Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
7. PUD SE corner of Hwy 101 & Lyman Blvd
PC DATE: 11/3/93 7 °1 C ITY O F 11/17/93 CC DATE: 12/13/93 CHANHAtill \ � I CASE #: 93 -6 PUD •1 ► By:Generous/Hempel /Desotelle:v 1 1 STAFF REPORT 1 ' . PROPOSAL: Proposed Preliminary Planned Unit Development Approval 80.8 1 acres, rezoning of property zoned A -2, Agricultural Estate, to PUD Residential, Preliminary Plat approval to create 134 single - family lots. LOCATION: Southeast corner of State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard V APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Endo 1 0 935 East Wayzata Boulevard taoditie� J Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Rejecter Q. Dzte /0— g Date Submitted to Commission .. Date Submitted to Coma /0 - /3 - ` 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: A -2, Agricultural Estate 1 DENSITY: Gross: 1.7 units per acre Net: 2.5 units per acre 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - A -2, large lots and farmland and RSF, vacant tracts and wetlands I S - A -2, Bandimere Park, RSF, Shore Acres and Bandimere Heights Subdivisions, and PUD -R, Sunny Slope Addition Q E - RS F, Shore Acres Subdivision, Rogers Addition, and Lake Riley 1 w_ A -2, farmland 0 WATER AND SEWER: Unavailable 1 W PHYSICAL CHARACTER: Rolling cultivated farmland. 1 (7) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.4 - 4.0 Units Per Acre) 1 • 1 ,I Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 (Note: Changes in this report based on the Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 1993 are underlined.) 1 The applicant, Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc., is requesting rezoning from A -2 to PUD -R, preliminary PUD and preliminary plat approval for the Dolejsi and Rogers properties. The site is an 80.8 acre parcel located at the southeast corner of State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard on cultivated farmland. The proposal includes 134 single - family lots, right - of -way dedication for Lyman Boulevard, State Highway 101, and Lake Riley Boulevard, local ' road right -of -way within the project, and seven outlots. The project is bordered on the north by Lyman Boulevard, on the west by State Highway 101, and on the east by Lake Riley Boulevard. The project is bordered on the south by Bandimere Community Park, Bandimere ' Heights Subdivision, and Sunny Slope Addition Subdivision. A five acre parcel belonging to Vencil G. Prewitt is located in the north central part of the project and is surrounded on three sides by the project boundaries. Four of the outlots (A, B, C, and E) are proposed for project identification monuments including signage, lighting, decorative architectural features and landscaping. Outlot D is proposed for an entrance monument and a stormwater treatment pond. Outlot F is the Dolejsi homesite and will remain in their possession. Outlot G is a 1 proposed 5.3 acre parcel to be dedicated to the City for park land. Flexibility permitted in a PUD is being used to allow for creativity in lot layout as well as 1 protection for existing and proposed residents. Lots located along the perimeter of the project are larger in size to provide added setbacks, open space, scenic views, and buffering for the project. While the subdivision requirements prohibit double frontage lots, creating additional ' lots fronting on Lake Riley Boulevard, a substandard street, would not be beneficial to the city or current residents. Additionally, the proposed development creates a sense of ' neighborhood that would be reduced if these lots were reversed to front on Lake Riley Boulevard and be backed by an additional row of lots. These lots are also oversized, permitting additional separation. Smaller lots are located in the interior of the project. Lot ' frontages vary from 62 feet to 149 feet. Lot depths vary from 84 feet to 426 feet. Lot sizes range from 11,004 square feet to 57,423 square feet. The average lot size of 17,814 square feet exceeds the standard lot size of 15,000 square feet by almost 19 percent. 1 Primary access to the project is proposed via two curb cuts on Lyman Boulevard with a secondary internal connection to the south along Kiowa Trail. Kiowa Trail is an existing ' street that was anticipated to be connected to the north. This roadway is an extremely long dead end, which poses public safety concerns and as such staff feels compelled to recommend that this roadway be connected to provide an alternate outlet for current residents. This connection will also provide two means for city residents to access Bandimere Community Park. Internal streets are curvilinear and designed with fifty (50) foot right -of -ways. Stub 1 1' Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers 1' November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 1 Page 3 roads are extended to the Prewitt property. (A development sketch illustrates a potential 1 future road alignment and platting for the property.) No access is proposed onto Lake Riley Boulevard. We are also anticipating the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard as part of the utility extension that is being petitioned by surrounding property owners. 1 Because this property is being farmed, there are little if any natural features to be protected. A small wetland exists in the extreme northeast corner of the site that will be retained. 1 Currently, there are serious stormwater drainage problems to the north and south of this property resulting from stormwater runoff from the site. The applicant's proposal provides measures to resolve these conditions and improve both stormwater retention and treatment. 111 The applicant's improvements conform to those shown in the Stormwater Management Plan. The few trees on the site (22 total) are located along the eastern perimeter of the property. Of these trees, only two, a 25 inch diameter American Hackberry and a 31 inch diameter Red Maple, are included in the City's landscaping tree list. Because of the location of the these trees, it will be possible to retain all trees through the development process. A wooded area included in the southern finger of the project can be saved if the proposed stormwater outflow pipe can be relocated to the east as recommended by staff. In summary, the proposal represents a subdivision design utilizing the flexibility inherent in a PUD to provide protection to existing and proposed residents by creating larger lots on the perimeter of the project adjacent to major roadways and existing subdivisions and locating smaller lots within the interior of the project. This development provides a variety of lot sizes and potential for diversity in housing designs not available in a standard subdivision. The average lot size for the 134 lots proposed is 17,814, which represents a net density of 2.44 units per acre, well within the density range permitted in the comprehensive plan. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance from the standard ten foot setback requirement. They are proposing six (6) foot garage and nine (9) foot living area setbacks with a minimum twenty (20) foot separation between structures. Staff is recommending that the project be approved for rezoning, preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat approval subject to appropriate conditions and stipulated revisions. However, the setback variance request is not supported by unique physical characteristics of the site or protection of environmental features and should be denied. We have also recommended that 1 an access to Lake Riley Boulevard be provided in the southeast corner of the development to improve access into this area. Lake Riley Boulevard is an unusually long dead end street built to inadequate standards. The City's fire marshal has also raised the concern that this 1 inadequacy creates serious safety implications for the residents of the cul -de -sac. Staff does not expect that this connection will be used extensively by residents of this development. Rather existing residents will be provided an additional ingress /egress to their homes. 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 4 While staff is not completely convinced that the connection to Kiowa Trail will Dose the ' grave consequences to the Kiowa neighborhood as mentioned by the residents at the first Planning Commission meeting, we do agree that their arguments about increased traffic through the neighborhood have merit, at least until Highway 212 is built. As you may remember, Kiowa residents were concerned that this roadway connection would substantially increase the number of through trips using Kiowa Trail to access Pioneer Trail, creating unsafe conditions for current residents and corrupting the integrity of the neighborhood. To address this, staff is recommending that this connection be constructed as temporary back -to- back cul -de -sacs with a breakaway traffic barricade until such time as Highway 212 is constructed or until petitioned by the residents of the area to take down the barricade and connect the two road segments. The former provision is due to the fact that traffic patterns will change with the opening of Highway 212 since most people will use the fastest and most convenient route for travel. The latter is included so that area residents may change their 1 minds about the connection when roadway improvements change individual travel routes. The northern cul -de -sac shall be constructed so that pavement is extended to the property line of the development. We are faced with a dilemma with this recommendation. How do we provide access to the existing driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail? (It should be noted that this driveway does not meet the City's standard for a seven ton design, twenty feet of pavement, within a 30 foot easement, with turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal.) There is no recorded easement for these properties, vet this is an existing condition. It is assumed that the northern ' cul -de -sac will be off -set to the east on the Doleisi homesite. Will this design eliminate the driveway and force these homes to access through the Lundgren project? The end of Kiowa Trail does not currently have a standard turn around for emergency vehicles. Who will build �. the new cul -de -sac? (The Lundgren project gets no benefit from this cul-de -sac and should not have to build both.) Finally, this area will provide an eastern entrance to Bandimere Park. Without a through roadway, there is no reason for the City to provide a parking area in the vicinity. However, once the park is developed, people will want to park on the east side of Bandimere Park and they will use the road right -of -way for a parking lot congesting the 1 end of the cul -de -sacs. Staff is still convinced that the Lake Riley Boulevard connection is an important safety, ' improvement for the existing neighborhood reducing by approximately one -half the length of the dead end street. Because Lake Riley Boulevard is a dead end street, there is no reason for people, other than Lake Riley and Sunny Slope residents, to use this roadway. The argument that individuals will use this road as a short cut around Lake Riley is spurious, since the route is circular, over substandard roads, and connecting to roadways that are more conveniently accessed through other roads (see attached area roads map). This connection 1 provides added benefits to the residents along Lake Riley Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail and only marginal benefit to the proposed subdivision. 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers 1' November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 1 Page 5 Finally, staff believes that the use of a PUD for this proiect is appropriate because of the flexibility provided to the developer to create a subdivision with diversity, variety, and enhanced housing opportunities. Additionally, the City may add controls and conditions for open space, setback, and site amenities that are not possible through the standard subdivision 1 process. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 1 The site features rolling farmland with steep slopes at the northeastern corner transitioning into a wetland at the southwest corner of Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard. This 1 wetland is characterized as Ag/Urban having been significantly altered by urban development and agricultural drainage. Increased slopes are also present abutting the Sunny Slopes Addition subdivision in the southeast boundary of the project. A Williams Brothers pipeline and easement runs from the northwest to the southeast on the western edge of the development. Surrounding land uses include: NORTH: Lyman Boulevard. Large lots on Agricultural Estate (A -2) property as well as some farmed lands. Additional vacant lands are zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). Two wetland areas, one Natural and the other Ag/Urban are located north of Lyman Boulevard. SOUTH: A single- family home and Bandimere Community Park on land zoned .1 A -2; Bandimere Heights and Shore Acres Subdivision on property zoned RSF; and Sunny Slope Addition on property zoned PUD -R. 1 EAST: Lake Riley Boulevard, Shore Acres Subdivision and Rogers Addition on property zoned RSF. 1 WEST: State Highway 101 and farmland on property zoned A -2. BACKGROUND 1 The site and the land to the north were incorporated into the MUSA line under the 1991 comprehensive plan update. The property is currently being used to cultivate crops. REZONING TO PUD 1 Section 20 -501 of the City Code provides a general intent statement for planned unit developments. ' . 1 I Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 6 "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicants Isicl responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectation are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:" Finding The City and the developer gain diversity and enhanced development plans ' through the use of the PUD. While the City relaxes normal zoning district standards which benefit the developer, the net result is a development that provides greater open space through larger setback requirements and larger lots ' around the perimeter and site landscaping and buffering, variety in lot sizes which will permit a diversity of housing types, and neighborhood enhancement for the residents of the subdivision (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes ' and scenic views. Finding The site is bordered on the north and west by Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101. These roads are shown as collector and minor arterial, respectively, on the City's comprehensive plan. Siting of homes adjacent to these roadways would be undesirable without providing additional lot sizes to buffer the future residents of the site from traffic. Additionally, a Williams Brothers pipeline runs through the rear yards of the lots on the western edge of the project. These lots are being oversized to accommodate the development of the lots. Larger lots are also being provided along the eastern and southern perimeter of the site abutting existing subdivisions. The few trees on site, the steep slope in the northeast corner, and the wetland will all be protected due to the larger size of Lots in these areas. The flexibility inherent in the PUD permits the developer to plat these larger lots to the benefit of the existing neighborhood as well as for future residents. The perimeter lots will provide a sense of open space and scenic views around the project. As a discussion item, staff would like the Planning Commission to look at the possibility of requiring a reforestation program as part of the development 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers 11° November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 1 Page 7 for these larger lots along the perimeter of the project. This could provide an 1 additional benefit for the City as well as the future residents of the subdivision. (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through 1 mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding 1 The PUD allows location of smaller lots in the interior of the project and larger lots on the perimeter. PUD flexibility is used to locate home sites in areas where , their impact will be minimized. The project proposes varied lot sizes, thereby creating diversity within the subdivision. High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including (3 ) g q t3' g g P g g - both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect high quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding i The applicant is proposing a high quality residential development with quality homes. The applicant has taken into account surrounding land uses by locating larger lots adjacent to existing uses. This is a residential development in the middle of existing residential subdivisions. This site layout provides lots that are generally larger than surrounding lots along the perimeter with the interior, smaller lots being screened from view from outside of the development. This development will be virtually indistinguishable from other typical subdivisions in the city. Additionally, the PUD zoning permits the city to require more extensive landscaping, buffering, and berming around the perimeter of the site than would " be possible through the standard subdivision process. This requirement provides benefits for both current and future residents of the area. ' (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. ' Finding The land uses adjacent to the site are also residential. Transitional development is not really a factor with this proposal since existing and proposed development is single family residential. Even though the development is residential, the PUD permits the city to require additional Landscaping and buffering to separate this development from existing subdivisions thereby allowing the existing - :n .1 Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 8 neighborhoods to maintain their sense of identity. However, it should be pointed out that any sense of identity for these neighborhoods is a result of their isolation ' due to long dead end streets, rather than any specific architectural styles or historic significance since many homes in the area have been recently remodeled or expanded. The developer is also providing lots around the perimeter that are generally larger than existing home sites in the area. The PUD, through the use of lot size averaging, permits this type of development. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding The development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates the property as residential low density (1.2 - 4 units /acre). The proposal has a net density (minus outlots and roads) of 2.44 units/acre. This is below the density of development had the developer created 15,000 square foot lots, as provided for in a standard subdivision, which represents a density of 2.9 units per acre. This compares favorably with typical single family development in Chanhassen which has an average net density of 2 units per acre. If the outlots are included in the ' tabulation of density, the result is 2.13 units per acre. The site was included in the recent Comprehensive Plan amendment for development with sewer and water and as a single family development. The applicant is also providing right- of-way for State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard which are shown as a minor arterial and a collector roadway, respectively, in the comprehensive plan. 1 (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. finding ' The applicant is dedicating 5.3 acres of park land adjacent to Bandimere Community Park which will be added to the 36 acres the City currentiv possesses. The City is also proposing the provision of a small trail segment in the southeast quadrant of the site to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to Bandimere Park as well as pedestrian connections from within the project to the 1 park site. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. 1 1 1' 1 Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 9 Fi -nding 1 The applicant is proposing a variety of lot sizes and housing units. This variety I in lot size and the corresponding housing types provides an opportunity for the Provision of housing for a wider range of income groups than would be possible with standard lot sizes or with oversized lots only. However, it will be contingent on the developer to verify this is a legitimate claim. Staff has provided a discussion item that would have the developer set aside a percentage of the project for moderate income individuals and family. Overall, staff anticipates I that the sites will be affordable to medium - medium/high incomes. The surrounding uses and potential future surrounding uses are consistent with what is being proposed. This project is not designed to address lower cost housing opportunities. The city is investigating this issue and is considering direct financial support to encourage its construction since the free market is unable to meet this demand. 1 (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. 1 Finding It is not evident that this item has been taken into consideration, but all homes I will meet current energy codes. (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic g g q P conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding 1 The proposal is providing right -of -way for the future expansion of Lyman Boulevard State Highway 101, and Lake Riley Boulevard. The dedication of the I right -of -way for State Highway 101 is not required as part of the subdivision process. However, this dedication provides a benefit for the City of Chanhassen by providing the city with a bargaining chip in negotiations with the State Highway Department or should the city undertake the expansion of Highway 101 in the future. This site will be served by two curb cuts onto Lyman Boulevard and is providing a connection to Bandimere Heights Subdivision through the extension of Kiowa Trail. Internal local streets are included as part of the development. Staff is proposing that an additional connection be provided to Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a secondary access for residents and emergency 1 1 .1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 1 Page 10 vehicles. This access would shorten the dead end by approximately one - quarter ' mile. There is a specific intent statement for the single family residential PUD. The intent statement states the developer will be permitted flexibility in development standards in return for enhancing environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements and providing a higher quality of development. The single family detached residential planned unit development must also meet the following guidelines: ' (b) Minimum Lot Size - The single family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 11,000 square feet . The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, 30 feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. 1 Finding ' The proposal provides lot areas ranging from 11,004 square feet to 57,423 square feet (not including outlots) with an average net lot area of 17,814 square feet. The ability to concentrate smaller lots in the interior of the development and locating larger lots around the perimeter will provide natural open space. This open space is further enhanced through the PUD by the requirement for more than normal landscaping and berming along collector and arterial roadways as ' well as larger building setbacks from these roadways. Each lot can accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad as well as a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into the required setbacks. While the previous PUD Ordinance required that 50 percent of the lots meet the minimum standard, there is no specific requirement in the current PUD Ordinance that requires this now. Nonetheless, this development would meet that standard. (c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet. g tY( ) � Findin All the lots appear to meet this requirement. (d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet 1 1 , Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 11 Finding 1 All of the lots exceed the minimum 100 feet lot depth requirement. While one side of one lot is less than 100 feet, the average of the lot depth for that lot is 106 , feet. (e) Minimum setbacks: 1 PUD exterior: thirty (30) feet Front yard: thirty (30) feet Rear yard: thirty (30) feet Side yard: ten (10) feet Adjacent to arterial or collector roads, a fifty (50) foot setback shall be maintained. Finding 1 The proposal provides ample lot areas to maintain a thirty (30) foot PUD exterior setback as well as the fifty (50) foot setback from Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101. Lots are shown with thirty (30) foot front setbacks. There is sufficient lot depth to meet the thirty (30) foot rear setback. The narrative provided by the developer proposes a six (6) foot garage and nine (9) foot living area side setbacks with minimum structure separation of twenty (20) feet. However, staff believes that this variance from the PUD standards are not 1 justified due to site or environment issues and, therefore, should be denied. (f) Protection and preservation of natural features. ' Finding While there are few natural features on site, the wetland and the few trees will be protected as part of the development. g) An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the : followin 111 P gP �l P g 1) Boulevard Plantings - Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of 1 over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 ' Page 12 2) Exterior Landscaping and Double Fronted Lots - Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may i be required. 3) Foundation Plantings - A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be ' established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide 1 financial guarantees acceptable to the city. 4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed ' tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding The existing trees shall be protected as part of the development. The applicant shall be required to provide perimeter berming and landscaping as a condition of approval. An approved landscaping budget will be a condition of final platting. The berming and landscaping adjacent to State Highway 101 and Lyman 1 Boulevard shall provide a visual buffer of the home sites from the road. The landscaping along Lake Riley Boulevard shall provide screening and a sense of transition from the existing homes into the development. As a discussion item, staff is suggesting that the developer initiate a reforestation program along the perimeter of the site where such reforestation would provide additional benefit to the residents of the City. The reforestation program could be done in stages ' corresponding with the phasing of the project, e.g. one sixth of the plantings during each phase, in order to reduce the total up front cost of the project. This ' program would include the planting of native trees that might be present on the site if farming had not been started. The program might also be expanded to allow school children to participate in planting the trees, thereby, providing them ' with a learning opportunity about the natural environment. Finally, the reforestation program might be coordinated with the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum as an outreach project for programs they have. 1 h) Architectural Standards - The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement ' is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers 1 November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 13 that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place 1 without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD Agreement should include the following: 1 1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. 2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is 1 felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. 3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage buildings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. 1 Finding The applicant has stated in their narrative that they will incorporate current and updated home designs within their development. Due to variety of lots sizes, it should be possible to provide a variety of home types and designs to meet the , needs of the residents. The City should establish guidelines for the screening of rear yards along Lake Riley Boulevard to limit potentially negative impacts to properties along the roadway. The applicant has provided a packet of materials 1 that are included as an attachment to the report. SUMMARY OF REZONING ' The subject site being located adjacent to two major roadways and existing single - family subdivisions is ideally suited for a planned unit development. The flexibility of the PUD standards results in a reduction of impacts to both current and future residents of the area. The ability to average the lot sizes permits the siting of large home sites along the perimeter of the development and smaller home sites in the project's interior. The few natural features of the site are also being protected as part of the development. PRELIMINARY PLAT The preliminary plat will subdivide the site into 134 lots. Additionally, there is a 1.7 acre outlot containing the existing Dolejsi home. All lots meet or exceed City Code requirements as illustrated in the compliance table (see Attachment #1). Lot areas range from 11,004 square feet to 57,423 square feet with an average lot size of 17,814 square feet. 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 14 There are a total of seven outlots in the plat as follows: Outlot A 14,198 square feet located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101. This outlot will contain a development monument and landscaping. ' Outlot B 5, 488 square feet located at the western entrance road on Lyman Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and landscaping. 1 Outlot C 4,996 square feet located at the western entrance road on Lyman Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and 1 landscaping. Outlot D 25,363 square feet located at the eastern entrance road on Lyman ' Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and landscaping and a NURP pond. ' Outlot E 4,522 square feet located at the eastern entrance road on Lyman Boulevard. This outlot will contain an entrance monument and landscaping. ' Outl F 72,766 square feet located in the south central part of the project adjacent to the proposed Kiowa Trail road connection. This site 1 contains the Dolejsi home. Outlot G 231,321 square feet located in the southwest corner of the project. This 1 • land is to be dedicated to the City for park land. ' WETLANDS The 80 -acre site consists of rolling terrain mostly employed in agricultural practices and also ,' includes a nursery stock area. The site also contains a wetland located in the northeast corner of the site. The wetland is classified as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (Cowardin PEMC; circular 39 type III inland shallow fresh water marsh). The City of Chanhassen has classified this wetland basin as an ag/urban wetland indicating the wetland has a moderate to low functional value. The wetland is approximately 0.50 acres in size. No alteration is proposed to the wetland with this development proposal. Storm water runoff generated from the development will be from the rear yard areas of those lots which abut Lake Riley Boulevard. The predeveloped runoff currently drains into the wetland from the agricultural practices as well as the street runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard which will continue with or 1 1 1 Lund en/Dole'si/Ro 1 � ers ' J g November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 15 without this development. Since there is no alteration proposed to the wetland, a wetland 1 alteration permit is not required under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City of Chanhassen's wetland ordinance should be employed by requiring a buffer strip and appropriate setbacks for the houses adjacent to the wetland. In the future when Lyman Boulevard is upgraded this wetland may be enlarged to function as a portion of a two -cell drainage facility, with one cell being a pretreatment basin to treat storm runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard prior to discharging into the wetland which eventually flows underneath Lyman Boulevard to the north into a more pristine wetland. GRADING AND DRAINAGE The preliminary grading plans do not provide existing ground contour information. Upon conversations with the applicant, apparently the information was provided on the original drawings; however, during the duplication process the information was not printed through on to our plan set. The applicant is going to supply staff with the appropriate topographic information. Based on the preliminary grading plan, the entire site will eventually be graded with completion of the six phases. The proposed grades offer a wide variety of building elevations over the development. Ground elevations range from 928.5 in the northwest corner of the site to 901.5 in the northeast corner of the site. The plans also propose a series of storm sewer catch basins and ponding basins to retain and treat storm runoff. Staff has not and typically does not receive drainage and ponding calculations until the final platting phase. City ordinance requires that the storm sewers are designed and constructed to handle a 10 -year storm event. The storm sewer ponds (NURP 1 basins) are required to meet Chanhassen's water quality standards and maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24- hour storm event through the use of storm water detention or retention facilities of other 1 appropriate means approved by the city engineer. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with fmal platting of Phase I. 1 The site has three different drainage subdistricts, two of which drain to Lake Riley and the other west underneath Trunk Highway 101 to a large wetland basin. According to the City's preliminary stormwater management plan (SWMP), the applicant is for the most part proposing NURP basins in accordance to the City SWMP plan. Final design of the drainage system will be considered with the fmal plat approval process along with the feasibility study for the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. This site has a history of creating some downstream drainage problems on the adjacent 1 parcels to the north and south. To the north, an existing drainage ditch (between Lot 3 and 5, Block 5) continues to erode and wash sediments north underneath Lyman Boulevard to a 1 - _ 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 16 wetland basin. The preliminary plans propose on creating a NURP adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to pretreat storm runoff prior to discharging underneath Lyman Boulevard. Although this will improve water quality, it still will not resolve the erosion problem being created from the discharge off the site. The SWMP plan recommend that a lateral storm sewer pipe be extended down to the wetland located in the northeast corner of the site. Since this water will already be pretreated prior to discharging in the wetland, a sediment basin will not be required adjacent to the wetland. ' A single- family subdivision (Sunny Slope Addition) exists to the south of Lots 19 -22, Block 5. This area has received in the past overland drainage from the agricultural fields as well as the nursery stock area. During intense rains, the runoff has contained large amounts of ' sediments which have washed into neighboring properties and on through the City's culvert at Lake Riley Boulevard and into Lake Riley. The applicant is proposing a NURP basin for pretreatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharging through to Lake Riley Boulevard. This outlet storm pipe is proposed to be constructed in an area which contains steep grades and heavy vegetation and outlets on to Lake Riley Boulevard which is unacceptable to staff. The natural drainage pattern for this development is between the existing homes in Sunny Slope 1 Addition just south of Lots 20 -22, Block 5. Staff has discussed this drainage situation with the applicant who is willing to consider relocating the outlet pipe if they are able to acquire the necessary drainage and utility easements to extend storm sewer through the Sunny Slope 1 Addition to Lake Riley. Staff has indicated that the City would assist the applicant in meeting the homeowners affected by the easement acquisition. The City has existing drainage and utility easements south of Deerfoot Trail down along the common property lines to Lake Riley. The City would also be willing to participate in a cost sharing project to pay a portion of the oversizing cost of the storm sewer system which lies south of Deerfoot Trail. The ' City's portion of the storm sewer would be for the oversizing of lateral line which would collect stormwater runoff from Sunny Slope Addition as well as portions of Lake Riley Boulevard lying south of the proposed subdivision. This agreement could be worked out 1 prior to final platting. The westerly portion of the development drains to a small wetland area located just south of the development and just west of Outlot G (Finger Property). According to the City's wetland inventory, this wetland is classified as a ag -urban in very poor condition. The wetland also contains a draintile system as well as landscape plant material from the property owner. Other than redirecting surface runoff from the wetland, the development proposes no adverse impacts or alterations. The applicant's stormwater plan is proposing a NURP basin just north of the wetland located on the Finger parcel. This NURP basin will intercept and ' pretreat stormwater runoff from the subdivision prior to discharging into a ditch section which eventually drains through a culvert underneath Trunk Highway 101. Some minor ditch restoration and culvert cleaning (Trunk Highway 101) may be necessary to restore the normal 1 drainage patterns. , 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers , November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 1 Page 17 Three NURP basins are proposed adjacent to Lyman Boulevard as previously indicated. All three basins are proposed to encroach upon the dedicated right -of -way of Lyman Boulevard. Staff has asked the applicant to review this and make modifications accordingly. Staff has also indicated to the applicant with the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard that some adjustments 1 may be necessary to their storm drainage system. The applicant indicated that they would be willing to work with City staff in modifying their plans accordingly. STREETS The applicant is proposing dedication of 3.1 acres of land for State Highway 101 and 4.7 1 acres for Lyman Boulevard to accommodate the future expansion of both of these roadways. These roads are shown as arterial and collector roadways on the City's comprehensive plan. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the dedication of 0.6 acres for Lake Riley Boulevard. Internal roadways are proposed using fifty (50) foot right -of -way and are curvilinear in nature. While the City has accepted fifty (50) foot right -of -way widths in the past, in this instance there are no compelling reasons for the City to accept less than sixty (60) feet of right -of -way within the development since there are no outstanding physical limitations within the development to prohibit standard width roadways. There are no revisions to the plans incorporating the 60 foot right -of -way. The City has received a petition signed by the applicant/property owner along with two other property owners in the neighborhood for the extension of trunk utilities. The City will consider the petition at the next available City Council meeting sometime in November to discuss whether authorization of an updated feasibility study is warranted. If the Council authorizes the updated feasibility study, staff anticipates that the public hearing process along with plans and specifications preparation and bidding, that construction would not proceed until August or September of 1995. 1 The plans propose three accesses to the 80 -acre site. Two from Lyman Boulevard and one from Kiowa Trail. As stated earlier, staff is proposing a compromise to allow the Kiowa Trail connection to be a temporary cul -de -sac to accommodate the concerns of the Kiowa Trail residents. Until Highway 212 is built, there will be a tendency for individuals on Lake Riley Boulevard and within the proposed development to use the Kiowa Trail connection as a shortcut to Pioneer Trail. However, this road would not serve as a viable alternate route for individuals from outside of the development, specifically for the multifamily to the northeast, because of the added turns and the ease of access provided by Lyman Boulevard, especially if 1 Lyman is upgraded. The site also border Lake Riley Boulevard to the east. According to City records, Lake Riley Boulevard is a 2,300 foot± a long dead end cul -de -sac without municipal water service. The street section consist of a 21 foot wide bituminous street with no curb and gutter or storm sewer system. Engineering staff recommends that the cul -de -sac located in Phase 3 (the southeast corner of the proposed development, Lots 14 through 18, 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers �' ers J g November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 18 111 Block 5) be extended to Lake Riley Boulevard to provide additional access for the Lake Riley Boulevard residents. This access would reduce the length of the dead end on Lake Riley Boulevard by 1,200 feet. Staff does not believe by connecting these two neighborhood would ' inadversely increase traffic volumes through either neighborhoods. It simply will provide an additional access to Lyman Boulevard' for the Lake Riley Hills residents. 1 Lake Riley Boulevard is currently is constructed within a 40 -foot wide right -of -way for the most part except for that portion of the boulevard which lies approximately 600 feet south of Lyman Boulevard. In this area, the right -of -way meanders back and forth. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an additional 10 feet of right -of -way for a total of 50 feet of right -of- way along Lake Riley Boulevard. Staff recommends that the applicant dedicate an additional ' 10 feet of right -of -way to meet City standards which is 60 feet of right -of -way. The existing plat (Shore Acres) which lies immediately adjacent to the east of Lake Riley Boulevard dedicated 33 feet of right -of -way which is was subdivided some time ago. The applicant has ' not altered this dedication since the last public hearing. The applicant is also proposing to dedicate additional right -of -way for the upgrade of Lyman ' Boulevard pursuant to staff recommendations. Provisions have been made for realigning Lyman Boulevard to the south to avoid impact to the wetlands located on the north side_ of Lyman Boulevard. Once the City completes the feasibility study for upgrading Lyman 1 Boulevard, the unnecessary right -of -way may be vacated back to the applicant. The plans do not provide street grades for staff review. However, staff has been in contact ' with the applicants engineer who has informed staff that the street grades will meet the City requirements which are 0.50% to 7.0% slope. 1 The plans propose the new streets be constructed within a 50 -foot wide right -of -way subdivision. The City's subdivision ordinance requires a 60 -foot wide right -of -way be dedicated. Staff believes even though this is a PUD, we feel there should be no 1 compromising on the street right -of -way width. We have typically only allowed undersized right -of -way when tree preservation is an issue and in this case it is not. Engineering staff has already compromised on a couple of design standards such as the distance between intersections and geometric layouts. The applicant requested two three -way intersections to facilitate the existing property owner's homesite on Outlot F. From a traffic circulation and safety standpoint, the preferred street configuration would be one four -way intersection. The City's ordinance under subdivision regulations requires that the intersections be spaced approximately 300 feet apart. There are currently four intersections that do not meet this ' design standard. Staff, however, has had conversations with the applicant and feels since the traffic volumes are fairly low that the intersection spacing as proposed is acceptable. 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers 1 November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 19 The street system proposed within Phase 5 (Block 4) is bisected by a parcel of land which is 1 exempt from this development. The applicant has shown on the landscape plan how this parcel could develop in the future when the property owner is ready to subdivide. In the I meantime, temporary turnarounds will be necessary at the end of each street. Outlot F contains an existing homesite which driveway extends to a common or shared gravel private driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail. The private driveway also serves three other properties adjacent to this site. Based on the landscape plan, it appears the private driveway which serves the other three homes also encroaches on Outlot F. The applicant/property I owner should enter into a driveway easement agreement with the other three property owners if one doesn't already exist or to resolve this issue through the relocation of the driveway off of Oudot F. Since outlots cannot be built upon, this parcel should be platted as a lot within I the subdivision. Including this lot in the subdivision reduces the net density to 2.38 units per acre and increases the average lot size to 18,231 square feet. Additionally, a new driveway - connection from this lot to the proposed street alignment should be provided. I The plans do not indicate the proposed street section. It is recommended that the City's typical urban street section which is 31 feet back -to -back curb and gutter be required. Since Bandimere Park is located immediately to the south of this development, a sidewalk should I also be considered along the north/south street which extends north of Kiowa Trail and from Lake Riley Boulevard to this north/south route to provide an added degree of pedestrian safety. Another alternative would be for an off -street trail network to provide some I continuity between the existing and proposed neighborhoods. Detailed street construction plans and specifications shall be required as a part of final plat I approval. The construction plans and specification shall be designed in accordance to the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City 1 Council in conjunction with the final platting. UTILITIES 1 Site is located within the urban sewer service area (MUSA). However, at this time, municipal sanitary sewer and water service is not immediately available to the entire site. Water service 1 currently exists at Trunk Highway 101 and Lake Susan Drive approximately 1/2 mile north of the site. Sanitary sewer is extended along Lake Riley Boulevard through a lift station which I is located at the intersection of Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard. The existing lift station and sewer lines are not capable of servicing the entire development due to capacity and elevation constraints. I Last year the City considered a petition for the extension of trunk utilities to serve this area immediately north of Lyman Boulevard (John Klingelhutz property). A feasibility study e • -1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers ' November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 20 ' looked at two alternatives for utility service to the area. However, the project never materialized due to problems with easement acquisition. The City has received another 1 petition from the applicant and other property owners in the area. The petition is requesting the City to update the current feasibility study for the extension of trunk utilities into the area. The City Council will be considering the petition at the next available Council agenda which 1 is anticipated some time in November, 1993. Without the extension of municipal trunk utilities and reconstruction of Lyman Boulevard, the project should be considered premature. Preliminary and fmal plat approval should be conditioned upon the City authorizing and 1 awarding a public improvement project for the extension of municipal utility service in the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 1 The preliminary utility plans are laid out fairly well. The utility layout will be studied in greater detail with the updated feasibility study which will assist in determining the best and most feasible methods for servicing the development. Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required as a part of final plat approval. Construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City ' Council. Fire hydrants are located throughout the development. The City's fire marshal requires ' hydrants to be spaced approximately 300 feet apart. The fire hydrants on the preliminary utility layout are proposed approximately 400 feet apart. The City fire marshal will be reviewing the fire hydrant locations and address locations during the final plan and plat review process. The plans propose on extending water service throughout the development including extending a watermain stub to existing Kiowa Trail. Staff also recommends extending a watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 to provide a loop system in the future when water service is extended along Lake Riley Boulevard. This is the same location where staff has previously recommended that the cul -de -sac be extended to connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. ' The existing home on Outlot F is currently on its own well and septic system. In accordance to City code, the property owner will be required to connect to City sewer and water within 12 months from the date the system becomes operational or if the well or septic fails, which 1 occurs first. MISCELLANEOUS ' The applicant should be aware that the extension of trunk utility and upgrading of Lyman t3' PgI' g Ym an 1 Boulevard will sustain assessment against this development. Again, once the feasibility study has been prepared and accepted, we will have a better handle on the financial impacts the 1 Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 21 public improvements will have against this parcel. This will be further addressed in the final plat review process and conditions incorporated with the development contract. TREE PRESERVATION 1 There are a total of twenty-two (22) trees locating on the subject property. While only two of the trees are on the City's list of desired trees, all existing trees can be preserved as part of the development of the site. The rows of tree that have been planted on the site have been excluded from the tree survey since they will be removed from the property by the owner. 1 The developer will be required to develop a landscaping plan for the perimeter of the project along all existing roadways as well as establish a landscaping budget for the individual lots. 1 All tree plantings will be from the preferred list provided by code. The applicant is proposing to plant 211 overstory trees, 121 evergreen trees, and 53 ornamental trees, plus 144 shrubs at various locations throughout the site. However, it is uncertain if this amount is for ' interior or perimeter planting. Therefore, we are asking that for final approval, the following be incorporated: 1. Detailed plans for landscaping g Y and bermin all exterior roadways. These 111 features must be significant enough to buffer direct views of abutting home sites from Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101 and provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development . 2. Tree plantings are to meet the minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected from the official tree list of the City. 3. All landscaping shall be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees. 1 Staff is suggesting as a discussion item that the Planning Commission look at the idea of a reforestation program as part of the approval of the project. (See PUD general finding 1. and Single family residential PUD finding g.) PARK AND RECREATION The applicant is proposing the dedication of approximately 5.3 acres to the City for park land. This is adjacent to lands currently owned by the City for Bandimere Heights Community Park. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this development at their meeting of September 28, 1993. The Commission recommended that the City require the dedication of 5.3 acres of park land as shown on the applicant's concept plan dated August 20, 1993, in lieu of park fees. The applicant will also be required to provide a park trail connection from r ' 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 1 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 22 the southeast quadrant of the development to Lake Riley Boulevard. This trail will provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Bandimere Park. 1 The comprehensive plan shows trail systems on State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. These trails will be included in the future upgrade of these roadways. Full trail fees shall be required as a part of this development As an added amenity, sidewalk or trail connections should be made from Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard through the development to Bandimere Park. 1 COMPLIANCE TABLE ' See Attachment 1. DISCUSSION ITEMS Since the Planning Commission meeting of 11/3/93, staff has met with the applicant and had subsequent discussions regarding the project and issues raised about the development. No ' revisions to the plans have been proposed by the applicant in response to the public hearing comments or staff discussions. While not currently specified as conditions within staff recommendations because of staff's desire for Planning Commission input and to provide the ' applicant with an opportunity to formally address these issues, staff sets forth the following items for discussion: 1. Should the applicant be required to initiate a reforestation program around the perimeter of the project? Specifically to be addressed are the areas along State Highway 101 and along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed ' park land? A reforestation program would include the planting of native tree species in quantities and varieties that approximate a natural wooded area that would be present in Chanhassen had farming and urban development not taken place. ' 2. Should the applicant be required to specify a percentage of housing that would be reasonably priced for moderate income individuals? This becomes an issue since the applicant proposed this as one of the reasons for using a PUD. Additionally, the City has heard that housing would be reasonably priced by other developers, but when the time comes for selling housing units, whatever the market would bear became the standard. It is contingent on the developer to show that the proposal provides these housing opportunities. 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers 1- November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 23 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held public hearings on November 3, 1993, at which the item was tabled for further review, and on November 17, 1993. At the November 17, 1993 meeting, the Planning Commission initially failed to approve a motion to recommend approval of the development with modifications to staff conditions by a vote of 1 to 4 and ultimately approved a motion to recommend to the City Council the denial of the Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Plat by a vote of 3 to 2. In their review of the proposed development, the following issues were key in the final decision: The Commission questioned if this should be a PUD. They did not believe that it 1 addresses the intent of the PUD ordinance. They wanted to know what the benefits- for the City are by permitting this as a PUD. The general feeling was that the reduction in lot sizes was not justified due to special environmental or topographical 1 considerations or that the development would provide something exceptional in exchange for the PUD. Commissioners were concerned with the number of lots below 15,000 square feet (62 lots or 46 percent). Commissioners believed that the proportion of lots below 15,000 square feet was excessive. They felt that there was not a real clear reason to reduce lot sizes. The Commission was concerned with the impacts of the proposed connections to Lake Riley Boulevard and Kiowa Trail and that these connections would change the character of the established neighborhoods on Lake Riley Boulevard and Kiowa Trail. Finally, there was a question about the design relationship of the development and future access to Bandimere Park from the east with the use of the back -to -back cul-de- sacs. Several of the Planning Commissioners felt very strongly that the reduction in the lot sizes should be supported by some specific benefit to the City and the future residents of the development. In this case, they did not believe that this development provided significant benefits that would justify this reduction. In previous residential PUDs, there were significant environmental considerations which were being protected: bluffs, trees, wetlands, etc. The subject property is an agricultural field with few environmental features and, therefore, the Planning Commission felt that it was incumbent on the developer to show that, in fact, this development was worthy of PUD status. 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolej si/Rogers I November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 24 1 Staff respects the Commission's judgement but fmd that we must disagree with their recommendation. Planned unit developments offer the flexibility to develop a site through the I relaxation of normal zoning standards, to allow for greater variety of uses, and to permit internal transfers of density. In exchange for this flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in significantly higher quality and a more sensitive design I than would have been the case with the use of standard zoning criteria. In this case, the. developer has attempted to create a subdivision that blends into and protects surrounding development by transitioning from surrounding developments through the use of larger Il perimeter lots and smaller lots in the interior of the development, in effect internally transferring density. This configuration of lots creates open space at the perimeter of the site, open space that would not be provided through a standard subdivision. This proposal is an I effective use of the land in that the developer has assembled two parcels of land, the Roger's and the Dolejsi's parcels, into one development proposal and provided open space and park facilities that would not be provided if each parcel were developed separately. The use of I curvilinear streets, the provision of large lots along the perimeter roadways, and the use of enhanced landscaping all combine to create a high quality development. Complement this with the variety of home designs (see attachment 15) and the proposal is a quality 1 development that provides diversity in housing opportunities in Chanhassen. PUDs are not only meant to protect environmental features. Rather, a PUD should allow for 1 diversity and variety in the development of the city while at the same time protecting the investments and expectations of existing residents and property owners. The PUD does • provide flexibility for developers. However, it also gives the city added controls and 1 negotiating ability not available through standard zoning. The question that the city must answer is whether the types of design improvements as shown in this proposal are sufficient to warrant PUD approvals or are there other considerations or design elements that the city I would also require to justify PUD status. This proposal appears to meet all the general and specific intent requirements for PUDs. 1 By its recommendation, the Planning Commission essentially rewrote the PUD ordinance or chose to ignore the fact that the Ordinance does not establish any maximum percentage of I lots under 15,000 square feet. The proposal does easily meet or exceed average lot sizes and other standards. I Furthermore, developers often make the case that if they are not allowed to proceed with their proposal, something worse will come along. In this case, we believe that this may be an accurate prediction. This site is without natural amenities and being flat, it is a prime I candidate for the type of developer who maximizes the number of lots while minimizing the quality of design. Lundgren has already demonstrated an ability to increase the number of lots while maintaining the 15,000 square feet minimum lot size by significantly compromising 1 the quality of the project. We do not think that this is in anyone's interest. This concern 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers 1 November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 25 coupled with the PUD benefits mentioned above lead staff to continue recommending approval of the project. One other issue warrants discussion. The developer has made much of the fact that the project, in general, and the PUD in particular, will be used to develop reduced cost housing. Staff strongly supports this goal, but there is no firm understanding of what the developer actually defines as affordable housing. The City Council may want to press for more information on this matter and make commitments to achieve these goals in the PUD agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: 1 "The City Council approves the preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of property to create 135 single - family lots, preliminary plat approval, and rezoning of the property from A -2, 1 Agricultural Estate, to PUD -R, Planned Unit Development - Residential, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety sP Department, Inspections Division for P review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise adin and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and �' g garage floor elevation before final plat approval. 3. Tree reservatio andsca : in P � P g a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer 1 shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development. b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected 1 from the official tree list. c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure installation and survival. d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be reserved as part of the P P development. et 1 1 1 ers Lundgren/Dole•si/Ro J g November 3, 1993 r Updated December 7, 1993 Page 26 1 e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to City approval of the final plat. 1 4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees. 5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting ' property. Full trail fees will be required as part of the development. 6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x ' 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat. 7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman ' Boulevard and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat. 8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all ' utilities located outside the public right -of -way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. ' 9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake Riley Boulevard. ' 10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council 1 approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a 1 PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. ' 12. The Ci ty of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer strip and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast corner of the 1 site, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5. 13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent grades. 1 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi /Rogers 1 November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 27 1 14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10 -year storm event. The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of Phase I. 15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm 1 runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards the cost of any pond oversizing as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction. 16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. 17. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to extend the cul -de -sac to connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. 1 18. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right -of -way along Lake Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The street right -of -way throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide. 19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be extended in the future ". 1 20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Outlot F if one currently does not exist or eliminate the issue by relocating the driveway off of the property. 21. Preliminary final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City aT3' P PP P tY Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility 1 service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations. 1 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers �'a � s Jio ers g November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 28 23. The applicant shall provide a 6 -inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided. 24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the well and septic system fails. 25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, ' MWCC. 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before October 31 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and sediment control. 27. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to 1 guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval and final platting. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the 1 extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 29. Outlot F shall be platted as a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be built upon. Relocate the driveway for this lot so that it connects perpendicularly to the proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable to the Engineering Department. 30. Back -to -back cul -de -sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The pavement for the northern cul -de -sac shall be installed to the project property line. A breakaway barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The cul -de -sac shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed. 1 31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision. 1 . A 1 Lundgren/Dolejsi/Rogers November 3, 1993 Updated December 7, 1993 Page 29 1 32. Sidewalks or pedestrian trails shall be provided connecting Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard to Bandimere Park. This trail system shall include a trail segment built within the 92nd Street right -of -way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Park, ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Applicant's Lot Compliance Table. 2. Minutes from the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of 9/28/93. I 3. Letter from Jamie Heilicher dated 10/28/93. 4. Memo from John Uban dated 10/28/93. 5. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated 10/28/93. I 6. Facsimile from Jack Hungelmann dated 11/1/93. 7. Letter from Lundgren Bros. to area residents dated 10/28/93. 8. Letter from Paul Krauss to area residents dated 11/1/93. 1 9. Mailing labels. 10. Petition from Lake Riley Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail residents opposing connection to Lake Riley Boulevard. 11. Letter from Kevin and Valette Finger dated November 3, 1993. 12. Map showing area roads. 13. Enlargement of the Kiowa Trail connection area. I 14. Letter from C. John Uban dated 11/11/93. 15. Letter from Lundgren Bros. dated 11/10/93 with attachments. 16. Planning Commission minutes of 11/3/93 I 17. Planning Commission minutes of 11/17/93 18. Rogers Doleisi neo traditional plan 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 . 1 Lot Size: Gross Average Lot Size 26,266 s.f. _ I Net Average Lot Size 17,814 s.f. Smallest Lot Size 11,004 s.f. Largest Lot Size 57,423 s.f. I Avg. Lot Size within Shoreline Dist. 18,295 s.f. Proposed Building Setbacks: 30' Front Yard Setback Typical 30' Rear Yard Setback Minimum 10' Side Yard Setback Minimum (6' Garage & 9' Living with 20' Structure I Separation) 75' to Wetland, 30' to Ponds 50' to Arterial Roads I The following is a lot by lot tabulation. I dock Ut Area s.f. 'lock I& Area s.f 1 1 14,503 4 1 16,194 1 2 16,335 4 2 , 15,324 I 1 1 3 18,071 16,624 4 3 21,599 4 5 1 12,877 1 5 18,579 5 2 19,318 I 1 6 24,683 5 3 25,080 1 7 27,965 5 4 18,469 1 8 31,302 5 5 18,490 111 1 9 29,990 28,611 5 6 27,745 1 10 5 7 57,423 1 11 38,564 5 8 33,357 I 1 1 12 45,441 45,404 5 9 21,374 13 5 10 28,183 1 14 24,634 5 11 20,971 1 15 24,461 5 12 19,197 I 1 16 13,530 5 13 21,096 1 17 11,288 5 14 26,491 1 18 16,220 5 15 25,171 1 1 1 1 RogersfDolejsi P.U.D. October, 1993 4 1 $lock J Area s.f. Block LA Area s.f. 1 19 32,694 5 16 23,948 1 1 20 22,971 5 17 23,401 1 21 15,114 5 18 23,219 1 22 14,231 5 19 23,542 1 23 14,551 5 20 24,411 1 24 15,344 5 21 19,943 I 1 25 13,766 5 22 30,337 1 26 16,051 6 1 16,009 1 27 15,449 6 2 12,960 I 1 28 17,324 6 3 13,138 1 29 16,622 6 4 14,030 1 30 17,521 6 5 14,693 2 1 23,378 6 6 14,006 I 2 2 12,902 6 7 13,637 2 3 13,428 6 8 13,686 2 4 12,203 6 9 13,695 - I 2 5 12,537 6 10 13,447 2 6 13,439 6 11 12,204 2 7 16,466 6 12 11,913 I 2 8 12,476 6 13 12,357 2 9 14,516 6 14 12,522 2 10 12,375 6 15 12,459 I 2 11 14,376 6 16 12,164 2 12 11,214 6 17 13,140 2 13 17,202 6 18 16,659 I 2 14 13,333 6 19 11,756 2 15 11,957 6 20 12,349 2 16 12,497 6 21 12,264 2 17 11,452 6 22 14,056 2 18 11,563 6 23 15,326 _ 2 19 12,148 6 24 19.365 2 20 15,460 6 25 16,671 1 2 21 15,691 6 26 17,298 2 22 14,327 6 27 17,398 2 23 17,102 6 28 20,053 I 2 24 23,412 6 29 16,609 6 30 12,857 6 31 18,302 I 3 1 17,485 OUTLOT A 14,198 3 2 12,865 B 5,488 3 3 12,048 C 4,996 I 3 4 12,049 D 25,363 3 5 11,974 E 4,522 3 6 12,605 F 72,766 I 3 7 11,541 0 231,321 -: e 1 1 1 Rogers/Dolejsi P.U.D. October, 1993 5 I 13lock Joj Area s.f. 3 8 14,442 3 9 16,245 I 3 10 11,832 3 11 12,631 3 12 16,029 1 3 13 16,508 3 14 19,540 3 15 20,748 I 3 16 16,424 3 17 13,949 3 18 13,843 I 3 3 19 14,352 20 11,631 3 21 11,007 I 3 3 22 11,019 23 11,004 - 3 24 14,907 • 1 Development Summary: I Total Acres 80.8 ac. . - Highway 101 ROW 3.1 ac. -Lyman Boulevard ROW 4.7 ac. I -Lake Riley Blvd. ROW .6 ac. - Residential ROW 9.4 ac. Total R.O.W. 17.8 ac. I Outlot Area 2.9 ac. Park Area 5.3 ac. 1 Net Lot Area 54.8 ac. Average Lot Size • 17,814 s.f. I Number of Lots 134 Gross Density 1.7 un. /ac. Net Density 2.5 un. /ac. 1 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 36,023 SO FT LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD, 6200 CHASKA ROAD, , JEAN ADDITION, FRANK REESE. Todd Hoffman presented a brief staff report on this item. , Schroers: So it's pretty cut and dry. Any questions? Lash: I'm just curious why somebody's doing this? I mean are they then going to be able to build on Outlot A if it's combined with this property in Shorewood? Hoffman: Correct. I believe it's developed there already. What they are doing is...have somebody to developer Lot 1. Lash: I move that we accept, or that we require current park and trail fees which are not $600.00 and $200.00 at the rate in force at the time of the application. Schroers: Is there a second? Manders: Second. 1 Lash moved, Manders seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to accept full park and trail fees for Jean Addition. These fees are to be collected at a rate in force upon building permit application. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, SUBDIVISION OF 80.8 ACRES INTO 133 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, ROGERS/DOLEJSI PROPERTY, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101 SOUTH, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. , Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Lash: Can I ask you a question first Todd, before we move on? I'm looking, if I'm looking at this plan, which is the one that you have on the screen. And then I'm looking at my big drawing. Where would Kiowa Trail fit in on the big screen there? 19 ' 1 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 Hoffman: This one? The one Y ou have? 1 Lash: Yeah. Is that going to connect to any of those streets or does it just. Hoffman: They're proposed to connect, yeah. Kiowa Trail is proposed to connect at this location. This is the terminus of Kiowa Trail at the current time. So Kiowa then drops out to TH 101. Kiowa terminates there. There's one access boulevard. I believe it's Mr. ' Dolejs home at that site. And then this would be a proposed connection. Schroers: Where is. Lash: Excuse me Larry, so there would be a connection for people on Kiowa Trail and the people in the Lundgren Bros development to come down through the street to Kiowa Trail? 1 Hoffman: Correct. Lash: Okay. But not Lake Riley Blvd. Okay. Schroers: Where is Bandimere's neighborhood park? Hoffman: On this plan? You're just beginning to see the border of it right here. Bandimere',s neighborhood park. And you can see that is Bandimere. This orientation. ' Schroers: Okay. So there would be no practical, it wouldn't be practical to make a trail connection from there to the rest of the park? Coming out of the Bandimere neighborhood 1 park. Hoffman: The commission has talked about that in the past and what the consensus has been 1 is that Bandimere Heights Park, the neighborhood park, is going to remain it's own little entity. If there was a future trail connection, that certainly could be accomplished. 1 Schroers: But it wouldn't accomplish what we would like to accomplish? Hoffman: No. If you want to access the neighborhood park, you would simply just continue ' to walk on the road... ' Schroers: Okay. And one other dumb question. Why do we want to develop the trail later along TH 101 and Lyman? Hoffman: The upgrade of those road systems, as you can see on the overhead. You can 1 20 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 1 probably just take 212 right out of your mind. I mean I don't know when that's going to, we 1 all don't know when that's going to happen. But that is the, unfortunately if you take it out of your head, that is the assigned north/south trail corridor. Coming down TH 101 in this configuration. So if we run this trail out to a point here, we would have to then do a temporary trail and temporary meaning, 5 years at least. 10 years. 15. I'm not sure when that would be. So that may not be so temporary but to get people to the west you're going to have to continue along Lyman and then go north along old TH 101 which will be taken out when 212 comes through. So what happens in this segment with trails and what you would gain by putting this segment in is questionable. Now you may, you could gain something if you took it to this point and then traveled south into the other access on the park but these folks already have an internal connection so they're not going to, most likely they're not going to choose that. It would make a circular pattern for them but I don't see the immediate need such that we did on the Hans Hagen, Stone Creek development. You wanted that to go in out at Galpin because the school was going to be developed by '95. We wanted to get people up to the school. What do we want to accomplish? Where do we want to get the folks who are going to go out on that trail? Where can they go? Who are they trying to - reach ? What are they trying to get to? Schroers: I see P our point. The reason that I brought it up was because we had sort of made Y it an unofficial policy to get trails in along with development because it is cheaper and when we have to come back and do it later, after the fact, it always costs, is more expensive and 1 we never have the money. Hoffman: I can't argue with that. 1 Schroers: So I guess to re -ask the question. Would it be reasonable or practical for us to 1 preclude the trail going south from Lyman down TH 101 on the south? Hoffman: The additional right -of -way. Schroers: Or at least to grade it. Hoffman: Those questions I immediately go back and sit down with our engineers because 1 obviously when you're talking road upgrade and change the elevations of the roads and change an alignment at Lyman Blvd because there's a wetland down somewhere in this area which affects the road alignment, that's the reason...so unless there's a strong desire to have that trail there, which in order to get it there and make some sense out of it is going to take a lot of investigation into what the future road alignment will be. How the road will look. What elevation it will take in it's present alignment versus it's present alignment and those type of things. So it's kind of a complicated issue. 21 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 1 Lash: How far in the future do ou expect the road realignment to be? - Y P g Hoffman: The TH 101 realignment? I Lash: Either one. Hoffman: I couldn't speculate. . 1 Lash: How about Lyman? I Hoffman: This road realignment...to Lyman? Again the engineering department tracks that but just in driving that road today, do you know Terry when they're going to upgrade...this development? 1 Terry Forbord: Neither road is on any type of improvement program in the city. There are no plans to upgrade either one of those roads. 1 Lash: Well I just can't imagine with 133 homes going in there, and that's going to be their main access in and out of that development is going to Lyman. Isn't that still dirt? I Schroers: It's not dirt but it's, the pavement is in poor condition. • I Lash: It might as well be. I just can't imagine that they're going to be able to hold off after the homes are in too much longer after that. 1 Schroers: Okay. Does Mr. Forbord wish to address the commission this evening? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, I have no presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. I Schroers: Okay. Discussion from commission members. Do they have any particular thoughts or feelings regarding the recommendation or the development here? I Lash: I uess I would agree with Todd's recommendation. The only question I would have g �' Y q is if it looks like Lyman Blvd were to come on line fairly soon, it would make sense to do I the trail work at that time. If it looks like it's not going to be for years and years, I would maybe be inclined to want to have the trail construction along Lyman. That is going to help, I well actually along TH 101 too. Because we know that's not going to be for a long time. That would help a lot of people to make a circle here up Lake Riley to Lyman. Lyman over to TH 101. Have some short safe passage along TH 101 to the park and then back around 1 would make a nice big loop and boy, from reading that survey this weekend, people down on 1 22 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 1 TH 101 are very, very interested in getting some trail. It may look like we're doing something so maybe it needs to be investigated. I can't say for sure on that but Lyman is a long stretch here and that would be a nice thing to get in as soon as we can but I don't want to put it in in a year or two and then have them come back the year after that and rip everything out again. So we need to have maybe a little more information on that. As far as the trail connection in the southeast quadrant, I think that's a good recommendation from staff. Basically because I look at neighborhoods. I look at my neighborhood and there's no trail connection. There's nothing between lots so if you have little kids, and I'm not talking little, little kids but if you have kids that you don't want going out to CR 17 to go over to the next street to their friends house, they've got to cut through somebody's yard, and most people are okay with that. But you never know and this is really isolating the Lundgren Bros development from the homes on the south and the people, believe it or not, they're going to make friends and the kids are going to make friends and they're going to want to go back and forth and there's no way they're going to be able to do that right now without going out on Lake Riley Blvd all the way up to Lyman and then in on a street. It would be a nice thing - for kids to be able to have an access between lots that they could use and ride their bike without feeling like they're going through somebody's yard with their bike. And I don't know what the prime spot would be. I guess that would be up to the developer to figure that out to make that connection. Schroers: I agree with that also. I think that an access makes a lot of sense. I think that we will have an opportunity. Our best opportunity's to get trails developed and put in place are either with developers or with road realignment and it seems to make sense in this point, at some point in the future, who knows when but we do believe that something will be done with Lyman and something will be done with TH 101 and it will probably be easier and better to get the trail put in at that point in time along with the road realignment or upgrading , or whatever. So unless we have any more discussion, I'm ready for a motion. Manders: I'd just like to say that I would agree that that connection on the trail to the 1 southeast, Lake Riley trail is a necessary item. I don't think there should be any question about that going in. As far as the trail system around TH 101 and Lyman, I personally wouldn't suggest that that go in at this point. I think that should be held off. Lash: Okay, I'd be ready to make a motion. I would move that we recommend to the City Council that we require 5.3 acres of parkland dedication as shown on the applicant's concept plan dated August 20, 1993. In lieu of this we'll waive all park fees. For the trail recommendation we would ask that the applicant design a trail connection in the southeast quadrant for Lake Riley Blvd and that since we will be looking at future trail construction on Lyman Blvd and Highway 101, along with road construction, that we will require full trail fees at the time of development. ' 23 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 Meger: I'll second. Lash moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council require 5.3 acres of parkland dedication as shown on the applicant's concept plan dated August 20, 1993 in lieu of park fees. The applicant will •1 design a trail connection in the southeast quadrant for Lake Riley Blvd. The Park and Recreation Commission recognizes that future trail construction on Lyman Blvd and Highway 101 will occur along with road realignment construction. Therefore, full trail ' fees will be required as a part of this development. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Terry Forbord: May I please enter comments into the record? Lash: He wants to speak on record. ' Schroers: Yes. Go ahead. Or come forward please. ' Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. It was our opinion and our planner's opinion that there wasn't a need for necessary park dedication in order for Bandimere to achieve it's goals. We had laid out that site. I've also met with the city's park consultant. It 1 is possible for the city to put what the city intended to put on Bandimere without taking any park dedication from Rogers/Dolejsi. In good faith Lundgren Bros came to the city. We sat down and said we'll work with you on this particular site to try to dedicate some additional land to make it so the city would not have to grade Bandimere as severely as they would have had to do if we wouldn't have been willing to dedicate the land. We did so in good faith and it was our understanding that park and trail fees would be waived in consideration of that. As all of you know, anytime you dedicate land without anything in return, it poses some fear of economic impact on not only the property owner but on the land developer because there's absolutely no way to amortize those costs effectively over the cost of the 1 entire project. You just can't do it and that's always why there's such a debate with the park dedication. So the reason that we came forward in a proactive manner was that it was our ' understanding the city would then respond also...waive those park and trail fees. In regards to the trail connection from Lake Riley Blvd, we just don't think that's good planning. You're going to have a trail in people's back yards and it's just like going through somebody's yard. It's exactly what it is. And all those people are going to have that little trail there. Those block values are going to be diminished by at least $10,000.00 per lot and those people who live there right now along that road there, if they wanted to go to the park right now, today, they'd really wanted to go to the park, they'd get to the park. Probably go and drive down Lyman and drive down TH 101 and come in on Kiowa and use that little neighborhood park and it probably has been used for years. With the construction of the interior street 1 24 1 1 Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - September 28, 1993 P 1 connections as part of this proposal, they easily can get there very quickly. If you live way down here and you got onto your bike, you could get to this facility at best on a bike within 1 5 minutes. I mean at the longest. It is not very far away to go. And to put an economic and negative impact on all these lots, 6 lots, plus the Dolejsi homestead, because they're going to retain that. So there's 3 lots. You've got 9 -10 lots plus all of these people who already have homes here. I can assure you they're all going to be...so you're going to have at least 14-15 potential, maybe even more, I'd have to count them up. Homeowners that would be very upset about having a trail there and if those people, like I say, if they want to get to the park, they'll get to the park. They're not going to say well...trail connection since there's not-They'll still go to the park. They'll just go on the street. So we're really opposed to that because we know it will negatively impact the value of those lots. And we know that those people who live there right now aren't going to want that trail. And just like most people if you said we're going to put a trail in your yard, most people, maybe some of you. Maybe some of you feel differently and say yeah, I'd like a trail but I don't want it my back yard either and I'm just not convinced that that trail is really that important and there's probably other trails in the city that are. Lash: Mr. Forbord? Terry Forbord: Yes. 1 Lash: Can 1 just clear up what I had in mind, because I don't think you're understanding what I had in mind. I wasn't necessarily suggesting that this trail connection needed to go along the back of all those yards. My idea was actually that it would just be a side yard connection from the cul -de -sac down in the quadrant over to Lake Riley Blvd because those people then would be able to access the cul -de -sac out to the street and up to the park. Hoffman: There's alignment to the north that would even allow more buffering. This would be a side yard. This would be a rear yard. Lash: I really didn't intend that it would have to be along the back yard of a whole bunch of lots and existing lots. Terry Forbord: Well that's certainly a lot better than what I thought it was but needless to 1 say we'd be opposed to it because neither one of those home owners are going to want it either. Lash: Right, and I can understand that. Terry Forbord: Again, I don't think anybody's going to say well I would have gone to the 1 . 25 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting - September 28, 1993 1 park but there's not a connection—Plus if you look at the topography map there, I'm not sure if the topography between those two lot lines. From Lake Riley Blvd to here there's a rise. And there's vegetation along there. Those are the comments that I had. Thank you. Hoffman: Chairman Schroers, members of the commission. Mr. David Stockdale is out in the audience this evening. He has scheduled an administrative...stepped out for a minute. I would just suggest when he steps back in we'll just pick up with that item. 1 SELECTION OF VENDORS: A. CARVER BEACH PLAYGROUND. Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. ' Berg: Jan, I'd defer to you. If there two were sitting right next to each other, which would the kids use more? ' Lash: Well it really depends a lot on the ages of the kids and that was, I just wrote down that question. Do we have any clue as to, how this neighborhood is sitting. And I realize there will be more than neighborhood kids there because of the beach but you know, double wide slide. What's the height of that? Hoffman: 40 inches. Lash: Well, I'd hate to use the b word here but, kind of boring. The tube slide is much more popular with kids. But, you have a problem then with bigger kids because bigger kids ' have trouble fitting in the tube slide without having to hunch over. The bigger kids aren't going to want to go on a 40 inch, little double wide slide either. 1 Hoffman: The money that we're spending here just does not allow us to get up to those higher deck heights. 1 Schroers: Carver Beach is one of the older neighborhoods in the city and the people that I know that go to Carver Beach, the youngest kids that I know of that go there are 9 and 10 years old. The majority of them would be young teens so I wonder, I'm wondering if we ' should install anything like this. Or if we should take the $3,000.00 and improve the park in another way. 1 Lash: Or if you want something that's going to fill a wider age gap for a little big of money, I'd put in a couple of swings and a tire swing or something like that. Or some, a bay with a 1 26 1 I ?Rem wee vesx 07 MIIIIIIIMIIP _ JAMIE HEILICHE L. A Ill Planning Commission October 28, 1993 City Hall Council Chambers 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 1 RE: Proposed Development of the Dolejsi & Rodgers Property Dear Planning Commission Members: I After reviewing the proposed development, I have three major concerns. 1 1) Storm water run off! How will this development change the flow of storm water? I 2) Automobile traffic flow through the Kiowa Trail Neighborhood! The proposed development would create a substantial increase in the traffic on the existing Kiowa Trail. The streets of the new development will be 31 feet across, Kiowa Trail is only 18 feet across. At this time you can not have two cars pass a parked car. With 133 homes using Kiowa Trail as there access to the south, will this create a dangerous situation to the current Kiowa Trail residence. I 3) Automobile traffic passing the pedestrian access to the proposed regional park! The most important concern is the danger to the children heading to and from the new Regional park. The only pedestrian access to the new park from Kiowa Trail, Lake Riley Blvd, and the new proposed development will be at the north end of Kiowa Trail. If Kiowa Trail becomes a through street, all south bound traffic from the proposed development will pass this point, and I some of the north bound Kiowa Trail traffic will cross this point. If the access was for pedestrians only (accept for emergency vehicles) using a "Greenway" system, there would be almost no traffic crossing this point, making it safer for all concerned. 1 Please consider the above concerns when presenting your recommendations to the City Council. We on the current Kiowa Trail are concerned for the safety of ourselves, and our I children, based on the current proposal being presented. Since • / ' I mie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail I 445 -9661 (work)942 -7828 RECEIVEll ' = 1997 1 CUB'? .10/29/93 09:47 e612 337 5601 DSU, INC. Z►001 /004 1 OAH fREN 1 SHARDIOW AND •UBAN, INCOfrOnATEf LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL • To: PaLLI 1`vrauSe • DATE: LO199 ) 9 3 p f 0- TA'1h6ssen • PROJECT: _ J eX W S I � E 1 • JOB NUMBER: 4 3 '79 0 1 ■ WE ARE SENDING BY ❑ DELIVERY SERVICE ❑ MAIL ❑ OVERNIGHT COURIER )(FAX # q 3 - 5/ • DESCRIPTION 1 1.� p�,�S 1 T�kid.i Y10� ■ X ❑ PRINTS ❑ REPORTS ❑ COPIES ❑ J J 1 ITEMS QTY. DATE DESCRIPTION QOOeS j tba.66i LW en Zros . - f osoi I I • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED 0 AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR YOUR USE ❑ FOR APPROVAL 1 XFOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ❑ • REMARKS 1 1 1 1 COPY TO: SIGNED: Ubhr \ Leff 40/29/93 09:48 $612 337 5601 DSU, INC. 1;11002/004 1 DAHLGREN SHAEZDLOW AND - UBAN INCORPORATEr CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 612.339.3300 MEMORANDUM DATE: 28 October 1993 1 TO: Chanhassen City Staff FROM: John Uban RE: Rogers/Dolejsi Property, Lundgren Bros. Proposal 1 A number of concerns have been brought up by City staff concerning the proposed PUD for the - Rogers/Dolejsi property. We've been talking with Dave Hemple and following is a summary of our adjustments and explanations raised to date. 1. City Engineering staff is requesting that the interior roads have a 60 -foot right-of-way. We have designed the roads to have a 50 -foot right-of-way as part of the flexibility of the PUD . The needed flexibility is not because of wooded areas, but because of the pressure placed on the property for significant amount of land to be dedicated for other public purposes. The property is encumbered also by a gas pipeline that runs diagonally through the western edge. Additional right -of -way is being dedicated for State Highway 101 and for Lyman Boulevard, specifically to adjust around wetlands which pushes the right -of -way further into the Roger/Dolejsi parcel. Additionally, the land is being dedicated for Lake Riley Boulevard which was not completely platted when developed. There is no proposed access from Lake Riley Boulevard or Highway 101. Access will come from Lyman Boulevard. Additionally, full complement of park dedication is being made to make the development of Bandimere Park more cost efficient for the City. Much less grading will have to take place with the additional land being dedicated. This is a distinct benefit to the community. Because of this, we are trying to take full advantage of the property that is left for development and create an efficient and attractive plan as possible. The 50 -foot right -of -way is an integral part of that design, and concerns about that were not known to us until just recently. We believe that this adjustment allows the homes to be properly placed in a system with grading and utilities within a 50 -foot corridor and overall helping in the efficiency of that grading and utility extension to individual homesites. 1 The City Planning Commission recently, on the Song parcel, in areas that were =wooded requested a 60 -foot right-of-way with a compensating 25 -foot front yard setback. This keeps the arrangement of lots and grading the same while allowing the legal setback line to move inward 5 feet on either side of the road. The City staff's request for additional right -of -way throughout the plat to make the roads all 60 feet in width affects a number of the lots in total size, bringing an estimated five lots below the 11,000 square foot area calculation. 1 Additionally, we have intentionally created the largest lots around the perimeter of the property to adjust to many varied conditions and constraints that exist on the site (pipelines, • - A 1U /Ly7W) UV:421 14U14 .7.71 VUV1 Lau, 111V. •i+j�././ �+ • • Chanhassen City Staff 28 October 1993 Page 2 roads, future development, etc.) This further speaks to the flexibility needed in the PUD to be able to consolidate development in the interior as efficiently as possible. We propose to continue with a 50 -foot right-of-way with a 30 -foot front yard setback for the interior street with an 11,000 square foot lot size minimum. ' 2. City staff has raised some concerns on the details of the ponding and storm drainage plan specifically for those ponds lying along the northern edge in common with the Lyman Boulevard right -of -way. Lundgren Bros. will continue to work with City staff on the development of an appropriate combined drainage system. We understand the City has not yet finalized the road design for the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and we will work through our final plan development to organize the drainage system with City staff. We are now making adjustments to the plan to show that the outlets from the ponds will flow along Lyman Boulevard connecting the westerly ponds on through to the east and connecting to the most easterly 15 -inch culvert under Lyman Boulevard. We will adjust this basic concept as is needed. Lundgren Bros. will work with City staff so that storage and ponding areas will be kept primarily on the private property without severely encumbering the R.O.W. 3. At staff request, greater details of these plans are being submitted to the City for review. The grading plan will be reprinted so it is easier to read the existing topographic lines. ' Also, the scale of all of the drawings is 1" - 100' and will be corrected to show that. 4. The City prefers that the drainage pond outlot on the southeast side of the project be changed with a different alignment. This may affect other property owners and Lundgren Bros. will work with the City to develop this new alignment. Should difficulty arise and this new alignment not be possible, and if the City elects to not use their right of eminent domain, then Lundgren Bros. would wish to develop the outlot as proposed rather than ' reach an impass delaying development. 5. The City is requesting access to Lake Riley Boulevard through the southeast cul-de-sac of the Rogers/Dolejsi Property. There is no benefit to the Rogers/Dolejsi Property for this connection nor any need. The development of the cul- de-sac creates lookout lots facing out to the east and protects the edge of the property for the existing neighbors along Lake Riley. Additional connection would only encourage additional traffic into both neighborhoods. This additional connection would not enhance the health, safety and welfare of either neighborhood. Lundgren Bros. will provide a 10 -foot trail easement to connect the Lake Riley Boulevard neighborhood to the road system in the Rogers/Dolejsi project so that the Bandimere Park may be more easily accessed by the area residents. This trail easement is proposed on Lot 14 of BIock 5, adjacent to Lot 13. 6. The City is requesting an additional 10' R.O.W. dedication for Lake Riley Boulevard above what has been proposed by Lundgren Bros. The City staff is looking for an additional 20 ' feet and we are proposing to complete a dedication for Lake Riley Boulevard to maintain a 50 -foot right -of -way for that neighborhood street. As Lake Riley Boulevard intersects with Lyman Boulevard, additional right -of -way has been shown as being dedicated by Lundgren Bros. These additional requests clearly show the kind of pressure that is being placed on this I property to provide adequate right -of -way for permanent roads that do not directly serve this project. Lundgren Bros. proposes to continue with the dedication with Lake Riley Boulevard as proposed initially. Lake Riley Boulevard is presently a 40' R.O.W. 7. Parks - The applicant, in its negotiation with the Parks Director to dedicate 5.4 acres of land for public purpose, understood that a complete waiver of park and trail fees would take 1 10/29/93 09:51 e612 337 5601 DSU, INC. g1004/00411 • • Chanhassen City Staff 28 October 1993 Page 3 7. Parks - The applicant, in its negotiation with the Parks Director to dedicate 5.4 acres of land for public purpose, understood that a complete waiver of park and trail fees would take place. However, at the Parks Commission, the staff recommendation was to waive only the park fees. The Parks Commission supported the Park Director's recommendation. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission support the waiver of trail fees in exchange for land dedication. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I 1 CITYOF • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 1 DATE: October 28, 1993 SUBJ: Secondary Access - Dolejsi & Rogers Property Planning Case PUD #93 -6 ' I would like to comment on an issue involving the new Lundgren project east of Hwy 101, south of Lyman Blvd, and west of Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Currently, Fire Department accessibility during Fire Ground Operations to homes south of Lyman on Lake Riley Blvd. is fair to poor. This is mainly due to the narrowness of the road and a below minimum standard size for a cul -de -sac. ' So far to date, the Fire Department has responded to 3 major structure fires on that particular stretch of road. Some of the specific problems that arose were severe congestion due to the 1 narrowness. In the winter, snowpiles make it almost impossible to pass. There are also no fire hydrants on Lake Riley Blvd. and Deerfoot Trail; therefore, water tankers are used to shuttle water to the fire. This type of firefighting requires additional fire trucks from nearby communities, resulting in g g � more congestion. The biggest factor is that due to the narrowness of the roads, and the 1 inability to turn around, the tankers have to back in one at a time, dump its water and leave before a second truck can get to the fire scene. The delays could be costly. With the larger homes now being built, a faster water delivery system is paramount. Therefore, the Chanhassen Fire Department is recommending a second means of access to this 1 affected area (Lake Riley Blvd.), and be made available through the proposed Dolejsi, Rogers project to the east. cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director Jim McMahon, Fire Chief Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer n 1 $ 6128350263 JACK HUNCELMANN 11/01/93 10:22 P01 1 1 JAC . GELMANN 1364 FRAME AYENUE SOUTH 1 ltlSK IAANAGEMENT SUITE 202 AND INSURANCE ¥ESVIOs c � _ �` MINNESOTA EWE 1 FOR AIDIYIDUALb AND NONE: 012) 136 CLOSELY HELP COMPANIES' FAX ISM B15-O203 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET 1 FAX: (612) *35•0263 DATE: n-1--9.- PLEASE RESPOND BY NO. OF PAGES a- _ (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) 1 TO FAX NO. 43 7 S 73 `t COMPANY (t 1 ATTN: - -- 1 FROM: a / - 1 REGARDING: .; �� , ' a t 4 7:4"1 alik 4 A lk p , ! e 1 ff-tel Srn a 0)-0 ").---)--. 46-74 / E" fte-- - 9// 7 daL'I-4"10-47 _ 6t, /1.0 - - 7 7 - 4 A-4--Y-Oe--- I • , 1 7 i e y lim j m-, .-.),-4 tot ur*4A-Lee ,., 1 (3. . - t tyw..11.4.x,c40-cz v' 1 t V Lel - SAP t. 11 IS t I I 1) * a t ° L 1 ' 4 . - ar. k :4 .et:Y1 :I 11 L - IL CI A'..k- " - - 44 *t.‘C.'1.- k rer.4.4 6-4,V;t■t&A.&-. 1 '! 1 i,..f5.4 1 ._ e , , 1 do..„. ,,, it,,,G4f,e4 34)11- , i o f x °'' / itr $ 6128350263 JACK HUNGELMANN 11/01/93 10:23 P02 1 LUnDGREn BROS. 1 CONSTRUCTION October 28, 1993 INC ' Lake Riley Boulevard and • Deerfoot Trail Residents Chanhassen, MN Re: Ro ers/Dole' g Jsi Property 1 935 F Wayzata Blvd Dear Chanhassen Resident: Wayzata Minnesota 55391 Today, on Thursday, October 28,1993 (the day after our Neighborhood meeting), Lundgren Bros. Construction was informed by the City of Chanhassen Staffthat (612)4/3 12:31 the City would require an access directly from our proposed neighborhood to Lake ' Riley Boulevard. This is a new condition and one we are opposed to. We feel this connection is unwarranted and not necessary_ We do not believe that this additional street connection will improve the health, safety and welfare of anyone in either neighborhood. We were surprised by this additional condition and we wanted you to know right . away so you can voice your own opinion at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, November 3, 1993. If you have an opinion, it is very important that you represent yourself during the public hearing process. Please let me know if! can answer any questions. Very truly yours, Ter yi� Vice President TMF:bw 1 1 1 1 CITYOF tioir 1 i CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Ilk November 1, 1993 1 Dear Resident: Recently, you may have received a letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction, the developer who is 1 proposing to build 134 homes on the Dolejsi/Rogers parcel, located along Lyman Boulevard between Lake Riley Boulevard and Highway 101. City staff was not copied in their mailing, however, we received a copy from one of your neighbors. The letter talks about a proposed connection between the development and Lake Riley Boulevard. It states that Lundgren Brothers is opposed to it and asks you to come to the Planning Commission meeting on November 3 to object to it. The City welcomes your attendance at all our meetings and encourages your participation. However, I believe the Lundgren letter is somewhat misleading and wanted you to have the facts. - First of all, City staff normally works with a developer for many months prior to their submitting a plan. 1 We attempt to work out major issues but typically others arise when we review the actual plans and get comments from other staff members and outside agencies. Thus, what was portrayed as a surprise is in I fact the way the system is supposed to work. In a similar manner, the developer is often asked to change his proposal further based upon comments we receive from you at the public meetings. Secondly, we thought you should know the reason why we have requested a connection. As you are 1 aware, Lake Riley Boulevard is an older undersized street that runs 2300 feet to a dead end. There is not likely to be any significant additional development along it. This type of situation causes problems with the provision of emergency vehicles and other services. There is only one way in or out and this can easily be blocked. Snow plows and other vehicles must take twice the time to provide service since they must back track each time. The City Fire Marshal (memo attached) requested the additional access to Lake Riley Boulevard. He points out that there have been three major structure fires in the area. Due 1 to the narrowness of the road, lack of available water and blockage due to snow piles, it is very difficult - to operate effectively at a fire scene. Planning and Engineering staff have requested the connection to respond to this problem. It will cut the I Lake Riley Boulevard dead end approximately in half by connecting to a full standard street. It will not introduce any additional traffic onto Lake Riley Boulevard. There is absolutely no reason for anyone from the new subdivision to enter your neighborhood. Your road does not go anywhere and the new development will have much better access to Lyman and Hwy 101. It will, however, allow you to gain access to the new Bandimere Park. The developer is likely to lose one lot to make the connection. 1 I hope you have found this letter to be informative. Whether we find we agree on this issue or not, we want to encourage you to stay involved. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3 and is held in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Sincerely, 1 . Paul Krauss, AICP . 1 Director of Planning 1 PAUL ZAKARIASEN JEFF P NELSON DALE KUTTER 600 WEST 94TH STREET 300 DEERFOOT TRAIL 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL 1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II ROBERT D REBERTUS GEORGE WALLIN CHRISTOPHER MCGRATH il 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL 321 DEERFOOT TRAIL 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 KYLE D TIDSTROM STEVEN SEKELY RICHARD NELSON I 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 . 11 __ - -- - - -� _ -- - -- SCOTT WIRTH KEVIN SHARKEY RICHARD MADORE II 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :1 PAUL TERRY BARRY TRENT ALTON KLEMEK JR . 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL 7204 KIOWA TRAIL 51 KELLY ROAD 1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318 • II PETER PEMRICK ELDON L. BERKLAND RANDY DUSOSKI 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9261 KIOWA TRAIL 9270 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 • CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 II BARRY BERSHOW JAMIE HEILICHER CRAIG HALVERSON 9271 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 • - -- - -- - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- - CRAIG HALVERSON SIDNEY A MOSMAN FREDERICK AMRHEIN 1 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 7311 IZAAK WALTON ROAD 9350 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD A MOSMAN ETAL PETER C. LILLIE JAMES E SLOSS 541 FAIRFIELD 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9360 KIOWA TRAIL 1 ST PAUL, MN 55112 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN JAMES T. BREWER RAYMOND BRANDT 9361 KIOWA TRAIL 9366 KIOWA TRAIL 9370 KIOWA TRAIL I I CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II JOHN BELL A II RTHUR HALL WILLIAM BERNHJELM 9371 KIOWA TRAIL 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK MOKSNES ROBERT L. EICKHOLT JOYCE E. KING II 9381 KIOWA TRAIL 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II PRINCE R NELSON TERRY MARTIN LAKEVIEW HILLS 7801 AUDUBON ROAD 9411 KIOWA TRAIL 8800 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II RANDI BOYER BEN SWENSON NORMAN GRANT JR 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 11 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 - - - II - DELBERT SMITH RAY LEWIS ROBERT H. PETERSON 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NORBERT LICKTEIG JACK HUNGELMANN JOHN GOULETT II 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II RICHARD OLIN JIM HENDRICKSON ALAN DIRKS i 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TIM BESSER CURTIS KRIER GREG HASTINGS 9209 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 _ _ _ ___ II DENNIS BAKER EUNICE KOTTKE GEORGE DEWITT 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD PO BOX 606 3127 SE 4TH STREET II CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MONTVERDE, FL 32756 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 RON YTZEN FREDERICK POTTHOFF ALAN DIRKS 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9203 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 II -n II JOHN ARDOYNO PAUL OLSON SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS II 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD DICK NELSON CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 JOY A. TANNER LUCILLE REMUS JAMES F. JESSUP 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD 1 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 -- - -__ -_- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 . • • P ET I TION 1 We, the undersigned adjacent property owners to the proposed development of the Dolejsi- Rogers property by Lundgren Brothers, petition the Chanhassen Planning Commission 1 and Council as follows: WHEREAS, Lundgren Brothers conducted an informational meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 1993 at Chanhassen City Hall to outline their development proposal and respond to questions; and WHEREAS, Chanhassen staff personnel contacted Lundgren Brothers on Thursday, October 28, 1993 to suggest further modifications of their development plan by including a a — access road to the development to be connected to Lake Riley Boulevard in the southeast corner of the development; NOW, THEREFORE, it is urged upmthe Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen to abandon the concept of the aillfaccess road as unnecessary and detrimental due to the inability of Lake Riley Boulevard to handle the additional traffic. 1 TAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. At L 77/ LOAL itt, Pvief. ' C1 o L, t! teer 90 -il as - aP Slit 1 196-4/06 1 Peg 4 1 soi.e. "--- 9Z31 Cwt4 5 96 -79=6 eru ocge-gdig.:13444-t4.A. 9-z L Sc th . 4 1 ' ¥s 33 70 1 Al /h� QI a a L. A tot P\ 1 124 Lvkil fri HS. s #4 410 e i 6 i /ivI 2 - / s .1 S '• 1. 1 P f QAzi ik /ere., ,dud (Hs-Ito? PY4 ite4i' 9 a 7 /It elev 37v W 5'5/8 1 .0 - , e . -„ . , *3/ c& /edgy, od +oC• VCIs o /'l!, ,/4-- 1 � , I qv L./ ?air Y 8 - D - 8L (''''' • i 1 7 5 __,‘ re 144* A 0 - V4(5:17 I J / / / . 1 ,� .. A� ♦ rte_ I • • 1 1 PETITION 1 We, the undersigned adjacent property owners to the proposed development of the Dolejsi- Rogers property by Lundgren Brothers, petition the Chanhassen Planning Commission and Council as follows: - 1 WHEREAS, Lundgren Brothers conducted an informational meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 1993 at Chanhassen City Hall to outline their development proposal and respond to questions; and 1 WHEREAS, Chanhassen staff personnel contacted Lundgren Brothers on Thursday, October 28, 1993 to suggest further modifications of their development plan by including a forth access road to the development to be connected to Lake Riley Boulevard in the southeast corner I of the development; NOW, THEREFORE, it is urged upon the Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen to abandon the concept of the forth access road as unnecessary and detrimental due 1 to the inability of Lake Riley Boulevard to handle the additional traffic. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. 1 i. i1,(1,Ivl 4� hn i c0 f .re- Tr 446 -0/ '7 - l �r ei 742) 11 4 /7e -3 7y . f,4' 'i a <� VI ,' 1( q .�'- 8 h' n ' h / . ✓ //L— 4 Eo�g9 "1 1 AIN ?ee8 " i 1/ i/76- i.,1_ 1 1444... L q iden 3 o o j)- 7'. L146 -A q Q I yo 0 , T. c/;.51 4 / 1.- . Tic A�rgcG-Tro t 4e 02 - - ' tr. , i 57...01 r 41(005.1- •A -e ,� 30/ "■L !/ y P4 -a 1 • 1 1 1 -'� . 1 PETITION 1 We, the undersigned adjacent property owners to the proposed development of the Dolejsi- Rogers property by Lundgren Brothers, petition the Chanhassen Planning Commission and Council as follows: • WHEREAS, Lundgren Brothers conducted an informational meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 1993 at Chanhassen City Hall to outline their development proposal and respond to questions; and WHEREAS, Chanhassen staff personnel contacted Lundgren Brothers on ThurOg October 28, 1993 to suggest further modifications of their development plan by including a access road to the development to be connected to La Riley Boulevard in the southeast corner of the development; NOW, THEREFORE, it is urged upon the Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen to abandon the concept of the forth access road as unnecessary and detrimental due II to the inability of Lake Riley Boulevard to handle the additional traffic. j%1„- E ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. 10/ /6/€4, A. ,d am -�3y9 enz5 hit '1 46/ '7'4 6= `7 1&=0 WIMP 1 / 1 / ) / 17- - r � �--- �— -) /// t • /. f 11Li se/ii ' `C/ 753 f ,-,904,11 42r, C Yf ic; e y X311.3. <1 � " i - s� 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 PETITION • ' We, the undersigned adjacent property owners to the proposed development of the Dolejsi- Rogers property by Lundgren Brothers, petition the Chanhassen Planning Commission and Council as follows: ' WHEREAS, Lundgren Brothers conducted an informational meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 1993 at Chanhassen City Hall to outline their development proposal and respond to questions; and WHEREAS, Chanhassen staff personnel contacted Lundgren Brothers on Thursday, October 28, 1993 to suggest further modifications of their development plan by including a-er ' access road to the development to be connected to Lake Riley Boulevard in the southeast corner ' of the development; NOW, THEREFORE, it is urged upon the Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen to abandon the concept of the forth access road as unnecessary and detrimental due ' to the inability of Lake Riley Boulevard to handle the additional traffic. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. 1 711 If'? &la' 901/ C.itke :Lp� &vet . Ws -'(a cif t i, . . 441/0- 7001 %e, 141 ettuL • yq z4/3z . 1 1 / ■ 7 ( 1 ' -4: e /L 9: L 4re 71-5 20 1 . PWA.t f 9151c ‘-■ 4 9 3 `7 X7 .2 P 0‘1 L am= 'C..t0 &O. 4 /44 - 2 1'3 2 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 • PETITION 111 We, the undersigned adjacent property owners to the proposed development of the Dolejsi- Rogers property by Lundgren Brothers, petition the Chanhassen Planning Commission and Council as follows: WHEREAS, Lundgren Brothers conducted an informational meeting on Wednesday, October 27, 1993 at Chanhassen City Hall to outline their development proposal and respond to questions; and WHEREAS, Chanhassen staff personnel contacted Lundgren Brothers on Thursday, , October 28, 1993 to suggest further modifications of their development plan by including a €enh 4'ur access road to the development to be connected to Lake Riley Boulevard in the southeast corner of the development; 1 NOW, THEREFORE, it is urged upon the Planning Commission and City Council of Chanhassen to abandon the concept of the forth access road as unnecessary and detrimental due to the inability of Lake Riley Boulevard to handle the additional traffic. 1 A ME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. Af; e ru 34 4647&,'/ 1 (9� — z � 1 ro� y4/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 II ' KEVIN B. AND VALETTE FINGER P. O. Box 369 1 9151 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 445 -2612 1 Fax. No. (612) 445 -2613 November 3, 1993 1 Honorable Brian Batzli Planning Commission Chairperson ' City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. Batzli: ' I am writing this letter as I will be unable to come to the commission meeting this evening. I am writing about a concern I have to the development of the Dolejsi- Rogers Property (the ' Property). There was a neighborhood meeting held last Wednesday night by a representative from Lundgren Bros. This meeting was very informative. At that time I brought up this concern and I was assured my concern would be taken care of. I am bringing my concern before your committee so that it would be addressed in 1 written form. On the western most side of the Property, the southwest ' corner, the farmer presently farming the field has done such a terrible job of soil conservation that soil erosion has formed a "dam" along the roadside (one would probably refer to it as the ditch). This earthen dam has dramatically impeded the surface ' water run -off to the culvert that runs under Hwy 101. Over the last two years the surface water has been stopped to the point that the water now just evaporates. The representative from Lundgren Bros. told me there would be no problem clearing this out on "their side of the property line ". What about all the soil that has spilled over to my side and has raised the ground level on this corner? I feel that they could very easily (once the equipment is there) take off a few inches of the soil that has eroded onto my property. ' If you drive by the Property on Hwy 101 you will notice the culvert that is there to relieve the surface water run -off. Alongside of this culvert is a drain tile that empties, as does the culvert on the west side of 101. This drain tile runs along the road and up my property to where the city plans on putting soccer fields. Due to the large amount of soil erosion from this part of the property, the drain tile has had so much soil run -off that it is now plugged up. 4 this the city's problem? Is this the current property owner's problem? I do not know whose prob- lem it is, but I would think that the money I pay to the City _ 1 Page 2 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission November 3, 1993 every quarter for water run -off should be able to be used to 1 determine what should be done here. Attached please find a blow -up of the property that was sent 1 out in which I have labeled the areas of my concern. If the surface water run -off can be corrected and the drain 11 tile exit_be cleared out, then I feel the Lundgren Bros. proposal will be a good development for the property. I have two issues with the City. One issue is the idea of 1 leaving open the idea of having lights at Bandimere Community Park. Does the City not have lights at Lake Ann Park? Does the City not have additional unlit softball and soccer fields at Lake Ann Park? Then why does the City need to have more lit fields elsewhere? Add up the amount of fields left to be lit at Lake Ann. It would seem to me to be an absolute waste of everyones' efforts for the Park and Rec Dept. to continue to pursue the idea of lighting fields at Bandimere Park. This park has as much to do with the plans for this development. If we allow the Park and Rec Dept. to do whatever they want, there will be more conges- tion and more problems from this park than from any development that may come. The second issue is that of current and future abuses of the 1 Bandimere Park property. Currently there is a person with an ATV that has been roving all along the park property with a german 111 shephard dog that is unleashed. Since it appears that our prop- erty will be surrounded by Bandimere Park property on our east and south boundaries, we do not feel comfortable with the prob- able invasions on our privacy by thoughtless city residents. 1 Sincerely, 1 Kevin & Valette Finger 1 1 1 1 I • 1 1 1 1 • • 1 - 1 • I Pr fit . - -) t I i r I oh . II i i :-.4 : . 4c ... . 1 I ............, s 1 , �, v� ,_-t-- :1 , 1 / /,/,!, 4 r . 1 ...., . 9 .4 _ ,, . .... , 4.. ..5fr, • . . y . ,/ - -Al .. - Ali 41 .. ... 1 c r' -rte •117a7+�R Mi. r.■.. 1 . i i# 1 .,,, ....... III } r∎ , c c-- ' ` / : ' >' ' -. .� I PARK - • r .„ ) s .. . ) .. ...... • i 1 1 ■ 78TH ST ST. HuBERTS ,°' W >° sc H. E 7800 ( g a 41 4 PICHA DR. m CBD Q ? y � a © o a o 7901ST Li LAKE !. CA SC401 RD 1 E o ` I CHEYENNE 1 4R nO OAK OT _.(.... .r _ . 1: ROIXVIO 16/1 v R Er 0 BL V O • '� u I Q v O t ii t; W 1 vo's R W a 101 i� s `o` -,. — o 14 �CIR 1- - - - - -- 1 tINNEN O 8 , 8 X 1 00 + W . E WEST LAKE 3 v L ' CT S DAKOTA LA st,s 5 DR 40 lir / c La ke 13 C., Y Lake s , " DOVE 3 Susan �r sh 0 T ME � � ` CL I Nr- E .J _ _ - E RN 86TH ST. W. 8600 i TILLS + , y y4 "�Ar R ip 1 ilu i s uw 0" � n 2 W P c,�' 5 ` T I D9 z x J D r 1 1 BARBARA CT t * � �5►1+ � h ,.. _ 1 g LaJ 9-°;9 PYE 5 I I Co I/ 1 I. I : t �� `a �� - - 1 9- 900 — 1 W 4 o f IF I iikktfte s'41 � � T .4ir fp 1 p • 9400 1 -- ''"•• 0 • 0 A _ C CI fiK T44 CrT . M. 0 a a a ‘4414r . 0 AS L 0 n Y G ( � ( ° r 8 d , a te .. • C.: ( La �. IA I z. A ~ 101 oE`' 0 w EW CT — - - -- ° t _ c ( 9soo RD: oo No. 14 — 9800 3 �� it . .... . b. 0014 • I f Course Q 9 ,0' 1 1 ON a � Rit ::::•. r • .. � ` P AII : EDEN �t CC AREA EKw 1 000 - -- oU0 pR. i _ %) 169 .,, C� . • • . • 2+ ammall1110.. if - : - 3+ • .% • 1 • , - I Existin • HOU - / ° ., .... - A 1 : f • . 1 ' , ' a / I ; I cA 7 ON ) . ' . TrIsiin• ) , i Mos - =Imo MIND IIII="e 1 10 6.411111"I'llii , Ofiesvoy --....../--- I , . , • i ,( .• 1 iiPPC 1 KIOWA TRAIL 1 t CONNECTION 1 1 1 1 1 D N SIRIDLW` AND -AN CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 210 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 612 339 3300 11 November 1993 1 City of Chanhassen 1 Planning Commission Members 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 RE: Lundgren Bros. Rogers/Dolejsi P.U.D. Proposal Dear Planning Commission Members: 1 The proposed PUD on the Rogers/Dolejsi parcel has reasonable and verifiable enhancements that are not available through the normal platting process with the City. The benefits allow the developer more efficiency and market variety while giving the City enhanced standards of development. Lundgren Bros. is specifically looking for the PUD to offer the flexibility outlined in the intent of the PUD Ordinance. 1 The lot sizes on the site reflect the limitations of various environmental impacts on the site. These include noise and traffic buffering from busy roads, safety issues with the gas pipeline, proposed intense community park development and enhanced perimeter blending to adjacent neighborhoods. In developing a PUD, the City is getting an enhanced landscaping scheme beyond what is required in the Standard Subdivision Ordinance, quality home construction, and ample provisions for open space and site adjustments, specifically for City community park enhancement. Additionally, extra right -of -way is being dedicated to the City for Highway 101 that would not normally be required or received by the City. This right -of -way can enhance the City's ability to develop and adjust the road system in this area and would be a substantial contribution to the City's share of future project costs. (The dedication of ROW to the City for future Highway 101 gives the City negotiating strength with MnDot.) All of these attributes, in addition to Lundgren's normal high quality development attributes strongly support the PUD intent stated within the Ordinance. 111 The lot sizes vary within the PUD as allowed in the Ordinance. The minimum is 11,000 square feet, but the net average lot size is 17,814 square feet and the gross average lot size is 26,266 square feet. The standard subdivision would not require the average lot size to be larger than 15,000 square feet. All of the lots have ample rear yards for decking and active yard as specified in the Ordinance. The minimum lot width is 90 feet and the minimum lot depth is 100 feet as required in the PUD Ordinance. The actual lot width, for instance, varies from 90 to 120 feet and lot depth varies with 1 some lots exceeding 300 feet. A 1 1 City of Chanhassen 11 November 1993 Page 2 1 Attached to this letter is a complete breakdown of each lot stating lot size, lot depth and lot width. I By reviewing this lot data, it becomes quite evident that there is a great variety of lots proposed in the subdivision as designed. The PUD Ordinance specifically encourages this type of lot diversity but does not require a percentage of lots to be a certain size. The PUD Ordinance requires that the average lot size to be 15,000 square feet. The City in the past has included in their ordinance a 50 I percent threshold for the number of lots below the 15,000 square foot standard. The development as proposed meets that standard. Any further reduction in the number of lots below 15,000 square feet would be the loss of lots and the loss of lots without subsequent cost savings. This would drive I up the development cost per lot without yielding any perceived benefit to the future home buyers. The diversity of lot sizes includes lot width and lot depth creating many different types of lots to meet a varied home siting pattern that best adjusts to the conditions found on the site. 1 The overall flexible lotting pattern is used to protect specific conditions found around the perimeter of the property. Along the north edge, additional depth and lot size has been added to protect the environmental concerns of a busy Lyman Boulevard with buffering from traffic. Also, Lundgren I Bros. have voluntarily agreed to move Lyman Boulevard southerly into the property to miss a wetland on the north side. This adjustment reduces land area available for lots, specifically to work around an adjacent wetland that isn't on Lundgren Bros.' Property. The lot sizes increase along 1 Lyman Boulevard along the eastern end to accommodate existing drainage ways with wetland and to preserve a stand of trees on the northeast corner. The larger lots along the eastern edge are developed to blend in with the existing neighborhood I along the shores of Lake Riley. This is designed specifically so that no new driveway cuts are proposed on Lake Riley Boulevard and the homes will not create additional traffic on that street. This helps preserve the scenic quality of the street and neighborhood. It also minimizes the need I for grading along Lake Riley Boulevard, which would be needed if homes were placed with direct access to that street. This sensitivity to Lake Riley Boulevard creates inefficiency on the interior with additional right -of -way and larger lots created to accommodate this adjustment for the adjacent neighborhood. I Along the southern edge, several conditions exist that the lotting pattern adjusts and blends to. On the southeast perimeter, existing homes are placed unusually close to the property line. The I proposed new lots along this edge are in excess of a half acre to accommodate a greater separation between the existing homes and the proposed Lundgren neighborhood. This blending enhances both the propose and the adjacent neighborhood. 1 The southern edge to the west primarily consists of large lots adjacent to the proposed active ball fields of the expanded Bandimere Park. This will minimize the condition where homes could be placed closer to the park and create friction between the intense activity of organized sports directly I adjacent to rear yards. The additional lot depth on most of the lots will help blend the proposed subdivision to the new park plan. A landscape buffer is proposed on the closer lots. I Along the western edge, large lots are developed specifically to buffer the neighborhood from the traffic on Highway 101 and to minimize the impact of the Williams Pipeline on the neighborhood. These lots are created with a great deal of lot depth to make sure that the homes can be built with enhanced buffering as proposed with the berms along the western edge. Berming cannot be placed I on top of the pipeline so each lot has a great deal of open space in which to separate themselves from the highway. I Without the PUD Ordinance, a normal subdivision wouldn't necessarily accommodate a pipeline and highway with very large lots. A road could be built on top of or close to the western side of the pipeline and additional lots could be placed closer to Highway 101. Also, if the right-of-way for I 101 was not dedicated, homes could be built closer yet to the highway. Additional homes could be -e 1 City of Chanhassen 11 November 1993 Page 3 1 accommodated in this area, but instead the large lots are planned along the perimeter in this area with smaller lots on the interior to minimize the negative impacts of the environmental concerns of high traffic and the underground pipeline. The overall landscaping plan proposed exceeds requirements for normal platting in the City of Chanhassen. In addition to the normally required boulevard trees, landscaping is found throughout the subdivision. Entrance monuments with fully landscaped settings are proposed at the two entrances on Lyman Boulevard. Additionally, the perimeter along Lyman Boulevard is landscaped with additional shade trees and evergreen trees to create an attractive edge to the entire neighborhood. This would not be a requirement of normal platting and is an enhancement and a betterment to the community that is afforded through the flexibility of the PUD. Additionally, landscaping is proposed with berming along Highway 101 and at the intersection of , 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This enhancement creates an excellent buffer for the neighborhood and an attractive view for the traveling motorist on Highway 101. This also accommodates the dedication of a large piece of land for Highway 101 future construction. Highway 101 is proposed to be four lanes north of Lyman. South of Lyman, the right -of -way is necessary to accommodate the intersection with Lyman Boulevard and continuing the four -lane road down to the future Bandimere Park entrance. The only stand of trees on the site is along Lake Riley Boulevard and these are being preserved to maintain the adjacent neighborhood's character. Additional landscaping is proposed along the rear of lot lines adjacent to the expanded Bandimere Park. These are all enhancements that the City and future residents will be gaining in the development of this Planned Unit Development. - Enclosed for your review are the architectural standards and model homes that will be built within the Lundgren Bros.' neighborhood. The development will also have covenants controlling architectural elements of the homes, as well as the use of yards, excluding activity such as recreational vehicle storage, clotheslines, etc. These covenants have been an element of all Lundgren Bros.' PUD neighborhood developments and are an additional assurance of long term quality control. These are not required in a standard subdivision. The covenants and Homeowners Association will definitely be a benefit to each of the residents in the neighborhood, as well as to the City in maintaining a quality residential setting. Additionally, unattached garages are prohibited which would be permitted in a normal subdivision. The covenants also regulate dog kennels, accessory structures, etc. The architectural treatments of the individual homes include sturdy and energy efficient 2" x 6" ' construction. Homes typically will have finished ends and not just front facade treatments. Code or better energy efficient construction with extra insulation in the attic is standard with a Lundgren Bros.' PUD neighborhood. All homes are required to have at least a two -car attached garage. ' Each home is placed on the curvilinear road system in such a way as to minimize the monotony of a more gridlike subdivision. Home placement and diversity of home styles within the neighborhood minimizes the track look, all of which could be standard fair in a subdivision on the property that is not created by utilizing the PUD process. These assurances and high performance of standards are dealt with in a developer's agreement with the City through the PUD process, which is not extensively available through a normal subdivision. The PUD has a very important feature which is not specifically addressed in the City Ordinance. The feature of development design that creates a neighborhood of uniqueness and identity, that instills in future residents a sense of home, neighborhood, and community that creates a secure place to raise families, should be a highly valued attribute of a PUD neighborhood. The design of the PUD is dependent upon a certain amount of flexibility and should be recognized in the Lundgren City of Chanhassen 11 November 1993 Page 4 plan that is being proposed. The road system is curvilinear with irregularly shaped lots creating the opportunity to have home placement following more diverse alignments and creating a high degree of character for neighborhood identity. This curvilinear design should be strongly supported by the City versus an efficient straight road and cookie cutter lot approach to meet minimum lot sizes under normal zoning. PUD types of neighborhoods create a great deal of long term value because of their design and neighborhood identity. Long term quality neighborhoods should be of prime interest to the City. The variety of lot choice speaks well for the diversity of citizen preferences, from large lots with open space that homeowners can garden and enjoy, to smaller lots that require low maintenance for those who have other activities more important than lawn mowing. These qualities, variety of choice, and the blending of the development to the adjacent neighborhoods and roads, are all distinct ' benefits to the community that are given through the design of the subdivision and the flexibility of the PUD. 1 It is more than evident that the PUD process is a two -way benefit to both the City and the developer. These benefits are clear and verifiable and do not necessarily have to be based solely on saving trees or wetlands. Environmental concerns are broad and the design issues of quality neighborhoods extend well beyond the issues of trees and wetlands. The City should be encouraging the best under all conditions and creating a variety of homes for all citizens to enjoy. Lundgren Bros. attempts to build the best neighborhoods possible on a great variety of sites within the City of Chanhassen. Their commitment to quality continues and is greatly encouraged through the PUD process. ' Lundgren Bros. strives to be a developer of quality homes above the norm and serve a great variety of markets and neighborhood settings. The PUD allows Lundgren Bros. and the City to design and build the community together cooperatively seeking excellent neighborhoods for all future citizens. 1 Sincerely, DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. 1 , 1 .„)41,t, L 1 C. John Uban, Principal Attachment 1 1 1 ROGERS /DOLEJSI PROPERTY Page 1 1 BLOCK LOT AREA S/F WIDTH DEPTH BLOCK LOT AREA S/F WIDTH DEPTH 1 1 1 14503 122 165 2 16 12497 90 142 1 2 16335 100 195 2 17 11452 90 138 i 1 3 18071 90 208 2 18 11563 90 130 1 4 16624 90 195 2 19 12148 90 126 1 5 18579 90 175 2 20 15460 90 153 1 1 6 24683 90 200 2 21 15691 90 158 1 7 27965 90 229 2 22 14327 90 145 1 8 31302 90 238 2 23 17102" 96 170 1 9 29990 90 263 2 24 23412 150 200 1 10 28611 90 315 3 1 17485 90 140 1 11 38564 90 362 3 2 12865 90 145 1 12 45441 90 404 3 3 12048 100 145 1 1 13 45404 90 305 3 4 12049 100 145 1 14 24634 90 200 3 5 11974 100 144 1 15 24461 90 205 3 6 12605 100 135 1 1 16 13530 90 143 3 7 11541 90 128 1 17 11288 90 144 3 8 14442 90 140 1 18 16220 120 130 3 9 16245 130 130 I 1 19 32694 90 290 3 10 11832 98 152 1 20 22971 90 214 3 11 12631 98 150 1 21 15114 90 162 3 12 16029 105 130 ' 1 22 14231 90 148 3 13 16508 105 130 1 23 14551 98 164 3 14 19540 115 120 1 24 15344 90 190 3 15 20748 120 130 E 1 25 13766 90 160 3 16 16424 120 120 II 1 26 16051 108 138 3 17 13949 90 157 1 27 " 15449 90 150 3 18 13843 105 172 ' 1 28 17324 90 171 3 19 14352 90 147 1 29 16622 100 174 3 20 11631 90 119 1 30 17521 92 186 3 21 11007 98 119 ' 2 1 23378 128 118 3 22 11019 110 125 2 2 12902 108 122 3 23 11004 90 141 2 3 13428 90 130 3 24 14907 118 '138 I 2 4 12203 90 125 4 1 16194 108 210 2 5 12537 90 130 4 2 15324 90 205 2 6 13439 94 144 4 3 21599 125 170 I 2 7 16466 90 125 5 1 12877 120 165 2 8 12476 90 152 5 2 19318 94 210 2 9 14516 90 165 5 3 25080 90 245 2 10 12375 98 146 5 4 18469 90 160 I 2 11 14376 140 134 5 5 18490 94 150 2 12 11214 98 135 5 6 27745 105 170 2 13 17202 90 162 5 7 57423 120 240 1 2 14 13333 90 146 5 8 33357 100 210 2 15 11957 90 138 5 9 21374 130 162 5 10 28183 100 235 I .1 1 ROGERS /DOLEJSI PROPERTY Page 2 BLOCK LOT AREA SJF WIDTH DEPTH I 5 11 20971 100 186 LOT SUMMARY 5 12 19197 100 173 5 13 21096 98 193 TOTAL I 5 14 26491 92 185 Lot Size (s.f.) # of Lots 5 15 25171 90 170 11,000 13,000 36 5 16 23948 90 165 13,001- 15,000 26 I 5 17 23401 90 160 15,001- 20,000 39 5 18 23219 125 160 20,001 - 30,000 25 5 19 23542 100 260 30,001 -40,000 5 I 5 20 5 21 24441 100 226 40,001+ 3 19943 100 188 134 5 22 30337 100 163 I 6 1 16009 100 149 Lot Width TOTAL 6 2 12960 90 144 (feet) # of Lots 6 3 13138 105 146 90-95 72 I 6 4 14030 105 154 96 -100 27 6 5 14693 105 166 101 -110 17 6 6 14006 105 154 111 -120 18 I 6 7 13637 106 148 134 6 8 13686 106 148 6 9 13695 106 149 Lot Depth TOTAL . I 6 10 6 11 13447 92 148 (feet) # of Lots 12204 92 131 100 -130 23 6 12 11913 90 126 131 -150 48 I 6 13 12357 96 134 151 -180 31 6 14 12522 95 137 181 -200 12 6 15 12459 96 135 200+ 20 I 6 16 12164 96 132 134 6 17 13140 115 106 6 18 16659 140 136 6 19 11756 110 130 I 6 20 12349 98 140 6 21 12264 90 140 6 22 14056 90 136 1 6 23 15326 90 152 6 24 19365 90 198 6 25 16671 90 132 I 6 26 17298 108 140 6 27 17398 90 144 6 28 20053 90 150 I 6 29 16609 90 144 6 30 12857 90 137 6 31 18302 120 130 1 1 1 LunDGREn BROS. CONSTRUCTION November 10, 1993 - INC 1 Mr. Bob Generous, Planner Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Re: Rogers/Dolejsi Property Wayzata Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Generous: (612)473 -1231 Enclosed are examples of the product line that Lundgren Bros. currently offers to prospective home builders and are of the type that Lundgren Bros. proposes to build on the Rogers/Dolejsi property in Chanhassen. Lundgren Bros. continually reviews its current product line and revises and updates the product line offered to prospective homebuilders as the market changes. If you need any further information, please let me know. Very truly yours, Terry M. torbordu Vice President TMF:bw Enclosures 1 1 RECEIVED NOV I 2 1993. CITY OF CHANHASSIL ,!COLLECTION •k._e , 435;44•152•46. c ..V.. .0 • • • to �i n.'i C A F • .1.4.- �- • Z ... Q „j}•��.�dj'-��.,- .. eY2, . s.Wa - Mi r.• '� .T ye► ��� .1, .174• ® .. I � �' � f ' ne = ij _ -/� • .. l- -- `Z`� �' F &i '• - ",. F _ is = I-t e--k Ile e — — n .II .( � ` t ,i -. ' �L s , , 111: 1IIIII \ jI11 1 1111 1 1 ►' �� 1 ,.. 41,-,.-. i si ■ I ■ DDDDD 1 �a �1~�� { "� �++_��++11 �� \ 1• a r, + , I � ill ,6 , L i. Fi 01DDDDD =_ _ , _ . ;; I t _ ......,� :.■•• = f�r�], ■DDDDD L! .!. 1!r • _ � �_ r d �v �` ■ ❑Its DDD DD = . A�,.� —;� :� _ I r • 1 _ 1 � �'1(ili�.,I�I qt. vwa ' Bedroom 4 Roth Q ��� Mosta — - Ing1111 111.111.11 Bedroom SUM M E R F I E L D IIIt9� w a lk in B edroom 3 Open ee - • �/r \ foyer Il 11 AO r ‘ 4 , IA \ \N ' 1 SECOND FLOOR I Kk • I 1 Room ' � �_� Dinette Family Room ag /�\� t = =c- Living Room _ ."t ' - - _ \` �� , I Fever ' /'/ �� ark Geroge ., n 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , • 1 WunaGREn FIRST FLOOR BROS . w i T ucT I 612/4731231 1 ` . -4.4r Jw. .- -F• • _., wZ . --/ of ��� ~Y� -- Lam_ -- — ''''', "di �ti. .{ ..., ; .s ' •-- _ lil �:4 S�.A�M>� Xi� ' 'Wii -9, = ate =m= — 1C- \ � . . -4, : • _ r`,t = = ! �X; >r = =�■� - --- te a— :;; SUMMERFIE1 �J CiR.• l� IW1:7� �� �� / / / i � •M—Z =�� . : -tea � : a c" � � � + � ' ° . • b � =,�, � � Ian Elevations ill 14 ,./....?...! mom �y„ II = _?Wu,��I _•, �,1 ,.• 44;.,:--.1%-......... . _ • .• . • _ �. fir -° : _1 1N+l - .. 00000. � "-' r • ...;� i '° . ® � haT.T �T�I �I�Z �T: ] ai any ' d - s : ••' '. = •.I:I�I:I.I:I I �haT� T�T�l•T-T �7 1 �- - 1 v - •K. ' t r — _ - ,.),:'.47::-`,.*—;.- i2 :- �_ ,_,--,-.-,-;•,,:- —4 _ � m _ ;a ---v • . - . • ' ` �i .7-. 9>IT1i 't : �,�ri LLLLLLL L = L - � � LLL LL LL = LLLL ��� _ LLLLLL LLLL , • r , • - . fi r ` , a >u .v � . n l �6 - r •- r ... „ „,.. aur,„,� LunDGREn /1 ,,e;„. , . , , \n., ,,,. „arsetw ....., , . ,n,�,, - c.. I ,A/•4N W •• .vY,V.M4 13 RO�CQtt$TRIJCTNN M1 N\ "�.. -_ :. . - u yyfu, t,a,W ��w.NW.M. ... „1 , • INC. m vw I 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayata, MN 55391 I 612/473 1231 Builder ID# 0001413 1 °Copyright 1993 by Landjren Bros. Construction. Inc. Unauthorized tee of this design's a violation US Copyright Act, Title 17, of the US Rendering and floorplans ars artist's concept and may depict options not included in the ben p and may vary in deep from the actual pins specifications agreed upon r writing by the . and Lundgren Bros. Coruirtnetiert Inc - 1 1 C O L L E C T I O N I • V) 0 p °g 0 i .` •• )A. -••�. L • 0 .. .. may I I ; ,1 i o• -•• • I � • I rt . Il: . 1 - +.ri - ten �'i' rir r �`r' .ice 0 40 e • , ;:1 mo o '; • x91.4(: °'• ∎•1 .n •'' • 1 I- .it5j�, s : �C � c_. ail ; "11.I►s%!c!'� r4 • •• „ 6, 412,1 = ' . – ° "° _ Z3,� ,...� � Ili 1 1 7..7;,-; � i 1, ' f d ��,, c. .- ,14i. X1,.1 —. ,,, 1,I ` � , `\ j - . - Ai 1 1�01.� � ,uhl � `;1 �L/ ' i,' = i = L — �I — \ . r \ � foi 11 1 �- = �..�' --�u.� .....mn. a r e r� �"2 ,. Y II � �.� "" .. • si lool■Bl�mt s e s I 5 1 : 1:::: � c ,`f�.. I R 1I II �_ , : , I �E = 1 1II� IIn1 T i II!! '» t 1 -" _ 4. .. ,,� .,.,,.,. -my� &la ,: tom:, I Fire 1 I �a e F' 1 - Family W ! N D R O S E Dinette Room Ki Den 4 Born , ^.Oit i Kok Lo , e. i • o % • Room �' -:� •• Dining Room Foyer 0e • . Goroge o 1 ,,,,..„......-..„ ,,,,..., : la 111. \ , :i - 1 FIRST FLOOR — 1 - Open To Family Room 1 Mosier Bedroom 4 Bedroom 1 - • 1 Optve it TT 10 6 � Barn 1 °° ° �) �I��1 III ;.°;r / F�jf.j Bedroom ..'o o . ; �• A Oise 70' V %5C o i4• I' Foyer Bedroom 3 (01 BROS.0 V Rt1CT10N SECOND FLOO �� . I 612/473 1231 4. • 1 • to . • w .a 4 y • 4. 1 ' •' C _ _ 'KS. • ' 1f . - _ __ ,..." } WINDROSE l _� - - - E _�Y.E. ,�,1 Elevations �._ ■ ∎ \�� __ yyyyy � . •• Optional WYYIM Is C■7�r WOW. ff i J .L. : - iii" •. 1 :I■I._;�I■I.I.1! sh 1 • _._ 1 a�: 1 - ..- ;; �� ' . -� 'x • • = � `- - �!,[.!.• }: r. - ' "'"n c' - -------- .-- -- ----- -Te. 'S.,31. 7,-,.. ..: i . T`.:` "' = �� _ EC.. \ 1 N. i — = � �. , 1 1 ^� 1.».►.t.l.11. - - 1 eteierir' e % i Ai =` , 4: =114 •1 *=-1 -- _.— .. - -r:- _Lt9 - = ,. ..._ -- 1 - WunDGREn • a "t ,. (1312 00:17. • -:x_ : • : > : --,.r � 4x ,� 935 East Wayzata Blvd. � -.., _ ,.=r. -: ,- ' ^; s. Wayzata. MN 55391 - , • a ; , , • i ^ _ - ...L._____ '�cl ` - %` .. 612/473 1231 ." v :: • Builder UV 0001413 _ B— 1 Cr r °Copyright 1993 by Lundgren Broll .. �,= uDDDDO� t 4 W = _, � &� , rc - • _ construction, Inc. • : = ',.. M■■ .j�I= .42aa gl 1 I 553 Unauthorised - "-"4 r,. atnkd.:gn k o Mt■I.I.I■1■T■ . _ "--• _ -�i =IC M "'�' ot the us.ccpmQht Act, rht.».a _ Rendering and tioorploru are artist's con- — apt and may depict oPlsont na1 r� — A In the base price, and may vary In de from the actual plans and specricatio • agreed upon In w long by the buyer and Lundgren Bros. Construction. Inc. . 1 -- — -s 'COLLECTION ° go , .:4b-fAilottgq , zottl-f),.. , . - -0/16 I- •-c il �• /: ;4y .,,. o° ° -- _ — =�=Y= i f - - :;�::: : r. ' ;,n ,)�•. t.. oY I II \ ... n � Z�i��r -- - —2S7.. . k, ' ,.n L o..- • { 1 •, , .. i; ,I : \.\ r_ _ =Y , -- I ;4 �O. , ,d/� . .: 7'-c- . l h = 2I `"�� -- _ - -- —' II III II ,, •�`VC .: ' �.. i', r .. / :`.�f • �.G n.. v• I 11 - - Z� r — �ri 1,491II IIj Ij r. G ..•• :t •.� 1 •'�• �• lti: 'F II 7.'_-.-- � \ \ \� � —�. ��t— III II II 4�'1 - �F � ` .Go • i:1 It Q1 .� ' � �� p ZZ� (, II 4 4 mot•- ;:T f a� k . �' 7 4.1111 = � -- — ��•— ,.— q 1 1 q p : - ' 1''y ij r i ° 1..h \ \ .r .ii I 1 t �l•: `� ;.,'G Y1 r *tit J- r� I� 1r� ` ��' 4 � � .. —�� �. . �� . � '11 11 111 11 111 11 1111 1: 111 :: d'. ' C. ' k�' "- x.•- n P • I ` y/ ] I = \1-«•t ,-.. 0 ;, 1 711 1; . ° b t .• , / . G6 -� _ .. ..... ._ ulil;!1 1 ' L %', k'Ir�- •-�. ='. w!= 1. - I I jll il ' :�•�• � �1 �I� M � � C : . m -, I , I �� ,II : ::11 1 "Ii _III_ li iil �l; l I I_ Il ! pr i ; III l III��I .w � ti'v nk..` ° — O r � ° ,, ` 111111 III111111 II 11 I - II IIII j II.- fJ 1 10 / == 1 1 1 d. a 14n i' 1 ,, . r. / • ! .' u 4 ,. II - L A ;G o nI11 nn111111 1111111 • i 11 11111 I II I \ �.. L� .I 1 1 11 n°°.un 11111 = I . ,111!„;::=. ium 1� Ullllt 1 l It i I Vy � � ' {11 1111111,11111111M I ---- � {�•w: , u i III QLII, 1r�s— ��� I III '` I : —�=�� _ =- Milli .I � - Em II = III IIII = w4 ihl �' jil III L 0, , ; 1 J 11 1u ^ ti l y • r 111p11111111 = II' ! 11.1 .� KA 1( r a } �!� l'.1�11111'.1 I II'III! „ u ❑D ❑ ❑EE� <I r a j l � °° �i 1 �' = 1 ; 1 I ' 1• •• 1.❑.DO - _ ' T . : • / I' � y ���,- � * ! 1 : iii ' a � dl I _ I - 1 � ! ❑❑00DDD = ' ter. � �� `T w.. 1 \ Y WuW W.1W4 ° WVarA .• — W .Y1, ••.,....,....41-4 • i , ' i -:::. ,, P E A C H T R E E L -� K ;- "�`'• -- r �;; - 1',` e:::,,.... �.: o / : - Walk-in Ili Bedroom 3 Both II • ° a Viii m�.�i �� I -' °ks B at h ,,..... Rim IN M aster Bed Bedroom 2 1 1 1 I Fnepo ee SECOND FLOOR Family 1 Room w Dinette in 1 ♦ 1 Kitchen 1 1 Dining :: 72( r�t1� l Room `T �_ ( Y�_I W _ Garage o °O � • • L iving der O r------ -� - -.� 'a • + •°' R oom ; i- d ' / /1 � I L BROS R REn 1ON FIRST FLOOR 1 612/473 1231 — - % 4, • ,... -. .* 1 ;- ....., ,.. • ..-, . ' ••• “..... •• .; • - - L•4i • c. • • • -i 7.6;-• .:._.:"*. T :-.?.4 - .. • s- -- • _..4 --------- z -10.,4•,,,,t.,,k••• # - •.•" - ...=?k,-.-cie-' lh - — -- -- •••-• : ti_ .. . '4.''-Ux;..•÷?'-- -.-"' ---'__._.......___._.. -- •_. 0 . 7 t,r*,'•• • .-4 • I; . . • .-gA 10 _____,...___7.......it•- • ...i - • - - _. ,- .4;:41..... 4,.. :,-;•••:• LS,- • - .. 4 77 - .`•- -- - - .... •-•". ----_. a 4k f X • II •--_,,,,,,--- 4- 7i.',.,.... M Mi — 1 - 4,4_,„' - I _l Vjell/h . ;,.- -2=- ..... ....-- - _.- . PEACHTREE i .. .... ,..... ..,.. g ,F j... iajoi ;7.. corks 1 = ,i —____, - ' n - ,__.- '.7-=. 1 : 111---1-41--1 1 1 .1 I o n ir .;•'; -gE„ - -- . - T1—:" ' ■1 .5 - . - Optional Elevations 1001g _--... ..-7 INNIIIKallaliallsial ;77 E ".. 1 ix •■ = 111 E ; ' 1, 1;ka--, ■.• 1•111!IN *ALuilmul ..a. . ____. . - -•--46 -.f.aa•ICIGS. •P „; , . . . _ - ---Er- ---- ..••■••■..............-.••• ' .... 1 . *A ...., 1 • ti.:...., • 4 2gZ%, - 1 _ t: • ,.....:-.., _ . • - - ., ..... . ..:••.__‘ . -,,- . , .. -..e..• t - • ". . . - - : ..... -s. .47 ..,L4 • 1 I . - : - 0.. :,-...• q ••,.4 •••., - --- ...,.. - . ,._ .... -...-.,,,,,, • , — ,.:„ • " - :-,- ;S:-. -,,.:- 1.- -li;:r4• i t' - ',..km . ,e,- - • ,-""' e • -• ' ,, 4-• =: V — _,,,,. -1., =I lilt f '14: ,.. gel, -..- ' t i - - 7 . .r - l' '....- `" . 7 .. . '■'.. ! tet =V ':.>---- ,,.... : , MIMI - ''' - -i• '-- c=- ‘,. C, = !!M _ 1 C.7 '- ,-- ....14- \ ...• _ ., -.- .. = ' .' 1 ---- _ , 41' I ,„---- • 2. .... _a= - ---- . 1 -,--,•7_-_-- „.. - -r_-_--,, . .„-gz........• ,•ri . .. _ ..,..,,... ...=--- ....,.............................._ if . _ :- = . 111 . -:. — WW1 . i I 10,. c : „,-.= - -i - v._ . ............ 1, _ F 4 _ in _______ , 1,Er-7=. "1 1111=----- E.ruarzzi,_ 1 ... =,.... .... - ■ : 777 P 1 11 4 1 • 11 1 111 11U. 1 1 111 1 -- . ' ' - ..• i . 0. 1 • • • 1 . 1 1MTIMWIM1.1 1 .1.1 . ••■•-- . --- - ':--- 1.1=1=1111111111111111111.1.W.... — - - 1 . 111 .c . G LUI1Dfl ) GRE - -...-... z k . - ='-t *- • . ROS auenot.11 -- 4 . ... • • ; • .,..-'..:. ,...1:E• . .6 - • _ ,. _., _ . ' • 'V` ^ - ' 02 .. . Jir;ie- , ::::.i.i. ' -..:F` , F - z : ' . ,,, , i' r .' ..,2' ‘. • ,, :?3,_.7 . ... _. ---•- 935 East Wayzata Btvd. V. _= , . ,x_. .1=.-. --_..' `- -': • :'-- .3 - 4:7,4 -,s : - 4, • --- ; • _- • -',.. k . 1 - ■•-• i -... - ..•-•-• 4 -- __ ,_ _ -- _ ,.. ,-,.. - V . .....0 V , Wayzata, MN 55391 I _.:..---_..--,.-----....=:-.... -. _ _.. ----, ,,,.•••;Ir." ■• 612/473 1231 • •••= .L. "" fl... .7'.-- ' - ...- --..- ■-•.... .----: ^.--- .a64 . - :* '... MINN •'''''''''•••••■•=1==... - ..1 •7•-..,..."1,0".... • ,, ■ I , II, , .......,..• ' 4%, if4 ii , Itr2 ' Sunder 1D# 0001413 :ng ,,:. - . man - --- --- ; -- --, - ,--=- - 5,-.. - --,_ -,-. .. - Ii ,',: • r,or =--,--- ' _ ,e',.,. .,.............171r..,.... ...-..m... a _,.. _=:_Sj ' r A • .v:r........•. . ---- Construction, Inc. ' .... •'' — :--- -- -I . ni i ' 1 1.1.00.000.1.if .. r..,„ ,...,..,,,• :--'---- """'4 1 - „ „ " Untatihoitted sae of this design is a ..,.., 1-7 1#1 1 11114 - = - , - Iss - ,.........______ '=---__ sajosrissoloilminiall . till !II if : of the U.S. Copyright Act. TM 17. of the U.S • .--4 ms „gaminjwittikalft-- - - Code. . — - - -'- • - ... .-" ---=..... . - .• ............"- -.._.-.---- "--A..... Renciarhg aixitioorplans sae artist's coot and may depict options not inekided - h the base price, ond moy vary h dotal from the actual pions and specified] - ' agreed upon h writing by the boor Lundgren Bros. Construefion. he. • a • • & COLLECTION c .0,f,- ?;.--0,. • 0 -4 .-...-2V- "Ae• - , - • * a•_*-3 - co • - „- ..•••*- 1 In . 9 _ 9 , •.•`_..!: -. • .. ,,• :11-m '- 7 _.'rf;?'-..,4:-..,•-_'..... . - -.. a •,!:,.?"_....i,,,r,f,Te..6.1111;_,,, - k 7' ' ' - • E O ;!? '1' . .W 74. 51,‘ . . . ! . '.: - -.3-14 .'■'' f , ,, , -!' : " el ;1 111141q. - - / ,„::::■.,; ,'`'''-.-.-, ."*.ii,e? . ' 7 . .. 4k.4 • -t ft i r : ..."' ' ; ___. do•ffilt■ 1 „,,,,,,, ,..,,,,,,„,,....., ,i.e. 7 I ■ ' '....--.„-- ,,,1"., :::::::■;''''' . '-'&''' ''' ■ : r 4 .1.0 t,- , • - It' A rAq Or •;;;::: S• i.1-,..,.:-..-1.;.,:',”it,:irja".. CP. ., .,-.-• 41, 4 1 2e . : 1 :` , t3 1- - VII .-" ' *.'. " .4;: iiit :11 '.. " ... " 4 ..."7. , ' ill ...'''''',,----''.--%-:' '..,, ' 'n110/ — —;,-=...- -..z..- - - - z - -- - ,.1- - -7,4t.1,T, .A.ii ,"""%■',. '••••■••,....■ :I, -- .. - .' , .,,... - ,.., - ,,,,,.. - :,, , ,:_ - _ - t -- .,= - --;-= - ,317:7".A.Z=G:*"......ensgy,1:; ;;'. ( 4 1 4 At, . -1. ,A., .. &......,,, ..,...,,,........... ,, .....:1....... -....::-....,■••• , _,_,_.,,..:„.........., _;. , ,._ 1 ....... 0 „..,___, : a -.A',I - ° TT...I.,. s...._ ... ............... h. .111 '....7,0 ..% - < ;: ■ 1 ■ 111 . -- 1 . ).1" .X 0.;41,,AIVAIVINIAVIS S.. SI\ r4 .....1M --■ -.et ..MMINM...... '''................„. ,...........„,, ..?„,...„„, ,...............,:r_ ,,,,,javiiiiiir,..... 4 .zi ,?!.r.•Zkr •Cik! rr b e I < . ....■ _41 • .. ,a, -------- = ,1 ,-- 1 ;' .. ,.....4 7:::::E 1 ,-;: all•A jr= " 00.......;,714,1 ...' i OM / ,. 144.1 L I ' ...... ,..i/.0%-' :!....." .so.;‘......„,„'„...1._,:.....„.:.1%,TI.,1,..,,..;,,,,,r,,,,,:,?..,?_. . , ,... . 1.6.4 I tt- am 1 4:t1 : 1:=1. , 07f- .. 1 , , „ .......... .jj Y • - ■.' . =IA Ce 4P° ,47....7. .- ....--:-''' " - 17 - .1,10 = ,;M:1 1 .. .1 ■•••• 1:; • i.-7 il VIP::: ..Z:74;-! ',..-7,71 = l Lail NMI 1::: :: i !!1;:= ' ,-.71. , %flf■ -1 = 61 V42:■t • i-- . - Y..,,,...--... =BM . • • '-'7 . :"... F ,..... ......... inia.... ........../ . 1 ........1.......'"Arr.....--'".:SL7. 4111111=iVrt! ' :10, V i tz,• I T • • ,_, .._ .1 __,________........,..„......,i,.._._____,...________......=_______7_,.;...,, f j Ei 1 7 -lin ' ' ' 1 1 = 1 ::::'::: .":41 il 1 I 1 1■1, ,,„Vo,14•■■44:1 1■;;;;;iFF:7::::m.%11 ,1 rj -- fliki 1 . m 11 - 1 -1 a • 1 • ' is INF m t " 11E-liiiii:72.1.1 1.= i r ,N1 1 1111 E ::::::z.÷.z h•- ... • .1-- ,- 111 • .- 1. - = 1.0.1•Iwomlic i.: Ir... ... r " ' 40 _ 1 1111 1 111 1 111 1-ii E ,i! .:: 'I ' ' , ' . ., , r, e .1 _.—. ' 11 ' 175 ' '"'-''''''''''''''.--:-- f- t : is'&41,4i4 -.....-1..1.1:1:111.1.1.1.4.1. II, L 1 . . -. - . I. will. .1.• Nor _1,..";)--4es . _ ..... , •-.... 1 -----... ■.......i. 1 H r.....■11 I._ ...C.f.,. - ___...,--,,..... I ....*■gr% . AMWAY - • ---•• -..-4. - 0 100000 0= 1 • 4 0 O --- -, - - rnliiiiiillgi •!:-Aiyis„....... - . ..t :'... , •-• .• 1 1 r 1 1 la lo. iii ....„ -.," ,...._ . . - :„....„:„......„.. N r WHITEWOOD I IV Laid!" 0 . • ..:°Q......-..•_=c- . 10 -,,,, ii P„ I .:„.._.:, ••-• • I - lit. -',-• ' 1 = , SECOND FLOOR 1 1 mutt, 1 iii C Family Room in - •:::' Kitchen V -------= .. . .. - 4 •.k' °' z.:•'•- •• C ..3... ,. ...t..;„ ...... ,,, ;,-, , •••••," °.• aes _ . - fireplace * Ural Dining • I-% •:: •:',-;: JrAi11 Room ••' • • Lk lit 1 N O 'S vaulted ceiling - IIPP 11:3 1 1 Foyer living Room -'-' , 47:1 1 h Garage _ T 'T Peron— r 1 • • ' , 'M i ll i l 11. 111. 4 41)\ FIRST FLOOR I nDGREn G 1 , e, 612/473 1231 1 . . . ..:. ".f.._ .•-.- 2 -. 14 • -• -4 f; .1 ,-.S• d ; •e.A . .-r,0 4 ,' -1* ,i:-C - 4 ;:i:t . •• P r t . .t5. - . -•741 --• -..--",,t - .. . ... " . _ • ' - . . :1 - - ---•-•:• -'- -.•••■.!: -„:.-Igre -.; - ,415;:.5* - ::: - r: . t - '-',;kVg,' : x - •• 111 ; , -- *47 - 4'•• • ' - ; 4 - --=7 - ......"----r—__7- = - - • . x.i- • -z,i4ti '.. 4,- L ,,.• ,..- • • .--...W—.--, '..-=-1.-'!" 'r-=-.-- -_c_-=•_.-. -. . ..:::.„-i,.--.• .w. --.4._. •-• ...-- _ _ - -_--__ ,•__. --__—_. - - ---r.,...._.--,-,wislz. • • - -; . -...---- • _ -- •, -,2.4i c ; -.--'. , Mr : .-'.,• _ .. ,,. A k - r ,- . '" :. - - - - 41 -. :r•::: =.4,,,= ._=•. ----r- — ..........• = , S..9515..93 = -_ • . , 1 ' -...•.---,.. ..'-'• 'Bag. = i -a 1 1,171 ■ - __, ,r--- Z . Zr:f:ink- - Z. WHITEWOOD - f ...-•=,-;-' -- -- 1-. • ..-..., — - uua, ... -te, -91 • - — T.- •.--••• — • ''''..- - - -.. •• _-.. -.?,- .. '" , . • ■••••■•••••••••••••••,„_._.• - :' '''''' = - 1 . ,„ . , .........MMINIIIP 1.1 IL ..... . . ••• • ' s• , .. ' • , Optional Elevatiors ;'. Willi • - itall111:1 =.'r '[--- ' C300=1710 a • -- ...-4- - -..•L'...a • -7 " . -.- J3LKIE1 lirlisTeliWillau rz *- I , Mroximi1111.11•1111111 —_ ...z-- . _ I - . J. - • - , ! _• 1 ••,!r,&-:.-. • • 1 "* . ... 4 t •••L • • ..7111Vi..•: s' a - ‘46...-- ,.. • :". • •.iz-1',2,...iAS-Az: ,, ).-- .. .V.., • •,g1 ••• .• °-..i_ .;5-74 •••SX ... • - A4: • •e• .• • , :i; , •_•2 , Z..- , --.a.._%S.. - . _. ai.............___-114-- - ' ' .. 4,-,•-•.-• • .S • • ?•• - •• ..• ..-,,, ° i . 1 _ ..: .:;:fliiiiN rt -: • . _ ..--7z.."'""' - -.: ..c - -'=." •____,. ----A*A,,,_ 4 , :.-•.,-.. ,,,, .....,----- 4 ,174._ — ___....--- --' - '......r..S. 4;1 Finn • --- - ;- , _.<,.• - --cc - '' .ve-r ------' -':-. '''.....,....,,_.., -- . ---,-': ;; . s .- ,- - * -7 ! c ." 1- f•Ire.._ . - :•.:4 ....M.. . ... ty:-.1,017,-:-----FE. --- —. - -- El , t._•.- _1'4 ' - if: • - II r 4 -. ITTICEIn . .. z`.• 4-... ■••• ,, • . I /:,,;•••••-- ,---- __ - • ___ 7 ... IM s_ _ = „.--,_ ., _., ..2 . 1r,;*-..„. r • i -/- ,.... ---------------........- _ _ _ — I ,_. - • . _____.e...cd _I - I 1 - -•■■ .....T•• ...- ......... y . 1 t • -.......- NM Fin -__•••• ; t r - . •_!•••••■••-•••• ''r-r - ....usimeatr-I-1 1 . . • ... ..- ------,_ ............rr 17.7.5.1 Ws i--- . r i, _ _ ,, .._ . :„, ., .. ______ Oise , — . '.- t• .1 =---, 1 .. ......, ‘ _...,, . ., , .,.,,< _______ = 4•4•1 ,' !I , • a 4 ./ 1. - - 7 . m -, Tresimicc-11*; 7 . 1 illgEllIn.1 . -='' -::_----,.....••°•••-- .. ., ,, ...--..-w--•••--- -, 7"- - Se. ........•,....-..—..- - 1 ... . a....-:.. •..•r•'.'.'' . eve 1 . • (tunDoRen ) _14.. . silos CONSTRUCTION • INC. - . 1 • 4-'•W i .. a • et‘a -,K _ . •••- — — -- - - 935 East Wayzata Blvd. . _ ... „ . ._ . - . . ....„.4„,..-zaw Wowata. MN 55391 - .. „....m.-. 7 7.•-' .....—....... , ! . . - -=:.014;',','•:'-v:f •-•: . 612/473 1231 ,.. orz--,_____"-- — - .._-:=-_-r,.-....= ,...------ -... it ,---..-.:..---76.=. -_„:-.1 - Fro m = ..: -. V.ZA:ez - -AiN4-4 - -: , Builder Of 0001413 :',`•;,.: M.' i = it.i.H.1.10, -- : 47..*A 4 w ar - __ _____•__. 7 =1 01 , --=-, — 1.614.104 — 2.. .r_i.,::,:t.1 , i ki ' - ' =•••-• 1 7 1- P 11 _--..Ay... ' I M ==-•. 1.1 . I ■ I 4_17 _MMIMIIIIIIMMINI=IRF - en & f . li — - :woo •=...-. , 000 0 E , - • Era u.Lu. s .101 a Fs 0000 El --, , Ctopyright 1993 by Lundgren -. __, ..i ... ip_41.1•161.IIIINUEI F: i ' ralf I °C kl ILI : = j e larlid.1. 1 X 1 N Construction, Inc. Unouthorbsd use or the desIgn Is ovbbtior . i .. _ _ _ , , of the U.S. Copyfight Act, Tine 17, of S - ,-- i — e - ;_ - _ - _t .- '_ialko.... ' — ligtill•Iii*Tailmliml _7 -t _....i -" ___,•■•••••••,--••-- .---- ----...76pe-_ ____....--._:•----- Code. - f-.r.• F '. ..3r.. .. _ _____-- _ .c... — Rendering and floorplans aro artist's con- -. ",..... — cept aid may depict options not tithe base price, and may vice& de from the actual plans and specific - . agreed upon in writing by R er e buy Lundgren bro$. Construction:Inc • 1 "'COLLECTION - O . ~ % • ~,.�- . . i t r 1-° ,r � ''.► J�-' i4. :c. 1 „ , c° Q' .•u�C } • H ; : � ' � , , ^; "p�.. ' .' i� .. 1::::741:1:m :';� ::� c �. • .•-• : ' : � if . •'^ • , oft. - ` 11;. i p f∎ . a Co. , _ ,' • c F C.a�{! 4 _ Cam• t:' �:. ;5 .. - Itivtie f , C:'� yf � r � • •tom/ � h ce r •�C /��A f•,,,` • . -_ — —_ _ t.!CL•'•Y`�5��'i�'•� %�1y �U'I °1�.. �'• •�,�h t o: , :-: — V4 •'�• . '•;1.�.� -...ii:..; �� UO � ^ . _ :/it, : r °Ao '� ,�i 711 ■ 1• ;:� "O "Cif : Z.7 %'f ii �,� ' \ Z`_ Vii: -� %.•f �i "::. 4. . ri,i- , , i �;� I i ■ ■rte. ■■ L2 .K = ,, I f — — - . . I a /i a; iii, r;lili ^i1 iii C ]] ii _ - � ,% !�' -• L•� : :, ' :: ?iii ' WM it Ofil 11111 1 ° _. al t ' -`ia• . :.4. _ .1:.v-.. -;. Immunispemer:...1_I ■1 ■ �.X :�: � _ - • 1 t"fl� fi ..� _ ��- �1 } - ti• � r , �L Opt E :tension 1 .41) Dining Master Bedroom Great Room 1 OAKBROOK 4%* MAIN LEVEL _ f � _ I At s 7 � Dinel l • ii„ al �.- Kitchen 1110 — - . ilki .... 1 Bedroom t • a e •1 I Garage I 1 rr-v41 1 r 4S-72 u.' , 1 i III i -__ -_� ' 1 1; - 1 Opt. Extension I f 1 I ii.....T.,..........._- 1 rk II 1 Bedroom I Family Room 1 ri I ` I (I V Storage II �� •ii 70,44,-„,-.. M echanical „, 4 ' Una:. V LunDGREn RO5 °NS RUCTION 612/4731231 LOWER LEVEL 1 ' y 1 .„1, -..._ .'27- . - • • .. .,,,i 1 . ' ' ; * i . 7 ; : -- = = tt ' ..- •, - , . . • - : - N . , _ 4 6 • O A K B R O O K • 4 X J: y' �� Wi n. • •" . 1 • r : - ` -r " _ ' t _ *•' 1. .i- w� •_ ,4 ' ; ,�, 4 � ,: _ ' _ -- _ =x. It'? 5 t \ ° �. a ` �. . - .• , ',`� !�` ,. K Optional Elevations 1 _ �- -- , ,ni a 2v = � �•ji -fib °� .,�...� - t � 1 j N om .._ - =v't 3 � �, r r =It • e el 1 . ee - � �.� "' -. r • !I 03 r0 as�= H II .=. T- = "' a n ; 1 .04 l■1■L■1■1■, - , .. .. _ . . _i _ _°""' = 1 II1■1■1 ∎ 11**110Ti7 1 IIL t ; — Rr:au.wra" 1 1 • . 1 • 1 1 wuntREn BROS o� 935 East Wayzata Blvd. 1 Wayzata, MN 55391 612/473 1231 Builder ID# 0001413 1 *Copyright 1993 by Lundgren art - Construction, Inc. Unauthorized uss of thk design 1 a *abhor of tho US. Copyright Mtn* 17, of S Cods. - Rsndsrhp and floorpians aro artist's c.pt and may depict optiorn not Included In the bow price, and may vary In do from the actual plus and spsctfic agreed upon in writing by** buyer Lundgren Bros. Construction. Inc. - - - - - - - 1 'COLLECTION , , r, ..:,.. ;b t ,,,, .*.. • i t,vi.',., 0 ,,,,,, . Ln 4,, -.:. 1k- f 1:w .ztP. ' ■A-240,4` ,. :AO. 7, . . , (D , . .. ... 0 0 . f .ir .. ;., . Z C9 Ikl.1/4 ` C1C " 7 " i .7t: % • A .;.ze i..., •:.. , r.0,t1.4r ., .°. 1110 j3-,A; ..14 " -4 • . - ... • . 1.•'1 4•01? sit'P "A 4:r si% • (-9 . • .... , . . 4. fa: , :.:,;10_,,4 ,." . 4 - 1- . 4.'• = 4 °- ''''... 7:1 . .... ;4-'1... .,, I- •,' k■tre,-.-g .t. et - , ,,: . , 'I; tc--.• ,.. .." irijo":41 *:,, li qk9v ,/ ,07.7Z-"a•-,;-.„--;:`•-__, , ,,i .0.. . -,•-. , ' ,p % ilk , *4 " t.,,Siii:Lek — e ■' ,,, i iii I ■ i i i iigkiTeteektle3,;11."'"■■■•—,..AV'txklt."274:-.,V----,-,1-.----S::-=-__. III 0 ---- ‘„_71‘. " ,",:,'..:. .,/ 41111:1,111 i ;11■111fiMS:11..ratsrt.,„„....-'41:,....Z----,„,,..ZSILLit.*A-*-1---_, ilt.,,,A0c, ,sk. .k... • ,,,, 4:44,4v..: . • ,„,. - 40'40.: Fo e - , . .,, . 7-, 41.11:„10.00.15,.% i 1141, "..,1 tiPi A"-- - eg ''• 1 ".• A : .., ,, , ce , _, .i. ,,,,..,1 , I NI, 11 ;:,, 2 31: „,,,,,,1 :!!!!! ,,,, , • -------- :WI • •141r,-•-• . eP "..... '''''''i'll'''.:11iIIIIiiIIIIIIIIIIIIiiigi - - i. , ,i i. • , 22 . 1-11- alit , 11;;;;;i1 i i I 1 , • ,,,,,,,,,, r 4.4 ,..,....,y roet. .., n , t c II- 1 : , ,,, :: ,, 1::: ,,, 011..1 .• , ;,-, •,• ... .1._ : J ..I.A ... ..i' 4- '• . . ,. ,,,,,, i ,, 18: :::::: All 11 ;111 21 - • .3_- 1,,, E .;-_- r-illt4i 1--:F. 1 'A / 1 t : •: • ' -"-71 ' , # -%= • F.--T "'"' zz.----- V : 31:Iiiilik:Iiiiii t _________—___11 -44, e livgeare.;s:14:-A' ffi.-11-a•-.11 ::::: :::::: :::::::: w eirA--- N 7 .-----. 4 1 . 1 1 , 1 ,7,;;;- : _____,_„ : .-,ii. T ., ;? ,,. : —. 7 . ir 4 4 7:1 ,"•,,,lN :::. iii 1 , :::, , v; :: :::: !::::: :: :::::1::::: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .„ ::::::11 ,,,, ,.:,.;; ,,,,,, :::11: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;. ;;;., =PM 4_ I, ■ tirpl , Fii: '',"' • 0=000 • ::,,, 7;4 = 1 .4. 1 1 ;:;I: I j = !-, - = .-...- t .t . , ;,... • . ....,:: ;iliii :„1 —11 = .1 , ■,.. !Film oil a is El IE. ,,,,,,,,,,,, ..•• ..„ wee ..„ • IIIIIII IP IN MOM ■■■•! ,,,, ...'. ' 1 I i Ti = I • n. ill V -.. ,,■,..,...,...,.1 V. a c ,,, „;...._-' ....., .,..707i7- ..- L - . 4 '-.--!. gu-•:,,-4-.1- ‘ -., -4,--z-,,,,,-,- -... 1,,,,,..... S'iC illjnImia " pi ...„,, .1/4 --- --- i'' -1.0■101111.- _ _.... """'" _-_,...-----..§.....i......----- iiiiii., _-_ - . _. - .•-• . •• --,- ..1.1( -""' .----... 1 pow Beth 1 LAURELWOOD ..4t4C.'" ■ WM' f IMMO Master Bedroom 1K IIT •-•,- •-t • if 1,111111 ill • •••• • _, ...„.zf.. room 3 • • ...__._ • _ Bed Bedroom 2 • --,' • ."•• °Pea 70 I • -Wittg!;:, • -. iiaiiipa„,rtr , ___ - . :/4/- %‘ .- • -. 4.- ;1. - -..: 4 . . . • 1.-: ..V '. 1 • ...4... 1 __ SECOND FLOOR ---, opt oot i.sist.1 Fireplace I IP t.ebee a Nook 7_1 Family Room 1 11-- j Garage 1, • Kitchen 1 r- , 1 1 --I a' K , 1 _.. / 0 / / : i d AwrIIIIIll flinera _ i li111•10 Ali * IMP 111 1 W iling W Foyer LRievctinmg !rifS ve' 1 • •......_ 40.-A, -4 turiDGREn 1 63Ros..0 I N N S:RUCTION FIRST FLOOR 612/473 1231 1 . _ 1 4.... . OW ..j ■ 1 '." .1 , •- 1. . • . ..,. • . ... ... • ..... ' • : -. ' " K ,. .. .. - :•' i Z.. • - , '[ 7 1:-...:41: 1f:. . , - :73? '.....;.... • 4',. .. ir.. if. ...o..r • ::-. /,' .4 •:** . , ' :; ; T: . 1:74M. ,IVA.1 W.; ..* S ■ ..■' . -..... '. 1 P . • _ AIM .,....._ ... 'DOL. 4......; 4= lt:_!.7,FAVA • ....- •'- .........--.'.-..- ... -ei rt .... 4 24. .., ---.-:--- ,--"" ...1? . • • . _ .„...----........."`.A.V*. ...,_ „ r o . ----.. ,- .. ---.11.16----- ,--, .,........, --_,-... ,,...„...,.„,..- . ' 74111... - AN • ,_ - •0 - , - 1 I I I , --- 7, -- -9 -- .- , ..■ M! F.A:=Ac.." - 1,,V . - . :I . - •••t: ,..-- = : Li. Lt. _.....-_,:, := ... =: .... 7; ... am 14 j - • • - ___='7 = :Mgt - - - - _ ,_,- ;•,,:„. ,• e.•• LAURELWOO DI 4-9s4ii.zr- - n -t- fyr--- - > -- _____ -_:,.---_=---- --' R.......ia 1 :::„E ir • =1,.. IMO = ' --■ Optional Elevations • , - g = --I ;'-: i til •••. I .1 '1 1 I-- AN N. - --- - I =I 0 — tl--- , - 't , -..-:IL I w...1.__.4.1.1.0•1 ......-.--._ = C .. :1% L 0, E.:- fTFP - -,-1- —' I . f . iiiiin. tii4UN41•11■1•111■1 •IE. - —1 1= ,- -----.147 ..,,,_-_- • IT: --- -- ---• agriottlel —...... . ••••.. 1...-- _.........-■.----- es••••-• v.........., 1 • • V r - • •, ' - - •41( 14 .-. .k '' _ . . ••------ • - -•'•)r 14.if. • ., i . 4•• ' .- -- -- -•- hr----7 --- ' ic• '":-.4-0-'.. • .C4.7•••:11 .. . -.........-.....--..- • • r 7 ...1: . _.=a.----ur=-..--=-,,,- _-.. . ....4_4x, • • . ::, r'alg ... - ..*C .._ ...■......................„...Air.......-....-............. .,,-,, • --V .t ' o rt::•^' - , vt t.+3 O .S " -• ' •'-- „------,.......--=. ----- - •-t- ..4-- A W-: / , Iffl UM ..„.-%'” ..■-■.'". I , . ..41I4V-.......:(•., . • • .70, - .5 ... 2 .-tr A1 11 - L--- ,, , g21-7:47,, .-. ,z- _ - = -- ,;„.1 a Ilia , 5, ail - :_t•3_ :: -...-- .1-- -1.- - -_— -----,- —__:.-- —'-' ill - - --i- •.T5 - ,----- " ea — ----------- r . (M . 1111 • • _ 1 SIP ' . ' ' ' ---■ ...S-. - ! ,isj -71 ..., :.. . A,.. =..,....—.. , , ,, -.. ... ....s.. ,„ 4 P14•F•IJII•I , IN4 —_ ,;, a& I - - - ., 1 1 • .! _. i___ Potwo.1■1_4_2•1 ,-------' ., ! I .."-. ' ' = ..1 116 ., 11*-w _ -............. • -----....p.._ .r___.. -- -or • — _ ..___ ..._....„.... I . _ LunDoRenji ... ... .` .; f?.4 • e if . • ..Ft‘f La • A - 7 ` '-' • -.'s G 11 OS --- - - 1.- - . .... • .".. Z.. X. --. ' ...1,:,--..ti.. - .....v....,• P. • •••;..• :-:--i. ..... -t41. ; ,....4x..... • : -- . ....friF, - • 4. Blvd. ---r-• .. .• _... ....--I,.. .4,..,.- . 935 East Wayzata B -- , ---"--------- ... "... "s*"• •• ..-- - _ ____,----- --.1 Wayzata, MN 55391 ...„,.. _ _ _.-......... __ ...741.7- ''''S-----i------_,i?7.-is...• . - 612/473 1231 I '''& ..•••• -- - 4-vio•TI•e-: , " - .; '.--. •:: -- "'"'Z'' , .. . ,,_ -.. .,,,,,.... 1 ,---1-_-zz_.-e:: i' ti - - je , : : . , : - :_ " _ ------- --- - f - - - -ii't.: q i min t Builder ID* 0001413 1 I N --- ---- ---........ .; .14 na3 - -_--, - , - - : -7, - ;:7---_-_ - : - Z - 7..--rip r:r-,..%-,. Cr p • ._ z _--...?___„ , ___.....--- . : - ... - . .L--__ ....___,___,.....___ ,..,.., -... .• ----- z-L --- _ --- ------- - - --------- :------ la .-:----- . la= " i ---..- ■•.. .. •.". — •:- _ , _ ........ ■ • 27 -..___ 1,17ffli, . „... Ill ....", . ---. E I 1 L 7 : 7 ...-. ' I .._.....- 11651I1 . • . Ctopyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. 0,____ , :Al I - ---- 1=- -_- .i. Construction, inc. Unauthorized use ot fhb design Is a '-----_ 11•111111•1 - ,'" 4rie • -_-_ ___ I-- 1 —11--i 1 s c. , - , - ,z-.-. -_ - = _ , 64416taiimeldWealitualot d I = I .1 :: + , aline U.S. C.opyrlattt Act, Nis 17, at S .11_,. _ v..... .... m..._ _,.. — - ._-■-■ Code. z7 ,e," -----■-- ...„.. --- ---- - 1:tercterhp and tiootplare are WM* coat and may depict optiore not in** base price, and may V� y h - • from the actual plow and tpearcallons agreed on in wilting by Me buyer crtd Uncigren Bro. Conaruction, Inc. I I COLLECTION , 0 . • -;* ,....°' -'-‘-', •At4 , - , : 1 ;:' , .:- 4 f - : tc_a,,,°,P 5 . .1 . ;6 . .1 I. ••.. • -1 A1•Atlia•Vg.ji.t2r•1\11r. 'V 0 11 - '!" 5..„,er . .4,- , Irt- 1-14--v• , "I c4 • - 0.•M•tri44Y. • . • i'lZelit.•■• II z 0 4. 41/NZV44148/%Ar....,1 , 74 ,.. i . ge . ...., •••• .■;:te.77'15_9"•Afs? ..f.V.P. C'' 3 • .. %.afi41:;%;f;.;::•k^a..„'gTreV:4•1.VtC'e ■ • 4 i" 14 , .. - 1,-1,011:•,-, 'L: • .). 16 :',4z•-•"- -- • ; . - - :-*-4 ..- • I df., i , ,it • • L. 1 C3 4.6.- .. c , -,... - .„).‘ '-' 4 •11` ' 1 i • ,,,,,, -••-•,..;* ..;,..44....___."2.•■•• .... ' - A . 1P11 i 'i.V , 41 4. • V . • • ' •• ...."...0., ./.,,, .,„ _...........7.........m....,444 ,••••••' ..... -.a •, ' - . ...... ,,,,,,,,, ..:.................... ,..-;;;;- ' ...:::i:: .. 0 ' - - _ • Avkt. i,,,I;T .:.._••■••-zzr..,--,...:.--...Lt.. ,..,f1 iF..,=1.1_,...---..,„...,._,z.t...7-4..?,....,---.‘'17..-....,-,.:.,„.:-Fg,-....-i-,...../:;,0,.....„,......., .._-_—.„.=--,--....4-2 -- ,',...„..-...'--- ,. . i _"7" . .. ,:,. .. ,. ... a ce -. _ .... i 1- 1 ;:.::. --7.-------.- 1 , ;,..:::0 ---..n...-----0-- - .... :::: 11. -- 11 ,t .,., .............,...,,..,1.,_____=,........z.e.............. ; ..,..:..;1 trz. _.%..:: = ... . ...1 'w.•-x i Mr"... • - - • :"." ;-,:*., .':-.• i ,,,,Zrz .•:::: i ='. 1; 1!, I , i. ;;?,,i,1,.., .......f....„.......7.4.-::_,.......1.-A...:1:17.1, ii: i:: 1 = - : i; :':,,..■• ill mm w pm ii miii..... — .—-- 1 r......—.-- -------. :.-_--- — — — — _ ___ .. : - ,i, • , 4. 1 ,: i i 1- — ;1 ; 0 -- 1 _7 1, , ... ::4171..„...,... 1 . :,-.....,.. :Iir.... , -- , 1 :v „„„„ .....,„„,„„,„„........1 1 -._:„:::,.. =,..,A1.,-1,=_- , itLq -- .:- -- ...••••":.=":::•“.." • " , 111 1111 1 , = , 1 im I , - rt - ::::,%.., ,' • . 10 ;7 :: = EiiiElif 111 1 :■' .." ::, 1 = I._ Fill . 111141 . 111 1 111 .1 -,:i A .0 , ---:: ::;:=r4.7 ... ,,,.., — 74 = - - ,. _ - . — 111 --,-- -- — -- .— / V L a. _ ... ..........., . . w - ... .„, .,. , ir... . .......1,_ ...- _ 1 _ _ — IIMMOMPei ELAIA 1 I W Rath 1 EVERGREEN AT opt veuit - 0 - - - - -- 1 r::p0t1)=1 Oirui To I Three Bedroom _ °ki Master m .... ril Family Room r' Bedroom ii2 I 1 ikyth A , .._; 1 ' -- ), , ,c , ,,,fi.:?, .1•11 WI 71111h• • --- %wpm- -wwwwwww 1 .4\1 ...,... ....„ ,_,..., -...... Open To Living : R oom i.e. Aa Foyer ._,....... Mill_lo -ash I A',tgegir Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2 -Allk IMP - SECOND FLOOR 1 — Opt il i Teeple 1 Dining ,...,, Kitchen ■ 1 :- 4 ES Dinette 1 , Family A 1 1 Room too* 1 i 1 1 .... , 1 MU zei m g/ Ell •, A i-- a N ...-- ' p. . tiTIM, 1# 11 , 13o #•,..firr Is 0! ...... ..... I Living Room "•■• 1=1 -...‘•-•• m..-,..; MIR. ....... ■I■1•• ■111•• Z17: Foyer ...., _ A _ICA Gann. :..... limil ... ._ r • -- i 1 msaseseii , i 1 (i.unDGREn) lE , aROS-its.-"m" 1 612/4731231 FIRST FLOOR . .--- x_ y. Y- n om -• �` �• !- � `-- . f - x r+= � - te r � j � ' � 5 '� -`• (��� �„ EVERGREEN Wit _ - i.i,� � r — „ ■.• ; ; I � three Bedroom .. . .. _ - 1 11 1+ ,nits — = �1sl1mINTET��It[ ►•-- - • Optional 8e"°H°^s 1 1 ��_ - - ___ . ��� IMIM�l1 P•— , 1 1 C 4F 4 1 ` % t ... - ' _.�:__ /�.v� / , r ✓ , Qt III „, , --_-------_-_---=_%,_, -------- ---,-- . i ,/, 4., --___•1 - --7 • - "___:' -- 1.7IM = /.1 Effl __11 I _ • '�•�.7 T • • _ 1 ;Iii [ r 6 ' : 49 = 101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 _ ,, • a - _' - , se1seLlseLl•l•l�l 1 Ma il.- __!fit - 1 - 1 et-`44,W)T•• B ROS. UM DGROI A . . ket . . itk•r ... '',.*7 . -z -. . _ .4 . '” �j _ - • ' 935 East Wayzata Blvd. 1 ` • .-- -�--�— X- , -: �,.,, • , Wayzata, MN 55391 -<: , -- ;%` . ' e %,�/ -: fir. �„, • 612/4731231 A -- v <s - . 55 1 11 _ i : ' : 5 ' A _ "r. t. _ Builder IDt 0001413 .„-....,.........„., ' Y I =_ _ ��' '. I fir•' - I ■Iu•ul _�_ =� '_- , - F m m aZ � _ — =+ 1 1 CCopyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. it Construction, Inc. ' ii R" • i•' .�sI �I�T�7tl.; _ i, ns • • _ _ ' G I ''� —' / Unouttwrtred use of this design Y a - e* r 3 - _ - �. �iI�I�1�IoI���1� _ a -_11T" of the US. Copyright Act, Tele 17, or �- tix Cod.. v .. - r... f .....-s........ • Rendering and tborpiare an amt's and d may depict options not in the base prim and mo vary In de from the ootud plan and specifications agreed upon In writing by the buyer Lundgren Bra. Contructbn.•tnc. s 1<,- • \VC ••• I P - -• .0 l. •VT. • ...ea• 11174. :. ‘ - & OW -:• . 'f4t- X r ..* 'tf Ye CO LLECTION v.,,-. 0 , -;:::.;: 0,-;.;tr ,..-*--: ..%"••., '•' ,Apkt..«..: , ..4 .N.... y 7,11,W . • . ss' .e._ ,vit..."... , no 4/1 V. •••■/1;;;•P••• tet?te05 ;;....'iNni- Ak.A.1. J . ,4r1100161,1, 1 4et• r r t% fol••,,, 4 4-, •'.. 7 '1. • 0 . . Z * .N.Te..` • 4•,* - 4 - 4!•:,1,01:4'i."•••■• • R•t- •,,, " ,10..Z. c, ,, ..•:'•. :. ,... _ . ..., r i ■n •IAS . ''.- ' ' • ...- • • - • • ."•••• •• • -.., • `.:•" •• 0 t.-3-4-1 .,..t.:1., --. •-• ...1. ., .• .( 4 lg .** ■•;" " -* • - SS CA .-. ,1 - A., 4 s t-f,V, pt ,, -,:-. ' . • :•: :W. 4,14.4.).r.A. . .0 ,4.),:ti:: •.:• ••• ', '. :- 0, , ,, I :;-7--...,.:::=7:17;--,..,....- ..„._111.___--,:-_,Taar.i.......--...._-,-...-...=v__,,==,„„..,...-:,1r.,„...._-11-1---;-:--z;i.:„.„-';'..:;:i.:- 7 .. --- ,,, , , , „ : 1 ::::,. : rii i :____ii;,:' . :____" 11--:!41 1 -- e r 4: :. : . , ,.....1„ ,, :- -,\,, ..*:.V.:.:*t,,,,45%,.;A-71 ;* .: ; 4:1 1 4 4 : ::. il..: 4; f 11 ;: : : : •?- .:;:h.*:, ; :. • - v 7 ,1•:; W. , • ._., -5-.-- - :..z.:P.;•0'..szf r . 0!. . .• , r .r..., N; o • .: ■-■,.., . ' _ ,--„, ,,!:. :: : : "" !Nil. " % ( .--- -. zr, -. 4 .-...---- 7. -. -_ .:-_-_-, - --. -.. r -_,.,,_,.._. ._ , . _ __ _ _ _ .. _ __IL & di ' ,A10. ,.......■■••■ - III a < - . J17. 7:::,..jp,...W..............,.-Ar--- '.--.---• C -/- .----"C ''''''''''.---'" \ 111 - _ ' , ,: i00, ;,17,...: ..._..........am.,........-z..........7 ,,_.... - \ - --;;c'e..74ir\%"-'1.14-44":.,44`."'s -=::::-.---L-.----,___....-----,;====;" • -- 1; - - - -- . --wx.rezot:P... .,.1,. ,......„ _ _______.--- ....„,,r_—____-_ _ . -.....*.......a....,. ... ill I-- k 4 4, 1 11--ift - f ri F:r4:0-.... 1 1 1 -.0 „ 1:;;, tail _u_ii_f_f E 1 e-;. =1 , .., ...,,...,..7.4" te ., , = latibi.h E. ,„ap = :: : • • = = .1, :: = - . ........ ....... ow , = , 1 , 4 , 11 , 44 , ---,---,-, .,, 1.=.0. = iii-,0 = — ;Aid = 1 -4 * *. Vii .... ciii,,13,1, — ... ,,, ...., -.. -- .-__ -, s - -.- --, :-. - -- - L._. - --F-_-„-=z...--mk= - -,---:-=-_.---,--_--:,--_--__----__ ■c,..•--„.-....,-------,,,,.. ---- - ------------ -- .. r '1 _...... .., ---- . ...- .001,„ 'it'' ::: - -..„ „... ............ ........ ..... ............... ................... . :.- _ .... li a 11 = " jr: --. - .4•1 MEI 013111111......411/11 q ,,,,,,, __ !. • 1 f'.11;) I 1 =lb I "II _ t.. 11.1.0. 1111 , .. . ,--, .-{.--,--•■• [ :a " I:" ' iir "1::13......." PII: Illi.11.1.1111111111111.1 till • --• 14- . •• 0 :011 .... , _.... . iiii i .,. ;:„....... .. -- - ..... N ....•••••"' ••■ N. , = i i ;4 - •11.111,1111 -^" I . 4 1 LIIIII11 11"1 r; i I 1 ii = '1:iil— = Islaisi•Ploweisi = 1` '--\...- .; .,.„.• •,4, - 4 -- - , , , A.,___ .:' 7 -,*ro -' - 'A , ■ .4 3- '-' ' -- 4 Itas - . - imilsoneweii4x. - TA,. - .44 , 0m...= -.----- .— lleiSkic, 0. A. __ _ ' • ' - ' . . — • -* . •2.L.::.!,11L-L .. - tc.... ---.. a...„—___-_- . _ • , 7- - „,, .- - • 11=110.....-...twor..elta. ,..................... ...e7,444■00 ., ...e.A V1.... 1°C..0 .4.......... 1 _ I 11 , .. Kitchen : igi; ;A : tuning ''' En 1 Dinette . Family Room EVERGREEN 111 Room de - eieL ,r ■ .. .,.. • %•.•.„„ . Four Bedroom • ..,..:. a A I _k_o _Al r; ,._ • ..... ,A , , . fr:!e.-s3--. ....... _, 4 .„. ........ A Livin g • (-'4•1 Room ... 1 ...... FIRST FLOOR I Foyer _,...... AI'll Garage • e 4 1 1 r 1 ____ 1 I .11.P.PP. WM - I . lath a 0 I III Master God room Almon O oz w To • 1111 & 0 trt EU. I 1 / = ■ IMININIA Ame*-04.14444.4-.2 • • .0 ■11.O.11.11.1.1PIPV I „.. Ow To == 1 Aff root a /11111_,„. NM In' ------ wim .-- Bedroom 3 1 . Ow- k .1■_„, r tunDGREll 31205."tx.RucT) SECOND FLOOR I 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 . 612/473 1231 °Copyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros, Construction, Inc. ei I Builder ID# 0001413 Urouthorlzod Loo of his assign Is a vhlatich of the U.S. Copyright Act, Title 17, ot the U.S Code. !pions are artist's concept and may depict options not included in the bate plc*, and rnay vary h de rxt fim ual pima and spocificalions agrood upon in witting by the buyer and Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. pm,60,nmer COLLECTION 1 -,,.. .., ..... .: . -. • ! 4 94,, °.-,:, ,_■1,_ ,ti..; in --- -24b 4 fir:V.W•i...%"4- ■•■•10 • 4= :". , -,7,,,,v z • • .. „ • . .-!. 4 • ...- si. •; . t • •• • -•= I o r,. ‘e__ : 4 : pv: 0 . • ..:„. ..,... c • . • • ..1-r - " "r - • -' (... -- - " ‘let k‘arr 4 ' _ -: < . . .... . ... . - =k-< - ,4„:"=" . - I „ - • . •■■ ./ 0 ■ _ iic r, til ..- 4 - ' ''' ._,,_.p•-.2417.449.4.,4b., A .c .1-;-,, .-' • ---: -11 1.e.oft 1 g--;.--'7,tia, ..•:4-":,- .... , 4. .,_......................=.. ... ••■••■•••• • II ...• . ."-allpg....■ ••- -,-, - . -.." . •=`....11:::■.•.-•-•-•"7.:0-VitZte•111.1", .1 ''.... a IFW - , ,v11,14..t.Virq,,;;Alf4114. • .." - "TEL ''''---' --- A -- .7. - 91: 7 =i 1 r .'".... ..17=rr...=trz.r . i....'ir!..4 0 ; ... "Tr '''' • 0 :. .i 0 ig 4 te•V,E4. 4 , 4. : . ' ••• 151' 7 = ; ' r...Trar.... 7; -; Z : A. Ili: ; i ,;:• 0 :.4.1* 4 A4 • # - : , . 1 -:“*. i t < ; i:ei;• & •'- '... '"-- .4 .1' . air .;- .-Satrz.- Alit T=S - : ; ,--*:' - . -z"-1.—..-zei - t 4 10. - .js.S - .k.. 4 - .. ,...f.''Ir.--..---- — 11Ir- ....ff r•-•_•-z_,.....-- ...or... ,4,40,,,, t , .• iikoo 4 .._,.. • ..... ,...„..,. _, • ,..., ../r. ....: I 0 I li V / ■ . ,....... , ,,,......., .■■■•■••■■■•=::::=.0.,,....1.11•1........ ' . .14: il:tiIl ti : 1 q:::, ....E f r - ' - " '.......'"".........Z■Z - ----"""lir..t...'*:*. ., „,S;.....17 •M::;/ 11 ...t...... '...........- , ..if fr121.rn ---- --..... I - - 1 J r=1' I all , 9;13 I ' - ' "''' . ' .ild=='.. '47 CIL" : ■■••...•-■ . ?J''''''''' :::: .. I■irs . :::::4IEI . 11f i, I ..:4n ...„,..:4%.......,...zt.., ,,, .... ,,. ____,= Hi __,..= , _ . _ ,...,,..,_, r . ',:: "i7f. 0 0! 01 .i:::n.(,--_.. ___ [rill E .,....1,-: 1 ri -,- 1,1401 -_-, Mg! , 4 1 1 ...,, ...... 0 0!,;1,13, ,,, ... - "'" `;,.., `..,•■• II i i s= , , III q_== Aw , ' ,, 1 . „ 0,161 . ':;•.. "....V - ' ,-....•■••-'-- ......,_ 4114 """ .-7:::- " = " 411 " 1 " , .. 41 /1MINNIMIIMIIIIMIIIMIIIMIIME1110. , .■414;:.• r; .',::: nimm ----...-•-•••••■..•••.••••••••••■ ;111;:%:.... ;:....•:,,- .. . • Fig n.„1„„•!:11■■■■■■■■■■■■■=r-r—"=.- 0000 ---- ar — ILI' ''' ...: • - 71 = . = ■.I 7 ■ i .1w 1..q......111.1 A , I , .1., =■•■.. , a s _ 1 ,i .,....= , 1.. • ,.■■• "•.,..... ' :::: • . 1-1 7. MI:" 2,'!::::1:::=::::: 7441 2 =;1 F -R7 1 1 1 IF _ = = ‘,.„..,.......,.. hal E ••••• : . • 1 ......1•=:.-• 11 i_ull... - I.== fraSt ii 0000000 MI it ';',1::' - - , ;iiii■Viiiiiii: Il f= ' j, , 'I zr:vzi-f-ilyiri511--2= r . .- • 1 __17.. . ._.......: mairmi :: ..:_.. 1 ,.. .._ / .., r . ..., ..,:t... ....L.,..,.._ .. i„,5 ow. ,,I,.... ---- e-- • • • -ammo, •°.. .kiihr......s . v.. Itt.....• - a . • . • t --- AY" .......• -- '5....11.- 0 • . _•-•.- ___—_-..., im 111101100 7 irl■ , Bedroom 4 Beth II V IA !g KAI. ILA. DEERFIELD nik 1%0 E i 4 DI "; if • &lin Illik mo -,.......... ■ .11 • .-..,...... iiir ....... ...... -. ......., ..•... 1 - 4 ...... I° 1....1 10 Master Bedroom 2 Bedroom open .1. Fop!' I 4 1 0 , 1 .k .1011/ I r _ I k -••••i• WO — _____ ,or,■ TrAc ....■ Opt SECOND FLOOR I .0 Kitchen Dinette Fireman 0 ES Family Room 5 1 it 1 " I! le II. III .11.._ .3101 ...spi. 1 41 Both hi =MOM MITII ..-'..' Living Room Dining .... Room — ihmemim .— Garage 4 04 6 . r- OD- lir I limilill g lA r * I LunDoRcn B R OS Cr ST R WI I 0 N ( - ' . 1 612/473 1231 FIRST FLOOR _iv,4, __Innel jit_____________.:....._., .____,_rik__. =.4,\\N.- in.2,:i.::.:414444::._,..":.____,:7. icr.:11:..,-,-.;;I:i.7:1..;...7=.7'..:-::":....?""::. 1 •• .. II _,, - -IL" l't-... • • , r• -• ..Co ,:•- - ' - v- •-c ',-•-:ri. 4.t 14 • f . -..:.'i • .,-;.• .■ 2. i... - : , ..• -.--: . 1 - 42 s - !... , 11-.%V..* ., • — i:•-t :. - 7 - t. -• ' - . --`r - :: Pt ."-f '-'• 2;:ittl;;;Vi 1 ''' - 't s- • • --- — — Ll — - — =- - Z - - -- --7 ...4.: ,;:,, " V ::::•■• - I . . ' : ,•• f .4 - - --• _ .. ._ .._. -- t - ,.., 1 2V. - ',';, , Wert- .3 - _Irt•iti,.1, - . ---. .__..T..-----....m-:_--__ ___z_-_-_ •:.-..;f4-: ;;;4-4.1,F,A1,....,,11 1 - L . -_—• _ ----. -- — -. '..e.:.-4-st.-.1-4i- - •- •. , : - .*-4 - .;-"" =_.,„,... T. .- 74A1111111, --- . . =-. -. -_ i.,..01,1.: -"."-.- - 11 tv.quiflii — •vhollsish =.'-' ,.- i l •• alli.M•11111111M 1 C . 4 i L . DEERFIELD Optional Bavarians 1 . ;' irT 91-._ r„...,,,., „........,.,, , -,„,...:._,..,-.:: 0 . .= ... -. 1 , i .1: 1000.-Nowd „-, ; ,- .0: „ .4 , . -- ..._. -,..... _ • ----- - • -_ ...........i...... , -• ...,-z.-_ . _ _ . 1 --d---I-------:-,-- - _,.._ 111 ....„ ..,_ ,,, ,,,..•. 11/4- AD , I.,.',... - C - '.. Mg•r. :.,:lri. ■-+-- .. - .. - - ' •”' c law:. ..0 f , a ac ., ., . - : _ -... -!:"- ..? --'d-+•'' • 1 a t •" 2: -%.'•,4-7;` -' - 7,.. .L , e • - ' 1,41110 - _ • •.,.......1,461 gr.. .0 . . ..'1.4'.• V' . 41%4Z,S - ■ .4 .:...' ••5 ... . • . - ..1.11.• .4 • 'if .1. - .. • - .,••• , - • _. - .VO , _ --:.-A.:7'. .-_-.A.1-144,7 .:.: 4,:c-.0y.,...:, , ......•„. -.„ ,,- . • , -____•____,-:-•=____------------ -______ _,____=_,_", • .‹..:*-1, ••••..11"'"'"' •. ., ,..._=_. _. ,- ._-.---__..-- __—_-_---•_:..----_---. -..----------=/ ` I 47 wk,i, i • . . •••• ''' • ,- •" .:1 lr's• '.-----•••••—• -•-• -. ' ._...-- ..---......., ,....=, ,,,,;.,.,:: ‘ ... , 1 1 - -----'--------' - ...."."—. --.-.-.—•.-X;- .41=1111■ % 4."''''.4:::, . • . -:---------.... =...• ,V 11;: , ....'2 1 `.,, ---..---. - -...r.„_•_ . -- ---- :" -- --- ..---..----'. .1 • F 2 .IEL15 = :4.,"'7, • ' _ I -----.----- --.„ Mir -___- lgig; :.=_...--__ j 4 , - ..... — ._________—__..----- —. _------- = •....,__, .... e, . . -...,,,.. -- '' II isilleielmaierisariel 7 IPPI!ff 711= — p M _-- ;.---- - l'Ar ..1.:__ . • • I s = ii villelellsilielmilleil siii•Is_warim-- ' • -=:_......____.,0___v--- am __ caud.ii,„,_ ti ,„,...... , ._.ff,..,,- - ---.5m.....,...........■ ..T -• , 1 ' it _ --.....1 _-............, ummonneumn............................ . _ 1 -mmisme.......___ . ( . _-._.....,,......... -_—____ •• ...........A....... .......-• • -':*. . • 1 W f• 0: - ---- ' ilDGREO G 7 • :.. :::',-- *- , - • ...74. -.4-• .--•., te .., ,. , ...: .: . . . -,..-- .. --.. . • .., . e'r:,....z, .. „ ;. . ..... ....J : 935 East Wayzata Blvd. 46-,...,-,. :. „. : - - " _ ... .2:911ft.'t_ :,.1.- ... t '5' ... .- • :•1;': t ..-- -- ----11111111111 .. --; I 404 • = Wayzata, MN 55391 __.— - • ---- "..._ - 1. .„ 7 ' -- •• ..---:--- -- -:- . .....44. 4 -..1 41 X - t* i: .,'.',:-..'...".. ,, ...--__, ..._ ---zr------;1 r- - - —k -- - - - - ---v- • -" ', • , -- -r.. a z. .1.-, I .- . • 612/473 1231 _ AS . :a Aes - woriCr•-„:"1-„,, -----___ _ „.. - Builder 1D# 0001413 Cr I _ _ ,\.. torn F--,-,..;.:74 - " \ ------=:"-----. -'. ". - ---- ,htritti _== -------- _ . . - . . f - 1., —:------------c_ • ----- I. '[. • ' = 1 l f ..! aid.11.111111.1111111111111111 M' ! — t - Ilin0 E : t: C- PIM OCopyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. - * = /11101 L___ . 7 1' I / 0 f r i. :r i turd _ 0 ,.. „_. . . Construction, Inc. - 1•101111IIHNI - - r.e•--- - - - . " = ------, ,-- .. . -- - — — ■■•serezmes------ - Unauthorized we of this design Is a vbiatior of the U.S. Copyitaht Act. 'the 17. or the U.S Code. _.... ...... „..,--=:........--sc - Renderhg cid floorplans aro crist's con- I . ti allot and may depict options not Included In the base price, and mai vary h detail from the actual ohm ard specifications • arid upon h votthg by** buyer and Lundgren Bros. Construetbn, he. 1 I COLLECTION r , C.) ' • ' 4 ,,' ..'•i- .„ 271V/... ,t. ;,Ikk mi •..,-.. -, S 1 11 • 401 ) .;24W Z .A.N. 0 . c se ' - `..-`1 • • Nt, ;', ,- ' 14 .4F- 4 1: 1 4tAth.tb• ,... ,• • — ,14•.'41; .lit".•- , 0 .- -Wks,■^V,Vik,1- . 3:7writytl, • • it ,,,,.,_s • -z -A . . 4.I.„7111.1- 4f..,. -OW .4-,=,;.:44,,,11 y.• Pii- .3-4 - ...•,, *:;;;.:4•41: • • ' - • A rr • •4••40141:. ' • \ -I. Ai: . ir Vs . 1 s x. _ . ' --. -' -- . . < L 0.7._ •..,...,.. .. ..y - iivia „ . .... ,, .... ...t.vipkz•liff.lit..f..7 .___ 1 ,-,--_--- „a5r....4,,,. ,',:',.......,„ -,..7. ce " 4•Ezgaii.13il'AT:tz,'" -;11 N`.- -:="-Ez:-..s7-a."-Et=" Arg:::,- :- .„ ■-'"-%..., ...,......:: x . , . ;:1" eekee- t ..., .1. • -, !...-N.- - .....,_----...__,....:,,■.-zz, , e- - 7. 1 .1 1 -'-z-s-t=z--1.7 ,",.":... . ----...........■' , ,-,......... „1.,: -%. '" : ""6 .9 1"'' .. "•' - ' ---- " 2 " -. ' . `" X,: '4:'■.,, ,,,,,,.... , , \:.. s .r 4 . ,,,, ;,,,' w a,;„...;.. - -V---- . " ::::;1; re....... „ .. ,----------. ,., 1 ■ , 4:4",/.1:11. '- '" : ::•:.r --- .,t 6- '=":' ----- -/ Z -z,Sir;zi,ii:1:1 1 _1_1_ _Ill =2, ::.1:21 i_l_i = ;i;A: 1 ," 4 " ' "'T ' 7:-.."1 " ."..-- • -•"--:-=----- " -- ". it: :1 = :i:ri ::1:::: .. :':''' 1 .. •- 4,44,4 ,1110.11i,r.., :11:7 .................'". 1.1 14.1 .iiit' ii 11 v. • . , cian 4 .... 0,101.1.1.1.1.1.1 !:,11,ik„,si,loull;:::::,..11.......7„,,‘;.;,:77—___=_ .,1 .:.i.-.:. .14-..„. ,-.... ..e ii,.-5.1L.-Joli :4 1,,i:ili..,n,i,::,i,a,:1,:„,...:,:.„,.,, . i 3:,;:.:.:,1„,.::: r i! r-7 ,44a. . . = .._. :,; 1 , , , r ,„ .. • -----, . ra I I 3 3.. , ' A-,1 ..!i!"ZiO,7.f=—,.1 ..-UtiOT:;___—___, ___ ----,4,- „.st. I. ..101•111111E111111111.1 ...-zt .:4* =7'4; . - -...;•.e.Ti, 1,_,,,,,,-_-_-:icrcri-,.:„.4.-_--..........iii i u..___......_, ......,,, „...40317- __--■...............................„,==.• 4 7 ' .4'.. ...,..... a 44 :,'-' •solibort . „ 1 IIE1I Fireplace Master Dining Bedroom 4 1 Great Room -- - - - - - oat va•te APPLEGATE MMIIII / a.— 1 ........,'•k '13pt - r....7.1 enil■-•-•,. -.1■.....f r II> i ilig 0 -.maw V / III V rl ,,,,, Kitchen 1 Foyer di '-‘, Arli,s ., 0 a a IR. 0 e F I 2 4 2tV l it ' '*4- 2111.21 ;nous ili 1 AIL , imi Bedroom 3 ...---.-= J Lott MAIN LEVEL 1 Garage r 1 1 1 ; • 1 ---- , id rjj 1 - ' H Opt ro...41,d Il Fireptocp. III im. LommiT OPt 1 I . I Crawl Space 0 01 : R.C. Area .I tl ---.--- _ MEP •f r------ - I , a-. I . .ff-' -=., , lir J, opt x'l s--i .. Bedroom . CO' • A e 41 • F-------i 6:..,:". :t- =.- • Opt . soh ,, IL , ••• —,-_--- :.ie.4..........C_ • , , V.04.7,2 be:43 a •C .."3-41, kr:, LOWER LEVEL I Unex. 2 •.7..t.:. • 4.- . i - ; .. tqfit:- :Ito:ea I (WriDGREFI _ BROSCONSTRIJCTION INC. 612/473 1231 1 L. g*:-.._:-'7,•tk,,O. .. fa ,. .. Tj e r-st• - -•:•:.. , li7 . - • `"' 1 • ''s .- - ` 4 ,.......-•-- - . - .. •••. ,, :-. . . 7 .'• . • ,...,74:.k...'g . 1 . •.:::'._ - ri_,...-...:kt..,,...:N---: - .. -. :-.=-:- t. 2 .:. ..;:.-.. . -..r. .1.2 , . ...• - 4_ -,••■• • - ‘I" ZA-JIL . -.• *.",- ,- ° -'--- -;-.•:0 .:- - ',_•:•-% -:-;.* ...1 .4...w..,._ , - 7,..!•:".-;5g1■91 - -.30/7.14*•,.. , • 0.7 -:. _______ — • :: -. - -.4,1: - ....,i - 4 •A.,*:::,i,•'.61 - -- 11.e. 1 ------ - r=- ------""; =•.. - ":,.: • - - Iv- ...• it , , ,__________—=--- -- -- --7,--_-..: --s_. -- , ._______. _-_____ _ „..x.-..._..„..----- APPLEGATE 1 i ; 4, ..-, .—.—a----.. _ - --.. . --- »--,--.. •= ,...t , - ... _....,...._, r Op ,..i_____..__. :t.l...,r_... -. . . ' I tional Bevations 97 gni - . -_,._......___....--- .■. 7. IW: lik , • - '••• 558! ; -= - - _ --- ---/ • 1 4 = _ i • ■•■ - 5 , = . _ ■-- 1 - i l l . it . MIMI in I I= P .1 I IM I I I 1. III I . I M , . - 1 -- .■T - . = .1 a a T ■1 . - . 1 : L.. .4.. L.-. ...... .. ......... .._. — ----7-1 . ....-.....■•••■•••••••.• .44 1•14• -1 77.41•, 44 , A . • . l -..• lt I PM I- _4 i , 1 _ i I I: . smitillw.--.. 1.1.11111110114 ..."; -.. . . , wiam n3 521 .-.-._ 111•1•4•1•1 11•1•41 4aL - 4 /4 -- V : Ii_ 74 ri; 11. +C=10-141e,"•:+ikTh'..5iie--.7•4*4-2,,&14 7.__.1.11U1 _ ,. ____ 1 .44 .4.•••—• _....-- - tir - , 7. etSM20•. ..■.. .. _ --......... -............._----•°•°•°•.•■••---- ° ...r.c.■•••••• °••••:••••■••■• a .......... 74.- °°•..... 1 „.,;-..... :: ' • ,4 . -.4,7 1 • - ..4. • %`:e "'=- :_ .7..$ 4 • • 2- q"; - 4 1r . • - - • °. . • j r . - .,...` t.. ' .., - .••. • ' ".. --_-.,...-- ,r,_••*,;. _.:.,. • .1_ : . ,:'=',.* ''.. riklick.t-,•, t . I ' . " na fig..4 -- -.=. 4 - irM ..° ' •_ti• - , , ,f. - • - .- -- -,--' ,...,..- • - .. - -1.- -• .... Yr. - 41 - ,. • r., . . 1-- ;i41,. f• -.e.4rie• _:; , r- ,P.0 .., :kic '.. (- :-.- -td ._ • _ ,, .......... __ ,.,...:4 '...: •'... . . ,..,...., . .". ..,.. ,...._. ...... • ,_ _ _ , - ii , , -- • .0 " 11' 1=11 . 1 . Ira= . —___ -.—.• , I • r %-. - - - - . . ". .-...; Itr,, Jr= • IMO ,.: :■ r ,.. -.;.... "'"'""'"' .. . ., _4: ___:. 7 ,,,,,,,.„,....„...„.„:.._, ,,__; L---- -- ' - ii-'...- 1 „..i.„..A.1/4___ , ___ -A----- ---,- --. ----- , ,..m.-04 Wilwell_WENT.10111 - .*!n • 7------_,,,, 'insimmommeh.- - - - • .. ....... ''‘'."-. ..... ......s■-■•■••0....... ...------...- .-.....................= 1 • pg, . , 7.* . . • d•• _sz. g .5'' - - • • .-f:. . rtunDGREn ....„:,...... •.....,„ Q3ROSmx.R.Gmoy • -...::f . •:•vt- - - • - -- - -.,.., __ ,, ,_.._ _ . s --,-;:,..,:-.:,- 2. .....:,_ _ , • :: ._:;-....... . _,. ----:- - -;-*.-'7.;P. , ,- .....• 935 East Wayzata Blvd. .. IP - 1 , Z.*:.s.r,:e - I 6,ir ' •-lit_ _ft 4- ..----....., "■%. ----,,,,,-_-, I-, .1_' -,01 -er ..„./. '-,...•:mr! .•,....._..,, -_,....- -.. : ‘...„.... • .... _.. ......;::: „.. :-:7.0- .•-• . • --=- ".:::- .•47-.•-• - ----,..----:---/- , r.c..7..•,-:::: , ...• • . 3. - Wayzata. MN 55391 612/473 1231 - r. / -='-• .7.. .---:-..—_. -- z -- - --- -,-,=.. - -N,. - -r-- -- 7 - . a- - - - -_-:_-_,.. ..-.F- V,I- %- - . It —..... _ _...--_-_-=-_-_-.. ____..-z-„---_,......, -- - •11 Builder ID, 0001413 1 . A . ,...„..,,, = M M _.M .-,-..•-• 1331 ___._ — . _ - , .---.....--- -- .- - ---,.r - ---- - ,.._., A i i .n. ..„....... . =.. - , t„ ...., .. am, = : 37,-........,:_- .—___„..._.= --az-___ - , . — 7------.----- - --.4. ••• • 1 Cr • ." -• ' --- - -- - ' n;i = -•• I ll a 000000 :: . •-- _ -- — • ..-=--__. --. 1 il ---•---- 11111114111•1•1•1•1•1141 1 'V • °Copyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. I - ' - _ ...•. ---........= illl 1 1 1 5 I - — is.-ss — =1•11.1•1-.1 -- - . m 't- x Construction. Inc. =7;;" _ ,, ___ K - - , • -•",- . ,; • . = -----„,.., ...14141•1•1•111_11/1111111.161,ft.i— ---- — --- - ----?--•-•;r------4 Unauthorised use ot this design It a violatio of the US. Copyright Act, Vie 17, of the US /....1.-,==..... -,-, • _ " AMAlogut 6 ,..,,,,,.."..._....................„,„. •ce• • i • 1 f) Rendering arid Boors:eons are crests con- cept and may depict options not included base price, and may vary in detail from the octuol plans nd speacations 111 agreed upon h writing by the boor and Lundgren Bros. Construction. Inc. • -......... — COLLECTION 1 , .„ . ° • • • . v. i / .a ....1..., . ..tvc...V 4 .- t • ■° ,... .;•..! 1 41.• .4 .r.t.; s ...11 ,,,, $-0 i .'..*I. VII .,r_...t1 i . Z - .1t Es ds•i ° ;i"..20 - . I P' 1".S 74.• .,‘ 4......„ 0 - :,•• el ' • 0 , . +...'• *f • 1 ::._. '.1 °X- aflt!•Vir'..4 ID 1, , ' :,,,' '' - --• ' - / ' 1 • 1 •°,' - ... , /4•7 .. 0 73 0 ,* ...7". / 4.4•= ='--- .......! ...4,woc. .4 .4r. ' . , .. • ^ I *: • lc ! . 7. k !' i 0.0 e.1-1: \,... tit 4. 0 A - L) .,. ... .. „e,• _E- :41•.' '. " , . ... •.,, 3 ,. fli't•-cvf - 41 -41..:..js-..:.. ,_ A pr :: Ili. -.1:••■••1•1:72 =.' iP < fliP.t t•S Vf. _1;4% .E..,11:1-,-°44.:• i 4.. • r .2 -____."-,--s---4.r i . .......... 1 .,. „ Aril ' '' ' e•-= '= -=----10- --" 7--4 7 441 fr-r.or'- - .11::= -&1!IIIIIIIi,',..1:Xle-',A1/741;-)Prse e -• ii:• --- pl ;- -47,1 ,i;Il -.1.° ,,:■ . c4 - ti:e ..."' .-. =- -- -:" ; -griz.tr:=•••tr.,-.4: kliERRENNBI&IZI:i ' 1; -- ••••= - 71a - z=-= , ---_-..... 1.2,, ,Ar.. ,..r.z.2M ,..,,, w ,,.:4.4 k . ,,..'•iitz,_ ak ..4 ,A, -. --.z---,,-_'''s-''---S-r:,._"---,L,-,_,___.,IZP.JWS=r"'r----- ,..... --- ■ ....... iiiii:II „ 4:;' "1 ....c..- • .. A.O. 1 1- : ••1:II:: ::::: zz.4.,..S-...it-.-.,==-1-----=',.--'' c iinii:Fiv = r 1 i 1 =-_. ....4perf -.A.:_ ,,,,.:-..- :. 6... ....._„N„,......_ ,,,,.,;.. =‘,.-. i; , . -:...-7.-....-t---i.v..stak-t. oltik ...—_—... r. 1 = _,., LI ...._.--.... it ..r.w4 .1..A------------.11:11:ii,„ -.:.,,__ ii ,... -. ....._„...... ....„ . ,-, . --.1:1111::„ - .z.i.q=..:..:xst ,-- xszs?-.- , _,.-==.._-----... - -,i. - -.:::-.4..,........ s i 1 ri ..... ................._,...,........_.___,....___,_ _ ......_...., ' ."....".........,-__,._,..— --=.... , '•-,- „ ... 71 ..... --' = ■■.". ...- I 11Eu' iii I 11 X 1,!It = ■• ^4.ild .. • ' 1•1•11 • Oftrialaralill " = a: = .I.! ..----- .11 = - :'9= =------- • - , I , - . i 1•1616 = i51 ;d u rg 114 , - , :,: , ri ,..„ ....D... ,___,:„.,.„......,,, ..,„....„...,,Afert.'"-"—::.--- ;, - °, ....... 05, .......a ----.■ ii•ilmoram.1 ,....6-. _,..........- .—„-_, ,„„.-_,_ - _ ,,,,, _!!!!r A t i el..-, „ -- -..,_,Prc .,.....„ _..... ...L... .a— _........,-, . 4....... 4 0.%/14.1.... , ,Mut .5,:4 olltRai • • nt " *" " L '" °S VW` °N,' 4. ---..... ---.. e.• ..m..m.--..--..............._„..... -.. -- a -- r \ _ 1 opt. Dinette r'' ' a 1 4 Dining Fireplace .1 Room all FRoom Kitchen 1 om ity II 1 .-.".,. ,Z.... J2111 AMBERWOOD ...114. =NM • VrAiliM 1 Main ■. ....11110 or.■ ' ' I WIPPIPP r.r Living Room ■ .,, w... J... J =:: Foyer Villii ir i _ ■ _ ' li _ 1 _, opt of& _ , i 1 .0.9. , -, , . , , _ , , . mme I ecpp 0 Walk t., 5 eath I Bedroom 4 CI io n Go I JIL g m,. ,--' 1 FIRST FLOOR diem my ..... Immi ° IP - trt Vault ,■•■ ■...... Z ...666 • Master 11 Bedroom 3 = Begr 1 2 Bedroom e 11 111 Sitting Am° ..- AVIIP 1 ' lielP 11111111111111111 1 Ili Ara ) I ' 1 1 .1 , 1 11 41111111 \ ....■ 0 . 7 .1414 4 1 1 GoRose- SECOND FLOOR INC 1 612/473 1231 • 1 :_ • , 4 .- • ci - '4 - . 41 -` " - - ' II e _ ---.".,L,.-.. ' - r si:i. - :'s:r,34,_ ; :-!( • & • i '•-• 4 4 /1S . • ..., ,,!„ 4 ., ■iali.:, Z • • . a - -.I •••••••• . ..■.... - -• -.- e t 1/4 . 4i,• . Wr:t v----• s , a-i — '' -4 • - 4sr- , :, - .:-..- -.--- •?,*_ : 1 .n_'..--1,--::-...-AT ''' • • "'"-zt-----=-L---g------- .0--4,:-L.......-...,..--...,-,--4---,4,A.--s4its?.., k-,--,,,-- - •....-y.i.Toc-.741p." T... „.,. . 4., _ --•:---.. - -1.---,-1•. -. ... • - - --Ass, ,, .'".1 - iiX 1.- ' - -•- -,', ■••••-•!..-,;, biii 1 - lai , r ,...?..„ . -,.._..,k .. iv =.• ..",,, , Trjo - — assainsu4u — ' ; - • - - i' iel:Fp• ....tr. -,=--,....• ,,,„ . AMBERWOOD 9 9 _m;., I ---- T-- il Fr — • • 6 .i ... ..- ..= ''......._. ' 100ill It }ANA 7 • ., 4., -t ; 11 .0 11 1. 1 1.1 1 .1 111 1 11 11 111 1 '' • • - t I 1 OM -,... . ... i _ ... . Optional Bevations ,-- IR .— .h .f-is ' .. cl - iimmilmilowaimi r_m arg - 0 ' --/- I .. • 1411 E 1 = '.----',„_. _ , ....-.-... 7-, (%- w_Z1r_ . ' • •••••■==='" - . 161.111.1.1111111.1.1 -C2-"- --- ---■111**- - .-i/MMENEMEN. .--=-_-_-). ■ ....ar.„,. — '.-- ZEt.■:■: ' ' .1 M.1.11.... - 1 1 - • . li •:. a. . .y.,.. . • -anc-i .Airr '-"k r6SAV F ". t. ,,, .::_: ...4•1 . - - • .r ... ...‘. • -71"... J.; 4 4'1"-lii• —j'-' 1.. . !1-'..1 * -. ,.. .. - . _-...:■44 . . - 4. ;, ! - - - - ".,•:.- - _.... --' - • .. F• v. ,,A... ...,„,..% - - .11: I • ...•41-!". Affsr "ii .t:'•.` - .*-: -.4.* .. '-1"P'.....' PI' .:1',...%! it:Or:x:11w' 4 ., - ; . :::1,, • ,,. ___--:-._. __../A,t,..14: - -,-.=•-. - = - .7 - _ - - = -P =2 . --- - - -,.:." - - - - -- '41 , ; , %.;74...h ,. ' 40 -. - .1% '4 ' • - : - - - _ - ' - '.z.,- ----- -7;_;X - -:,:_-_-.1. - - - 7-__-_, ...-:.,`■' .,, : .1,44 '•' „." ir) 'Ittl:',* ,,.r_d.we -..•L=...=-' - N. 1 .,-03AW:.*-#17,4-22g-k::: ..;---17-:,----=',10;,:,'•-•;:7-ric--,,..,m-ii_HT.,;,:.,=, .1.,.,, - . '''''.' 1-;17-r- Le -1. 10:41 -4 44ifi1 ' 7,.... ' _.,1 - al L.,....- Al=i ' " ' s ' • -- -=-1 3--- r-L 7 --- -- -=1.-- ------- --. ..1%.... _-.- ...„-:,Th■„1 r., e - F,--_-.F.i.s.1 Liwiffi LM -.... I ' ' MI .-: 114-....f----- HEM I ..._r-7---"--,,, 1 -----e ,.--;.;,.4. -. E .1.1 I NI 1 I II 101 li I I 1 ! II . ; .■...• ,.. . ____ _ I , 1 . • ...• MbillICOAltike k---, - ---- 'q — 1 --- s-, -4 :.q1• 1 1/1•1 1 0•11•11•11 = -110r4 -777 erill '--------.•=cac- ---;:.• - ....-- p -- --- , - -___.--...■,-......:,,....--• _ - _ ;7 , -----------."'"1"•-•------=',, ' 7'.' 1 _ ... . • (LunDouri .......) BROS. •c .• . ..• o f . Ato .. .' ete es - - fob I. 1c sT* ... INC 4 --e4.3 ..,..:- .- 1 - %„4- , . ,- ..-*4.4,sx . :-:_ , f, - if.r , c- , ... - -V c--- -_- — --, 'Itfr -- -::-. ,-.. .0r-a - F. . - -7 -'-'- ...... \II er-I • ._, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 - -!Le s - -.' ,.-• -- =•.-0. --•'... .1..; = - .=-, - - . -. - -1:1-- ..."-- -4 o.7.t..,- ; -4- ., - f . • _ _-----.--____- - '- ‘:-_..=c1; * • ...••••■.- ------•--- --,--' 4.-.....7, 612/473 1231 I , k- . ,(P . O.tc,, -: 1 4 W - ..-.. - ' .'.....=..,.■. .......".""'" ....-".. ■.. - -- ... ____:-.ar --- g. ... Ne- Buitler ID, 0001413 ''. Bs /.1 • - 1' .. A. ...-- - --- _, - - -- - 4-2-...' - .:,.. _,- s- N.,_ - I I , ellffillif7, . . .------ = ;.4115 • I ' I • . • • . F- =t - - - C:r , _-,,,,,,,..„4„._...,......,,- ..:-,••■■•'.1 - 1 t. ... -•=?.- — I —4 ..-- , 1=1 E. -- --- I . V. °Copyright 1993 by Lundgren ards• 1 7 I in........---- ..... - -it:6 1 Construction, Inc. co ---=, . 1 of - • t .1-- ; 1010114.111 : j 1111 nii == • Holm I - ' ' Unaultiortmclus• of thi design Is a vidatior --- - . . , c RI 0 - - P ' MTN ED in Will 1" , 00 =.-- • 'Iiii • 11 w• .., ..- - 111 , ' k i WW1! INI IN mi . ' , :-.■., the U.S. Copyright Act, The 17, d tho U.S cos • - - _ I - - - .,t3,,. I Wi_ NI I I Will _OW W. ,i; 14,a . , A . . i • . . • . i • a . u AI no g iii Zi k - -.,...-.....- _____ 1 --. Rendering and floorplans are artist's con- -. I ----- and may depict ciptIons nul Included ---"-- , - -.=. -------- . In filo base price, and may vary h detni train the act pions and specifications weed won h witting by the crld Lundgren Bros. Conshuction, Inc. 1 C L A S S I C • 1 � X K • I Ill ill I I I l �I� I I -... •. - .'' . W •'• 1 A � . I II . I 1 ( 'I 11= .',.� � `�s�.'f : z l :��� p : ^`� t a il . ' ` - - - '�•��" .:I_:.I I I ... �,Z' ,.:.��.:w - =�'‘ .: . u t ��' ` .. i lia m,ano �i 1 n =F I I I l _ m",11 is u s e r G i I ' ° 0 .. a —� =Z c� I • ;•jJ _ I ' ' •19�� � - �.1 •I :I• {�It e�t \ ` ' ' r 11: 1 _i, IlI+11113,,,.,;;;;;J, ti • s�(II!~II.I, .[-.`:� j I .00 i ..i.r=i `v = �� 4 II - IIII If I _ I ' :F = .� : 1. - we . 0000 In • � k 0000IN00 = , .:4; . i . ,•:-.7,-:.—; _ = Y , -,; ; = - ' „ i -- - .r lw.y wait 2 . ,1 " Weer 're MIDDLEBURY ���� 1 111 FaelirRoom 111- _ t It •,t. # -�.. .....� �� %_ Master _ _ � � ' i e y,•� --$.drooin =n I- r Bedroom 3 8.droom 4 ' opt. wdn_ I �i/r _ .. ' ��� SECOND FLOOR - � • : j 1I ' 1 Kitchen Dinette ■ Dining 3 Family Room Room i 1 . l I— ...ow' ` 12n Living Room — — " d - Feyer 41 p a 6aroge ' r —•r Porch r r r 1 r r 1 L { —► 6 Lu nD Gil( n FIRST FLOOR I 3 CONSTRUCTION 935 East Wayzata Blvd. I Wayzata. MN 55391 612/473 1231 *Copyright 1993 by Lundeen Bros. Construction, Inc. Unauthorized use of 11* dwipn is a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act, TIN. 17, of the US Code. Bu der C# 0001413 Rendering and floorplaro an are artist's concept d may depict options not hcieded in the base %ice, and may vary h 1 i detail from the actual plans and spoon:ahem upon Inv/Wing by Ms buy acrd Ltmdgr.n Bros. Coratnrctbn, he DR= , . C L A S S 1 C Z • a u . 1111 'gi ' • T-ii:: . . ' • - liv - . • 1 :." :- •-•-■ 7 .1 71 :i .-: IC:"4::: I • . v. . - -,:!: • • 1 . ... _ .....•„...,::.::::.:::;;;;........-...;..t....,..4iv. .0. 0 .•01 1 ::1 i .. :..... ...„,,..4 . . I '''' . . - ■ g :J #1 • * ' • 4-. ...` . - • - - - ,- --.:41 - , • ,. il c.... . - .- ° ' .1::•%:'h 5 0 ' . : " ' .1. — '' -'• __ _,_____--_;--tre,.....2"-Bsi.irx.,.::....,•.....•-•4.,--.1,1f,:•-.7 , s 1 '. ''= 75:7' - --..-- --- -s.ss".Y.T..q. s -,r-A5. - -i7,....,,LL.s..:,,...- - :„.; - • . i , _..., - ...c,- -IN, ,-. .s- -.*: ::::■li ' 4, ' ,•• 4 4 .7.1;' , .i.f.:_-,--._s - .-- --- -- ,s-_- - -:.:-. -7 i9".EL.:-_="r---.77.1.-:::.-, 41: ■ ' .• . _ --0.- — , •,- -, ,, • • T s,....v. ; ,,- - 41 . 1,.._4 .... -7-___..- -....-___—zor-- ---- 1 ■ ',,:: , W I ,i. 2 . , ......n..-... ;:yr;•il • " '''''' -. 1 .. " 1 "4 . -C, , 'W..-=;---°f-'=' - ..-01L-_10 .7 ..-.■,,, :., \ , t . • z ,, ..-=. - ...; - ,-, oc- 7" *-:---.."-- --F- 1 • ::.;;:::------------"'"- , ..." I - - = - • - - ,■ — , fl.M '4.., 'z u 0 0. i . .. ik,-, c -tt -: - vr • ----... - -=.-..- 7:- r. ="--- -: .- _j - i. 1 = 1 = - ■ = - ill, = ..1. 1 ...". I .4C re r ' ' V I Ve- • . . . .4 . 71 7 g 7 . . . .-,... .. ,. =... . .=..% . = . .. = ... " ' ` Z . , I rti I f -,...,.. .. ., . . _ .. • . 0 ...imii - - H .. . — . - " . • in 1 . 0 .1. m I, I .* • • • ... .= .. - - - - — . . . . . - - .... .7 ..1.11.111..11 I . .' ' ' :',',..:' ,,plfrv. . . I " 0-7.- _. r.-.....- - 1 : __-----, :- - - I 1 _." - li ---- 11, 7,-._- I 1 "•3 :. • T i I . . in ..1.1.1 ‘ 4 1 E Ifiz E Eri . _ ._!E .,.. =.- -,.._ , _ -L. - -..: =, il. := _ r. ■=1:: : ,..... ,, • ....: ...1.. = nIDI■,WIN F. lepdAld.11.11.1.] - - • " -- --- :.■ • • 1 gr.. i..T.,t-biE 01.1.1. : ": 2-- ..... • ..E.,,..4.11 ...... ".....-j • =2 ...__A...__ a z . 1.„r„ou-a, - _ - ,,,,,01,0,1, 10 . 1 „,,,..st_ ...-,..L.,-2, ..—_,.--- _ •Arip...-7..-...x,r-„ i 4 =d - Sr* ---___ 1 . a- _____ _._......-'__.....=..........■-.-=--._.....,..rIM...ainlggnpwrs......,...akAEr_ift.., .....m.- • A : , .-......... • ----1.11:: ::- • .. ------ ''''....-.4 .•■■.....n....- f - ------'nli"IIIIIIIIIIII64-.a.• ..f.;: , : . , - _ 1 [ r- , - , - - - , _ _ , ..• • , - I .4 ___, • *71 Fl kini !IN= ... . .. F , WPM. .......1 - :, AO I GEORGETOWN .: ..... IMRM. . ' —.. " -„ „ Bedroom 10 a. ) .grrev Bedroom 5 -..= Bedroom 2 p 1 • q.v., , I ==--- = al %-.' ■..il ' ■ ,,,,y , i -.,.. iteir , , - SECOND FLOOR 1 . . ■ I : Dinette Dining Room . , ED GP- IMP/ .... Vt.N.' - PI 4 Family Room ik Kitchen se • 1 [ hei " • .- .. - ..- ..... -- ,,..... ...r. .7/ - =a .. 111Z : ...... ... - Z. 0 ".. /I w. 4111 :11 rd r i t‘ L'Ilh - - `4 1 .\ — Living Roorn ., re, I .. Garage ri i I t i . FIRST FLOOR I Ghygli ) r 935 East Wayzata Blvd. , 1 Wayzata, MN 55391 612/473 1231 °Copyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. Construction, hc. Unauthortzed um of ft* design Is a **lion et the U.S. Copyright Act, 1111o17, of the U.S. Cods. 1211 1 Bolder Dt 0301413 de actucif ecnc.Pt and 111 by and P I:0Ln Co In Inc• 114411X ... CL A S S 1 C •JI - ..,.. • -.. - • Z . 1:144.:0* ''• • ..-- elf*. „..,,...z. ....„ _.....--:. • •is - ••,--• ••• • • • 4 SA• . • -,..•?,. . 1 o." -1, • -iy-x -; _ _ Til 4 "g• 4:-. % . ji _.* : ,i-A 4 ( • . :;i:/- ' `' , ...1,,• oir- ..,/,,t 7 • ii,f,: ,...Z-'4' ,.. '' • - :45 . t..) ..- .. , • .,.,A.- . . '' - '1.1' '• „ • - t,,.. 2-..4.1.ip.,,..Coo .`" 1 . .f}lowil rii ' o • — ` "'" :, - .:,....: .:0•:.., •,..- --r.,.,f:;; , " _ • IA' l iW,T,,rie•Z io _ .... '' - .V:. ,„.. `...:- .• - _ ' .. -. - i . . - .. - .1.,.:•* - ,..,..e A ,„,:;. • .',..•:.. . . .4,•7,-,4;',--6., ,... .. .. _,.. !.4,.- L •••• -ii • {ow 6-..f& s • - ..v. -X. •'' rg : ft A =-:•:•_ iZ- '. ' ..---e''' - .10,-.' •4 „ 4., 1, •`4,4f..? • _., `-',... --, - li 41 `..1 *. 04 -4,-. „ z .41,....- .17.3 . e A 4 ,.... r .r. . . .. . - • • ------- ------- , *- "*-- tf W --,... --__-•-_,-__-- ---.=.,- .--- — --__-,- --_,./=-- v.,,, rm., • 1,-....,0c-,.. ,, le .....„,,... _ - -- -- -I 1 " .:-.•—• -z........ ,,,... "..!. i s .e._ - 1 ,,,,,z...., 1 ,...-ta,,, , „ 7 ... z e" ...7.',"..-:-• -,----,-_..---.S.--,..j--''.....,,,-;'' -------• - ■.,JW.S' '' I - ' iii."' Z = ' -1,_ .:.. ..-■-•;- _—__-:. *.`;-,-,,S .,.----. _:-74 ........ 41* k . .rf. - ‘:-- ---.. --- "- tl....,,„,P; , ---,--- --.=---=....-_"-;.„-------- -- .....z- . ,:„ , , ..3- -,? 4: .;---- -- -----=:-.= _.,,,..-__...-:,_:_-__- :,, , __.:,,.. „,.., , 1 i < -----;,:,.- -- - - •--;:lt. - --:-. - - --- -----,-'-_ ------- --=-,-. -- ----- - - 1 i ', i - . ...---7 = - i j 1 1 117€ I . a , 1- = 1 r , w . . i i ' . ', • - - • ' r -.....e.: = ==. "-.....,--- .- = - 1 • • • ,--=i".:= t = = I li • mil ' i 1 ' I/. -'•'•— - = -- E 131;, 1 • • L t .......-.■. - =. ........_\ z _zri: ---.=. -- -7. - - - --- - -=-.s•-•=.--,,---.-_-. -__-.,__-..s,--_,...4 = 1 - = ,....._.-- ...! --•• • • i . /, •B_ Ealimiluimili■ ,......■„.... ...—....:;-_____, 1 i -! 1. 1-- = II t 1 11 •=:__- ...- i -- ----- / ,. IA ; ITItirmil • :-.:: --- : , , , ii,..1 _ a 11 1 ,- = ' r i m a. 7 1 ••••._=- •-•• ...-.' — =--..L. ' ''''" .2 '-' - 12 ...,' irivir •••• ....—''' i c.ta E 14 1 1 1 •1■ 1 1• 1 1100** '''' - --- - - ''''': 41 =''''. 144 =J ' ' ...g..._,..-„,-----„,—...,--...__. 0 ii i , ------ ----, ,;-„- _ -_, --.-- .••••"••• - • - -n411 ..t,=•-- ....., ... "*".• .-0.... - "-....,, - •• .. ....-____................ .............._...... ••-••... ......-••• ---..---- - . — Family 1 Dinette Room vie f:1 ; Den .....-.. .....-s CAMBRIDGE 1 1MV- / N I 1 " Kitchen = II! A:3 1 eid IA • __ — .., 111•1.■ 1 I IN a L . ' ' " - . "... 4.1..... i '."..j Dining A t 1.9 ' Room Raised Living iN _ g re:L. Room Porch 1 Garage 3 Et • \ / T --------- - I, 1 i r Ai 1 , . 1 1••••• ,•,/ - opt. *ten To I FIRST FLOOR . . ill i ."y . M„ter , ZIIS .k 1 dElNidNiliii - ..i....4rez. 1.1'%••• ''"""."" IMIIPMPO I 1 == 411 i Bedroom Bedroom - 3 4 open To rig 01 a ti Few BROS-,Y-- I - -,„ „ „ „ i , , , . -- - - - 1 . , i .. ,,, .,_ ii , ( nDGREil 1 935 East Wayzata Blvd, SECOND FLOOR Wayzata, MN 55391 I 612/473 1231 @Copyright 1993 by Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. . Unauthorised use of this design is a vioktion of the U.S. Copyright Act, Thie 17, of the U.S. Code. ei Builder DO 0001473 Rendering and floorpions are atist's concept and may depict options not included In the be price, and may ■.or i In detail from the actuai p= and specifications agreed on in writing bye* bum and Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. - . 1 I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 1 NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. I MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Fannakes, Joe Scott, Brian Batzli, Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Matt Ledvina I MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts 1 STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner, and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer ' I PUBLIC PL B C • I PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS I AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKE RLLEY BLVD, DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS. 1 Public Present: 1 Name Address Mike & Brigid Keifer 532 Lyman Blvd. I Mary Lou & Bailey Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. Jim Dolejsi 9260 Kiowa Trail I Richard D. Oliver 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. Vencil & Cathi Prewitt 421 Lyman Blvd. Dennis & Ada Baker 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. I Barry & Hallie Bershow 9271 Koiwa Trail Craig & Kate Halverson 9283 Kiowa Trail Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail I Fred & Judy Ann Hein 9350 Kiowa Trail Roger H. Peterson 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. Del & Nancy Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Jack & Lydia Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Bev and Jack Bell 9371 Kiowa Trail I Jill and Dick Blumeister 9361 Kiowa Trail Eldon & RaeJean Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Name Address 1 - Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros ' rry Lun gre Pete Molinaro Pioneer Engineering I John Uban DSU, Inc. Paul Zakariasen 600 West 94th Street Don & Kitty Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. - I Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Bill Lang 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. I Ronald Yuen 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. Norm Grant 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. • Marilyn and John Goulett 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. I Jim Hendrickson 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. Stan Sekley 341 Deerfoot Trail Kris Rebertus 320 Deerfoot Trail Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail i Paul Terry 400 Deerfoot Trail Alan Dirks 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. I Jeff P. Nelson 300 Deerfoot Trail Greg & Kelly Hastings 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Bob Generous gave the staff presentation on this item. 1 Batzli: Dave, could you talk a little bit about why another access is needed onto Lake Riley Boulevard. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name is Dave Hempel. We believe , another access is warranted to Lake Riley Boulevard due to the circumstances that exist out - there today. Lake Riley Boulevard is essentially a 2,300 foot long dead end cul -de -sac. No future availability to loop the street back making the connection either to Kiowa Trail, which 1 is to the west, or north back into the subdivision due to grading constraints as well as existing homes in those wooded areas. By providing a secondary access from the cul -de -sac there located in the southeast corner of the site, you will essentially reduce the dead end street by I half approximately. I do have a memo from the city's public safety Fire Marshal with regards to the public safety concerns that they've had on Lake Riley Blvd in the past. The I street is fairly narrow. It's 21 foot wide. It does not have municipal water service. There is a well as well and there is sewer availability for the homesites. With this extension to Lake Riley Boulevard we're...upgrade Lake Riley Boulevard in any fashion. It will give the 2 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 I property owners the opportunity with the feasibility study for bringing trunk utilities into the I area... see if they're be interested in participating in the development to have water extended down Lake Riley Boulevard. Water could be extended down the boulevard area and...segment of roadway. In the past the city has had on occasion...contact them to see when I water may be available for the area and basically without this type of development, we then say it may be 5 -10 years, depending on development pressures. I Mancino: So each individual resident can decide whether they want to hook up to water or not? I Hempel: That's correct. We'll send out a survey and if there's enough interest to extend water down and we've probably have to have over 50% of the neighborhood requesting this water service before the City Council would decide whether or not... 1 Mancino: So if 60% decide to, that they want water but the other 40% don't, do the other 40% still have to hook -up? I Hempel: City ordinance states that they have 12 months to hook onto city water. That's something that could be left up to City Council to modify or give a variance to the existing 1 homes if they do not want to hook up to city water. Scott: Dave, do all the property owners get assessed? I Hempel: All the property owners would be, that... 1 Scott: Whether or not they hook up? I Hempel: Whether they hook up or not, that's correct...during the assessment hearing the City Council decides...connection charge so they pay for it at the time of connection. However, it's essentially deferred with interest accruing during that tune. 1 Scott: What if people decide not to hook up, would they still have the opportunity. The City Council would determine whether or not they are forced to do that within 12 months based I upon the existing ordinance? Hempel: That's correct. 1 Scott: Okay. 1 Krauss: Just to clear that up a little bit. There is no proposal tied into this development to 1 3 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 extend water down either o i Lake Riley or Kiowa. We have the ability to do it with this development because water's being brought into the area. As Dave points out, people have contacted us from time to time about the possibility. We're not proposing to do it and won't do it until we're asked to do it basically is the way it sits. But now we have the ability to do it if we're asked. Scott: Okay. Batzli: Dave, do you want to address the issue of the roadway width? In the past we have 1 from time to time given the 50 foot setback. Hempel: Certainly. We have deviated on some occasions, deviated from the...60 foot wide 1 right -of -way where we feel we're gaining something or we're preserving a wetland or a stand of trees or reducing grading...essentially an agricultural use right now. We're not preserving anything on a 50 foot right -of -way. The street width, the utility excavation all will utilize up to 60 feet of the area anyway. So the city looks at in the future if we ever had to go back and do repairs on utilities down the road, we need additional width to be able to re- excavate to do repairs on utilities. Batzli: Is there an inordinate amount of land being dedicated for right -of -ways in this project? Hempel: The applicant will say so in this situation. He is dedicating a lot of right -of -way for future Trunk Highway 101 on the west side. He has met staff's recommendations as far as Lyman Boulevard right -of -way dedication due to the wetland located approximately, just on the north side of Lyman Boulevard about midway through the plat and will require the roadway alignment be shifted farther to the south. However, the city's design for the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard has been reduced somewhat over the last year since the Eden Prairie with the golf course and that. It will not make it necessary to make a 4 lane wide road as we • originally thought. We're envisioning more of a 36 foot wide type street. Therefore, the additional right -of -way may not be required in the future. However, it's nice to have the flexibility at this time both for storm water ponding purposes in the future and roadway 1 alignments. Any additional right -of -way not used can be vacated back to the applicant. The initial right -of -way along Lake Riley Boulevard. Currently we have 40 feet of right -of -way except for the northeast comer of the site. The right -of -way does meander back and forth. The City would like to maintain the 60 foot wide right -of -way, which is our standard which is also along Kiowa to the south is a 60 foot right -of -way. As Bob previously mentioned, the previous subdivision along Lake Riley Boulevard, Shore Acres, did dedicate 33 feet at that time which is one -half the normal 66 foot wide right -of -way at that time so the city did acquire another 7 feet when the sewer line was put in... 1 4 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Scott: Dave, if the right -of -way for Lake Riley Boulevard is expanded to 60 feet, what happens to the property on both sides? Is it going to be taken, is it 10 feet from one side and 10 feet from the other? Is that how it works? Hempel: At this time the property owners on the east side have dedicated the necessary I right -of -way with their plat. We would be looking for the additional right -of -way that would be dedicated with the plat before us this evening. They're currently proposing 10 feet. We are requesting an additional 7 feet to...60 foot wide right -of -way. 1 Scott: Okay. I Batzli: Let me ask you one more question. The pipeline easement. Did the State recently change it's rules regarding construction or anything for pipeline safety in view of the accident in St. Paul? II Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'm not very familiar with any rules that may have changed. I know that the current policy is they don't want to see any kind of grading disruption in their I easement area generally. They want to keep their 3 to 4 foot of cover over the pipe... The • applicant's plan here does a good job of that. They're proposing one crossing basically the storm sewer in the southwest comer of the development. I Batzli: What about location of housing p ads and thing s like that? Is that taken care of when they come in for the construction permit then? You look for the location of the pipeline and 1 the pad? I Hempel: That is shown on the preliminary grading plan. The relationship to the proposed house plans and there does appear to be sufficient room between the pipeline easement and the house pads for additional decks that may be added on in the future. One particular lot up I here that may be fairly close would be Lot 9 of Block 1 there. Otherwise the remaining lots... I Batzli: Let me ask you one final question Paul. I assume that, and forgive me if I'm in error here. But we have not seen, have we seen this as a conceptual kind of thing or is this kind of dual tracking so that this is going to be it? I Krauss: Yes, it is dual tracking. The conceptual stage of the PUD is optional. 1 Batzli: Right. 1 5 1 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 i . 1 Krauss: We typically recommend it but it's not required. This is, it's a fairly complex subdivision but it's not a very complex PUD and there really didn't seem to be all that much I to be gained by going through a... Batzli: Okay. 1 Farmakes: We have a reading of the intent statement of a PUD. I'm not sure I, is that something we can ask staff to do? Is that a page long or? 1 Batzli: The intent section of our current PUD. The various findings or the rezoning to PUD starting on page 4 of our staff report. Are those the factors? I mean we have an additional 1 intent statement do we not? Intent paragraph for PUD. Paul, do you recollect off the top of you head? Krauss: No, I don't recollect. I Mancino: There is one at the beginning. 1 Krauss: You mean a general intent? Batzli: Yeah. Krauss: Yeah. 1 Batzli: Okay. There is a general intent paragraph that's not set forth in our report right? Krauss: If so, that was an omission but yes, there is a general one and a specific one. . Batzli: Right. Well these are the specific ones that are listed. You don't happen to have the 1 general one handy on you? Krauss: No. I didn't bring my... 1 Batzli: Unless there's any other questions, does the applicant have a presentation? 1 John Uban: Good evening. My name is John Uban. I'm a consultant planner here representing Lundgren Bros. We do want to make a short presentation and we feel that you 1 probably really want to discuss some of the attributes of the proposal and maybe specifically some of the issues on the roads. But here with us, Terry Forbord of course who you know from Lundgren Bros. Pete Molinaro with Pioneer Engineering is here to answer any 1 1 ., 6 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 engineering type questions you might have. The first thing I'd like to go through is why a PUD and what is happening on this particular site that is sort of driving our design and what ' are we taking into account that we worked over many months, especially this summer with parks and city staff. This first board I'd like to show you is the subject property. Of course Lyman Blvd on the north side. Highway 101 on the far west side. On the east is actually Lake Riley and then Lake Riley Boulevard which is single loaded meaning that the lots are just on the lakeshore side. And then on the south, Kiowa and Bandimere Park over in this area...On this development we have about 80 acres and the first thing you need to look at is ' that we have added additional right -of -way which we believe is usually beyond the character of a normal subdivision. 4.7 acres has been added for Lyman Blvd along the north. Now that includes, if you look at this drawing, a fairly irregular pattern. We've been adding extra 1 to that alignment so that the alignment can curve around wetlands to the north.. So we are trying to change the pattern absorbing on our perimeter a greater burden to make an environmental setting more protected. Also on Highway 101, this is State right -of -way. 1 We're dedicating, we're showing here. We're not proposing at this point to charge the State or anyone else for this right -of -way but it's part of our dedication to significantly widen that right -of -way so that TH 101 can move towards this property. So once again we have a large 1 amount of right -of -way, 3.1 acres that we're dedicating. And then on Lake Riley Boulevard, although we have proposed no access to it, basically the lots that we have, had their own road system and look out over this roadway, it is about a 40 foot right -of -way today and we have ' proposed to put it to a 50 foot right -of -way which is similar to the street level that we have inside the subdivision. In addition, for other platting reasons, a variety 'of odd shapes along . Lake Riley Boulevard that we're dedicating in addition to that. So we have in total all dedication of right -of -way, I think it's 17.8 acres out of 80 acres. And what we found when we kind of compared all of this, is on the Song property, which you have seen recently, 11.6% of that subdivision was for right -of -way both on the adjacent county road and with the collector inside and the local road system. On Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner, which was the project directly to the west of the Song project, it was about 17 %. Here on the Roger/Dolejsi ' property it's 22% and so that percentage has really gotten to be a very large part of the development on this property and we saw here that what we were really trying to do then is develop our largest lots around the perimeter to protect the development from those very busy ' roads. We're dedicating additional right -of -way and we're making perimeter lots as large as possible. Also, many of the lots that overlook Bandimere Park on the north side of it are larger also. These large lots on the perimeter combined with that right -of -way is absorbing a ' great amount of this project so we're trying to tighten up the interior and this is the flexibility we're looking for in the PUD. The other thing that has happened, and I'll show it a little bit, is the Williams Pipeline. And what has happened is not only that you don't want to build a house on top of it, which is pretty obvious. But the pattern of it is such that if we didn't have to dedicate TH 101 right -of -way, we could have put a roadway on the alignment for instance of the pipeline and have moved our subdivision over all the way to the west. And • 7 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 this would have worked out as a good pattern. But since we're dedicating this amount, and with the slopes in that area, we had to really move our homes all the way to the east side of that pipeline. So that's why those lots have ended up being very large and that's the general impact that that pipeline has on us. We also have worked with the parks department to enlarge Bandimere and so this park has enlarged by 5.3 acres and this, on the south side Bandimere Park has experienced some problems with trying to develop that park because they have the pipeline. They can't grade heavily where that pipeline exists. It's a parcel that's oddly shaped. It appeared at first that that would be very good for single family housing. We could work around it. When we tested it, working with the parks department, it didn't look like we could really use that piece very well because we may have wanted to swap pieces. So instead we're dedicating 5.3 acres. This allows their park to expand without heavy grading and will be a significant cost savings to the city. All of these then combined gave us the pressure, the need for flexibility within the subdivision for PUD and that is specifically why we are asking for a 50 foot right -of -way. What does that 50 foot right -of- way do? One, it was our understanding as we worked with staff in the past that this type of flexibility is the kind of flexibility you would look for in the PUD so it does several things Number one, it keeps us from one, absorbing even more land as right -of -way but it increases our interior road system right -of -way by 20% in addition to the amount that we're already giving and we're up to 22% of the whole subdivision is road. So it saves that amount a burden. Batzli: Does your 22% include your intemal roadways? John Uban: Yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. John Uban: In addition to that, it allows us to compact our grading a little bit so that we can keep our grading in a little more compacted to the street and the pads. It shortens driveways by 5 feet to each home. It shortens the stub for all the utilities by that amount so it allows some cost savings and some economy within the subdivision itself. So it's grading, utilities and pavement, all of which less pavement means less runoff. All of this helps a great deal in our subdivision and it's really this extreme burden of right -of -way that we look for and 1 needed the flexibility on the interior to condense it as much as we possibly could. Now in looking at a PUD, and this is perhaps a frightful board to be showing but the PUD is really to create a pattern that is very delightful. This is a typical grid. When you have a subdivision 1 ordinance that says so many feet of right -of -way. So many feet for setbacks, you typically are describing a grid system. This is not what we want to do and so the PUD is to encourage this much more natural flowing type of subdivision. In this we'd gain more lots but that's not our goal either. What we're proposing is a development that has a road system that's 8 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 very curvalinear. Creates very attractive neighborhoods. It uses the topography, the ponding 1 system to really create a variety of lots. Walkout lots. Lots that move up and down the street and once again using our strategy of curving the street to create varied andinteresting settings for the homes so the neighborhood is not boring. The interior road system is 1 designed to include...lot in the middle. We include the Bandimere Park and we have proposed a connection to the south. This is in our discussions with staff that it was good, in their opinion, to connect to the south and we have done that. The large lot right next to Kiowa is the Dolejsi homestead and they will be there on that large lot, that they could subdivide that in the future. The other issue that we want to talk about is whether or not this cul -de -sac should extend to Lake Riley Blvd. We don't think there's a real need for it. ' We're dedicating additional right -of -way for Lake Riley. We obviously don't need to access that road. The parks department has asked for a trail connection and although• we would ' rather now, that's a possibility through that portion of the site. We've been cooperating with them whenever we can on this. That connection through is something that we don't think that we need as a subdivision. We think our subdivision works a lot better without it because it creates it's own perimeter. All those lots are looking out over Lake Riley and we'd rather keep them in that configuration rather than turning them back in a different direction to actually access off the street that goes down to Lake Riley. So it has some very definite • impacts for us to put that through. In addition, there's more right -of -way again that comes out of the subdivision. We would like to then really ask that you review the two issues. One of 60 foot right -of -way. That request. We strongly want to keep it 50 feet. We think it's ' very important in this specific subdivision that we're adjusting all the perimeter edges to save wetlands or give more right -of -way where it's needed and we need the flexibility on the inside. The option is, if it is to be 60, we would like then to have a 25 foot front yard ' setback instead of the 30. That way the house pad, utilities, driveways can all stay as we had designed and it's really sort of technically saying, should we make the right -of -way 60 with a 25 foot setback or make the right -of -way 50 with a 30 foot setback on each front yard. And ' so we believe we have a very good physical situation and one of those two combinations would be okay with us. But we would prefer the 50 foot right -of -way. Also we would prefer to keep our dedication for Lake Riley Blvd to be for a full compliment of right -of -way to equal 50 feet. And we would prefer not to connect our cul -de -sac to Lake Riley because we don't believe we really need that. So those are the three basic issues and we would turn it back to you for discussion. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for the applicant before we open it up for public comment? Did you have more? I'm sorry, was that it? Okay. L Farmakes: I have something. g 1 Batzli: Go ahead. 1 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 • Farmakes: I have a uest. Can we see the original r w ? req roman grid that you showed? I just want to review it if I could. I don't have any general questions. I just haven't seen that. John Uban: If you find it displeasurable, that's understandable. Farmakes: I'm sure I'll find it delightful. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Scott: Paul, I've got a question for you. I heard the comments on the dedication for Lyman Blvd and TH 101 right -of -ways. Is that optional or is that a requirement by the city that they dedicate that much because of ordinance? Because of future plans to upgrade. Because it sounded like it was, well we're doing this because we're great guys. Are they doing that because they're great guys or is it something that's required by ordinance? Krauss: Well, it may be fair to say that-but Lyman Blvd is a city street that clearly needs to be improved. We've had people from the neighborhood telling us for several years that's a problem that they'd like to see addressed even before any developments. The TH 101 right - of -way issue is less clear. Under court rulings and the state, they're not in a rush to lock up • or require that right -of -way be locked up for MnDot. It's nice that they're willing to do it. We could require them to place it in an outlot that would be required by MnDot or whoever improved TH 101 at some point in the future but it's also land that they have a very tough time accessing because of the location of the pipeline. So I think it's fair that it's kind of a little of both. Mancino: If another development came in let's say across the street, on the other side. On the west side of TH 101. Wouldnt we also ask for right -of -way? Krauss: For TH 101? We can't. 1 Mancino: We absolutely can't? Krauss: Well I think ou just saw that when we had the townhome development that was Y just p built on a highway. They platted it as an oudot but the owner fully intends to be in a position to sell it to MnDot at some point in the future. 1 Batzli: Well let's put it this way then. What keeps them from building in the right -of -way for a State trunk highway? 1 10 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Krauss: Well, there's a couple of programs that we can use with...I am not as clear, I mean 1 the law clearly says we can't take it for free. I mean if it's offered we can accept it Because it's not a city road, it's part of a regional roadway system, we can't obligate an individual property owner to pay for it...by the right -of -way. What we have done though is, 1 again we've done it in Lake Susan Hills. We've done it other places. We've set aside these areas that are going to be impacted as outlots. That the developer holds onto it until such time as the Highway Department is in a position to acquire it...fair market value for it. ' Batzli: Terry, did you want to say something? Y Y Y g 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Terry Forbord. Let me try to clarify why the right -of -way along TH 101 is shown as it is. We've met with staff over probably more than a year on this and the first thing you try to do is you sit down and try to smoke out all the issues. There may be physical constraints on the site. We did talk about the right -of -way for TH 101 and we raised the question because if you look on half section maps of the city, it is shown the diagram of TH 101 is much broader than what actually exists now. And we contacted the state to get a clarification from them because we wanted to know what is planned for here because we assumed that we brought in a proposal to the city that showed us platting this large lot, the city would probably raise the question. Well wait a minute. What's going to happen to it someday. In the future we thought we should be prepared to address that. So MnDot came back to us and said, well here is what our future ' plans for right -of -way acquisition in this area is. And we need to respond...212 where it's planned to be someday if it ever gets built. This is pretty far away from this general intersection in this area. MnDot has fairly large schemes for TH 101 just south of that area ' where it intersections with Lyman Blvd. So it became more of a common sense situation. Rather than us bringing in plans to show where we could put a bunch of houses in here, I think I interpreted there was a consensus with staff and with Lundgren Bros that in reality someday this highway is going to be wider here and rather than submit a proposal to the city that would cause somebody at that point in time to say, well wait a minute. What's going to happen with this area. We thought it should be addressed at this point. MnDot indicated to 1 us this is the right -of -way that we're going to want and so we thought, this was the best way that the city would want to pursue this. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should have come forward and shown this as part of the development but I guess we looked at it from a ' practical standpoint. That was my understanding of how we proceeded with it, as it relates to TH 101. Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to open it up for public comments now. If you'll please give us your name and address for the record before you begin speaking, I would appreciate it. Would anyone like to address the commission. 1 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Jamie Heilicher: My name is Jamie Heilicher and I live at 9280 Kiowa Trail which is directly south of this proposed development. My biggest concern which has not been addressed with the developer is two fold. One, obviously the grading to make sure that we don't have additional storm water runoff that we currently have because of the current grading. The second is the access to Kiowa Trail by this development. There's a number of major issues there. One being that the streets here are designed to be 31 feet where Kiowa Trail currently is 18 feet wide. You've got a lot of additional traffic that obviously will flow south out of this development through a very narrow street that currently exists south of this development. The second and the most concerning is obviously the access to the new proposed regional park for walking traffic will be at the intersection where this development meets up with Kiowa Trail. There's currently land that the city owns a short strip in 1 connection to this park. And I assume that the city is intending to use that as it's walking access because based on this development there is no walking access to that park for this, for the people who live here as well as in the Lake Riley Blvd area. Obviously access to this 1 park is going to be directed at walking traffic. So the concern there is if they get the traffic flow is south from this development, at some point to access TH 101 at a point south or to go south, there will be additional traffic tapping that point which obviously is an additional burden on walking traffic and a danger to pedestrians walking to town. Batzli: Excuse me one moment. Bob, do you have an overhead, a map, location map of the surrounding? Scott: Yeah becauses in my mind I'm thinking that you have Bandimere and the slope is pretty extreme from this section down to TH 101. Generous: Not really. It shows... 1 Krauss: If I understand what Todd Hoffman, the Recreation Director was telling me, there's • some accuracy to what you're saying. This is, what he termed a secondary access into Bandimere would come off from the Kiowa area so people could walk in there. It may have a small parking area for people that may drive up from Lake Riley or whatever. The major entrance for Bandimere would be off of TH 101 with a major parking lot over on that side. It's clear that they don't want to turn their backs on people from the neighborhood that just want to walk into there and that's probably... 1 Jamie Heilicher: I guess the concern we have obviously is those of us who live in this Kiowa street area is the additional traffic which would obviously move south...and would go down 1 our street...is the city prepared to widen our street to give it appropriate access or the other option obviously is what is termed a greenway which allows the appropriate access for emergency vehicles but limits the traffic through that area. Obviously the key there is that 1 12 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 anyone that lives up in the northern part of this development would have no reason to travel south if there was no access. So there will be a lot of children moving south along the development to access the park because obviously their parents aren't going to want them to access it through the TH 101 access so they're going to be moving south to this development ' to access the park where Kiowa Trail and this development meet. Obviously the intent there would be to limit traffic flow south of the development to reduce potential traffic accidents. 1 Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Do you want to address the erosion issue in any event? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Storm water return, the developer here has recommended 1 a fairly well laid out storm, comprehensive storm water management plan for that entire development. If I can use his exhibit. Basically looking at 5 storm water retention ponds... the development in all 6 phases. First phase is up in this area here. You currently have a drain system that drains through the wetland on the north side of the road. South underneath Lyman Blvd to a proposed enhancement or enlargement of the existing low lying area that's acting as a storm retention area now. With that storm sewer network would be extended ' along the boulevard either...when this phase is developed or when the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. They have another storm water retention pond which will take street runoff from the street, and those front yard areas into the pond. This chain of ponds eventually will line up ' down in the northeast corner where a low quality wetland at this time exists. We'll look at enlarging that sometime down the road with the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. Modify that..: retention ponds for water quality prior to discharging the wetland. The major wetland area that we're trying to protect is actually on the north side of Lyman Blvd. It's a fairly large wetland area which then discharges underneath Lake Riley Blvd into Lake Riley. There ' currently exists right now, there's a culvert underneath Lyman Blvd to take the runoff from the agricultural fields and the landscape stock area and it's creating quite an erosion problem downstream. This project will actually remedy some of that problem and possibly pretreat ' the water prior to discharging into the wetlands. Another problem area of the city has experienced over the last few years is the storm water runoff from the agricultural field as well as the landscape stock area in this location which drains through the Sunny Slope ' Addition. It's a private street system off of Lake Riley Blvd and it continues on through Sunny Slope, underneath Lake Riley Blvd and discharges into Lake Riley. There's a very, very small storm water sediment trap essentially down here located on the north side of Lake Riley Blvd. ...too small for the overall drainage area that's going into it over all these years so with this development will remedy that problem as well. The situation there however is a little more complicated. We would like to see the storm water piped eventually between the 1 houses through Sunny Slope Addition all the way down to Lake Riley Blvd and tap into that little storm water basin will pick up that runoff which comes from Lake Riley Blvd and the Sunny Slope Addition...this new pipe which would then directly discharge into Lake Riley. 1 All that water would be pre - treated prior to discharging into the lake so...water quality there. 1 13 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Another area of concern is down here. There's a resident by the name of Kevin Finger that this small wetland lies just south of the development here which flows westerly along the 1 ditch. They've been using culverts on TH 101. This flows into a large wetland basin to the west. During the agricultural practices over the last number of years, sediments have washed out and filled in a lot of the wetland area as well as the ditch that outlets this and...culvert 1 underneath TH 101 and MnDot...maintenance on that. With this development again they're going to be creating a couple of water quality retention ponds on the site to pre -treat runoff prior to discharging into the ditch section underneath TH 101 to the wetland. It will also 1 eliminate the current sediment, the water problem that's been going down to the Finger property. So the overall development we see correction of a couple water problems, storm water problems we've had in the area at really very low cost to the city overall. A couple 1 other issues that were raised was the access to Kiowa. Kiowa, according to our storm water street management program. We went out and inventoried all the streets in the city. Kiowa Trail is a 24 foot wide section of rural type roads. It does not have gravel shoulders. It's like bitumious curb within a 60 foot wide right -of -way. It's approximately 1,800 feet long. with no secondary access. Basically there's a turn around at the south property line of this development. Access from the Lundgren's development through Kiowa...major traffic '. patterns for the area. It is our belief that most of them will exit Lyman Blvd to TH 101 and head north to TH 5 and ultimately when 212 is developed, that will be the major traffic flow. There will of course be some traffic from TH 101 to Pioneer Trail. That's a favorite route of some people. They believe it will have less traffic but we don't believe that you're going to have 133 households traveling south along Kiowa Blvd. As part of this project we're not envisioning any necessity to widen or upgrade Kiowa Trail because of this development. At some future date when the residents wish to petition to have the street system brought up to standards with storm water and curb and gutter and watermain installation, that would be the time that this should be upgraded. As far as pedestrian traffic to the park, it is a very valid concern. I would envision a pedestrian crossing at the T intersection in this location here to provide a safe access for pedestrian traffic down to Bandimere Park. The city does have a small piece of right -of -way here, I think that's West 92nd Street is what it's called on the plat. That will gain access for the park. The engineering department believes that this is another reason we need to have a 60 foot wide right -of -way is the implementation of sidewalks basically...pedestrian traffic will have safe access, off street access to gain the route down to the Bandimere Park. I believe that's all the concerns that were raised at this time. Batzli: Okay, thank you. 1 Mancino: Can I ask you one thing? Do the residents on Kiowa Trail right now have sewer 1 or water service? Hempel: They currently have sanitary sewer service. No water. They're on wells. 1 14 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. You in the red plaid will be next. Eldon Berkland: My name is Eldon Berkland, 9261 Kiowa Trail and just to elaborate on Jaimie's comments and to argue a little bit with Dave Hempel. We feel there'd be quite a bit ' of traffic. If you look on your maps you can see where it's illustrated here. TH 101 takes a big turn...of Bandimere Park and then goes south to Pioneer Trail. Most of these homes here when they would be going southbound, would use Kiowa Trail. Your facts when you say ' that the road is 24 feet wide. When we measured, it measured 18 to 20. It's a very narrow road. It's very curvy. It's hilly. I invite you to go out and take a look at the area. Get ' familiar with the area. We think it would be a very hazardous situation to have that amount of traffic on the road. We have a neighborhood park on our property. On our street Our children enjoy walldng to the park currently and that would be hazardous thing to do to allow them to go out...very busy. I do have a letter if I could distribute to you also. We asked why this connection. Why is everybody so upset that we have an 1,800 foot road without an exit. We were told by Terry Forbord that they prefer not to do this connection also. That it was a public safety concern with the city. So I called up Scott Harr and asked him what the public safety concern was and he said basically that Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal had expressed some concern about egress from the property and things. So I had a meeting with • ' Mark Littfin and asked him and he said he really didn't have a lot of concern about Kiowa Trail having the secondary egress or way out of the area. He said that the driveways are long. That they didn't envision they would have a lot of problems with fire trucks. Even if, so it didn't appear that there would be a lot of public safety concern about this. Even if you feel that there needs to be this connection, and again what it seems in other communities...in Chaska. I'm a paramedic. I drive an ambulance service for St. Francis in Shakopee and in Chaska between Tuskeny Hills off of Jonathan Boulevard and the Eitel Court, Eitel Circle area off Hundertmark Road, Tuskeny Hills is a new development. They had similar issues being expressed and they settled on a compromise. Having an area, basically two cul-de -sacs ' come to an end. They graded it out to allow emergency vehicle traffic or city traffic but prevent the public from using this area unless it's needed by an emergency situation or for city vehicles and that's what we'd like to propose for this area. That also would solve the ' problems about that access to the Bandimere Park area and that's what we'd like you to consider. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Just to respond to your comment a little bit. We constantly tried to maintain secondary accesses to long cul -de -sac streets. In other words, we try to avoid them. We do have a rule on our books that your street wouldn't be able to be built today and it ' surprises me that our Public Safety and Fire people didn't express the public safety concern a little bit more strongly because they certainly show up at the City Council meetings and profess that these are valid concerns and they tell us repeatedly that they are. So I don't know what the circumstances were with your conversation with them but obviously they've 15 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 _ been telling our city engineering and planning staffs that this is a concern. And for good planning purposes, we'd rather not have it be a concern and we do try to link up streets because it's safer. So I understand what you're saying though and obviously you've gone and talked to the right people and for some reason or another they put us between a rock and a hard place because they're telling you directly that it's not such a big deal but we hear from them every other day of the week, it's a big deal. So I don't know what to say. Krauss: If I could touch on that a little bit. What you say Chairman Batzli is accurate.- I mean there is always an intent to connect these streets...at some point in the past and it always raises similar issues. I don't want to launch into my speech. You've heard it too often so...but there are legitimate public safety concerns being raised. In this particular instance the Fire Marshal and Public Safety did not actively ask us to pursue the Kiowa connection. They did however empathically ask us to pursue the Lake Riley connection and there was a letter sent out to the people on Lake Riley Blvd that copied the Fire Marshal on that where he points out that they've had 3 major fires on Lake Riley Blvd and they don't . have the room to maneuver equipment on Lake Riley Blvd to adequately fight the fires. Relative to the idea of dancing cul-de -sacs where they come up to each other but don't join. We've had experiences with that in this community. We've had experiences with it in other communities. The unfortunate fact is they really don't work very well. We saw that up in the northern part of the community where we had an artificial barrier that was placed across the street for several years. People would try to knock it down. You'd have to build it bigger. They'd go around on somebody's lawn. They'd still do it. School buses wouldn't come up the streets because there was a dead end. We had people petitioning the City 1 Council to make the connection because school buses wouldn't come up. And the fire trucks got caught on the wrong side of a fire. They're difficult to maintain. They work fine in the summer when you can drive across it. In the winter when snow gets piled up through it, 1 you're pretty unlikely to be able to drive an emergency vehicle through that. We've looked at those in several instances. We ultimately tore that one out. That is now a thru street. Whether or not this connection is made, I would not encourage anybody to think that that kind of situation accomplishes a whole lot because in our point of fact it doesn't, from our experience. Mancino: ... traffic going so ...the of c that s g g th. u Hempel: That could be done through our traffic study program that we do. We actually do it bi- annually. Once every 2 years. The State Safety Council counts cars. Krauss: Yeah, but you know you shouldn't mislead anybody either. Unless the extensions 1 made, it's unlikely to be severed at that point in time. What you can do is try to structure a subdivision so that there's disincentives to using the street. By the way, in the case of Lake 1 16 • - A 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Riley Blvd, there's absolutely no reason why anybody from this development would ever go down Lake Riley Blvd. It doesn't go anywhere. The issue that's being raised with the Kiowa Pioneer Trail connection has potentially a little more validity because a lot of people do use that connection to get on out of there. I'm not certain how much that's going to occur. Well since TH 5's been upgraded...212 is going to happen sometime but I wouldn't pin your hopes on that. That's right now planned for 1998 and it slides every time a gas tax is vetoed. But there are ways to build in disincentives to use local streets. 1 Batzli: Okay, yes sir. 1 Jack Ardoyno: My name is Jack Ardoyno and I live on 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. It's about 5 homes from the very end of Lake Riley Blvd and the cul -de -sac. Ray Lewis, one of my neighbors, is going to bring a petition up tonight and address the reasons why many of the 1 homeowners along that strip don't want the access from the subdivision to Lake Riley Blvd and I would like to sort of get a jump on it a little bit and add it from a little bit different perspective. I'm opposed to that thru street from the development to Lake Riley Blvd from 1 this point of view. I was present at the last fire that the Fire Chief mentioned in his letter. For most of the time I distributed coffee to the fire fighters about all the time that that fire was going and I don't believe another access from this subdivision would have any impacts whatsoever on the access from the first fire tank to get to a fire on that street. And so the subsequent difficulty that they may have would be in getting additional trucks in. One of their trucks broke down and blocked the road for part of the time. So I think utility for Lake Riley Blvd in case of a fire and the access for fire trucks is limited first of all to a small number of lots there that would actually benefit. For getting a tank truck through this subdivision would actually take longer than coming down Lake Riley Blvd in the first case. So I don't think it would do very much benefit for that and having built subdivisions in the southern suburbs myself, I think it's a little bit cavalier to say the developer can lose the lot ' and it won't be a big concern to them. I think they've engineered some good subdivisions here and I think in addition to perhaps losing a lot here, they would also have to build and pay for that street. You'd have additional rain water runoff that none of us want and so I'm 1 opposed to it for those reasons. I also wasn't very much concerned that the Kiowa Trail because it doesn't directly affect me but having listened to some of the comments tonight, to me it seems an absurb idea to have a cut through to Kiowa Trail from there. First of all ' you've got a very narrow road and I've had experience with a number of subdivisions in the past and it's guaranteed that the people here will use this for southern egress. Guaranteed. Probably 60% or 80% of them will do that when they've coming from the south and I know 1 that all those people on Kiowa Trail don't want that to happen so, those are my objections. Batzli: Thank you. Okay, so there are several supporters for those comments. Would 1 anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. 1 17 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 • 1 Barry Bershow: Barry Bershow at 9271 Kiowa Trail. Two points made. One is to reinforce with a little different perspective on why we fear the traffic so much, especially in light of the possibility of a cut being made to the Lake Riley Blvd. If in fact the Fire Marshal feels that that is the more important cut to be made in order to protect the homes on•Lake Riley Blvd, what you're going to create is not only egress for the homes in the development south into Shakopee and onto Pioneer Trail, but you'll also create a very convenient shortcut for the apartment complex. A very large apartment complex up here to come right down Lake Riley Blvd, cut over through this development here and then south rather than come all the way over here and wrap around. So we'll be seeing traffic not from 130 homes, and I don't know how many apartments are there. I didn't research that before tonight but probably a couple of hundred or 300 cars driving through our 18 to 20 foot road. So that was one thing I wanted to say. Reinforce the no cut and connection onto Kiowa Trail. Although it's true that you like to make those connections. Those of us who moved to Chanhassen 17 years ago and moved particularly onto a dead end cul -de -sac road because that's what we wanted, you . should at least take those things into consideration before changing around. And the last thing I wanted to say which hasn't been brought up tonight, but I remember when Mr. Wing and Mr. Mason were running for office. They pledged at one meeting that as this park was developed, that they would provide bike and walking access from the downtown area into the park. And we're concerned because Kiowa, excuse me, because TH 101 which is a trail many of us run or bicycle on trying to get up to the city itself, is windy. It's curvy. It's hilly and has about 4 inches of shoulder and frequently I've almost died walking or running or biking with my child on that road and so we feel that a walkway, bikeway path along the west edge of this development from Bandimere Park north towards the city would be a very important first step in development the entire walk, bike pathway system that the city really needs to do if they're going to develop a regional park down in this area. And I know that there's nothing north of this right now to connect it to but this is really the time to start developing that pathway li Eden Prairie has done all along and if you do it before those homes get in, you won't have to worry about making a hard sell later to the houses that are already there and cutting through their lot. Batzli: Kind of like tonight? Jack Ardoyno: Yeah. Right. With the Williams Pipeline across the back of those properties, and those properties already being some of the largest in the development, it wouldn't hurt really to put along the extreme western edge...pathway. And I have a letter in support of that that I'd like to enter in. Thank you. Batzli: Thank ou. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? y y Yes sir. , , 18 ' 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Bill Bernhjelm: My name is Bill Bernhjelm. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail. I'm here to oppose the connection of Kiowa to this development. I'm also a member of the Public Safety I Commission. I understand the arguments of Mr. Littfin regarding the instances that occured on Lake Riley Blvd. I am concerned about the traffic. When I attended last week's presentation by Mr. Forbord, he laid out the development and talked about the sensitive I neighborhood and so on and so forth that would be created in this development but by making the connection I think it will destroy the sense of neighborhood that already exists on Kiowa Trail. I'm a career police officer. I've been in law enforcement over 25 years and the I cul -de -sac that you see here are essentially a community's way of creating a sense of neighborhood and those kind of things that we hear about now, they say when they talk about community oriented policing and so forth, that's the essence of this. Is to create a 1 neighborhood feeling for folks so they look out for each other and they don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes to have the police kind of try to watch out for them. We have a dead end street now. We have essentially a long cul-de -sac. We look out 1 for each other. We do have a fair amount of traffic on that street already due to Chanhassen's most famous resident and his former abode there and this would I think only exaccerbate that situation. So I would really oppose the idea of making the connection. I 1 would like to say also that I do support the idea of a trail access. I am a runner and I do run on TH 101 and I think I'd probably be better off just sitting at home and having a heart attack on the couch... I would prefer to have some place to go other than out on that highway 1 and would support that. Batzli: Who else would like to address the Commission? One of the two of you, come on .. 1 u p . I Bob Peterson: Good evening. My name is Bob Peterson. I live at 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. I'm here to speak in opposition of the access of the Lundgren development to the Lake Riley Blvd also and would like to say that for one thing, I thought Lundgren did a nice job last I week inviting us to the informational meeting. We learned a lot. I think it maybe deflected a lot of the concerns that many of us had about the development, and I got to give them credit that they did that. I thought that was very informational but it was also disappointing I guess I that they didn't have apparently all the information to talk about the fact that the Lake Riley Blvd. I felt that was very unfortunate. I Batzli: To be fair to Lundgren, I don't know that they knew about it at the time they had your meeting. I Bob Peterson: No, I understand that they did not know about it. That's a big problem. Unfortunately the city staff hadn't talked to them about this possibility. The other thing that I wanted to talk about, I got the letter yesterday also from the Assistant Fire Marshal or Fire I 19 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Marshal and admittedly it was very disquieting to learn that we live in a fair to poor fire service area. That's very discomforting but I'm not convinced that opening up this access will do anything for it. In my estimation I think we'd be trading one public safety issue for another and that would be increased traffic on Lake Riley Blvd. I believe that there would be additional traffic on Lake Riley Blvd. I know a lot of people, the mud isn't too bad and the dust isn't too heavy that they'll drive around Lake Riley and then catch TH 101 that way. I think a lot of people would do that from this development area. It's my belief that there would be additional traffic and I think it would be very poor on that road. It's a very narrow road. Batzli: I'm sorry but, I know there was muttering when Paul said that there would be no 1 additional traffic and I was afraid for his life. And you just indicated that you, where's the traffic going to come from and where are they going to be going so that we understand that. Bob Peterson: From the Lundgren development onto Lake Riley Blvd. Batzli: Through the proposed access. And then which way are they going to turn when they hit Lake Riley Blvd? Bob Peterson: To the left. Batzli: They're going to turn left. Otherwise they're going down a dead end. Okay. North 1 around the lake. Krauss: You can't go around the lake through Eden Prairie. It's...gravel road. Eden Prairie wants to upgrade in a little bit. It goes behind the golf area and comes back down to Pioneer Trail. It's certainly not a direct route. Farmakes: That would be the scenic route. Batzli: Yeah, okay. I understand now. I didn't know where. Bob Peterson: It's faster for me to go that way up to Highway 5. The other thing I just wanted to comment on is reflecting on the Bearpath that Eden Prairie, the golf course. That's an area of 425 acres I believe, which is about 5+ times bigger than the Lundgren development. It's going to have 425 homes. It has one access. So they're addressing the issue there...but those are my concerns. I'm concerned about it and I would oppose the additional of that access. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. There's another gentleman. Yes sir. 1 et 20 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Don Sitter: Good evening. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. We're ' the last house at the end of the dead end down there and I had just a bunch of rambling comments here so bear with me. 1 Batzli: Can you make them short rambling comments? Don Sitter: I try to make them short. I agree with the subdivision. The way it's laid out. I 1 think they've done a pretty good job. I just as soon it'd stay farmfields but that's not going to happen. But I also want to strongly emphasize that I agree with the staff recommendations to take exceptions to the side setback variances. I agree with them. I hope you stand strong 1 with the 60 foot right -of -way and I especially want to agree with them on the relocation of the drain of this finger and go through the Sunny Slope area. We're the adjoining property owner there and that would be a major headache for us. We've lived with drainage problems for a long time. I want to say that I agree with the staff's recommendation on moving that drain to the Sunny Slope area. I assume that all the NURP ponds are in line with our city plans so I think that's in great shape. I'm also in favor of running the survey to the ' neighborhood for these water stubs. If we could add fire hydrants to that survey and avoid the big major road upgrades but at least put fire hydrants as part of that, I think that's not part of this sub development but I think it's a good idea. I'd also like to question the tree count. In this little finger down here there is quite a number of trees and on the back of that and I'm wondering if those will be preserved. In the staff report it says that there were really only 2 trees of value and there's some other trees and they would be preserved and I want to make sure that the trees in that low area are also preserved. I'm not sure if they got counted in the tree count or not. And then my last but not least is the access point and I'm going to come at it from a little different comment and maybe a suggestion. At one time I heard that you wanted the access to come through here on what, I don't know what the lots area. 15 and 16 or something and then another trail to come on another one. Would it be possible to have that bike trail be the access point and make it just wide enough for a bike trail with a couple of these break away barriers so we don't end up with traffic going on it. In other words, don't end up with a bike trail on one lot line and a road access on another. Combine the two together and make it just a bike trail but access for safety vehicles only. And the reason that I say that is I'm concerned about the traffic around the lake also. We, on the end of the dead end get a lot of sightseers that like to drive around lakes. And all of the other cities in the metropolitan area have done a lot of work to avoid roads that loop around lakes because there's a ton of traffic. People like to drive on Sunday afternoons and loop around lakes and if we provide access points both here and at Kiowa, there's going to be a steady 1 flow of traffic. People just trying to drive around the lakes on Sunday afternoons. And we get a lot of traffic now and I don't want to see that increased. That's the end. Otherwise I guess I'm basically in favor of the development. I think it's fairly well laid out and I think 1 we should stand strong on staff's recommendations. Thank you. 1 21 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1. Batzli: Don, let me ask ou a silly question. Why do you want y yq yd y u an to see us hold firm on setbacks and right -of -way, because those things are really done for, in Large part, for safety reasons. How can we rationalize not trying to make Lake Riley Blvd safer while holder the developer to strict standards? Don Sitter: I believe that the standards were set with a lot of thought and planning ahead of time and I basically think we give up on variances too easy sometimes and I'm just in favor of keeping them to the letter of the law so that we don't create situations where because you grant the variance the next guy gets a variance a little farther and the next guy gets a variance a little farther and we just end up continuing to break the rules that I think were carefully laid out in the beginning. 1 Batzli: But you understand that our current standard for a cul-de -sac is much shorter than Lake Riley Blvd and/or Kiowa? Which also had a lot of thought put into it. Don Sitter: I'm sorry, I'm missing the point. Batzli: Okay. I was just seeing, I'm trying to rationalize and justify doing things and not 1 doing things. So my only point was that we ought to have rules in place granted. We could • consider these two streets grandfathered in but we're looking for a rationalization as to why we shouldn't connect these. Don Sitter: I'm not saying you shouldn't connect them and I think there's some logic to the safety concerns. But I think if you combine the bike trail with an access that's only for service vehicles and if we can get water stubbed down the road to get fire hydrants, I think we've covered more than what the Fire Marshal's concerns would - be: That's my sug$eston. Batzli: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Lydia Ardoyno: I'm Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. I haven't built a lot of subdivisions but I've certainly lived in a lot of them and I do know that it's human nature to take the short and most scenic route to anywhere and I think that your concerns are valid for the safety of Lake Riley Blvd and for the other streets but I think you might start looking at some different perspectives and you're trading a bit of safety for a few homes in your opinion which the homeowners don't necessarily share, and trading it off for a lot of less safe conditions for a lot of people living not only on Lake Riley and the other areas but also for the subdivision itself. You're going to have emergency vehicles going through there. You're going to have a lot of traffic going through there and it's all family type neighborhoods on Lake Riley and the whole park area, the whole lake area. And this whole subdivision is a 1 22 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 family area. And your concerns for safety I think are just a little misplaced. So if you would 1 think about it in a little different light. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. Ray Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. I have some copies of a letter here. First of all I'd like to say that, well first of all we live on the west side of, on 1 the east side of the development. Just about 2 blocks south of Lyman Blvd on Lake Riley Blvd. We are, after going to the meeting last week and reviewing the subdivision plans, I'd have to say that we think that the subdivision is well thought out in general and we are 1 basically in favor of it, although from my standpoint I would just as soon not see that land developed but if it has to be developed, I think the proposed subdivision is a very good one. The first issue I'd like to address though is the issue of screening. I think that there should be a corridor of screening or visual barriers that extends from Lyman Blvd on the west side, Lake Riley Blvd south such that the current residents that live on Lake Riley Blvd do not have to view the back sides of the new subdivision resident's homes. This could be, currently we have across the street from our house a dense stand of small trees which, although they're deciduous trees, provide a good visual barrier and I would like to suggest that, or I think it's reasonable that this type of barrier be maintained or that it be replaced with plantings and berms such that they stand level and visual screening is maintained. Second of all I'd like to address the issue of the access to Lake Riley Blvd. I think that I certainly appreciate the public safety department taking consideration of fire access to our homes but I really think that with the increased traffic patterns that we see on Lake Riley Blvd, that we would be trading one improved safety fire protectcion for potential traffic hazards. As it is right now, pedestrians and runners and children walk in the street and there's really no place off street to walk and there is quite a bit of exposure. Additional traffic is found to create just increased hazard. I think that there is substitute ways to improve the fire protection of that area rather than trying to create ths connection. One way that would be possible is just water connections were made to the subdivision putting fire hydrants along Lake Riley Blvd. Since most of the suggestions involved in fire fighting, at least in that area has to do with trucking the large lines of water in and out so if you could eliminate that part of the fire fighting process, you would eliminate much of the congestion. Second of all, I think that by creating a no parking zone along the west side of Lake Riley Blvd, we would be able to eliminate any potential blockages, barriers, to access. Since in the period of time that we've lived there, the only real major blockage that has occurred has been when vehicles or trailers have been parked on both sides of the street. And on the west side 1 of the street there is really a wide shoulder over most of the length of the street that has...and so an emergency vehicle could gain an additional 4 feet or so, at least 4 feet of right -of -way if it was absolutely necessary to steer around some other object. Lastly I'd like to bring to 1 your attention the petition that was signed by approximately 80% of the residents on Deerfoot 1 23 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Trail and Lake Riley lvd. It was presented to Paul today by Nancy Smith, my neighbor. Y P Y Y Y Y g Indicating that opposition to the connection between Lake Riley Blvd and the subdivision. And I think that certainly in this case the citizens should have some say so in the, what 1 access is made to their existing road. So thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I appreciated your comments. I seem to remember you from some Lake Riley beachlot issue meetings. Your comments are appreciated. Does anyone else have something, in particular if you have new issues that haven't already been described. And . maybe before I do that. How many people are here in opposition of the connection to the Lake Riley Blvd? Can I just have a showing of hands. I was going to do Kiowa Trail separately. Just the Lake Riley. Resident: Do them all together. Batzli: Okay, why not. Is there anybody here that wants to see the connections made? 1 Okay. Let the record show that there's no one here in support of connections. Does anyone else have any new issues that haven't been discussed? What the Planning Commission normally does is we try to flush out the issues. We're very aware that all of you are here to try and make your feelings known. That you really don't want to see these connections. What we normally would do is we would close the public hearing if there aren't any comments. We would then go around the commissioners one by one to discuss their feelings on the project and the connection and then we would take a vote. What we decide tonight isn't binding. Really it is a recommendation to the City Council and so regardless of how we end up voting, we encourage you to take your concerns and issues up to the City Council. Both whether we decide in your favor or against because a showing of force in front of the City Council in support of something we do or against something we do may have a much different impact on the City Council. We like to try and do good, a job of good planning and that's not always necessarily politically expediant but they may have a much stronger concern that way. That you people directly vote for them and they may feel the pressure a little bit .. more than, we tend to be a little bit more insulated and we try to go by our codes. I'm not saying that's the way we're going to go tonight but understand the issue that the decision isn't cast in stone by what we decide here tonight. It does go to the City Council and you 1 will have an impact on what they decide as well. Are there any new issues that haven't been brought up yet. I don't want to cut anybody off so if there is something new, please come forward. Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. 1 Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 1 24 -1 , • 1 J Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 I Conrad: Two or three issues. Obviously access is a major one for the neighbors and I think U we've already told you that basically the city standards are significantly different than what you currently live on today. Significantly. We're not talking about percentage. 20%. We're talking about major, major difference than what you're wanting to maintain. Saying that, I I typically am one of the few that don't mind long cul -de -sacs because of the neighborhood and I think I would probably on this issue; because of the significant neighborhood interest. On one hand I look at myself and I say, well should I protect you from yourselves in terms of I fire access. That is a major issue. You have some streets that are, have some problems: And I'm thinking, well in a couple years if there's a fire and the fire engine can't get there, did I do my job. So that's a concern I have. But I think in this particular case, I would be I opting for some back to back cul -de -sacs. I'd want safety. Some way of rationalizing access to those long cul -de -sacs without encouraging traffic. Could be back to back cul -de -sacs. Could be the combo trail going over to Lake Riley. That's where I stand on that. Generally I I'm not real wild about this PUD. As I went and tried to justify it, there's at least 63 lots that are below our city standard of 15,000 square feet. 1 Mancino: 46 1/4 %. Conrad: It's a lot and I can't justify that. Now I think the developer has, I think our TH 101 I right -of -way issue is something that's nice and maybe the dedication of land for TH 101, I'm not sure what to think about Highway 101. Nobody wants it. State, County, City. It's a problem. It does mean we should address it sometime but in terms of influencing me that 1 we're getting something in exchange for a major shift in down sizing lots, I'm not persuaded yet. I would not accept this PUD. As I went through their justifications on all the points, I found one of the, contrary to staff report, I found one of the points that may have validated a 1 PUD. Batzli: Which one was that? Conrad: I'd have to go back through them but most of them I couldn't. Most of them didn't I do it for me. I haven't excluded the PUD yet. This is not it. That's all. Batzli: I thought you had three. 1 Conrad: I skipped. The trail access. Maybe somebody else might. Somebody brought up trails. I'm not sure, Paul. Where's our trail connecting downtown to this area? Do we have I one? I should have done some homework to know where it is. Krauss: I don't know if we notified these people but we are working on a plan for the 1 ultimate design of TH 101 from Highway 5 where we kind of a...crossing where we took it I 25 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 up to last year down to the future 212. That's going to be a 4 lane section with heavy landscaping incorporating a trail. South of that point, and the MnDot improvements, when they occur, would come up Lyman Blvd just a little bit beyond. So presumably the trail kind of terminates there. You eluded to the problem with TH 101. This is not a new thing for us. The fact is that nobody is taking responsibility for TH 101. The State stopped taking responsibility for it in 1934 but it is a State highway and they won't put a penny into it. The only improvements that have occurred on TH 101 are those that have been paid for by the City of Chanhassen and we simply do not have the money to improve it much more than we already have. So we tried to get together a coalition of county and city governments and MnDot to figure out to push a decision on what should happen to TH 101. I don't know what happened. Right now nothing is probably going to happen until 212 is built and the last, as I said, the last I heard on that was instead of 1995 -96, it's now 1998 and climbing rapidly. Conrad: Yeah, it's almost like I've given up Paul. You see so many problems. It's like, 1 why should I start fixing them because I see so many others that I just don't know that are ever going to be economically solved. Maybe that's a bad attitude but again, that's not, I don't think that a key reason for me to accept this as a PUD if we wanted the land donated. I think it's a nice reason. I think Lundgren could probably, and staff. I think staff could probably persuade me that we're getting something back but when I go below the 15,000 square foot lot size, that is pretty sacred in Chanhassen and I really have to know what.we're getting back for it and because of my concern for TH 101, or because of my fears that TH 101 is never going to be solved, I don't know that we're getting a great deal in return for a, PUD. Batzli: Okay. Matt. 1 Ledvina: I guess I generally I share some of Ladd's concerns as it relates to the lot sizes. I saw a lot of lots in the 9,000 to 12,000 square foot range and that certainly makes me 1 nervous when I see that. But on the other hand, as it relates to that, those lots that a developer's responsible for developing those lots, as they platted them here or as you will plat them, and it appears to me that they can make it work. And you've seen Lundgren developments and they've done a nice job with that. I'm confident that they'll be able to do that. I think as a PUD, the plat going in that direction, or the subdivision going in that direction but I'm not real convinced that the smaller lots and a large number of smaller lots justify the situation. So I think those are some big concerns. Let's see. Batzli: Before I forget to ask you. What are your thoughts on the connection? 1 Ledvina: I was getting to that. That's a real tough issue and I guess I'm concerned about the 26 1 1 1 III Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 possibility of this creating a short cut and a lot of cars coming through there. Could you I comment on that Paul or Bob? Or perhaps Dave. I mean that's something that I wasn't aware of a possibility there and if we do open up the connection to Lake Riley Blvd, and also Kiowa, does that represent a concern then for short circuiting? i Hempel: Whether or not you have the connections to Lake Riley Blvd, even from Lyman Blvd wanting to go south. To use the Kiowa one. If you cut that one off...Bandimere Park 1 from TH 101 or through the back side. The issue I think is the long dead end cul-de -sac I guess. The curvalinear streets and the subdivision that's being proposed is a deterrent to traffic. They're not going to be able to go 30 mph through most of the streets. There'd 1 likely be stop signs, a 3 way stop intersection when the traffic warrants meet for installation of stop signs. Just the general layout of that is not conducive for thru street movement. I think Lake Riley Boulevard would be a little higher speed, 35 -40 mph. I Batzli: Well it may not be conducive but for the development moving south on Kiowa, I Y P g II mean that's quicker than going out to TH 101 and turning south. I think that's their concern is that, see however many houses. I don't recall the exact number in this development. 100 and whatever. I mean I think that's the concern and not that somebody's going to come . down Lyman and go through the development. I don't think that's something we can avoid by doing that connection. Hempel: That's true but I guess we still feel that the general traffic patterns for employment and everything else is going to be to the north. Not to the south to Pioneer Trail or Shakopee. 1 Mancino: Paul had said something about disincentives and what are those that we can use so if we did put in these? "I Krauss: Well, Dave touched on one. I think everytime you introduce a right hand or a left hand turn or stop signs, it takes time to slow down. You've got to go through...it's a I disincentive. It takes more time to go through something. The trend here is to make it, facilitate a movement where you want it to be and provide enough disincentives so it doesn't go where you don't want it to be. We've done that in other ones. I mean we clearly, I know 1 we're often painted like that but we truly don't sit here trying to run thru traffic down streets kids are going to play on. If you think that that's going to happen...we say so and bring that up. One of the areas where a change might be able to be made, if I can get my bearings, is 1 to run this road up to here so that the thru movement wants to go this way and make the traffic that will go to Kiowa come through a stop sign and turn left. That's a disincentive. There are ways those things can be done. Whether or not it's going to fully eliminate the 1 situation. What we have here too is a transitional situation. There are people using Pioneer. 1 27 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Significant numbers of people. You saw that on the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study a few years ago. However that transportation study was done before Highway 5 was upgraded so I'm not certain exactly how valid the results remain in terms of the numbers. When we get to that same issue though and take it Lake Riley Blvd, that one I fail to see the merit on. I mean if you're right...we'll give you a map to show you how convoluted that route is around the lake. It is an interesting way to go. I go down there every so often when I'm checking out a site that way but it certainly is not a high...through there. At one time Lake Riley Blvd was supposed to run straight east to Dell Road. That was the long term plan. Now when Bearpath subdivision came through, Bearpath is a private community, it's a gated community which is why there's one entrance. And it's...those folks over to Dell Road so now, as a result Lake Riley Blvd is going to maintain a very circuitous path around the lake, through Eden Prairie Park and back out to Pioneer. It's quite a ways around. And by the way, I could add that I know that the city of Eden Prairie staff had a lot of problems with the one entrance into Bearpath and there are knock down gates I believe that are supposed to be maintained by the homeowners association so there are other means in and out of there... Batzli: Matt, go ahead. 1 Ledvina: Okay. Well, I think that if we can go ahead and put those impediments in there for the thru traffic movement. I guess I can see the need for the Kiowa connection. I think that represents an important part of this development. I don't know that both of them should be made. Both of the connections should be made but I don't know specifically which one would be better to make. But I think one of them should be made. On some of the other issues, with this, as far as the 60 foot right -of -way. I would propose that we keep the 60 foot right -of -way. I guess I would be amenable to looking at a 25 foot roadway house setback throughout the subdivision. I think we did that with the Song subdivision and I think that that can help to do some of the things that help with the aesthetics and the reducing surface water runoff, etc. Let's see. Just one note on the recommendations. On recommendation number 27. I see this as a somewhat repeated on condition number 11. You've identified . that you want a PUD agreement and in addition to the development contract by the city so I think you probably want to keep 11 in and strike 27. One of the residents in the vicinity mentioned the possibility of providing a pedestrian crossing into Bandimere Park from the Kiowa extension right along the southern boundary of the subdivision and I would support that the applicant provide that. I think that works out well. That's the extent of my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Je ff. Farmakes: We're going random? • Batzli: We're going random. This is random. Trying to get you guys on your toes. 1 28 •f Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Farmakes: I'm going to start out here and talk a little bit more about Ladd's comments. I also am uncomfortable. That's why I asked at the beginning of this meeting to hear the mission statement and the intent paragraph in regards to PUD's. In looking at this, I don't 1 understand the criteria that we're using to initiate this as a PUD. I understand it from a design standpoint but I don't understand what the motivation is. Clearly in the packet it says that this is, the property is being farmed. There is little, if any, natural features to be 1 protected. It seems to me that what it's being used for here is to achieve other objectives, one of which is listed in here as being the lot layout protects existing and proposed residents. I guess I'm sitting back and waiting to see more convincing of what the city's gaining here. I don't see that. I'd like to see that spelled out more clearly. I'm looking at the general philosophy of the design which is to expand larger lots and basically encompass a higher percentage, I think it was 46 %? Of sub lot size versus the 15,000 that we used. And typically in other issues of PUD's that I've supported we have had a pretty clear indication that it was either the lot itself or some geographic feature. Stand of trees or something that we were trying to achieve in the design. I don't see that here. So given that, and looking at this and talking about the connectivity and so on, I'm a little uncomfortable with looking at some of these lots and looking at the layouts and looking at the amount of 11,000 square foot sites for homes. I'm a bit surprised I guess. That must have been a good meeting that you had with the developer because nothing in regards to this issue, at least that I've heard of, and what has Ladd has said, has been brought up here tonight. A PUD is, I'm sure the City can show you, is an issue that we use when it's in the community's best interest perhaps to look at what I would describe as a variance in some issues, for want of a better word. Paul maybe could elaborate a little bit more on that but I think that you should look at that clearly. What's being offered here. I'm going through my packet in the findings and I'm not utterly convinced that that story is being made. I'm surprised if we spent a year on this internally that perhaps that got placed on the wayside. 1 Batzli: Can I interrupt just one second? 1 Farmakes: Sure. Batzli: Paul, in something like this, wouldn't we normally see the proposed home styles or if there was additional landscaping? I mean it doesn't seem to me that we've asked for plans and berming and things like that and I don't believe we have any of that. Do we have that here? This plant key. The planting key. So this is the landscaping? What did we ask for in 1 addition in the conditions? Generous: They've provided us with a detailed planting. The landscaping berm and 1 screening requirements, especially what some of the people brought up to the east. 1 29 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 1 Additional trees and landscaping. Not that we'd want to have a complete separation between these two properties because they are residential but some type of natural transition. 1 Batzli: So the landscaping plan that they've submitted, I mean does this go above and beyond what we normally require in a PUD? This is kind of bare bones sort of PUD? 1 Krauss: It does go above what you would require, or be able to require in a subdivision. The subdivision ordinance only allows us the 1 tree in the front yard and... 1 Batzli: I'm sorry, go ahead. Farmakes: Anyway, big I'll leave that as a bi question mark for me. And I think that that, when I said big question mark, that I think is the building block or the philosophy of how this is designed. And I'm uncomfortable that it's not spelled out more what we're getting versus if this is the traditional single family. It may well be that the city is gaining something but I readily don't see that. It doesn't knock me over. Lundgren in the past has been a good developer for our community and I'm sure that they have worked a year on this. I don't want to discourage that fact. I just, in the presentation would have lilted to have seen more detail in what we're gaining. I'm also, once again we are dealing with a difficult issue with citizens who have been living in neighborhoods here for quite some time. When the city comes knocking on the door, or what they see a city density is a difficult issue. As Brian has said, we get into the position of do we follow what the professionals tell us is the correct thing to do or do we listen to- sometimes emotional dissent -against -that. And -r_ve beenJn that position and I quantify, I've done this once before and have supported neighborhoods on this issue. I think that older neighborhoods should be given consideration under the same general philosophy that we use as grandfathering. It depends on how many people are involved. How many homes we're looking at. At how much that would effect the change in their existing life style. Now I have been a proponent of connectivity and I disagree with many of the comments that were made here tonight. I think that again, when we try to isolate our neighborhoods, that may be fine for our own terms in thinking of 3 or 4 houses. What we see is our next door neighbors and our friends but it is the connectivity and the interconnection of neighborhoods that make a community and we're to some extent seeing over and over again neighbors that come in here, it doesn't make any difference whether it's your development or any one of the last 30 or 40 that have come in here. They see a lot of scary things on TV every night and they think in terms of what's called the bunker mentality. They think that if you keep a long narrow driveway and it's just them that drives on it, that they'll know their friends and they'll be able to tell their enemy. Whether we choose to 1 admit that or not, there's a lot of that involved here. I look at the issues as not just safety issues of connecting neighborhoods. It's also the general issue, a very boring thing. It's just a general infrastructure that makes up a community. You have the connectivity of the mail 1 30 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 being delivered. You have buses coming and picking up your children and taking them to 1 school. When we create all these 300, 400 neighborhoods that we have in the city and we only have one way into them, we have a city that's basically made up of a bunch of bunkers. And I think that there's significant evidence to planners in other communities, this doesn't ,1 make for a healthy community. And it makes for really a narrow view. However, as I said before there are a few occasions where I think the neighborhoods that have been established and been here for a long time should be given consideration. And in this issue, the 1 connection on Kiowa, I would not support and that is the reason that I would not support that I think again, I fall back. This is a quandry for me because I think you have to give consideration for established neighborhoods that have been here for many years and in some I cases almost 2 decades. And this does effect quality of their life. I really am uncomfortable with that because there are also issues of safety here and I heard the comment that we should put that aside here tonight and I don't think we should. It's not a clear cut choice here and I know that some of you want to hear what you want to hear and others, they want me to stop talking about this but it is a difficult thing for your neighbors to sit up here and take those I considerations into mind because some other people have sat up here or got up to the podium and have asked us, if we don't care, you shouldn't care and I don't think that that's the correct response. The issue of the walkway along Highway 101. I support that connecting. I realize that we're not quite sure where TH 101 is so that's probably a future cost. If that's I brought on line. It seems like some type of provision, if there's not a connection to Kiowa. Some type of provision will have to be made perhaps through the existing lots that are shown ' on the layout for some neighborhood connection to the Parkway. There seems like there's room in there somewhere to look at that. The other issue, one other issue in the recommendations on staff as far as the setbacks go. I support those. Staff recommendation. I And there is a comment in the recommendations that says that a 60 x 40 homesite and the other part refers to a building paid. Is that 60 x 40 the building pad ?...that's the end of my comments? .1 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe. I Scott: Well I too question the use of PUD for this particular development. I don't see what we're gaining. As far as the references were made to the Song property and for those of you who aren't familiar with that particular property, it's heavily wooded. Extreme variations in '1 terrain and we allowed it to be a PUD so we could preserve trees and preserve natural features. Well in this particular instance we don't really have that same situation so drawing an analogy between this particular piece of property and the Song property really is I meaningless. So therefore I don't see us gaining anything so I do not support this as a PUD. With questions on connectivity. For public safety reasons I would support the connecting with Lake Riley Blvd off the cul -de -sac or some area there. I'm torn on the Kiowa because I 1 can see, I think that apartment complex is several hundred units. But then again I don't see a 1 31 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 tremendous amount of traffic going south into Shakopee. I think that a majority of the people from the development will be going up to Highway 5. I'm still torn on Kiowa, as to whether that needs to be connected or not. I don't think there's a way of restricting traffic by using 1 knock down barriers or so forth. I mean it's got to be something that has to be plowed, which obviously you can't do with barriers so I don't know. I think if I had to make my choice, I would go with both of the connections. And I think everything else has been 1 covered so I don't have any further comments. Batzli: Did you, I didn't hear you but I'm sure you did comment on the 60 foot right -of -way 1 on internal streets, you were in favor of keeping it at that? Scott: Yes. 1 Batzli: Okay. Thanks. Nancy. Mancino: I agree, concur with Jeff, Ladd and Joe on the PUD. I was quite concerned about coming up with the 46% of under sized lots. I also support the 60 foot right -of -way which would also add to this percent of under sized lots. I would not like to see this replicated in the future meaning that if we took this property and put it on the other side of TH 101, on the west side, I wouldn't want to see another development like this come in where there are no natural characteristics of the land that we are trying to preserve. In fact I think on page 11 of the report is says that the entire plat would be graded. The entire site will eventually be graded with a condition of the...so that to me says right away that-and what are we getting from it. On access to the established neighborhoods. Well, I'm very much for public safety but more importantly to me is preserving neighborhoods that have been existing so I would be in support for not having a connection for either roadway. I said I supported the 60 foot. I think that's it. Batzli: Okay. Do you want to talk before I get my shot at it? No, go ahead. Please. I'm just, go ahead. Terry Forbord: I wanted to embellish upon all the issues about the PUD. 1 Batzli: Please, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Clearly I miscalculated the wishes or the desires of the Planning Commission. I thought that the issues were incredibly clear and I've been before many of you for so long and actually I'm thrilled to talk about PUD's. I think every subdivision there is anywhere in 1 any city should be a PUD because it gives the city more than it could ever get under a standard subdivision so I'd like to talk about that briefly. The intent of the PUD ordinance 32 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 doesn't specifically protect natural features. Every city adopts different critieria for their I PUD. Chanhassen went through a lengthy process over probably years to develop the one they had. Before that I think they went through a lengthy process before for the previous one. But a PUD, it's purpose is to allow flexibility under a number of different conditions. I It would not be fair to say that that flexibility and it's purpose is to solely protect the natural resources of a community but there's a number of other things. I think what's in it for the city. I think I heard everybody here basically say that in their mind that was the criteria that I they were searching for the most. And apparently us, as the applicant did not do a good enough job within our narrative and certainly we made the election tonight to not bring in a slide show. To now bring in a lot of overheads of all of our product. To show you the I things that we're doing in various communities that are very similar to it because I didn't want to take 2 hours of additional time tonight embellishing upon all these things. Clearly I miscalculated and being that I don't have all of those audio visual items here with me this 1 evening, I ask you to keep an open mind. I'll do the best I can to ticket your creative imagination. What's in it for the city? I guess then is the city be concerned what's in it for the residents. The citizens of the community. What, when they're done and they drive down ,' TH 101 and Lyman Blvd and they look to their left or right, whichever way they're going, they look off on a piece of land that could be developed as a neighborhood, what are they • going to see? What are the options? Would they prefer to see community x or would they prefer to see community y? Now, as a developer I could take the subdivision ordinance and I could look at it purely from a statistical standpoint. I could say well here's a piece of featureless land. There may be a dozen, maybe 30 trees. It's flatter than a pancake. It's a. cornfield. I could make a lot of money here. There's no wetland. I don't have to worry about trees. I can just go in there and plan a grid system. I can get as many lots as the I ordinance will allow me. I can make a vanilla subdivision that has no streetscape. Sure, I can meet the landscape ordinance and I can do all those things but when you're done, what's it going to feel like when you go into it or when you drive by? Now most of you who know I me long enough, and know Lundgren Bros, we don't typically look for those types of qualities. But we could. We certainly could, and I'm going to show this to everybody else here. This is for illustrative purposes. We could develop something similar to this. We I could take the subdivision ordinance and the codes and we could prepare a grid system. There'd be no turns. Straight streets. Very similar to what you see in an urbanized area that's quite old. Minneapolis, Richfield. When you drive down those streets, you don't take I many curves. You don't see the sides of the houses. You don't see the rears. You don't see the roof lines. You see the front of the buildings. Okay, we could do that. Now, we've taken a look at the site. This site in particular is unique. It may be characterless for the I untrained eye but how many of you remember the workhouse property? That piece of property we developed. It was as flat as this. It had one sole tee on over 300 -400 acres. We put in ponds and created contour where there was none. So what we're doing here is 1 we're going in and we're mass grading this site to create contours because how many people 1 33 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 . 1 want to live on a flat site and there's no trees to protect anyway so we'd better go in and do something to create some character to this streetscape so people, when they look out across their lawns, that they see some movement to it. Yes there is going to be a lot of grading but there's nothing there to really protect. So, should we go ahead and do this featureless neighborhood? Or should we attempt to make, for lack of a better term, a silk purse out of a cow's ear. Should we try to create some movement in the streets? Most of our homes have architectural details on the side elevations. The rear elevations and certainly on the front elevations but when you're winding down that street that goes up and down as well as side to side, you're going to see these different architectural details. There are physical constraints on this site. There's roads on 3 sides. There's a park that will be a community park. An intensely used community park on the southern border. Okay, so on four sides I've got uses that in my mind are really not conducive to "typical" quality of life that many of these people enjoy in their quiet little neighborhoods so I'm going to take this site with all these problems and how can I create a sense of community in there. An environment that will be pleasant 1 and have some streetscape. The only way I can do it is to try and be a little creative about -it. And from the looks of the ordinance, the standard subdivision ordinance certainly does not encourage creativity. It asks me to deliver to you, and to the citizens, a vanilla subdivision 1 that looks like the one that I was showing you. That's what the subdivision code tells me. But if you look to the PUD, it says hey. Use some creativity here. Most of the people who live in our community would rather have a neighborhood community that has some character 1 to it. And if you're willing to do that, we'll allow you a little bit of flexibility to do these things. Now in every community I've ever worked in, that's really the intent of the PUD. It's to make it, it's to encourage people to do something above and beyond what the subdivision ordinance tells them they should do. Now I think that's what everybody here wants. I don't think any of you say oh Lundgren, go on back there and make this something less. How do you do that? How do you do what I'm trying to tell you on a site like this? First of all you have to have some variety. You have to have some diversity. We don't want all the houses to look alike. We certainly don't want them all to be the same size. We don't • want them all to cost the exact same dollar amount. We don't want all the walks to look alike. If we wanted that, then we should go to this. So we are cognizant and sensitive to the things around the perameter. We are cognizant and sensitive to the intense use of Lyman Blvd or TH 101. Of the park and for trying to have some feel for the people who live off the site that are close to it that may be impacted by it. Okay the way that I have to do that is through lot size, street configurations, and we've attempted to do that. Now I think that's a 111 lot for the city. That certainly is better than going this way. I think. If the city is telling me that they prefer to do the other way, than that's what we will do. But what happens, and I'm not faulting anybody here for this. What happens, and I remember when the PUD ordinance was being prepared before it was adopted. I came here before you and talked about these very issues for those of you who were on the Planning Commission at that time. And we talked about, should you always have to have some incredibly tangible thing that you can 1 34 1 Planning Commission Meetin g - November 3, 1993 1 hang your hat on to say well this is why it was a PUD and there's some of us that don't think 1 you just have to do that. I think you have to say, is this what we want in our city or is it something other than this. Is it something more creative and so that's what we're attempting to do. We could get more lots going the other way. I mean a lot of people say well why don't you do that. Well because most people I mean that I've ever met and that we build houses for, would rather not live in a neighborhood like that. So what we're asking for is to allow us to be a little bit creative. And you also have to realize, even though 46 or 43, ' whatever percent of the lots are below the "standard" subdivision requirements, this is not a standard subdivision. The PUD ordinance says that they can go down to 11,000 square feet as long as the average lot size is 15. Well the average lot size here I believe is. Batzli: 17.8. Terry Forbord: Is 17,814. That's what the ordinance tells me I'm supposed to do. It doesn't say in the ordinance, the PUD ordinance that 10% have to be this size. 40% have to be this size and 50% have to this size. In a PUD you can turn me down though if you're happy with it because the PUD gives you really the ultimate authority of approval. That's why I think PUD's are great for cities. You have the ultimate authority. If you don't like it, throw it out. 11. But what's the density here? There were issues about geez, the lots are awfully small but what is the density. The density, gross is 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Net is 2.5. That's not a lot of density on 80 acres of land, especially when 22% of it is roads so really what the PUD, this is a perfect. I mean I've said this before and you may be saying Terry, you always say this but this is true. This is a great site for a PUD. This is the kind of zoning tool that should utilize on this type of site because of 22% of it happens to be roads. It's featureless. We're not going there and we're going to try to do something with this that when we're done, I know when we're done you might not all want to live there yourselves but you'll probably go through there and say, boy that's a nice neighborhood. I feel entirely confident of that. Farmakes: Can I ask q a ou question Terry? Y 1 Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Farmakes: The thing that I asked to see up here, the back side of that particular piece there. 1 That we're referring to showing the grid. The Roman grid on the back. The lots that we're looking at there, is the smallest lot we're looking at there 15,000 square feet? 1 Terry Forbord: Average lot size here is 15,880. The minimum lot size is 12,000. Farmakes: Okay. So in fact then that's not a traditional single family. 1 35 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Terry Forbord: I didn't say that this was a standard subdivision. 1 Farmakes: I just wanted to clarify that. 1 Terry Forbord: ...for illustrative purposes. If I changed this and make this 15,000 square foot, I could hold this up here and nobody would be able to tell because of the scale of this drawing. I mean it's such a small scale, nobody'd be able to tell whether it was 3,000 off. But it's just for illustrative purposes. It's not meant to say that we've measured and incremized everything here so it's exactly perfect to follow the subdivision ordinance. 1 Farmakes: In your opinion, if they went with the standard development, do you feel that the roman grid roads are the only way to develop that piece of property? 1 Terry Forbord: Pardon me? Farmakes: If we went with the standard development. Not go with PUD. We're looking at roman grid roads here. Straight up and down and across. With that particular piece of property, we see other developments that are not PUD here that do not have either horizontal 1 or vertical roads. My question is, do you feel that particular piece of property, if developed as a standard development and not a PUD, will resemble that only slightly bigger lots? Terry Forbord: Would it resemble this? Farmakes: That's correct. 1 Terry Forbord: It depends on who the developer is. There's a lot of reasons that I believe why a lot of developers don't pursue PUD's. Number one, it's too complicated. They go through these kinds of exercises and Planning Commissions and Councils...it's a lot more work. A lot more hassles. And most developers will always take the simple path. This is • what's going to be easiest. Obviously you all know, unfortunately sometimes I wonder myself, why doesn't Lundgren Bros take the simplest path on some of these meetings of tensions that happen between staff and the applicant because we're working so hard to try to get something that will be a good neighborhood. Sometimes I wonder myself. Maybe I should just not keep pursuing most things. We should just go the vanilla route. Maybe that's what I should do. But I think that this site is a classic PUD site. It's featureless and it took, I get into it over and over again but the other thing that this allows, and this may not be the... criteria of PUD's and well wait a minute. Maybe there is a criteria that eludes to it. There's affordability. This property is not going to be "high amenity land" where people are going to be building $250,000.00 homes. Or $350. I mean it isn't like that. It doesn't have lakeshore. It doesn't have trees. It doesn't have those type of things. A PUD allows a little 36 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 g g , 1 bit of diversity in lot size. For a couple things. One, that lot may be a little more affordable. 1 Two, that lot may be bought by the young professionals where both of them work maybe 50- 60 hours a week and they don't want a great big yard. We're seeing a lot of our customers could care less about mowing their lawn. They want as small a lawn as they can have. So ' we're getting them some variety. If they would like they could have a 17,000 square foot lot and if they don't want that one, then move down the street. Here are some 11,000 square foot lots over here or here's 13,000. There's some choice there for the consumer. You.want 1 to have a variety of product type. The PUD literally really allows for that. Farmakes: I think that the intent, as I recall the intent statement of our PUD also says that the higher percentage of the lots that are undersized, the city will look at that application closer. I'm not sure if I got the verbage exactly right but that is the intent of this statement. And I think the issue and concern that's brought up here is a viable one. It does have a high percentage of undersized lots and I think that certainly the city should look closely at that. In that development. I'm not saying that at least in my comments. I'm not speaking for the rest of the commission. I have nothing, as I said, philosophically with how you were developing ' the property by skirting the larger lots and smaller ones in the interior. But I thought that in the presentation that there was not sufficient back -up to me to show versus a traditional development, which not all are like what's being proposed here on the yellow version. Certainly not, as I said, other developments that we've seen developed traditionally with 15,000 square foot lots as a minimum do not have horizontal/vertical roads only. However this particular piece of property has some problems to it but I think certainly that there has to be some convincing reason for that other than just philosophical. That when we say what is the city getting out of this. I hear some of what you're saying but I think also that there's some concern on my part anyway, the issue of the amount of smaller lots in the center of this versus the percentage. There are some large lots, I think up to 45,000 square feet. The question is, of the developer, some of those square footages be. But due to the pipeline and so on. I think that those are really viable concerns. It struck me as soon as I saw this plan and the presentation and I realized that I think perhaps the last presentation we had, we had some complaints of how long it went. Maybe you're reacting to that but in this particular case 1 I think everytime we have asked, when we see a PUD, that's a viable question. And we should ask that question. What are we getting for it because it is a trade off. It is a, to me, it is a variance. And to be responsible about that we should be getting something in return and 1 there are some design qualities to this that I like. And I'm not totally negative on it. But again I think that the density issue of subsized lots is a major, is my major concern of this 1 development. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Thank you Terry. My comments on whether this should be a PUD ' were more directed toward trying to figure out the whole package here. What kind of architectural styles would we be looking at. What kind of additional landscaping are we 1 37 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 getting and do those things, along with the increased right -of -way and some of the other, and 1 making features out of a featureless field, are those the kind of things that would support a PUD? And I don't know that we've been educated enough. Either by the applicant or by city staff to make that determination tonight. It may be that you know Lundgren is going to put homes that are exceptional in some manner or have additional features or they're going to be providing low income. They're going to be doing something and we don't know. I don't know. You know. Clearly they're not clustering. They're not earth sheltering. They're not putting in, they're not putting in creative things like that I would imagine or they'd be telling us about it but they're going to put in a quality Lundgren Bros homes on this piece of property, which is what I would expect anyway. But I think that type of information along with some of the features or some of the other things, regardless of whether city staff tells us about that and tells us that that's a good thing and that's something we should .be looking for, 1 or whether Lundgren tells us, I think we need to be told somehow. I'm not sure that that can be done tonight. Having said that, I remain kind of unconvinced on the, on reducing the right -of -way from 60 to 50 feet. I think we've relaxed the 30 feet to 25 feet in the past. I 1 think we usually have done that to pull the houses forward to get them out of trees and things like that. I don't know. I think the Song property was eluded to and I'm not sure if I was here for that particular discussion. So I don't know whether that would be proper in this 1 particular instance or not but it sure sounds like it wouldn't be. I think Jeff is right on the point when he says that the more pieces of property that fall below our standard lot size, the harder we're supposed to look at it so I think we're doing our job. I don't think we're* trying unfairly to single this out for some reason. I think we've instructed ourselves in drafting the ordinance to do exactly what we're doing tonight. I don't know that I'd characterize it as • what, this is my own personal opinion and I've said this several times and I've never seen a nod from anybody yet but I'll say it one more time. You know to me it's not what the city is getting. It's what the people that move in. It's the future residents of these homes. It's really what are they going to be living in and what amenities are they getting and it's almost like what is the developer offering those future residents of the city, and they will be residents and taxpaying citizens of the city and they're the ones that are going to most directly benefit or be harmed by what we do here tonight. They're going to be living in it and you can say buyer beware and if they don't like it, move in. But the minute you start putting in some of these smaller, lower income and I don't know if Lundgren is really low , income housing. I can't even get a rise out of Terry. He's busy writing something I think but I think that I don't agree with that philosophy and I'd like to be big brother a little bit on some of those issues. As far as the connection. I lived at the end of a cul -de -sac. Bought it for that exact purpose. I came to the meeting to have the city not put it through. They put it through anyway. I've been there. And it's interesting because of course I lived through the 100 year storm where one end of our, the only entrance and exit from our development was blocked off. And it began to dawn on me that you can't foresee all contingencies and that these things make sense. So I would like to see us look at this and I know we've looked at 1 38 h 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 the break away fences and everything else and the city staff hates them. But the one thing I that differs between my situation and these are that these are long established neighborhoods. They have a character about them and I moved in. I was there for 6 •months to a year. Granted I moved in because it was a cul -de -sac, or so I thought. But here this will change I the character of at least Kiowa I'm convinced and perhaps Lake Riley, because there will be additional traffic on Kiowa. You can't get around that fact.and that will change the character of that neighborhood. And I hate to see that done. I really don't want to see that done. I I remain less convinced for Lake Riley Blvd, but on the other hand it is a long, well established neighborhood and we may be changing the character of it and I don't want to do that without a darn good reason. And if our people are telling. Our, meaning city. If city I safety and fire are telling these people that well geez, we really don't want it. Well I'm going to sit up here and...We need to get our story straight one way or anothet on that particular issue before I'm willing to vote and force these people to change the character of :1 their neighborhood. Even though I've been pretty consistent for the last 4 or 5 years in saying that we can't have long cul -de -sacs. Having said those things, I think we have some issues that probably still need to be fine tuned. We've heard about some tree count on the 1 little finger sticking south there. We've heard about the berming. I think that's taken care of in the conditions. We have a park access trail/and a trail along TH 101 that needs to be • I looked at. I would prefer review of all these various issues and perhaps Lundgren and city staff wants to take a second shot at us for why this is a good subdivision and if they get the general gist that we're concerned about the number of small lots, they may even take a look at rearranging something for us. I guess I would prefer to see this tabled personally. I don't I know how the applicant feels about that. There was one other thing I was going to say. Oh yeah. The barricade with the temporary turn around. The sign. It should say, this street I shall be extended in the future, and we really mean it. We're not kidding. So having said that, is there a motion? I Mancino: I move that we table this. The Preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of property to create 134 single family lots...and rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD, Planned Unit Development Residential. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? 1 Farmakes: I'll second. Batzli: Discussion. I Conrad: Terry, is that what you want to do? Do you want to come back and give us a shot at justifying? Seriously, I'm not sure you're close. I'm really not sure. You've come in 1 here with subdivisions or PUD's in the past and they're just obvious to us. This one is not. 1 39 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 1 You're saying some things to us that we've never heard another developer say. I haven't seen a typical subdivision in Chanhassen for a long time so I'm not sure this is an alternative. I guess I would like to see you back telling us why we should. You know Chanhassen. You know 15,000 square feet is really something that we hold near and dear and you're going below that and there was really not a very consistent way of telling us what the city, or what the community in general was getting. Yet on the other hand there are a few of us here that feel you're way off. I don't think you're close Teary right now. So if he comes back and justifies. You know right now I think he's going to go back and come back in and justify to us why. Without a clear consensus that we're ready. That if he justifies it, we'll go for it. The current configuration but with these, we'll take a look at the connectivity to the properties that surround. You know for sure we're going to do that but I want to send Terry a good signal here so that when he comes back, he's meeting our needs and I'm just personally saying, 60 some lots that are below 15,000 square feet, I didn't see it in the plans with environmental features. I didn't see it there so what I'm saying is I don't know that he can persuade me if he comes back. Mancino: I agree. 1 Farmakes: I can say what I'd like to see. One of the things I'd like to see on average size, when we look at when we average out these issues is buildable lot size and in some cases, the 1 largest lots on this particular development, because of the pipeline, are not buildable. And I think that certainly the 46%, or whatever it is, is a major stumbling block with me. Batzli: Well I suggested tabling and we got the motion in part because I think, I don't know that the applicant or the city really concentrated on what we were looking for. And they've heard our comments tonight and I think they know what our concerns are and if they want to 1 rework something to try to take care of those concerns, I mean they're free to do that before, they don't have to just come back and sell us on this plan. Conrad: I guess I'm trying to get just maybe et a nose count here for, I think Matt felt that it's Y close. Scott: We need a separate bar. Conrad: And I'm just trying to give Terry some kind of, and he's keeping track. He's taking 1 notes of what we're saying. But I really want him to have a sense of what we're saying and there's some specific issues that we brought up but do we feel lot size. The number of small lots, are we close or are we far away from that? From justifying the 60+ lots that are between 11,000 and 15,000 square feet. Maybe I'm asking. 1 40 - - n 1 • 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 1 Farmakes: No, I think it's a real good question. I'm trying to think in my mind what that 1 should be as a guide. Is it 20 %. Conrad: I don't know that I have an answer to the number, and there is none. You know if Terry could come back and say the 63 lots are justified because we're putting, we're doing the following things. Batzli: Yeah but it's not quantifiable but I think clearly you heard from the, whatever was said that I think, at least in my own mind and I'll characterize your comments and you can disagree with me but Ladd and Joe, Jeff and Nancy probably had a harder time than Matt and ' I. And those, you four are the ones that he's going to have to sell harder because I, I'm looking at it maybe a little bit differently than the four of you but I think he's got a long way to go with the four of you, from your comments. 1 Ledvina: Well I don't want it to be a situation where it's adjusting lot lines and I don't think that's where it's at, and I think that's what you were saying. • Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if I could uali things because I want to make sure... I 9 fy a couple P thing thought I did understand that until Matt's last comment. I thought that the issue was lot size ., and adjusting lot lines may allow me to adjust lot size. So I want to make sure. Farmakes: That was my understanding and the issue I think is the percentage of subsized lots. Scott: It could mean fewer lots. Terry Forbord: What if in the pursuit of larger lots...whatever that number is, that I brought ' that in and we say well geez, now I don't like the way it looks. Would you rather that I go back. I'm just trying to, it will change the way this looks to achieve what it is you're telling me you want and from a design standpoint, I mean I'm going to work on that because I want 1 to bring it back in looking the same but if it doesn't, I'm just trying to get some direction. Scott: Terry, how many homes do you want to sell? Batzli: How many lots are on there? 1 Terry Forbord: 134 home sites. Conrad: You know what you've got to do, you've told us this and it's the thing that I'm 1 struggling with the most is the fact that this land is not very pretty. And somehow you have, 1 41 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 ' you didn't embellish the p lantin s. In fact the number of units per acre is higher than a P g Pe g typical subdivision. Chanhassen is averaging 2 units per acre net. You're at 2.4. You just didn't tell me that we're going to take a real boring piece of property and turn it into something. Now maybe your buildings are always top quality Terry but that's part of the thing but you really didn't do anything to this land and I always look for what are you doing for the land. What are you doing for the people. Boy I've got, you've got to take me a ways to sell me on that. You haven't done that. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? 1 Batzli: Yes sir. Terry Forbord: ...to do, and I guess I'd like, I think I'm hearing everybody say the same thing. I have another site that was very similar to this in Plymouth. That we're just finishing the final details on. I would be happy to take the Planning Commission there and I can show them the before shots. Aerial shots and then they can see what's there now. I can either do that or I could just do slides. But it's almost an identical situation. Roads on 3 sides. Flatter than a pancake. Actually that one maybe had a few, some wetlands. This one doesn't but if you saw what it is today, you would say now there's a PUD. I mean because anybody, we're seeing people come out and saying, my god. I can't believe this is the same piece of property. That's what a PUD allows you to do. Batzli: Where is it? 1 Terry Forbord: It's on County Road, at the intersection of County Road 24 and Highway 101. It would be the northwest corner. And that's a good example of an existing condition and that site was featureless. Other than some wetlands but it had more character even than this one but we're going to try to do the same thing. I can't do that as a standard subdivision. So I would be happy to do either do that through slides... 1 Batzli: What I think, I think it would be helpful to do it by slides. I mean I'm going to try and make an effort and I'm sure other Planning Commissioners will try to make an effort to go up there and drive through it but I think slides would be better, especially for the record. Terry Forbord: It's called Heather Run and there is signage that will direct you. ' Mancino: Where is that again Terry? Terry Forbord: On the northwest comer of the intersection of State Highway 1 1. S rry g y 0 Same highway. And County Road 24. A good way to get there would be take 494 north. Go west 42 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 on Highway 55. Go south on 101 and it will be on your left side. g Y Okay, thank you. I'd also just like to make a comment, while we haven't voted on Batzli: O y, Y just anything, I think my nose count was more no's than yes's for the connection. Is that right? For the connections in general. Conrad: More no's? Batzli: More no's. 1 Conrad: That's correct. • Batzli: Yeah. So thank you all for coming in. We have not actually voted on the issue but as it stands it looks like there's at least three no's. I think Matt might be persuaded for one connection and Joe I think was saying no for Kiowa and potentially for Lake Riley? Is that what you're saying? Scott: I had a problem with understanding, because I know what's going to happen to those 1 guys but I'm familiar with both areas so. Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. ' Resident: Just a question. With all the neighborhood input tonight, if you hear this again oh another night and all of us don't show up, can we assume that all of our comments are on the 1 record. Batzli: All of the comments are on the record and the City Council will see those and we'll 1 remember them, believe me. But you'll receive notice again or will it just be published? Krauss: I'll touch on that for a moment. Our next Planning Commission meeting is on the ' 17th. The following one is on December 1st. What these things often put us in is the need to sit down with the developer and start working out issues. Whether that can be turned around in a holiday shortened week, with a big agenda already scheduled for the 17th, is questionable. So what we will do is we will notify the neighbors again...when it comes back to you on the Planning Commission. 1 Batzli: Right. So you will notify the neighbors, so you should be notified of the next meeting. 1 1 43 1 Planning Commission Meeting November 3, 1993 g , 1 Resident: If not this much of a turnout can happen, can you still remember how many people talked to you tonight? 1 Batzli: Yes. Farmakes: It's on video. Batzli: Okay, thank you all for coming in. 1 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to table the proposed planned unit development to rezone 80.8 acres of property zoned A2 to PUD and preliminary plat to subdivide 80.8 acres into 134 single family lots and 7 outlots, for the Dolejsi and Rogers property, Lundgren Bros proposal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: 1 Batzli: Paul, do you have anything for us? Or Kate, you might as well tell us because Paul's busy. 1 Aanenson:. The last City Council meeting, quite a few items were tabled because...but they did approve the motel site plan expansion. Centex was tabled because of the length of the meeting. They also tabled the Jean Addition. The one lot subdivision. Krauss: Let's put it this way, I didn't give you a Director's update because there wasn't anything to tell you. Scott: I was at that meeting and the garbage thing just expanded to like, I think I left at 11:00 and they were still talking garbage. Batzli: What did they decide on that? ' Krauss: They decided to continue it. Batzli: The garbage thing was continued? Okay. ONGOLNG ITEMS. 1 44 , 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY ' PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKE RILEY 1 BOULEVARD, DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS. Batzli: Paul, as a technical matter. Is this a public hearing? Krauss: I believe technically you continued that from last time. 1 Batzli: We closed the public hearing but we continued the issue. Krauss: You continued the item. ' Batzli: Okay. okay. Well, oka . I'm going to run it like a public hearing. 1 Public Present: ' Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Lydia Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Del Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Russ Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail Eldon Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail Hallie Bershow 9271 Kiowa Trail Pat Swenson 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. ' Craig & Kate Halverson Fred Amrhein 9283 Kiowa Trail 9350 Kiowa Trail Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail Larry Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. Jean Christensen 360 Deerfoot Trail ' Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Richard D. Olin 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 23 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Have you had an opportunity to review the letter dated today, 17 November from 1 Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban? Generous: No. 1 Batzli: No, you haven't had an opportunity to review that? Do you have a copy of it? Krauss: We were iven that at the start of the meeting tonight. g g g Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the commission? 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. The items that we have submitted to you in written form from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban pertain to issues of the outstanding issues in our mind. I believe all of those issues, other than what the new items that were in the staff report this time, are pretty much the same issues that existed last time we appeared before you. We believe that staff has done an excellent job in discussing the PUD questions that were raised at the last meeting by the Planning Commission. That staff has pointed their amendment to the staff report and those portions are underlined as it relates to the findings criteria of the planned unit development and we are prepared this evening to embellish upon those further if the Planning Commission finds that the findings of the staff are not sufficient for them to support this PUD. Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will address for you the matters that are in writing and as I said, were pretty much the same matters that we discussed last time with a few new twists and they're addressed in also the new items that were in the staff report submitted to you recently. Both John and I are available for questions from the Planning Commission and the public if there as well but I'll let Mr. Uban address those issues. 1 John Uban: May I use the overhead projector? Batzli: Yes. 1 John Uban: We did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a letter just for your record but 1 I would like to go through the issues. They're just I think 5. To review. Under the recommendations that staff has created, number 5 pertains to parks or park trails. And we agreed to do that. This is a park issue so it's probably one that you won't really consider. 1 Just for your information. We're asking that those trails that they're asking us to build should be credited against the trail fee that we're required to pay. It seems only fair to do 24 1 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 that. Number 17 though, here we are talking about I think it's a neighborhood issue. What has really started as a neighborhood issue and that is, the different ways that this subdivision ' can access the adjacent neighborhoods and there are two issues were discussed. One was a connection to Kiowa and the other was the Lake Riley Blvd. We had always planned, because we understood staff wanted us to connect to Kiowa and we have developed our plans to do that. And as we have found out at the last meeting, that there was a strong concern about that and we're quite willing to have the cul -de -sac if it doesn't eliminate a lot or something in the process. The other issue that came up that we didn't really plan for was a ' requested connection to Lake Riley Blvd. In here it is to shorten a single loaded cul -de -sac. In other words, it goes along the lakeshore. In other words lots on one side. Normally you'd say, well can we do this but the problem really is that we lose a lot. This edge of the subdivision looks out over Lake Riley. Has some of our best lots and we really need to have some really good lots to help us absorb some of the costs of the other parts of the subdivision or large lots that we're creating to buffer our development from Highway 101 for instance. ' So it needs to be balanced. When we lose one of our very big lots, it becomes a great concern...and we don't think there's a strong need for it considering that even if it was built, the remaining cul -de -sac is still at least a quarter mile long. That the efficiency of the Fire • Department in my opinion is not strongly enhanced. It only is enhanced for a section of the... road between Lyman and this entrance. And the rest of it will still have the same perceived problems of snow storage, parking, turn arounds and so forth that we have. And so we really 1 believe that this particular connection is not strongly needed. We're caught in a sense of different neighborhood concerns and different city requirements in developing this particular subdivision considering these two connections. So what we would like to do is try to 1 cooperate with both neighborhoods and not have either connection. That would be just fine with us. You do have two good connections up on Lyman Blvd and the whole subdivision loops through and connects. The other option to us obviously would be that we would just ' continue with the plan that we did prepare with that anticipated access to the south. Number 18 then. Leaving that access...at this point. Is the consideration of the 50 foot right -of -way. We still believe that this is an attribute that is important to us. It does help us consolidate the grading and utilities that run from the street. The street size is the same as a standard street size and the right -of -way is 50 feet instead of 60. The design is curvalinear and it's specifically done to help create a little more intimate atmosphere on the streets. There's a desire for 60 foot right -of -way. The standard setback which is 30 feet. One way to accommodate the 60 foot obviously is to make a 5 foot shorter setback. Since neither one ' seems to be accessible from different...from staff, that we want you to help us resolve that and we think maybe one compromise might be a 50 foot right -of -way but with an additional utility easement to allow flexibility for utilities along the edge and then still keep our 30 foot setback. That would keep the physical plan the same but would allow for utilities or for public safety. To have more flexibility in maintaining their right -of -way that they desire with the 60 foot right -of -way. So this 50 foot with a 5 foot utility easement on either side may 1 25 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 work out as a reasonable compromise in this case. The continuation of required dedication for Lyman Blvd in addition to what we've already shown as dedication continues to add more and more right -of -way to our formula of how much of this property is being construed as right -of -way and it's already very large and we showed some of those numbers to you last time. That it has a fairly large component of right -of -way dedication. And what that does is it technically makes their lot smaller so enlarging right -of -way of interior streets. Adding more right -of -way to the perimeter in essence continues to shrink technically the amount of land that goes into our lots. And we're really talking about where should this land be. Should we have it in right -of -way or should it be in a lot. But the physical plan, exactly where the streets will be, exactly where the homes will be is a very good plan and that's what we want to pursue. And what we're asking for is for you to consider in our PUD application and subdivision is this need for flexibility in how we technically address these issues but giving us the ability to be efficient. To create a good subdivision. Good design that addresses many hard issues on all it's perimeters. And to consolidate in the interior. And this is a very reasonable request I believe. Item number 26 is fairly simple. That we had talked about a date for a cut off for doing grading and erosion control and so forth as November 15th. It still says October 31st and I think this is okay with your staff. And number 32 is an additional request. This is one of the new ones. That more trails and sidewalks be built in the subdivision to continue giving access to other neighborhoods at Bandimere Park. We've already agreed to one connection through and it seems like, and it's not very specific that even more is being asked. We think that we've done quite a bit. We have a road system that's really designed to keep cars parked in the driveways as most subdivisions are designed with curvalinear standard width and in most subdivisions, and • 1 certainly in the subdivisions that are around this site. Most people do their bicycling and so forth on the edge of the street and get to the park. And so we're making the connection for the trail from Lake Riley Blvd but then it enters the street system and I think at this point, the 1 way we have it designed and splitting up the different roads so people go out in different directions, minimal traffic is created and the roads as used in a typical subdivision in a suburban area. It will work very well. And the need for additional trail or sidewalk we don't think is necessary here. The other thing that we're finding, that Lundgren Bros finds when they talk to their customers, and where do you or what qualities do you want in your lot. That when it comes to bringing a sidewalk or something they have to maintain again in their front yard, these are some of the things they've left the inner city for. Because they didn't want to shovel sidewalks. They have a bigger driveway now and that seems to be enough for them and this is one thing they tend to choose otherwise. Other than the ones that might have a sidewalk. So we'd like not to add that as an additional burden to the subdivision. To summarize, we're really here trying to cooperate with the neighborhood. To all their concerns. We're trying to dedicate as much park, as much right -of -way as we possibly can. Cooperate in all reasonable fashions but we're getting squished. We've tried to look at all the options. We end up losing lots if we make absolutely all these concessions. And we start 1 26 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 losing affordability of the subdivision. Lundgren Bros and Terry can speak a little more to ' this. It's important that they have a diversity of product in the sense that it all can't be the high end buildings in the woods. We need diverse but very good quality neighborhoods. And this is not low end by any means but it is part of a variety of neighborhoods that Lundgren is trying to create. One in which should have reasonable costs. Good design and a 1 variety of lots. Some large...and some smaller where people don't have to maintain as large a lot. So it matches a broad spectrum of customer needs. So we hope you consider these 1 things and we would like to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would other members of the commission like to see Terry give us more 1 background on why this should be rezoned a PUD? Any thoughts on that? • Scott: No. Batzli: You don't want to see it more? Ladd? 1 Conrad: That's up to Terry. Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: I agree with Ladd. 1 Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: That's the proposer's option certainly. ' Batzli: Okay. Well he basically asked us if we wanted to see more so that's why I'm asking the question. ' Ledvina: Well, I don't need to see any more. Batzli: Okay. I was asking the fellow commissioners whether they wanted to see more background as to why this should be rezoned PUD and the underwhelming response I got was that, that's at your option so I think the answer was no, at least at this time. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Yes please. ' Lydia Ardoyno: Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Before I have a couple comments but first I'd like to get a clarification of just exactly where this road is going to come in to Lake Riley from that cul -de -sac. If it's going to come in. I'm not, one of the issues we 1 discussed was safety and I'm trying to measure the level of safety and what we perceive it to 1 27 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 be and what you perceive it to be. Hempel: It would be at this location here where the proposed cul -de -sac is on the drawing. Lydia Ardoyno: And where's Lake Riley? 1 Hempel: Lake Riley Blvd is right here. 1 Scott: Is there any way that the residents who live on Lake Riley Blvd can get a fix as to where that's coming out because I know that there's probably some people who, there's probably 3 or 4 people here today who think that that cul -de -sac is coming right in front of their house. And based upon that diagram and anything that we've received, I don't think any of the residents have a clue. Unfortunately, neither do I. 1 Generous: I have an approximate address. It's somewhere around 9131 or 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. 1 Scott: How much of a swing is that as far as residences? YLydia Ardoyno: My question is, how many homes are there between Lyman Blvd and the Y Y cul -de -sac on Lake Riley? Generous: You mean at the end of the road? Lydia Ardoyno: From Lyman to the cul -de -sac. I'm guessing there's a dozen. 1 Batzli: Are you asking for information on how many there are going north to south until you 1 hit the proposed road? Lydia Ardoyno: I think so. Batzli: Now, I hate to either ask this question but do you live on Lake Riley Blvd? Lydia Ardoyno: Yeah. I just gave you. 1 Batzli: Okay. Okay. So I mean I'll ask you. How many do you think there are? I mean between there. Lydia Ardoyno: ...I'd say there's a dozen but I'm guessing because I don't know where this ' cul -de -sac's going to be at some point. e' 28 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Batzli: Well let's assume it comes out right at the southeastern corner of the property there. Say about a dozen because I don't know that our people have gone out and actually physically counted. So you'll probably have as good information. 1 Lydia Ardoyno: Well again, I'm only guessing where the cul -de -sac is...No one knows for sure where that cul -de -sac's going to be. Batzli: No, but I'm saying assume it comes out right at the southeastern, the southern most boundary. Lydia Ardoyno: About 8 then? 8 homes. Resident: There's 8 to the corner of that... Lydia Ardoyno: So there's 8 homes. Is that kind of a general consensus? There's 8 ?... ' Okay, let me go on. Batzli: Please, I mean get to your point. • Lydia Ardoyno: My point is that I'm trying to measure the safety issue from a.rational viewpoint and I live further down so I mean it doesn't...corning in if it doesn't impact me one way or the other, but it seems to me like it has a lot to do about opening up that and it . doesn't seem to be there's going to be very much increase in the safety of the residents on Lake Riley because you've got 2 or 3 that are right there where Lyman is and that's, you know unless a tree happens to fall right there, which may happen or may not happen, so you've got 2 or 3 that it isn't going to make much difference here because they're right on Lyman and then you've got another maybe 5 or 6 that are going to be in that area between ' where the cul -de -sac is and Lyman Blvd and then the rest of us are still in the same situation we've always been in. So it just seems like it's a lot of to do being made about the safety when you try to measure exactly what is the benefit, there doesn't seem to be very much ' benefit to very many people. And those 5 or 6 all are opposed to the opening anyhow and the rest of us that are down there, it's all going to be the same thing. No sidewalks. Narrow roads. Everyone's looking out for the kids on the bicycles and we're all, that's fine. We're ' willing to live with that so I don't understand why everyone thinks it's going to be such an increase in our safety to put that roadway in...maybe I'm missing something. 1 Scott: I think I know one of the, I was one of the people who would like to see the connection and generally speaking, the comments that we get on developments from the Fire Marshal are primarily just make sure there's enough fire hydrants and the streets are labeled accordingly and that's usually about all we get. This is the first development where there 29 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 was a paragraph that stated something to the effect that in a relative recent past there have been a number of fires in that area and because of the one access point, that they felt that the safety of the residents was compromised and also the lack of water. And then from doing some other research on my part, from what I understand to fight a fire in that particular area you need at least 3 vehicles. And if you also add to that another public safety, you could have a half a dozen vehicles down there and if this happens to be during the winter where you have access restricted even further. So I was impressed by the fact that the Fire Marshal took the time to cite that. Because he normally does not get very excited about these things. He keeps it fairly straight. Lydia Ardoyno: Sure. We were all impressed by that but the fact of the matter is, he's only talking about 8 homes that are going to get an improvement. The rest of us it's still the same thing. Scott: No. 1 Conrad: No, no, no. That's not true. 1 Lydia Ardoyno: It's the same thing for that stretch of road. The only situation that changes it is if something has to happen. A tree falls on that little section of the road. 1 Conrad: That's the point. Lydia Ardoyno: Then you get to come through, all through the Lundgren Bros development Y Y Y g g g l� P but it's a very narrow piece, very narrow. It's not even, I don't know. How many yards, a 1 few yards up there. I just, it seems like a lot for a little in my opinion. Batzli: Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the 1 commission? Yes sir. One of you two sirs. Del Smith: I'm Del Smith. I'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I also have some questions on the validity of the safety issue. I think it was told last meeting, one of our residents did speak to whomever, fire chief or whoever and as you recall they indicated that there really wasn't an issue from a safety standpoint. That they could go either way on it. I'd re, you know you get down to the end of the cul -de -sac, whether there's a connection there or not, whether it really benefits anybody. I guess I have a real hard time with that. Whether the trucks are down there, and to get back and forth from the end of that cul -de -sac isn't going to be any easier no matter whether there's an access there or not. So I guess I'd like to really have you look at that issue. Any other traditional traffic that's on Lake Riley Blvd, if you've driven it, no matter what end you're on, it's narrow. And with kids it's even, you've 1 30 - A 1 1 111 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 got to really watch it so we're real concerned about additional traffic. I _guess I just wanted ' to remind you too that there is a petition signed by probably about 90% of the residents against having this connection made so I just wanted to remind you of that. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of staff. One of the comments I asked last meeting was a ' response on that letter. The resident came up and talked about the fire chief. The letter I had in my packet contradicted that and what we say from the resident, as far as I know is the resident's interpretation. Pm not saying that it's right or wrong but it was in conflict with 1 what I had in my packet. Did you get a response at all in that regard? Generous: No we didn't. Krauss: We've had no further clarification. We have a written letter that was given to us by the Fire Marshal. He had told us that he was going to sit down with the Fire Chief and 1 Assistant Fire Chief and review the matter. This did not originate with us. This is not a made up issue. This is an issue that came about based upon his fighting 3 fires in the • neighborhood. And he has not deviated from that. Farmakes: So the osition that we have here currently is the most updated position, is that P Y correct? Krauss: That's the one... 1 Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. 1 Russ Frederick. I'm Russ Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Blvd. In conjunction with this safety factor, I'm right across the road to the north. My house burned in March. I'm on a dead end. It's a 60 foot right -of -way. And there is a factor on your narrow roads. It's not a developed road it's yet a private road but I agree with these people. We're willing to live with the situation. In my case it didn't make any difference. It was a gas fire. The house was gone before the Fire Department got there anyway but there is a certain amount of I problem. I will go along with that. But my other concern is talking about a 50 foot right -of- way across the road. We wanted, or had a 50 foot right -of -way and it's shown on the map going north there. But I believe it was 2 years ago when the fellow wanted to sell his property and there had to be a 60 foot right -of -way in order for him to sell and we all had to go along with it. I think that's only fair that it is a standard and I think it's a good standard. Very good one. The other thing I feel is that you start going to your smaller lot sizes. You 1 pull down an area invariably and I feel that if a person can't maintain the proper lot size, then 1 31 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 you've got to... Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the 1 commission? Jamie Heilicher: Jamie Heilicher from 9280 Kiowa Trail. Just one quick question. You had 1 referred to the approval, or at least the recommendation from the Planning Commission or that you were going to have a back to back cul -de -sac and then you furthered that by saying until 212 was built. I'd like an explanation of, or a contradiction of what the definition of 212 and why there isn't any difference? Batzli: Go ahead. 1 Generous: Well we believe that when Highway 212 is resolved, the traffic patterns in this area will change and people will predominantly go to the north and so, opening up this - section would be beneficial for the community because the city is developing Bandimere Park. One of the elements of that development is we'd like to put a parking area off of 92nd Street and the only way that works out is if that roadway is open to provide openings from either end. And so the reason for the cul -de -sac is because we believe there's some merit that people will use the road from the development down Kiowa Trail to the south. 1 Jamie Heilicher: So it's intended to be an access to the park through cars at the intersection of Kiowa Trail and. • 1 Generous: And 92nd, yes. Krauss: You have to understand the major access to the park is going to be off Highway J P g g $ Y 101. What the park's director was looking at was an internal access for residents. It's far enough away from a lot of homes that a small parking area from that side of the park may be appropriate. Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? 1 Eldon Berkland: Eldon Berkland. I'm from Kiowa...9261 Kiowa Trail. There was an area of the staff report that really concerned especially my wife and myself and our next door neighbor, Pete and Wendy Pemrick. If you look on the map that's in your packet it shows the Kiowa Trail, our property. We have a driveway, we share a common driveway off of the end of Kiowa Trail. This driveway's been used since the 50's. It was discovered in 1984 when the Dolejsi's bought the property that this driveway encroached on their property. Since this affects them selling their property and developing this lot we've been in 1 32 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 negotiations with Dolejsi' s... This weekend we resolved our conflict. What we did was, s th the Do � s s , in effect established a 14 foot right -of -way permanent easement on their property for a roadway as well as a 16 foot common easement on all of our properties. There's actually 4 property owners but there's only 2 of us that use this, regularly use this driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail. Somewhere in the verbiage he talks about maybe having to relocate this driveway to come off a cul-de -sac from the Lundgren Bros development. I'm sure Terry's building an excellent development but we don't want to be in his neighborhood. We like Kiowa Trail. We bought our house and feel very much a part of this neighborhood and • would be very opposed to becoming a part of another neighborhood. Changing our address. Thank you. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? .I Hallie Bershow: Hallie Bershow, 9271 Kiowa Trail. I have a question about the cul-de -sac. I just found out about this at dinner time but what I heard is that the back to back cul -de -saes are going to be enlarged, or on Kiowa Trail it is and that's our property you're planning to enlarge it on to. I want to know what's going to happen to Kiowa Trail. Batzli: Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that at this point. I did have a telephone conversation earlier today with Mr. Berquist regarding the back to back turn around so I may 1 have given some erroneous information as far as the exact location of it. I did indicate at a. point the cul -de -sac may be, with a new subdivision...on Kiowa provide access, parking... access to the Lundgren residents to use Bandimere Park. Then after conversation with staff 1 members my understanding that the proposal would be dead ending the Lundgren development at the south property line of the development in a temporary cul -de -sac and also provide...turn around facility at the very northerly end of Kiowa Trail. Therefore the existing • gravel driveway that is out there now would utilize existing Kiowa Trail and not the Lundgren Bros development. What Mr. Berquist read in the report with regards to relocating the driveway, I believe for clarification purposes is the existing home site of Mr. Dolejsi. ' The driveway does run from kind of a skewed angle with the proposed new roadway and then eventually tie in the very southern tip of the development. What we would like to see when the new roadway is built in front of the Dolejsi parcel, that...for their driveway to be perpendicular to the roadway and the old driveway. Batzli: That's for the driveway from the house down to the southern boundary? Hempel: That's correct. 1 33 1 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Pat Swenson: Pat Swenson and I live on Lake Riley Blvd. As some of you may know I'm 1 associated with the city from the past and I'm acutely conscious of the necessity of roads for fire protection and health protection. However, and I really have not proposed it up to this point. However, with the potential use of a parking area for the park, my ears are becoming very acute because I can see that we have, as you may know, a very large apartment complex on the north end of Lake Riley. And I can see a great many of those people driving through a very narrow road, which is true. Through, this is one area where they would come up Lake Riley to go into that complex to get to the parking area for the park. I cannot see anybody taking this as an access to TH 101 for instance. I think it would be a circuitous route and... However, with the potential for the parking area at the end of that area, I could see that this could present a very dangerous situation for young people. We've got a lot of little kids. I would like to have that addressed. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Hallie Bershow: Excuse me. I don't think my question's been answered about-where the cul -de -sac goes. Batzli: I think that Dave tried to address that. Can you show us on the map? Hallie Bershow: I'm not sure... 1 Hempel: Are you located on the lot here? Resident: She's on the first lot right there. Hempel: The first lot here? Okay. It's my understanding that the future park and...we're . 1 referring to is back in this area. The dead end cul -de -sacs would be...for the Lundgren subdivision it'd be a temporary cul -de -sac at this location and then what exists up there now I believe is just a paved section straight on through to a gravel section and it pretty much how it exists today...being able to turn around up there for the last 20 years so I don't really see us expanding the pavement section up there any wider than absolutely necessary. So we would not be taking any more additional property of your's for the turn around. Don Sitter: I'll make this real quick. Just a clarification. My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I'm the last property to the east shown here. I also have access to my property through this Kiowa Trail. Our normal drive comes in through Lake Riley Blvd. A couple of things in the staff report. It says that there is no recorded easement for these properties and I .1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 think that's in error. We do have a mutual 2 rod easement across the back of the property. Unfortunately somewhere in the past a surveyor, the story goes it was a drunk surveyor and got off 16 feet and so the road got placed in the wrong spot and we worked very hard with the neighbors over the last few weeks to meet. I think we had 5 different meetings and our objective was to save the trees. To save the existing roadway and make everybody happy with what we came up with. And we did come up with an agreement with the Dolejsi's and the four neighborhood properties that live here and I understand from what Dave is saying, 1 we're going to keep that now? It's not going to, I mean this is the same? When we made this agreement, that will hold with the city? You're not changing the turn around and we are still going to have access across these 4 properties from Kiowa, is that right? ' • Hempel: I haven't seen that, that's correct. 1 Don Sitter: Basically we have a 2 rod easement right now and we're moving that easement to go over the road where it exists. The pavement that comes into these two properties. So we're really just trying to make right what was done wrong 75 years ago or whenever that drunk surveyor... • Hempel: I guess depending exactly where your driveway enters Kiowa Trail in relationship A to the property line there to the Dolejsi and Lundgren development. Maybe the entrance gets shifted slightly to the south. Something like that. You're not coming out onto that cul -de -sac to the north. You'll have to maintain your Kiowa access. Don Sitter: Okay, and I think that's what we really want. Is to maintain the Kiowa access and not have to cut down maybe the trees that are on the property. There's some very nice mature trees there and that's what we're trying. And I'd just like to say we worked hard with the neighbors and I want to make sure we maintain that. And if that's the case, then I'd like to say thank you for leaving that a cul -de -sac at the end of Kiowa Trail. We were all against that last time so... ' Batzli: Well, I don't know that Dave or Paul or Bob or anyone from the city here can promise you anything until we act on it and then the City Council takes it up so you need to continue to follow your issue. Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I think I'd like to remind you of the neighborhood involvement last time and remember us in your report. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Terry? 1 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, Terry Forbord. 1 35 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Batzli: I always feel so bad when I call you Terry and then you call me Mr. Chair. Terry Forbord: The other night in Orono I did that and they begged for me to call them by their first name. Not to be formal so I tried. I'd like to talk about a couple things related to a couple of these issues. The health, safety and welfare issue is an issue that we take into consideration on every neighborhood that we develop. I have relatives that are planners. I would say we're probably one of, if not the only land developer that I know that has an assistant fire chief to consult with all the time on our subdivisions to try to get their feedback. Every firemen that I know personally, and even our own consultant will tell you that if you came to them and asked them a question about health, safety, welfare, that it would only stand to reason that they would tell you from a best case scenario, here's what we would prefer. And if I was a firemen, that's what I'd say also because obviously their concern is to stabilize and protect property. So if they were given a choice, and you said to them now if you could put a road here or you could make this road this wide or the radius of this road could be this, or if you could have a fire hydrant here, I can guarantee you the firemen would say all the things that would be the best case scenario. And they should do that. Absolutely. Now part of the job of a fire marshal in reviewing subdivisions is to look at all these issues and then find the issues that he could, if he had a wish list, amend or change or whatever. One of the things that's never pointed out, when these get to a body like yourself or a City Council is that, does that mean that in an ideal situation that there won't be a problem either. The fact is that there were 3 fires on this road and that we've spent a lot of time talking about it. The fact is the fire department fought fires. The gentleman who's house burned 1 down burned down before the fire department got there but they did get there. They did fight the fire. If this connection would have been here as proposed, those fires would not have been fought any more diligently. I can document for you fires that have occurred in this city 1 recently that were on roads that were totally accessible. They had problems with those fires. They weren't dead ends so you have to keep things in balance here and you've got to say, that it's possible that fires can happen anywhere. It's possible even in an ideal situation a house can burn to the ground and a life may be lost unfortunately. But I think it's in error to say that if this connection is made, all of a sudden you're greatly going to enhance the health, safety and welfare of this community. I think that's a subjective statement. About the cul- de -sac. Lundgren Bros has, as was already stated, would not be opposed to having no connections. We're talking about 134 lots in here and you could easily, and there are plenty of neighborhoods within this community and other communities, that have 2 accesses for 134 lots. You're talking roughly what, about 67 lots per access. That's manageable. This will not be a unique animal unlike any other subdivision or area in the Twin Cities. There are other areas just like that. So it is possible that you can have no other access. You could close Kiowa Trail. You wouldn't have to make this access here and this neighborhood would function and there'd be more than 2 ways in and out. There were some items and I didn't know if the Planning Commission wanted to talk about them tonight. I guess I'll leave those 36 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 up to them. They're related to affordability. They were items of discussion that were in the staff report and I guess I thought maybe they were put there because one of the Planning Commissions may have called and wanted to discuss it so I wanted to offer it for you tonight if you want to talk about that or if you'd like me to address anything further while I'm up here. I would be happy to. Batzli: I'd like you to address reforestation. Terry Forbord: Okay. The reforestation. I'm not sure, I think reforestation is a good idea. I'm not sure in what context it was meant to be applied here. I mean that there was some suggestion about working with the University and working with some volunteer organizations and such and that's fine with me. I'm not sure exactly what's meant beyond that. Batzli: Do you still like it if you have to provide some of the money for some of the reforestation plant materials? Terry Forbord: I think if it goes beyond what is being proposed in our landscape plan, I think it's unfair. I think that even at the Tree Board meeting when some of the developers • were asked to come in and there was discussion about the reforestation of Chanhassen and there were many long time residents that were present at that meeting and they were willing to state that before development occurred in Chanhassen, there weren't a lot of trees because most of the trees have been clear cut by the farmers and there were a lot of statements to say how they could see from where the City Hall is now down to Lotus Lake. But when development occurs, people come in and the plant a lot of trees. Now all of you know, or I assume you know that when we develop we plant a lot of trees. We exceed what is normally required by a great deal and beyond that, when the people move into their homes, if they can't afford it immediately, they're not only...but as soon as they can afford it, they plant a lot of landscaping. And so over time these kind of things occur by themselves. It's not uncommon for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a neighborhood of this size on landscaping. That is not a small amount. And so when there was some discussion about reforestation, I'm not sure what it meant and I didn't know if they were asking us to contribute additional money beyond what we were proposing to do but I think what we were proposing to do was truly a lot...lot of money. Everything has a price and if you elect to have me talk about affordability, I will talk about that and landscaping and things like that I would say are directly related to that. Batzli: Paul and Bob. Under the current landscaping plan. We don't have our copies of the plan anymore so we can't look at it but in your opinion, is Lundgren Bros going well above and beyond what they're required to do? Under the PUD ordinance. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the problem really is that Lake Riley Blvd is a substandard road and that the city is proposing a bandaid correction to that. Instead of doing that the city should look into improving the substandard roadway itself and providing water service down Lake Riley Blvd. Batzli: Okay. I assume that if we did that, these people would be assessed and then we'd have even more people in here. Yeah, okay. Did you make her aware of that by the way? Generous: I did mention that. Batzli: Okay. Well I appreciate her comments. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Matt, let's start with you again. Ledvina: Okay. The Kiowa Trail issue with the construction of a temporary turn around or whatever, is there actually going to be any construction out there on Kiowa Trail? Off of the subdivision? Hempel: At this point we didn't propose anything I guess. As I mentioned earlier, it's been maintained for the last 15 -20 years in it's current condition. Ledvina: So essentially you'd have a temporary cul -de -sac that would be built on the Lundgren Bros property and then the barricade and that would be that. Is that correct? Hempel: Essentially. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Dave as it relates to the Lundgren Bros proposal with the 50 foot right -of -way and the 5 foot utility easement on each side of the road. What is your opinion of that? Does that get what we need as well? Hempel: No it doesn't because with every plat, every front yard there's a 10 foot drainage utility easement dedicated along with the 60 foot wide right -of -way. It's engineering's belief that the 60 foot right -of -way is required to provide the road maintenance and safe travel for vehicles as well as pedestrians. We just had an incident here yesterday and part of today where we had a substandard sized street and ended up digging up the street to put in water and sewer service in. Ended up closing off the street. It was a dead end street. It happened to be...Lane up here near Shorewood. The residents incapacitated for nearly 12 hours. 42 f) 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Should there have been an emergency...one example. It's a random event that happens but it 1 does happen. So we changed our standard I believe 2 years ago from a 50 foot wide right -of- way to a 60 foot wide right -of -way for those reasons. We needed additional right -of -way. All other developments included in the city dedicate the 60 foot right -of -way it seems like. Even 1 PUD's unless there's been other topographic constraints such as tree preservation, severe grade difference which would require additional grading or a retaining wall and so forth and we have made modifications in those areas. But areas again though where, a little more ' secluded areas that were dead end cul -de -sacs and so forth...or the amount of traffic is much less... 1 Ledvina: Okay, thanks. Let's see on condition number 5 I would support the applicant's contention that the cost of the trail segments built by the developer be credited to the trail fees. I think that makes sense but as we saw in another proposal, that necessarily wasn't the r case but I'd like to state that. And I guess talking about the main issues as it relates to lot size, I know that there's been a lot of discussion on the number of small lots here but I guess I support this development as it's laid out. I do believe that the smaller lots and potentially the lower priced housing in this area can relate to good diversity for affordability. For many new residents of Chanhassen. I think there's value in mixing a development where you have potentially $300,000.00 houses and $125,000.00 houses or $100,000.00 houses. I don't know what the numbers are but those types of ratios. I think as a PUD we see that the lots around the perimeter are the larger sized lots and I think that potentially if we had all 15,000 square foot lots you may see more residences in here that surrounds development discussing their specific concerns as it relates to that fact. So I'm buying into that. I think that you're developing a self contained development and that's going to be well planned and I do believe it will work. Batzli: So you like the fact that they've done, in essence, a defacto blending of this 1 neighborhood with the surrounding neighborhoods? Ledvina: Yes. ' Batzli: And that's an amenity both to the city and future residents of this development? 1 Ledvina: Yes, I think that's so. I don't know if there were more residents here discussing that issue. If we had 15,000 foot lots around here we would be saying, well if this were a PUD you could have done this. I don't think, maybe that point hasn't been emphasized but I 1 think it's a factor in evaluating this. I like the curvalinear layout of the streets. I think that's going to add a lot of character. I think that the houses, obviously the lots are small but I think those, that's not necessarily a bad thing. 1 43 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 Batzli: What do you think about the, and maybe you mentioned this and I misplaced what you said but the Lake Riley Blvd access? - 1 Ledvina: No, I didn't mention that. I would support the staff recommendation on that. I think we discussed that from quite a few different angles and I think that's a reasonable connection to make. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. 1 Conrad: It's going to be interesting to see how we get a consensus on this. Actually I wouldn't want the connection to Lake Riley. I was opposed to that. I'd rather have the 1 street, Lake Riley Blvd upgraded. . Batzli: Can I interrupt you right there? Let me ask a question Paul and/or Dave. Why can't we extend some water from the main that I would assume is going, looping around this development over to Lake Riley Blvd for a fire hydrant or two, if the main problem is getting pumper trucks in there. 1 . Hempel: That is actually one of our, would be one of our conditions for the applicant. If the scenario before you tonight is approved with a cul-de -sac we would require that a fire hydrant 1 or fire water line be extended through the cul -de -sac through the common, road common property. It's to Lake Riley Blvd right -of -way for future connection and extension along Lake Riley Blvd to help flow, fire flow of water quality. That's a given. • 1 Batzli: Okay. So but you could extend it and put a, at least one hydrant if not two along Lake Riley on the corner, the northern and southerly corners? Hempel: More appropriate is fire hydrant placement when the watennain is extended through the entire length of Lake Riley Blvd to ensure adequate fire flows are provided in the fire hydrants. Otherwise you have a sequence of dead end cul -de -sacs and water lines. It doesn't give you the flow that you may need. Batzli: Would it be better than nothing? Hempel: At this point, it comes down, from good sound engineering judgment and as well as 1 economics. Sure, a hydrant there would help...demand use it may not give us the fire protection you need. 1 Batzli: So what you're saying is, you're eventually you'd want to loop it so that it runs down Lake Riley Blvd. But if you can't have that today because the city can't afford to do it and. 1 44 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Hempel: The residents don't want it. 1 Batzli: Right. Would you request that those hydrants be put in? Hempel: At this point, no. I guess I would just look for the future connection of looping that water... Batzli: So you'd just have them stub it to the edge of the property and not even put a . hydrant there? 1 Hempel: That's what we'd typically do, yes. Ba • tzli: Okay. Okay, sorry Ladd. 1 Conrad: Kiowa connection. I'm concerned with parking. I think staff brought up some real good points. I think the back to back cul -de -sacs is what I suggested before. That's what r .� think protects the neighborhood from some of the immediate traffic considerations but I haven't resolved the parking problem for the park. I really don't know how that gets handled. Actually the residents want certain things and I guess there's a price on a lot of these things. I think in terms of improvement of the cul-de -sac, I think the residents would have to pay for it. If they want to maintain isolation, I think then it's their street and that would be a cost factor. But that would be very definitely, it's real clear in my mind that that • would be their load to pay for. And I would give it back to Riley, I'd•do the same thing you know and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this but really if you don't want the connection to this, then there should be a street improvement and they should pay for it. 1 Keep the isolation but pay for what it takes to provide decent city service and protection on those things so there's a cost. It's not like I'm saying, I want to preserve the neighborhood. I think that's real valid but on the other hand, it's sort of an easy out by not compensating 1 with something. I think a 60 foot right -of -way is still the right thing to do. I think there has . to be some trails coming from the north down Highway 101. I don't know that. And bottom line, 56 or whatever the number is, substandard or small lots, there's still too many small lots ' in this property. It's just, you know what's the right number? We don't have numbers in our ordinance because we don't want them. You kind of take a look and you get a feel for these things and in this case I'm still not persuaded that 56 is a right number of very small lots and I think maybe that's education on our part but I don't think we've ever had a PUD that looked like this on property that really didn't have any natural amenities. I think when we ' put in some small lots and Lundgren has done that on their other developments, those small lots have always had some natural features that have done, that have made up for those small spaces and they've done a real nice job. Here it's not the case. At least to my satisfaction. 1 We have small lots. And I guess I'm not persuaded that we're getting affordable housing. 45 u 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 So regardless of what I said about connections to streets and all this other stuff, I don't like the PUD. I think their 56 or whatever the number is, lots below 15,000 square feet is really not what I'm comfortable with. I like the general design of this. I think there's a lot of nice features. I think 56 lots, small lots are just too many. Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: Yeah I didn't pick up on any new information to change my idea. I mean I believe 1 that it's a well laid out design. I cite similar problems that Ladd does. I'm not going to go into that. Another comment on connections. I think it was the first Planning Commission meeting that we held this year dealt with our ordinance on cul -de -sacs which we reduced the 1 length I think down to 600 feet. And the tone has always been, if we can logically make a connection to shorten a cul -de -sac, we're going to take advantage of that. So I've beaten that one to death. I don't have any more comments on it but I don't support this as a PUD. I don't believe it addresses the intent of our PUD ordinance and do not support it and that's the end of my comments. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I think I made my comments earlier about what I use as a guideline and that's the 1 percentage of lots overall. I think, I'm thinking more of a third and it's almost a half. I am looking at the pipeline situation. I use that as an example. Could be a ravine. Could be a slope. Could be one of many things and the different things that we look at, in looking at percentages. What I look at is buildable square feet when I'm interpreting some of the interpretable things of our PUD intent. I look at, from a design standpoint, look at the pipeline there. If a road was run adjacent to the pipeline or followed it, it would cut off several of the lots. You could put homes there but it would make for considerable design problems. As far as selling a home that's sitting on top of a pipeline, I doubt it very much. I use that as an example. I think that from a design concept, surrounding larger lots around the - smaller homes is fine. I don't have a problem with that. It's an innovative way to do it. It also reduces the amount of conflict with the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly neighborhoods that may have been there a long time. In some cases maybe larger lots. Beyond our standard requirements. What I have a problem with is the amount of percentages of the overall development. I would like to see that reduced. I've said that in my last comments at the last meeting. I don't see them reduced. The comments that haven't been addressed here tonight is talking about why such a large amount of undersized lots. I think that the goals of providing a diversity of housing is fine. Those are commendable. I don't 1 think that the city's position on that has been defined, at least that I know of and that the city's still wrestling with that. I'm not against it. I just would prefer to see it defined better. I do not see in this report in discussing this issue the median income in Chanhassen, the 1 46 • •1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 median income in the metro area or the median income in the State of Minnesota. It's an ambiguous statement that's in there and I would, if it is a driving factor in reducing the cost of the house, I'd like to see more information on that type of issue in future developments that come forward here. I think that that's important and basically it takes a lot of the review I think from the commissions. A lot .of information that we could use in determining this factor. But what that percentage would be say for instance within the development. Again I want to state that I think the goals of what was the intent here are commendable. So I don't 1 want to, I don't want to discourage what obviously was a development that took some time and care in coming up with. In the issue of the connection on Kiowa, I would have liked, again my comments that were made to see more issue between the parking and access to the 1 park from that direction and the cul -de -sac. I don't see any plans in the packet here. I don't see any options to that. I don't see Option A, B, C or D. In fact I don't even' have my plans here. I'm looking at the piece here. That's displayed and I don't see that altered from the ' original meeting. I don't see, so I see verbal options here but I don't see, don't see any plans to review. So I would not, unless I see that I would feel uncomfortable about taking any direction with that. As in the comments made in my last meeting, there are substandard roads and in some cases lots. Not in this case but based on old Chanhassen development, where old rules were in effect versus newer rules in this case. Obviously as a city progresses and changes, the rules and considerations in 1960 are not the same as they are in 1993. The City ,. constantly is trying to improve and change along with environmental factors and so on.and we change things. And I do not think that enough consideration is given when we come into a situation where we're going to significantly change a neighborhood situation that is an older neighborhood when new rules are in effect. I'd agree with Ladd's compromise on that issue. As far as the Lake Riley Blvd. However, 1 don't think that this is the issue here to be discussing road improvements on Lake Riley. That would have to be a separate issue and the residents would all have to be made aware of what that would be as far as assessments and so on so I don't think that can really be coupled in with this. On the issue of city staff ' recommendation not to reduce the right -of -way issue, I support that. There's just a lot of things here that don't make this fly in my mind and I would vote to not approve it. 1 Batzli: So you would vote no on the entire PUD? Farmakes: Yes. Batzli: I mentally counted 3 no votes for the PUD. I would vote yes but it sounds like I'm going to be in the minority. I'll still give at least brief comments here. I disagree with Jeff's 1 percentage analysis and you know I'm, my tenure here on the Planning Commission waning, as opposed to waxing. The issue came up when we were looking at the PUD's as to what was acceptable lot size. I guess it was funny to me, or somewhat ironic that I argued so long 1 and hard regarding lot size and everybody thought that small lots were okay. And now we 1 47 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 see PUD's and everybody wants larger lots. I feel vindicated but we've got the ordinance 1 we've got. I live in a PUD and I live on a substandard sized lot and you probably can't tell that and it does cause a certain amount of interesting problems in the neighborhood but they're not that big of a deal so while everybody else has gone to bigger lots, over the years I think I've gone the other way and maybe I'm just like a half cycle behind you guys or something here but. 1 Conrad: You did a good job of persuading us. Batzli: I did such a rsuadin job 'ob of you and in the meantime I seem to have gone the I g persuading Y other way. So it really seems to me that if the development was done right, you look at the development Lundgren Bros did up, I suppose it's Shorewood up on the hill there where they 1 do have the smaller lot sizes and you can tell those lots are less than 15,000 square feet. You know I don't believe Terry when he says he couldn't tell that those were undersized lots. Maybe if they're closer you can tell but you know an 8,000 square foot lot looks pretty small. The houses are on top of each other. And they did a very good job with those lots but you know, you can tell those are small lots. Anyway. The upshot for me is if in fact we are getting blending, which we would not otherwise get, and if we were getting something else and all I can, have figured out so far is that we're getting right -of -way and we're getting blending in exchange for Lundgren Bros trying to squish some homes together. And that would probably be okay with me except I would like to see some more landscaping. And I think that if they did that, I think you'd have a nice little development. So I would be in favor of this PUD provided that some of these concepts of reforestation and Lundgren Bros I helping out in that in some way was accomplished. I think that the break away barrier is fine on Kiowa. I would like to see that however, I do not want to see that, it will be removed automatically once 212 is built. I would rather see that it came back to the city for study and I this was not a knee jerk based on 212 being built. I think that would be an error. I think the residents should have input at that time. And in fact I would suggest that it's even done kind of after 212 is built to see what's what rather than projections of traffic patterns. As far as I the Lake Riley Blvd access goes, I think Ladd is right and it is a bandaid to put an access through there if in fact the real problem is a substandard road and they need water on that street. On the other hand Jeff is right that you really can't or shouldn't link this development I with upgrading that road. And I think that to the extent staff and engineering can work with Lundgren to figure out how to get some water pressure and a couple fire hydrants over there, that's really I think the biggest concern. In re- reading the Fire Chiefs memo, really what he was talking about was the tanker traffic back and forth on the road and if you didn't have to do that, the pumper trucks, or whatever they are, that probably would mitigate the problem, at least in this one particular instance. So I would like to see these neighborhoods not intruded 1 by linking them unless we absolutely had to. And those were my main comments. 1 48 1 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 ' Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I make a few comments? Batzli: Yes. Terry Forbord: One of the owners is here this evening and I think if the Planning ' Commission would like to, I'm sure he would volunteer the information to you that led up to our control of this site. There were over 6 developers, or at least that's what I was told, somewhere between 4 to 6 developers competing for this piece of property. I can tell you I know fairly well that half of those people, the type of products that they do and I feel very confident that I know what they would be proposing for this. And I can tell you that I know they would meet the city codes and I can tell you that it wouldn't look like this. It would look more like, the old wonderful subdivision I showed you last time. Granted it may not look exactly like this but that's the kind of development that you'll probably see on this site if you don't allow a PUD to be utilized here. I know what the concerns were at the last ' meeting. The first thing that I went back to do was I figured out okay, well how can I try to accommodate many of the concerns that the Planning Commission has so the next time that I go back in front of them, they say well geez. They went back and they redid this and pulled some of these lots out and boy I can vote for this. I can't pull any lots out because the numbers don't work. Now and maybe that's not a consideration of the city but then the • alternative is that somebody else can come in and develop it and they'll develop it in a • pattern that won't be as creative but all the lots will be 15,000 square feet. And then when everybody's done, say well they're all 15,000 square feet. We got what we wanted. I'm still not convinced that I've ever heard that from this Planning Commission or a previous one or any City Council say that that's what they want. But the bottom line is, the only way to do it is to take lots out and when you look at the raw density of this, this is not a dense project. It isn't. Those numbers don't lie. So yeah, we can take lots out but then we can't do the deal. So the alternative is that somebody else can come in and do it in a different manner but maybe I've misjudged over the years what I think the city is looking for. But in some of the ' comments that I hear over and over again, I don't think I have. But the owner knows that when we walk away he will be able to sell his property. I can guarantee it. It will just be developed differently. And so I'm just telling you that obviously we'll pursue it with the ' City Council. It's clear the Planning Commission doesn't support the proposal but we may not do everything right, exactly the way the city hopes to see it but we really try and we try to create nice neighborhoods so when they're done they don't look like some things that we ' believe that everybody would rather they not look like. But the only reason I mention this to you is because I did try to take lots out. I made some lots bigger but the numbers don't work and that gets back to the affordability issue that nobody asked me about. There's no such ' thing as affordability in Chanhassen and there won't be. Not until you come out maybe with 500 square foot lots and until there's MUSA expansion and there's more land available and the price of land goes down. Then maybe it will start getting to a threshold where I think 49 i i 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 from the general public's mind they'd call affordable. But every time you exact something, you insist on larger lots and you insist on wider streets and you insist on more trees and you insist on, all those things cost money that ultimately the homeowner pays for. And I have to just pass it on. I can't absorb it. And so that's why we propose many of the things that we do to try and add some different sizes and that sort of thing. I'm sorry that we were unable to do a better job. We tried the best that we could. Batzli: Thank you for your comments Terry. Does anyone have a motion? 1 Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Preliminary PUD #93 -6 subject to the staff conditions with the following modifications. Modifying number 5 to add, the cost of trail segments built by the development shall be credited to trail fees. Number 26. The date as it relates to site grading be changed from October 31st to November 15th. Number 27, the condition be deleted as it is repeated at condition number 11. And 1 adding a condition number 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project to occur along the right -of -ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with Bandimere Park. 1 Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. In your condition 30. I don't recall. Did you want Kiowa to automatically open if 212 was built? 1 Ledvina: I didn't' consider that. I guess I would amend my motion to state that the city re- evaluate the modifications, the opening of Kiowa Trail in response to the construction of 212 and I don't know if it's appropriate to request a public hearing or something of that sort. Batzli: In your motion you did want to connect Lake Riley, correct? To Lake Riley? 1 Ledvina: Yes. 1 Batzli: What condition is that? Conrad: I couldn't find it. 1 Ledvina: I assumed it was in there. Conrad: There's a condition relating to the trail easement. Number 5. Batzli: Number 17. Phase 3 of the development. Is that the? You don't want to delete that heh? 1 50 1 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Ledvina: No. 1 Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? ' Conrad: I don't know. I think just discussion. I think that Terry is talking about trying to develop I think. He knows that Chanhassen develops with a concern with lot size. He knows that. And I think it's been echoed by Planning Commission and City Council over and over ' again in a variety of ways. So you know it's not that there's a magic number and it's not that we don't want to go below the 15,000. We're talking about proportion and that's what this, in my mind, that's what the issue is right now. Farmakes: Is this discussion or are we voting on the motion? 1 Batzli: This is discussion. Farmakes: I support those comments. My comments on the issue of lot size Brian were ' percentages. I would even entertain lots smaller. That's not the point. The point is, the percentage of the development and that's what I've grabbed onto in looking at these tables because I find the information to be not always representative of the facts with the 1 relationship that we're using. It's not intentional. It's just what we use as criteria and that's what I have a problem with. I'm closer to a third and this is closer to a half. 1 Ledvina: Well if they were 14,999, I mean you could say that they're. Farmakes: But a lot of them aren't. A lot of them are closer to 12 to 11. Ledvina: I understand. 1 Conrad: There's a lot of small lots. • Farmakes: I don't mind diversity. I don't see diversity here. I see about half of it being under sized. And what I'm saying here is I'd be more amenable to a third. It's not the issue or the intent of what the design is trying to achieve. But I'm not sure that that's spelled out ' very well for us either so I would not be displeased to see this come back again. I think that generally this development is worth pursuing. It's not, if the numbers aren't there, then they're not there. 1 Batzli: Well, yeah. You know my problem with looking at it as a percentage is, the whole concept in my mind, at least of a PUD is you allow clustering to get open space and 1 protection of natural features. Here we have no natural features. So the issue is whether 1 51 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 we're getting a larger feeling to the neighborhood by getting the blending that they're doing. Now whether they're doing it because they have to do it, because of the pipeline or because they're going to have much more expensive lots that can look through the trees, inbetween houses onto the lake. Whatever reason they're doing it, there is a certain amount of open space and it's not a real dense development. So you know if it's, maybe the numbers didn't work. Maybe he can recalculate them and maybe even move the decimal point the wrong way on one of his figures but he can take a few lots out and maybe...but I think the point of it that there is a clustering here. There is some open space. The development doesn't have a 1 real tight, enclosed look, at least as far as I can tell from a two dimensional representation on the map. And like I said, I'm here to tell you that living in a PUD with under sized lots isn't all that bad. 1 Conrad: I just don't see it Brian. Batzli: I know and you either see it or you don't. Conrad: You see it and I don't see it at all. I see the inner circle as being real dense. And 1 what we've done is put a dense area separated from two major, two highways. Two roadways. Moved them away. I guess I'm valuing that. I think if I was a resident there, I 1 would value that but in terms of how I look at this, it's a real dense area. Farmakes:' And I also. Batzli: But is there a down side to that? What's the down side? Conrad: They've got to live there. 1 Ledvina: They're going to choose to live there. • Conrad: Right. I don't care who, yeah. Anybody can and I'm not going to tell you that I • don't care. But philosophically, this is really a philosophical deal. We planned with lot sizes so long here. When you change the lot size in Chanhassen, there's got to be a real clear reason why because we really perceive that to be very important. Really perceive that and along with natural amenities. And I haven't been sold on that. So when you break that one philosophy, and I tell you. I can go down to 8-10,000. I don't have a problem with small parcels. I don't but it's getting me someplace. It's getting us the cluster with a great deal of open space and I just haven't seen the significant benefit to take me down to the small lots here. I just don't see the benefit. And therefore I don't see the reason to break our standard which is what we really hold dear to us. 1 52 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 Batzli: In the past we've had real clear things that we were trying to save to allow the clustering. We've had the wetlands. We've had the ravines. We've had forests. Here you have a lot with nothing on it. In essence. A plowed field let's assume for a minute. What are you going to try to save, or are you just going to, are you going to require more parkland 1 to be dedicated? What are you going to do? Conrad: This is not a good candidate for a PUD you know. It's not. Yet on the other_hand. ' Ledvina: Do Y ou like the alternative? 1 Conrad: Hey, that's fine. That's just fine. A standard subdivision is just fine with me. • Farmakes: And I don't have a problem with seeing this again if there are lots closer to 1 15,000 rather than percentages that they have. I'd even entertain away from a third or higher to a half if more of them were larger percentage wise. So I did not get the calculator out but if there were fewer of them between 11 and 12, and more of them 13 to 14, I would entertain 1 changing my vote in that regard so. If you're looking for any flexibility there. Batzli: I respectfully disagree with Ladd's comment. I think that the city, the residents, the ' neighbors, everybody's getting something by doing this as a PUD this way rather than bringing in a straight subdivision but that's neither here nor there. Okay. Well, is there any ' other discussion? Otherwise I'll call the question. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Comnssion recommend approval of ' preliminary PUD #93 -6 subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for ' review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and ' garage floor elevation before final plat approval. 3. Tree preservation/landscaping: a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development. I 53 • 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 1 b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected from the official tree list. c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure installation and survival. d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the development. e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to Qty approval of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees. 5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide 1 pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting property and appropriate credit given toward the trail dedication fees. 1 6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat. 1 7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman Boulevard 1 and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat. 8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right -of -way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. 9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake 1 Riley Boulevard. 10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the 1 City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 1 54 -sA .1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 12. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer strip ' and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast corner of the site, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5. ' 13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent grades. 14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10 -year storm event. The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the ' surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of Phase L 15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards the cost of any pond oversizing as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction. 16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the ' future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. 17. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to extend the cul -de -sac to 1 connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. 18. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right -of -way along Lake ' Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The street right -of -way throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide. 1 19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be extended in the future ". 20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Outlot F if one currently does not exist or eliminate the issue by relocating the driveway off of the property. 1 55 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 1 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 1 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations. 23. The applicant shall provide a 6 -inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided. 24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the well and septic system fails. 1 25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits i.e Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC. 1 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November 1 15 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and • sediment control. 27. Deleted. 1 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 29. Outlot F shall be platted as a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be built 1 upon. Relocate the driveway for this lot so that it connects perpendicularly to the proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable to the Engineering Department. 30. Back -to -back cul -de -sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The pavement for the northern cul -de -sac shall be installed to the project property line. A breakaway barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The cul -de -sac shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed. The city shall re- evaluate the Kiowa connection in response to the 212 construction. 1 56 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision. ' 32. Sidewalks or pedestrian trails shall be provided connecting Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard to Bandimere Park. This trail system shall include a trail segment 1 built within the 92nd Street right -of -way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Park, 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project to occur along the right -of -ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with Bandimere Park. ' Ledvina voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 4. Batzli: I'll state my own reasons for voting against the motion. Obviously I seconded it so I was hopeful that we could take the connection to Lake Riley Blvd out. Since that stayed in, I voted against it. Otherwise I would vote for it. Also with the understanding that the applicant would work with city staff to try to get some fire hydrants to the people on Lake Riley Blvd. Ladd, your reasons for voting no. Conrad: The small lots. In addition I'm not, we haven't resolved the parking situation for the park now that we've put two back to back cul-de -sacs there. And the fact that I do want to make sure that the Lake Riley is served with water but not connected. 1 Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: Mine was the same as it was last time. It was the proportion of lots that were quite a bit smaller than our minimums. And then after that being...stated as well as the 60 foot easement. There was no change to the plan so obviously we're up against a financial, you ' know some financial requirements on the part of the developer and there's no movement so I didn't see anything new so I felt, I did not feel compelled to change. Batzli: Okay. Terry Forbord: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Could we turn up the volume? We can't hear any of 1 the comments here that are being made by almost all members of the Planning Commission. Are the microphones working? ' Batzli: Yeah... Terry Forbord: I heard Ladd. I did not hear the last comment. 57 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Okay, Joe. Can you repeat? 1 Scott: My last comment was, I didn't change my opinion of the development from last time because I saw no new information with regard to lot size. Proportion under 15,000 or the 1 plan relative to 60 foot right -of -ways. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. 1 Farmakes: I think I've already spelled out in detail my issue on the small lots. The issue of Kiowa. It seems to me that what I would like to see is a design relationship between access 1 to that park and even putting a cul-de -sac on Kiowa. It seems to me that those two issues in that particular area are interrelated in that corner down there. And I haven't been terribly satisfied with, to make an informed decision based on what I've seen in the plans. Or even options. I would not like to see Kiowa connected unless the residents versus the old new neighborhood issue that I discussed earlier. Unless there was a feeling there that it should be. On the issue of Lake Riley, I think that that again is something, that issue versus the fire hydrants. The improvement of the highway and so on, I think Ladd summed that comment up and I won't repeat it. On the issue of the 15,000 square foot lot. I would like to make one more comment. There's a reason why people want to come to Chanhassen to live and it seems that traditional development or traditional development ordinance is looked down upon. It seems to have served this community well. I think also, to me anyway, from what I've seen, irregardless of how I feel about it as a designer, and I think that there's a great deal of information to support city staff on the issue of smaller lots and diversity and so on. There is a clear, I think direction based on the information that we got from the community and the information from our elected representatives that this is an issue that we have to give serious consideration to when we go below it. And I don't see where we have the go ahead to put that aside and I think that it's, if we're here to reflect the interest of the community, I think that if we look at percentages of development, if all our PUD's are going to be 50% under sized or 46% under sized, and we use that as a guide post, it seems to me that we will never see anything but PUD's. Maybe we should just eliminate all the rest of our ordinances. Batzli: Some would say that would be a good thing. Farmakes: Some would. In this particular case, I also am driving hard to find a reason and I don't want to compare this to a traditional development because I haven't seen a traditional development on this piece of property. So it would be a lot of what the staff report said and what was underlined were the intent statements. They weren't addressed specifically to this piece of property. And some of the statements were ambiguous to me. And if I'm going to vote on something, I think to do it responsibly, it shouldn't be ambiguous. 1 58 1 .. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 r Batzli: Okay, thank you. That motion failed 1 vote for, 4 votes against. We normally 1 recommend something to the City Council. So is there another motion? Conrad: I recommend denial of the proposed preliminary planned unit development approval ' of 80 acres, rezoning the property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD Residential and preliminary plat approval to create 134 single family lots. Planning Case #93 -6 PUD. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. • Batzli: Discussion. 1 Conrad moved, Scott seconded to deny the preliminary PUD #93 -6 of 80.8 acres of property to create 135 single family lots, preliminary plat and rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD -R. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvina who opposed, and the 1 motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Batzli: I think I made my feelings known earlier. Matt, did you want to add anything? Ledvina: No. ' Batzli: Okay. This goes to City Council when? ' Krauss: December 13th. Batzli: December 13th. Thank you very much everyone for coming in. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 3, 1993 as presented. 1 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Paul, do you have anything to report from the Director? Krauss: Well I did...The City Council is concerned and upset that the Highway 5 plan has not yet been acted upon. I was not at that meeting but Kate, I think quite rightfully pointed out that we scheduled it 3 times and all 3 times it...1:00 in the morning. She apparently got her head chopped off by the City Council...City Council actually asked for a moratorium issue be raised for the third time on Highway 5. So we have a moratorium ordinance coming back ' 59 M— NM M - ! ME - ! NM - ME ME M MS - OM MI MN lyman blvd. t • I�u her w q y IA, Mg 1 t Ai p � U n M s MI / �.� 1 I ' I i ��` hit 11�f-. a ■ 1, .. t ■ tdf : 1l IZII. / I(l"��- j�'''�'�{�,7_� {��'fIl If�''I�t,7 -1 Ito kb, 1�1 II • saceptior = \ \ I•• .1 A, kYli j� v + dolejsi parcel i ►'�Iti qi P P �rl �y., fff777 I' 1 1 \� ; \ � J q 4: rogers parcel lid a �� EJ sr 16 ldl r 1 Elk \ �f r I'M U rr, v■ ti / Q / / } .�� f � ` _ _ f q ,� t�Y c- C! ► ^�_ III�t11i • r /) V� `' C f ► t� • tip ► wrs U ►� 1 g s 9 a Vi i( r ` , \ �' I rt�1 r �� l � ►�, : �� rogra dolejsi ;d { 1 1 t I f I _ 1 ,9 F.A. j ' ,....., 5t q Er.at �. !d e rog rs traditional lejsi ptan 3 I I 1,11,1 park a i ; . v , tf,, , 'v, /,./Q�� 30 nov. 93 296 a.. • 1 �. 'al EEC t: 1 e. • area required for dolcpu parcel no. of lots 146 h a s ; 3 + 75 minimum lot size 15,000 s.t. minimum lot width 90' fa l gross density 1.8 un. /ac. r, k y a „ ar net density 2.4 un./ac. .raC