before. And pass it on. Not to pass it on without information but it seems to me that the crux of this thing is the alignment of Lake Lucy Road. And from there the rest of it falls into place. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Okay. Ron. Nutting: I can't say anything has changed from the first time. The last meeting. My comments at that time dealt with the inconsistency of the development with the surrounding area and part and parcel of that was the topography. It boils down to trying to maximize the density. I think if this plan, I also agreed with the southerly alignment. Yeah, it's not going 87 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 to work with the southerly alignment and the cul-de-sacs. I think that's been laid out here from the grading but again, we're not trying to, I'm not trying to design it for them but if we've got the southerly alignment as the preferred, then the question is, what works with this side and what can you do. It would appear that it's driving the density down and the lot size up, which then makes it more consistent with the surrounding development and it deals with the issues of city code that have been addressed here in a more legal form but were brought up very clearly in our last session so I can't change my conclusions from last time. I would vote for denial and would be the exact same reasons. Now I'm looking at this letter saying the Council is looking for recommendations on Lake Lucy Road alignment and proposed pavement width. 36 versus 32. I don't recall a discussion on the width. Scott: That was brought up I believe by Councilman Wing at the Council meeting. Nutting: I'm aware of that. The question is, did we discuss that at all? Scott: No. Farmakes: There were earlier discussions on the leg of Lake Lucy Road that's currently completed, that it was over built. Scott: And that was how the discussion actually ended up at the Council meeting. Farmakes: Yeah. That may be some hold over from that discussion. Scott: Okay. Nutting: So as it's presently laid out, is it at a 36 foot width? Bill Engelhardt: I can answer that. It's being bid and laid out as a 36 foot width to meet the State Aid standards. There was some comment at the Council meeting about some other roadways that were state aid roads but at a lesser width but the difference between this particular project and those particular projects is the area that we're going through. Whereas the existing area, existing houses, existing front yards, the state aid will allow you to bring your road width down. Where you're going through open fields basically, then you have to stay up to your 36. The other thing is that when you're looking at traffic volumes, I think you can see very easily that 34 or 32 foot width is going to work today. It may work 5 years from now. But it's a 20 year design life and in 20 years, that's where your traffic projections get up to their design levels and that's why you design your 36 foot road. Otherwise you'd be going and rebuilding the road. 88 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Scott: So that's really not an option to reduce the width of the road? Bill Engelhardt: No. Nutting: Okay. So then the grading plan of the site, the amount of grading and including a better visual presentation to assist in reviewing the proposed grade changes. So either we are to come up with a better visual presentation or request that from the developer. Is that? Ledvina: That was requested. Scott: Yeah, it was requested and it came from a different source but. Nutting: Okay. So the only thing we have to pass on right now is not something from the developer. Do we deny but, you know and then it's up to the developer to come up with a visual thing to, when it goes back up to Council? Scott: I'm not concerned about the source of that tool, just as long as it's there, and I think it is. Farmakes: We got into this with that daycare center. Do we sit down and grab a pencil and redesign it to achieve. Nutting: Yeah, I don't see myself as playing that role. I shouldn't be playing that role. That's not my, certainly not my training either so I don't want to venture into that. And then the subdivision design relative to the natural features of the site. I think that's, I thought that came through in the last meeting in terms of the natural features and the grading issue and that's still coming through here tonight, although I can't say that I can completely evaluate this last plan that came in, which balances but what I'm understanding in terms of the balances, it's reduced one place and increased another so that the balance occurs. But it still appears that the grading is extensive so it's just a question of does that change anything and for me at this point it doesn't. So I'm just trying to read through and say what is Council looking for and what can we give them to make their job easier. So that's the extent of mine. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I would agree with the comments of the other commissioners and would offer a motion. I would move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Shamrock Ridge Subdivision for reasons as noted. The subdivision as proposed does not meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 18-60(d) which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect the natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, with emphasis, water 89 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 courses and historic areas. Additionally, the subdivision does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. Based on statements contained in the comprehensive plan which mention that variable topography, topographic diversity and rolling topography are essential characteristics of Chanhassen. The City's expressed goal is to help assure that future developments are designed so that they are sensitive to natural features. The City of Chanhassen will discourage the alteration of steep slopes and bluffs. In addition, the proposed plat does not follow the preferred southerly alignment for the Lake Lucy Road extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was proposed and as well as throughout this entire process. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the subdivision. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Shamrock Ridge Subdivision for the following reasons: 1. The subdivision as proposed does not meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 18-60(d) which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect the natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, with emphasis, water courses and historic areas. 2. The subdivision does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. Based on statements contained in the comprehensive plan which mention that variable topography, topographic diversity and rolling topography are essential characteristics of Chanhassen. The City's expressed goal is to help assure that future developments are designed so that they are sensitive to natural features. The City of Chanhassen will discourage the alteration of steep slopes and bluffs. 3. The proposed plat does not follow the preferred southerly alignment for the Lake Lucy Road extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was proposed and as well as throughout this entire process. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: There is a solution to develop this property. We just haven't seen it yet. But take it through the process. Thank you all very much for staying up. For all your work and see you later. 90 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 a.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 91 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: October 13, 1994 SUBJ: Report from the Director On October 24, 1994 the City Council took the following action: 1. Approved the second and final reading of the SWMP plan. 2. Gave final plat approval for the entire Mission Hills development. 3. Approved the Shamrock Ridge preliminary plat, rezoning, and wetland alteration permit with the conditions in the staff report. 4. Approved the first reading of the Arboreal Diseases within City.