6. Preliminary plat to subdivide Lake Susan Hills 2nd & 3rd additions : ITY OF: x. DATE: June 6, 1990 .-'
_or 6 _
li t UHANBAULN C.C. :DATE- -z25,--1990
CASE-NO. 87-3 PUD ) 9
lellimillamilomillimmilmillimmilimillmmill■=milmaffillmillimmi■IIIM
' Prepared by: Olsen/v
I - STAFF REPORT
1
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat for 159 Single Family Lots
II Lake Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition
I 2:
Q
LOCATION: West Side of Powers Boulevard, approximately
1 J one-quarter mile south of Hwy. 5
IAPPLICANT: Argus Development
Q 18133 Cedar Avenue
Farmington, MN 55024
Ii
I . .
I - PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential
ACREAGE: Action by �Y Administrator
85.6 (gross) 53.73 (net)
];ndotsed Iffid4
II - DENSITY: 3.0 units/acre (net) Modified-
Rejected
ADJACENT ZONING Date.. 1a _I- b
1 Q AND LAND USE: N— PUD—R; single family Data Submitted to Commission
S— PUD-R; vacant Des m;ti...a to Council
1 0 E- Lake Susan : s"` P'•'__
IW W- PUD-R; single family and vacant
WATER AND SEWER: - Available to site
The site contains rolling hills with the
I PHYSICAL CHARAC. : majority of it tilled.
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
1
k - ___.:._ _ ._ .........._ _..._.:
.1
) _
.
- 1712. ---I -4312
. - ' ' - , ' , .1. -_ i . • ' -- -.-- = --- ....4 _.
1 . - ----:
Sill
, ROAD• 1011111 PAIII*
. -P
, Ai, 1 ■1.----- . _ .....
im. -101577 ..b‹ kiii41 011
it, ■• • 11111111 - \
-.ire4 Pt_ - yi
.Aotivirel k • 1.A.,21:,
Na i e.el
• ....,,o.!I-
-
/
-4111YIA.V21 all itehSE
P VAN" al :,-; a m d i A jez• 4.-
4 l', RD . .:
k •
_ '- ‘.\\ A ti p---u-D-
11 2 _
_ al a k INN - - R- . ta4
41 lilt !kVA pa 'al
-ount,5
st:sevini illir 40 litho Iv w.•..de ....!
hot • . ir Awe ir !gal leVA.Bs, ,
. 7
ii ...„
r
RSF . G r
Ana MU
M INViii&
• ...A" v)i.
% 1
i • ______ .
8° , VA- I '--''' ' . •
CZ, li AP-
i•
-9C.4
i I
A .
Ar- '
74 1
. , ,0...
) I
Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS '
Section 20-518 of the City Code requires the applicant to receive
development stage approval of the PUD following general concept
approval. The development stage is essentially the preliminary
plat of the site (Attachment #1) .
I
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer Attachment #2 1
Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #3
BACKGROUND
The City Council reviewed the PUD concept plan on June 29, 1987, '
and approved the concept plan as a PUD with certain conditions
(Attachment #4) . The developer subsequently revised the concept
plan to address the Council's conditions. The Planning
Commission and City Council held a joint meeting on July 27,
1987, to review the overall PUD philosophy and specifically, the
Lake Susan Hills West PUD proposal. The City Council recommended
certain changes (increase Outlot H to a five acre park) and again
approved the concept plan as a PUD.
The City Council felt that it was beneficial to have the 299 acre ,
site developed as a PUD rather than as a subdivision. As a PUD
the site will be reviewed as one coordinated development enabling
the city to require adequate park facilities and to require logi-
cal staging of road improvements and utilities. Since the PUD
will be developed in separate preliminary plats, the city and
developer negotiated a concept plan agreement to ensure that all
of the conditions will be provided for each phase.
On October 5, 1987, the City Council approved the land use plan
amendment, wetland alteration permit, rezoning and preliminary
plat for 76 single family lots for Lake Susan Hills West 1st
Addition (Attachment #5) . At that time, the City Council
approved to rezone the property from RSF, R-4, R-8, and R-12, to
PUD-R and to amend the land use plan to correspond to the dif-
ferent areas of density approved as part of the PUD Concept Plan.
The City Council also approved a wetland alteration permit for
the construction of a holding pond within a Class B wetland and
preliminary plat for the First Addition of Lake Susan Hills West
containing 76 single family lots on the east and west side of
Powers Boulevard. •
11 Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 3
On August 28, 1989, the City Council approved the final plat for
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Addition. The Lake Susan Hills
West 2nd Addition contained 21 single family lots and the 3rd
Addition contained 55 single family lots (Attachment #6) .
Preliminary Plat
11 The applicant is proposing to plat the remaining land under the
Lake Susan Hills West• PUD located on the vest side of Powers
Boulevard (Attachment #7) . The preliminary plat contains 159
single family lots. The average lot size is 14,723 square feet
with the largest lot being 26,350 square feet and the smallest lot
being 12,000. Eighty of the lots (50%) contain 15,000 square feet
or more and 79 (50%) of the lots contain less than 15,000 square
feet.
The PUD ordinance requires that at least 50% of the single family
lots contain 15,000 square feet or more and that the average lot
size shall not be below 13,500 square feet. The PUD ordinance also
requires a minimum of 80 feet at the building setback line (30
feet) and that no lot shall be smaller than 12,000 square feet.
The proposed preliminary plat has proposed changes over the
approved PUD Concept Plan. Due to the topography and the soil of
the site, the applicant is realigning some of the streets and
adding 4 additional lots to this section over what was originally
' approved. The applicant is also proposing to add some additional
open space and remove some of the previously approved parkland.
The original PUD concept plan for the whole Lake Susan Hills West -
!' development permitted a total of 411 single family lots. With the
first 3 phases, the applicant has developed a total of 162 single
family lots with 249 single family lots remaining which can be
platted as part of future phases. Therefore, as long as the
applicant meets all of the other requirements of the PUD ordinance,
it is possible for additional lots to be added in this phase as
long as the developer understands that no more than a total of 411
single family lots will be permitted throughout the whole PUD.
Streets
' The 159 single family lots will be serviced by extension of Lake
Susan Hills Drive and two other streets (unnamed) coming south from
Heron Drive. The proposed streets and cul-de-sacs provide the
required right-of-way. The lots are proposed to be developed in
three phases as shown on the preliminary plat sheet. The first
phase is located in the northwest corner of the addition and is
' serviced by an extension south of Heron Drive. Phase 1 is also
providing future access for undeveloped property to the west
between Lots 5 and 6, Block 8. All streets that are proposed for
future connection will have to be provided with a turnaround which
Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 4
meets city standards with a barricade and signage stating that it
is a• temporary cul-de-sac and will be a future road connection.
This is to ensure that all future home buyers are adequately
notified of the ultimate street system. The remaining two phases
will provide an additional connection to Powers Boulevard from the
PUD and internal connection between phases 1 and 2.
The street grades in this development range from 0.5% up to 8.0%
grade which exceeds the City's ordinance. The excessive grade is
due to the steep slope adjacent to County Road 17. However, staff
feels that the grade could be reduced to meet City Codes (7.0%)
without severe impact on the proposed plan.
Grading/Drainage
The majority of the site is proposed to be graded. The most
critical slopes are in the rear lots of the proposed development.
Special slope stabilization measures and erosion control measures
will be required to stabilize the slopes, i.e. wood fiber blankets.
The applicant has expressed a desire to grade the entire
development at this time to save on mobilization costs and provide
the County with approximately 110,000 cubic yards of material for
the future expansion of Co. Rd. 17 between Lyman Boulevard and Lake
Drive West. It is Carver County Highway Department's intent to
open bids for the rough grading of Co. Rd. 17 near the end of June.
The County will be entering into a Borrow Agreement with the
applicant for the material.
The entire development generally slopes downward to the southwest.
The west and southwest portions of the site are lower in elevation
while higher lands are present to the northeast and east. The
drainage plan continues this drainage pattern with a series of
storm sewers draining into one sediment basin located towards the
middle of the development. The exact configuration of the sediment
basin is somewhat unknown at this time due to future park uses,
i.e. ball fields, soccer fields, trails and so on, therefore, the
applicant will be working with staff to provide a sediment basin
that would least impact the proposed future park uses.
The proposed drainage for the easterly portion of the project is
directed through a series of storm sewer pipes and discharges into
the ditch along Co. Rd. 17. The ditch follows Co. Rd. 17 south to
a culvert underneath the road into a wetland which drains into Lake
Susan. The applicant may be required to provide a sediment basin
in the area to meet the flow and water quality requirements of the
City and Watershed. As in the past, the exact storm sewer design
can be "fine tuned" during the plan and specification review stage
along with any Watershed concerns.
1
i Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 5
' The proposed storm sewer pipes should be sized to accommodate a 10
year storm event. The proposed sediment basin appears to be sized
' to meet the City's codes as far as storage and runoff requirements.
Erosion Control
1 The plans propose a filter blanket encompassing a majority of the
site. In addition to the proposed filter blanket along the
perimeters, Type II erosion control fence should be installed
around any and all proposed drainage/sediment basins in the
development. The entire site should be reseeded and mulched
immediately after grading is completed.
' Landscaping
The ordinance requires 1 tree per lot to be provided by the
developer. As part of the PUD approval, the applicant proposed
increases in landscaping at entrances and along the boulevards
(Attachment #8) . Also, the PUD contract required $150/lot for
landscaping by the developer (Attachment #9) . The PUD was also
approved with the condition to preserve existing vegetation as best
possible. The applicant must provide a landscaping plan which
provides for the 1 tree per lot and the additional landscaping as
approved with the PUD Concept Plan. In addition, there are some
large areas of mature vegetation located on the site. Staff would
like these areas highlighted on the plat and for the applicant to
show how areas not impacted by streets or building pads will be
' preserved. Tree removal plans will be required as part of the
building permit as was done with the first phase.
1 Lots 11 and 13, Block 4 contain a deep ravine within each lot.
These ravines are heavily vegetated and serve as habitat for
several forms of wildlife. As proposed, there will be a large
portion of the ravine filled and much of the vegetation removed
(see grading plan) . Staff is recommending that the applicant pull
back the cul-de-sac which would allow the building pads to be
further removed from the ravines and require less filling of the
areas and removal of vegetation. Also, staff is recommending that
the applicant provide a registered engineer's report on soils,
footings and structural design and a registered engineer grading
11 and drainage plan for the City Engineer and Building Department
approval prior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 11 and 13,
Block 4.
' park and Recreation
11 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed plat on
May 22, 1990. The Planning Commission reviewed whether or not to
1 accept the additional open space between Blocks 5 and 6 as parkland
and to credit the applicant with a reduction in park fees. The
1 '
Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 6
additional open space contains poor soils and a large percentage of
the area will be used for storm water ponding (Attachment #10) .
_ Since the additional open space is not suitable for park use, the
Park and Recreation Commission agreed to accept it as parkland but
no additional credit toward park dedication fees shall be granted.
The applicant is also changing some of the park boundaries on the
south side of the plat to remove parkland and add it into single
family lots (Attachment #11) . The Park and Recreation Commission
agreed to allow the park boundary to be shifted along the lots west
of the park access but all lots east of the park access must remain
as originally approved with the concept plan. This results in some
of the lots going below 15,000 square feet with the overall plat
going below 50% lots with 15,000 square feet or more. The
applicant will have to amend the plat to maintain the PUD
requirements.
The parkland is designated on .the preliminary plat as "parkland". i
This property must be designated as an outlot and platted as part
of the first phase. A condition of PUD Concept Plan approval was
to dedicate parkland to the City as the area around it developed
and for the developer to grade the site (Attachment #12) .
Sidewalks will be required along the internal streets as shown on
Attachment #13. All of the access points to the parkland between
lots must be either paved and/or signed that they are public access
points.
The ponding area that is ro osed between Blocks 5 and 6 should be
P P
relocated to the north with overflow drainage piped to the south.
Where the pond is currently proposed will cut off access to the
park from the north. If the pond is moved to the north, it will
provide free and dry access to both sections of parkland.
Lot Size I
The PUD contains a large percentage of lots with small square
footage. • In the past, the City has received several variance
requests for decks on lots of this size. Most of the time the
homeowner already as a patio door installed and then finds a deck
cannot be installed without a variance. To help prevent this
situation, staff is recommending that each building permit with a
patio door show a deck to verify that it can meet setbacks. If the
setbacks cannot be maintained, the patio door should be removed or
relocated.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat of Lake Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition for 159 single
1 Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
I Page 7
family lots as shown on the plans dated "May 10, 1990", with the
following conditions:
I1. All streets that are proposed for future connection shall be
provided with a turnaround which meets city standards with a
barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-
sac and will be a future road connection.
2. The applicant shall provide one tree per lot and additional
landscaping along the entrances and boulevards as part of the
PUD approval and the developer shall provide $150 per lot for
landscaping. -
' 3. The applicant shall provide a plan illustrating large areas of
mature vegetation located on the site. Areas of mature
vegetation not impacted by streets or building pads shall be
preserved with tree removal plans required as part of the
building permits.
' 4. The applicant shall pull back the cul-de-sac servicing Lots
11-13, Block 4 to remove the building pads from the ravine
areas.
5. The applicant shall provide a registered engineer's report on
soils, footings and structural design and a registered
engineer's grading and drainage plan for the City Engineer and
' Building Department approval prior to issuance of a building
permit on Lots 11 and 13, Block 4.
6. An amended preliminary plat maintaining with at least 50% of
the lots with 15,009 square feet or more shall be provided.
7. Designate the parkland as an outlot which will be platted as
' part of the first phase.
8. All of the access points to the parkland between single family
lots shall either by paved and or signed that they are public
access points. •
9. The ponding area, as proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the
parkland, shall be relocated to the north with overflow
drainage piped to the south.
10. Park Access: The approved PUD plan provided access off of
both looped streets. Such continues to be required and should
be shown as parkland dedication, not simply easements.
11. Trails/Sidewalks: The developerment shall be required to
provide trails/sidewalks as follows: .
I
Lake Susan Hills �.
June 6, 1990
Page 8
a. Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed
along thru streets as shown on the attached plan.
Sidewalks shall be completed at the time street
improvements are constructed.
b. A 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of
Powers Boulevard shall be dedicated for future trail
purposes.
c. The above tr4ils/sidewalks satisfy the City's trail
dedication requirements and therefore, no trail fee shall
be charged.
12. The applicant will be required to pay 50% of park dedication ,
fees. There will be no trail fee required.
13. All building permits will patio doors as part of the building '
plans, shall provide a survey showing that a deck can be
installed without a variance to the setback.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the '
City and provide the necessary financial securities to
guarantee completion of the improvements.
15. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits
required by the DNR, Watershed District and Office of the
Carver County Engineer. I
16. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with
calculations verifying the storm sewer, watermain and sanitary
sewer pipe sizing.
17. At intersections where the street grades exceed 3%, a landing '
zone with a street grade of 3% or less for a minimum distance
of 200 feet shall be used.
18. After grading, all disturbed areas shall immediately be seeded
and mulched to prevent erosion. All slopes greater than 3 to
1 will need to be stabilized with wood fiber blankets or
equivalent.
19. Type II erosion control shall be added along the proposed silt
fence adjacent to sediment basin and ravine areas.
20. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards fop urban construction. Construction plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
4-
Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
Page 9
21. The applicant shall reduce street grades to comply with City
Ordinance throughout the development (maximum 7%) .
' 22. Prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult
with Public Safety for recommendations.
23. Park grading: The developer, at it's sole cost, shall grade
the aprk areas in accordinace with a timetable and plans to be
furnished by the City. The City will develop park plans when
11 the final park boundaries have been determined."
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
11 . The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of all
conditions except changing the following condition to read:
' 9. The applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering
approval to demonstrate that the ponding area proposed between
Block 5 and 6 within the park land meets the 100 year storm
' requirements and that there is adequate room for access
between the north and south park areas.
STAFF UPDATE
1 The applicant objected to some of the conditions recommended by
staff on drainage, trails and slope of the City streets. The
applicant has met with the Engineering Department since the
Planning Commission meeting to discuss the engineering issues
(Attachment #17) . The applicant needs to submit plans and
. calculations to the Engineering Department before the issues raised
at the Planning Commission meeting can be resolved. Since new
documentation supporting the applicant's objections to some of the
conditions has not yet been provided, staff is recommending
approval with the same conditions from the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat of Lake Susan Hills
1 West PUD 4th Addition for 159 single family lots as shown on the
plans dated "May 10, 1990", with the following conditions:
1. All streets that are proposed for future connection shall be
provided with a turnaround which meets city standards with a
barricade and signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-
sac and will be a future road connection.
2. The applicant shall provide one tree per lot and additional
landscaping along the entrances and boulevards as part of the
1
It I/
Lake Susan Bills
June 6, 1990 I/
Page 10
• PUD approval and the developer shall provide $150 per lot for
landscaping.
3. The applicant shall provide a plan illustrating large areas of
mature vegetation located on the site. -Areas of -mature
vegetation not impacted by streets or building pads shall be
preserved with tree removal plans required as part of the
building permits.
4. The applicant shall pull back the cul-de-sac servicing Lots
- 11-13, Block 4 to remove the building pads from the ravine I
areas.
5. The applicant shall provide a registered engineer's report on
soils, footings and structural design and a registered
engineer's grading and drainage plan for the City Engineer and
Building Department approval prior to issuance of a building
permit on Lots 11 and 13, Block 4. '
6. An amended preliminary plat maintaining with at least 50% of
the lots with 15,000 square feet or more shall be provided. ,
7. Designate the parkland as an outlot which will be platted as
part of the first phase.
8. All of the access points to the parkland between single family
lots shall either be paved and signed that they are public
access points. I
9. The applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering
Department approval to demonstrate that the ponding area
proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the parkland meets 100
year storm requirements and that there is adequate room for
access between the north and south park areas
10. Park Access: The approved PUD plan provided access off of
both looped streets. Such continues to be required and should
be shown as parkland dedication, snot simply easements. I
11. Trails/Sidewalks: The developerment shall be required to
provide trails/sidewalks as follows: I
a. Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed
along thru streets as shown on the attached plan.
Sidewalks shall be completed at the time street
•
improvements are constructed.
b. A 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of
Powers Boulevard shall be dedicated for future trail
purposes.
•
4- .
I .
Lake Susan Hills
June 6, 1990
IPage 11
c. The above trails/sidewalks satisfy the City's trail
dedication regµirements and therefore, no trail fee shall
Ibe charged.
12. The applicant will be required to pay 50% of park dedication
Ifees. There will bae no trail fee required.
13. All building permits will patio doors as part of the building
plans, shall provide a survey showing that a deck can be
Iinstalled without a variance to the setback.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the
City and provide the necessary financial securities to
guarantee completion of the improvements.
15. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits
required by the DNR, Watershed District and Office of the
Carver County Engineer.
16. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with
calculations verifying the storm sewer, watermain and sanitary
sewer pipe sizing.
I17. At intersections where the street grades exceed 3%, a landing
zone with a street grade of 3% or less for a minimum distance
Iof 200 feet shall be used.
18. After grading, all disturbed areas shall immediately be seeded
and mulched to prevent erosion. All slopes greater than 3 to
1 will need to be stabilized with wood fiber blankets or
equivalent.
I 19. Type II erosion control shall be added along the proposed silt
fence adjacent to sediment basin and ravine areas.
I 20. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards fop urban construction. Construction plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval.
I21. The applicant shall reduce street grades to comply with City
Ordinance throughout the development (maximum 7%) .
I22. Prior to assigning street names, the applicant shall consult
with Public Safety for recommendations.
I 23. Park grading: The developer, at it's sole cost, shall grade
the aprk areas in accordinace with a timetable and plans to be
furnished by the City. The City will develop park plans when
Ithe final park boundaries have been determined."
I
H
Lake Susan Hills 1,
June 6, 1990
Page 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Code.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated May 31, 1990.
3. Park and Recreation report dated May 22, 1990.
4. City Council minutes dated June 29, 1987.
5. City Council mintues dated October 5, 1987.
6. City Council minutes dated August 28, 1989.
7. Plan showing phases of PUD west of Powers Bouelvard.
8. PUD approved landscape plan.
9. Section from PUD contract.
10. Plan showing proposed pond.
11. Plan showing new park boundaries.
12. Section from PUD contract.
13. Sidewalk location.
14. Letter from Daniel pauffenbach dated May 29; 1990.
15. Application.
16. Planning Commission minutes dated June 6, 1990.
17. Memo from Charles Folch date June 21, 1990.
1
i
1
1
1
1
- 1
1
1
1
1
-_-.. _ . . -
I ( ,
‘ ,
CITY . b F
CHANHASEN. "
......, ._„ A _imir,
Y 14.
_. 1( .. , „Lo___
690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
_ 40" (612) 937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner
FROM: David C. Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician i , -
IIDATE: May 31, 1990
II SUBJ: PUD Plan Amendment for Lake Susan Hills
90-14 Land Use Review
II The site consists of 63.7 acres of land lying immediately west of
Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) and just south of the existing
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Additions. The tract of land
I is characterized by generally rolling terrain. The site is
mostly open and covered with grasses , weeds and crop residue.
Some areas were tilled last fall and have no vegetation. Wooded
I vegetation is present mostly in one ,small wooded area in the east
portion of the tract and other -random locations .
The applicant has had soil borings taken throughout the site. In
II upland areas , soils encountered are mostly exclusively clay loam
which are typical for the Chanhassen area and are suitable for
the anticipated contruction. In lower areas , the soils vary
I somewhat. Silty clays and silt loam are present along with
organic soils . In this area, the ground water is slightly higher
due to the low lying conditions and soil types. These
limitations are correctable through soil Corrections and
IIfoundation designs.
INi.- Grading ..,_ a = __.b._ ,. ,. -F
The majority of the site is proposed to be graded. - he most cri-
II tical slopes are in the rearlots of the proposed development.
Special slope stabilization measures and erosion control measures
will be required to stabilize the dopes, i.e. wood fiber
blankets.
Li
II The applicant has expressed a desire to grade the entire
development at this time to save on mobilization costs and
I provide the County with approximately 110 ,000 cubic yards of
material for the future expansion of County Road 17 between Lyman
Boulevard and Lake Drive West. It is Carver County Highway
II Department's intent to open bids for the rough grading of County
Road 17 near the end of June. The County will be entering into a
Borrow Agreement with the applicant for the material. (See
II Attachment No. 1)
#Z
t I
it
Jo Ann Olsen I/
May 31, 1990
Page 2 1
Staff is proceeding with implementing a development policy
requiring as-built grading information in sensitive areas
including but not limited to the following: sediment basins,
wetlands , bluff lines and natural water courses. The applicant
shall be advised of this forth coming policy in preparation of
final plat.
f Erosion Control 1
The plans propose a filter blanket encompassing a majority of the
site. In addition to the proposed filter blanket along the
perimeters, Type-2 erosion control fence should be installed
around any and all proposed drainage/sediment basins in the
development. The entire site should be reseeded and mulched
immediately after grading is completed.
Drainage ,
The entire development generally slopes downward to the
southwest. The west and southwest portions of the site are lower
in elevation while higher lands are present to the northeast and
east. The drainage plan continues this drainage pattern with a
series of storm sewers draining into one sediment basin located
towards the middle of the development. The exact configuration
of the sediment basin is somewhat unknown at this time due to
future park uses, i.e. ball fields, soccer fields, trails and so
on, therefore, the applicant will be working with staff to
provide a sediment basin that would least impact the proposed
future park uses.
The proposed drainage for the easterly portion of the project is ,
directed through a series of storm sewer pipes and discharges
into the ditch along County Road 17. The ditch follows County
Road 17 south to a culvert underneath the road into a wetland
which drains into Lake Susan. The applicant may be required to
provide a sediment basin in the area to meet the flow and water
quality requirements of the City and Watershed. As in the past,
the exact storm sewer design can be "fine tuned" during the plan
and specification review stage along with any Watershed concerns.
The proposed storm sewer pipes should be sized to accommodate a ,
10-year storm event. The proposed sediment basin appears to be
sized to meet the City's codes as far as storage and runoff
requirements.
•
Sanitary Sewer ,
The sanitary sewer plan for this development proposes connecting
to sanitary sewer lines that were extended with the previous Lake
Susan Hills West 3rd Addition and Phase I Addition. The plans
1
Jo Ann Olsen
May 31, 1990
Page 3
indicate the entire development will be .serviced through a gra-
vity 8-inch diameter PVC sewer main. The initial PUD plan
indicated a trunk sewer line extending from the east side of
County Road 17.
Water Main
Municipal water service to the development is available through a
series of connections from the previous Lake Susan Hills West
' developments. In addition, the second phase is proposed to be
looped back into the City's existing 18-inch trunk water main
along the west boulevard of County Road 17. The pipe sizes in
till's development range from six to eight inch in diameter. The
initial PUD plan indicated a 10-inch trunk main extending from
Powers Boulevard through the second phase into Lake Susan Hills
West first phase. The applicant may be required to increase the
' diameter of the water main in some areas of this development to
provide adequate flows . This will be determined during the plan
and specification review stage when the applicant's engineer has
provided the City Engineer with calculations verifying water
' pressure and flow rates.
IStreets
The street right-of-ways in this development are consistent with
the previous PUD agreement. The right-of-ways range from 50 feet
on the interior streets to 60 feet wide on the main thoroughfare
streets. The street grades in this development range from 0.5%
up to 8.0% grade which exceeds the City's ordinance. The
I excessive grade is due to the steep slope adjacent to County Road
17. However, staff feels that the grade could be reduced to meet
City codes (7.0%) without severe impact on the proposed plan.
The plans fail to address trail and sidewalk construction. The
trail and sidewalk construction can be addressed during plans and
specifications review.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial securities to
guarantee completion of the improvements.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits
required by the DNR, Watershed and office of the Carver
County Engineer.
I
Jo Ann Olsen
I/
May 31, 1990
Page 4 I
3. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with
calculations verifying the storm sewer, water main and
sanitary sewer pipe sizing.
4. At intersections where the street grades exceed 3%, a 1
landing zone with a street grade of 3% or less for a minimum
distance of 200 feet shall be used.
5. After grading, all disturbed areas shall immediately be 1
seeded and mulched to prevent erosion. All slopes greater
than 3 to 1 will need to stabilized with wood fiber blankets
or equivalent.
6 . Type-2 erosion control shall be added along with the proposed
silt fence adjacent to sediment basin and ravine areas. 1
7 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City' s standards for urban construction. Construction plans
and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for review and approval .
8. The applicant shall reduce street grades to comply with City 1
ordinance throughout the development (maximum 7%) .
jms 1
c: Gary G. Warren, City Engineer
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
�! 1 -)' _ ? 03f
,/ �t. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
I % 600 EAST 4TH STREET
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA,MINNESOTA 55318
(612) 448-3435
4' V-
II �4N E SO 0e . <A� d
COUNTY OFCAQVEQ AD-a P s ty /*l
1 April 26, 1990
CITY OF CH&NHASSEN
IIBrian W. Olson MIRIP
Argus Development, Inc.
II 18133 Cedar Avenue South - APR 3 0 1990
Farmington, MN 55024
Re: CSAH 17 (Chanhassen) ENCINEERIND DEPT.
1 Dear Mr. Olson:
1 This letter is sent to inform you that the Carver County Board of
Commissioners on April 24th did adjust the 19.90 highway department
construction program to include the rough grading of CSAH 17
between Lyman Boulevard and Lake Drive West to acommodate a future
1 four-lane roadway. This action was taken in response to the letter
dated April 9, 1990, from Mr. Molinaro of Pioneer Engineering
outlining your company's commitment to provide 110,000 cubic yards
IIof material for this project.
The Carver County Highway Department's present intent is to open
bids for this grading project near the end of June. To meet this
1 objective we will immediately begin to prepare the necessary
documents. One of these documents will be a borrow agreement with
your company for the 110,000 cubic yards of soil you, are providing.
1 Bill Weckman of our office will be contacting you about this
agreement in the near future. Also, Bill will be responsible for
the preparation of the other construction documents for this county
1 project. Therefore, please contact either Bill or myself regarding
any questions you may have.
II Thank you for your cooperation in advancing this cooperative effort
to improve CSAH 17 in the area of your development. Your continued
willingness to keep us informed about the status of your
development project would be much appreciated.
ISince ely,
Roger I ept. . __
M. Gust= son, PE.
County Engineer •
1 RMG/cjr
IIcc: Gary Warden, Chanhassen City Engineer
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer ii, 4.e.401,„,e,A./r 49
_ CITY -OF } -
PRC DATE: 5-22-90
‘� H A CC DATE:
- ( __, PAr-v-, 0 g r..4. . SIETSEMA:k
I/
- ----------------------4
STAFF REPORT
II
PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment for Lake
Susan Hills West for 159 Single Family Lots
on 63.7 Acres ,
0 LOCATION: On the west side of Powers Boulevard (CR 17) I V just south of existing Lake Susan Hills West
ami 2nd and 3rd Additions
0. APPLICANT: Argus Development II
Attn: Brian Olson
Q 18133 Cedar Ave. South II Farmington, MN 55024
PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Urban Development, Residential 11
II
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - PUD-R II- S '- A-2, Agricultural Estate
. E PUD-R
- W - A-2 _ - ,
II
LI ACREAGE: 63.7 Acres
II
EXISTING PARRS: The PUD Agreement calls for parks within this
development; a 9+ acre site on the north end, a 4 II
Cl) acre site along CR 17, a 6+ acre linear parcel
along the west side of Lake Susan, and an 18 acre
( site located within this addition. II
t
il
1111 i i --) -- Pit Rea/04A,
Lake Susan Hills West PUD Amendment
May 22, 1990 - 4
, Page 2
BACKGROUND
IIThis proposal is part of a 300± acre PUD development which lies on
both sides of CR 17 south of Lake Drive. As part of the approval
II process, a PUD agreement was executed (attached) which outlines the
park and trail requirements and the dedication credit for such.
Specifically, the developer is required to dedicate 4 parcels of
I parkland and to rough grade on them, for which he will receive 50%
credit toward park dedication fees.
The developer is requesting that the PUD be amended to reconfigure
II the layout of the lots and to provide additional park property.
Initially it was proposed that the additional property be dedicated
without further compensation, however, last week staff received a
I letter from Argus Development requesting the remaining 50% be
waived.
The 3.8 acres of proposed additional parkland contains soils
II unsuitable to support houses. The plan shows pedestrian access to
the new parkland from the north and the west, and to the original
park site at a north central point (see attached map) . The
1 developer is also proposing to move the boundary line of the
original park land so as to add area to the lots along the north
edge. As this is the narrowest section of the park, such should
Inot be approved.
The plan includes a small holding pond on the south end of the
proposed new parkland which in reality, according to our
II Engineering Department's calculations, will have to be
significantly larger. Such would block the pedestrian access to
the original portion of the park. Staff would suggest that the
.I pond be moved to the northern portion of the site and that a berm
be built to accommodate a trail that would high and dry.
II This is not a park deficient area. The bulk of the proposed new
parkland will contain a large holding pond. It would be difficult
to justify the expenditure of park funds for property with limited
park development potential and in an area that is not lacking
I parkland. Additionally, if such a credit was given, there would be
no funds available for park development.
IRECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of this office to approve the site plan
with the same conditions outlined in the PUD agreement. If any
I additional property is available, such should be accepted, however,
no additional credit toward park dedication fees should be granted
as this is not a park deficient area.
IPark and Recreation Commission Update (5-22-99) : The Park and
Recreation Commission discussed this item at their last meeting.
I Although the Commission felt that the additional park property
would be desirable, they could not justify spending funds on such
as this is not a park deficient area. They felt that they could
IIaccept the property if dedicated, however, were not willing to
I
Lake Susan Hills West PUD Amendment
May 22, 1990
r Page 3
allow an additional credit toward the park dedication fee. The
developer asked that allowances be made to allow a portion of
original parkland, along the pipeline easement, to be included in
lot area. As this area is very narrow, the Commission requested
that west of the park entrance not be infringed upon, however, such
would be permissible along the slope. It was also noted that the
ponding areas should not block pedestrian access to the park.
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended to approve the
amendments to the PUD with the same conditions outlined in the PUD
agreement. They specifically noted that no additional credit
toward park dedication fees should be allowed if additional
parkland is dedicated, due to the need for funds to develop
existing parkland.
The PUD Agreement conditions include the following for this segment
of the PUD:
1. Parkland Dedication: The developer shall dedicate the 18.1
acre Outlot F for park purposes at the time the final plat is
signed by the City. If additional parkland is dedicated, such
should be shown as an outlot and also conveyed at the time the
final plat is signed. I
2. Park Grading: The developer, at it's sole cost, shall grade
the park areas in accordance with a time table and plans to be
furnished by the City. The City will develop park plans when
the final park boundaries have been determined.
3. Park Access: The approved PUD plan provided access off of
both looped streets. Such continues to be required and should
be shown as parkland dedication, not simply easements.
4. Park Credit: The developer shall be given a credit of 50% of
the park dedication fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the
conveyance of the above described land to the City.
5. Trails/Sidewalks: The developer shall be required to provide
trails/sidewalks as follows:
a. 5 ft. wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along t
thru streets as shown on the attached plan. Sidewalks
shall be completed at the time street improvements are
constructed.
b. A 20 ft. wide trail easement along the west side of
Powers Boulevard shall be dedicated for future trail
purposes.
c. The above trails/sidewalks satisfy the City's trail
dedication requirements and therefore no trail fee shall
be charged.
1
1
• •♦ - iii
1 tI
e; \2 1 1 -ms's I !
`` , ._ ...."/,....,....,...s- " ■ r■N rs 4_ j �r t i c '1E tiA
-. -- � >le
�
art
. ---... =p-- ,,,,,,,garn , vc,‘
, I „,,_de, , ,,, ...,..__,, -,,,,p
1 I V; •►' fir t
' raga ri:i� !R- —� �.�
------- \s/V
` 1 f , rti `.0......ri\ \ \I.-1%0'Al'11"\
i I\--\\ - < . ,,......ow Mr011
,,,el . t 1
=== I :: . _.-_-� , _ \i_ _ ,s,es'''Z' s ;/ -47,7 1 1.:. i.4s,,, . ..,,„4 relik-7.,- 7
) ) : tilt- S.'''
/..-- / ,z.\. -,/, \ ..-7 : .
At.;..,% ...,. .. ,.ev_, „ warr„A.; , , ,
N ri -WVAlottajffoy, _■444.kr -gI .! . cri" ti
' / 1 •. *04...-..■ , ,cr....s . ik ‘ VI 4 1:;12 ' . ...7......•1
I;1 \A `ti*' .4‘_ ,..c, -i-u4s 0 -' N■ - ,..,,,s,"• i . -;
if:.--, it 4 ., :;
Baia_ j �II� V • � �\��p , :.a aaaz+ � •\ `.01, dip.,y4 ,r-N las_ ishh. s 4:AS.‘ ,46:1;0.•.4k,,:,,, ,, , \ , . . A,,..
. , 4, ‘., ,, -T-441141iir„ --A ° ‘ - -""-/
; �:` y�i►�� 4. 1d` ! {�" ,s�A. tits, :,�` f jam^���<ri
II:..:‘444t'''''.41‘1CC--**A:4S' %ft,\\VC; 14"1111- 1.::3141.::".41311"111-1‘.---- i‘-'1*a.filll's./2 VN\ It
,k.,k., .,,s..-,.,TV ..... .4. iN,,,,...0" --Alitarrame.In., I • • op, or,....
k %\ *PLILV.IZNX ,..12,Z4 .141 ■ Oa 1., 4 to ‘1, • : _
10- ,te....,:-..lanaAA_*15;r i(2,14 -iJP ''' \\:\, : ,
/ • uti 0...A.,.....t ilexo, "-r,„-gbAbs,is _,.... .. ....*_.- _=, ._ , ,
/f.i 1t' QQ
fi ``t``` ' _ =
``` . , CD RD 17
Lifil .
_ • ,
. ______________
. .
. ___ _
1 .
. . ' f
2
a
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT, dated November 16, 1987, between the CITY OF I
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City") , and LAKE
SUSAN HILLS, a Minnesota general partnership, and JAMES A. CURRY and
BARBARA CURRY, husband and wife (the •Developer") .
1. 8tequest for Planned Unit Development Approval. The
Developer has asked the City to approve a Planned Unit Development to be
known as "LAKE SUSAN HILLS NEST' PUD" (the "Development") on the land I
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". I
2. Planned Unit Development Concept Approval. The City hereby
grants general Concept Plan approval of the plan attached as Exhibit
"B". Approval is subject to the following: development and final stage
approval, a negative declaration of the EAW, compliance with the EAW ,
review findings and compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. Except.as modified herein, each plat shall also be subject to
the standards of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances as may be
amended from time to time.
3. Density and Ilse. The following densities are approximate I
and subject to change:
A. Single Family Residential. The total number of single
family lots in the development shall not exceed 411. Except as modified I
herein, single family lots shall. be developed in accordance with the
1
• uses, standards, and requirements of the RSF Zoning District.
B. Multiple Family (High Density Residential). The
development shall provide a minimum of 21.5 acres of high density
Y
multiple family residential units. The total number of dwelling2cttf I
NOV 19187
r11/16/87 C111'OFCHANHASSEN
1
4 high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375,
or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. Except as modified
herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential
' shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements nts of the
IIR-12 Zoning District.
C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The
IIdevelopment shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium '
II density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed
medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density
igreater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the
development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in
IIaccordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning
District.
II4. Barks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlet F
I (18.1 acres) , Outlet G (9.8 acres) , Outlet B (3.9 acres) , and Outlet E.
A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlet E.
;I Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the park land
shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park ii located, is signed
IIby the City. The land shall be platted as Outlets and transferred to the
ICity by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the
land for the City n accordance with
Y a timetable and plans to be
I - furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 501 of
the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the
IIabove described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication
Ifees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City
ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved.
I
1 -2-
II
•
___ _ _ ___ f - -
,gs .S. Trail and Sidewalk Development. The Developer shall
dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the City as I
indicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the
City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at 1
the time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the I
trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer
shall construct the following trails and sidewalks: I
(1) . Eight (8) foot vide bituminous trail along the west
side of Lake Susan. I
(2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along
the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot
wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side
of Powers Boulevard.
(3) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk I
along one side of all internal streets except cul-
de-sacs when the streets are constructed.
(4) . easement Zon the westeside bituminous trail ,
Boulevard. This
trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by
the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will
convey the easement to the City without cost, but the
City will pay for the construction. Construction
timing will be at the discretion of the City Council. 1
6. Additional Conditions of Approval.
A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to I
the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure
adequate transition between uses, including use of berms, landscaping, I
and setbacks from lot lines. I
8. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees
except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved I
by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from
destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means 1
during grading and construction.
-3-
1
. f.
2
C. . 'Wetlands Noe. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit •C•
shall be preserved in their natural state.
ID. The following shall be the maximum percentage of
allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlet B 30%, Outlot C 314,
and Outlet D 274.
E. The Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per
multiple family unit and $150.00 per single family unit.
' 7. Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For five (5)
years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the City's
1 Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the
use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the
' development unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in
writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding
anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted
by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating
requirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
II8. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the
development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the EAW. No earth
IImoving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval
of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City.
' 8. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer
represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all
Iapplicable City, County, Metropolitan, State, and Federal laws and
Iregulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances,
Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. The Developer agrees
Ito comply with such laws and regulations.
-4-
I
10. variations from Approved Plans. Minor variances from the
approved plans may be approved by the City's Planning Director.
Substantial departures from the approved plans shall require an amend- II
sent to the Planned Unit Development, in accordance with the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance. I
11. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents,
employees, and officers a license to enter the plat to inspect the work
to be done by the Developer and to perform all work required hereunder II
if Developer fails to perform in accordance herewith.
12. Utility, Pond, and Drainage Easements. The Developer shall II
dedicate to the City at the time of final plat approvals utility,
drainage, and ponding easements located within the plat, including
access, as required to serve the plat.
- 13.. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall hold the City, its officers, '
agents, and employees harmless from claims by the Developer and third
parties, including, but not limited to, lot purchasers, other property I
owners, contractors, subcontractors, and materialmen, for damages
sustained, costs incurred, or injuries resulting from approval of the
Agreement, the development, final plats, plans and specifications, and II
from the resulting construction and development. The Developer shall
indemnify the City, its officers, agents, and employees for all costs, I
damages, or expenses, including reasonable engineering and attorney's
fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims.
B. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs '
incurred in the enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable
( engineering and attorney's fees. The Developer shall pay in full all
-5_ i
1
- •
bills submitted to it by the City for such reimbursements within sixty
11 (60) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may
halt all development work until the bills are paid in full. Bills not
1 paid within sixty (60) days shall be subject to an eight (8%) percent
per annum interest charge.
14. ltisaeliaaeous.
A. Breach of any material term of this Agreement by the
Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, plats, ind
' - certificates of occupancy. •
B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause,
paragraph or phrase of this Planned Unit Development Agreement is for
any reason held invalid as a result of a challenge brought by the
Developer, its agents or assigns, the City may, at its option, declare
the entire Agreement null and void and approval of the Final Development
Plan shall thereby be revoked.
' C. The action or inaction of any party shall not consti-
tute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be
binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the
IIparties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. Any
II party's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement
after expiration of time in which the work •is to be Completed shall not
Ibe a waiver or release.
D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be
Irecorded in the Carver County Recorder's Office.
E. This Agreement shall be liberally construed to protect
Ithe public's interest.
I
-G-
il
}
P. Due to the preliminary P stature of many of the exhibits
C • and plans and the timing of the overall Development, addendum to this I
Agreement may be required to.address concerns not specifically set forth
herein.
G. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their
heirs, successors or assigns, as the case lay be.
B. The Developer represents to the City that the plat is I
not of 'metropolitan significance•_and that a state +environmental impact
statement is not required.-8owever, if the City or another governmental. I
entity or agency determines that a federal or state impact statement or
any other review, permit, or approval is required, the Developer shall
prepare or obtain it at its own expense. The Developer shall reimburse I
the City for all expenses, including staff time and reasonable
attorney's fees, that the City may incur in assisting in preparation. 1
3.5. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in
writing and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer,. their
employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified or I
registered mail at the following address: 7600 Parklawn Avenue, Edina,
Minnesota 55435. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be
either hand delivered to the City Clerk or mailed to the City by
certified or registered mail in care of the City Clerk at the following '
address: P.O. Box 147, 690.Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317. I
I
i
-7- I
•
I
ti ..r
• IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
'parties have hereunto set their hands
the day and year first above written.
ICITY °• •+: SEN
r
I BY: ..- . %Ci.
.omas . H - , Mayor
BY: 1/ _ •A
IDon 'worth, - ty Manager
• LAKE SUSAN BILLS
BY:
I11 er
k7A11-4-S A. CURRY
BARBARA CURRY
t STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
ICOUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this $rt)
II day of ,�,,,t „a , 1987, by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor, and by Don
Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal
corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority
granted by its City Council.
II
�T- Ti a
I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Er.GE��el1DY
sS. ♦► ,, NOTARY MJ511C-I:;F.~.•moTA
COUNTY O �.'�,z .,'/ t)N7 CARVCR CO•fr:TY
e fo egoing instrument was acknowledged before this
day of , 1987, by •Tpes )9g L.#4P/1/SO , a
partner of Lake Susan Hills, a Minnesota general partnershi n its
I behalf. 4(,: ?2e:it4ri2ttc.... ...:(...
I - BARBARA FISHER NOTARY PUBLIC
1! NOTARY PUBLIC—MICA
E HENNEPIN COUNTY
t. MY Commission Expires July IS.1552
I
1 -8-
I •
' IC:Ari fJaLs •Mlrr[SOTA
yo-" -STATE OF MINNESOTA Rea:erviw:.�,��v
t as- ay cee+n+ E.pt.et Ja:y 20.1990
COUNTY OF `�P,.r ) iwwwwwvIMANVVvv nrvvwvwvwvv:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this f
day of DEce■r,�s.� , 1987, by JAMS A. CURRY and BARBARA CURRY, I
husband and wife.
ARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
Y
Grannis, Grannis, Farrell
& Knutson, P.A.
403 Norwest Bank Building •
161 North Concord Exchange
South St. Paul, MN 55075
(612) 455-1661
I
I
4 •
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
_9- I
I
- _ - - +r -._ - __ - - --
ill - 1:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOCATION PURPOSE ONLY -
` � All that part of the Southwest Quarter and the Southeast
It of Section 14 and the north one-half of the Northwest Quarter
the Southeast Quarter and
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, all
in Township' 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota lying south-
I erly of Outlot D, CHANHASSEN .LAKES BUSINESS PARK, according to
the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County, and lying westerly
of the westerly right-of-way line of new County Road No. 17.
EXCEPT that part of the Northwest Quarter of said Northwest
Quarter lying westerly of the following described line and its
northerly and southerly extension:
ICommencing at the southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest
49 seconds West, bearing sumed,$along8theesouth line of I
said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, a distance
of 790.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be
described; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds West,
a distance of 460.00 feet; thence North 18 degrees 32
minutes 33 seconds East, a distance of 330.00 feet; thence
North 52 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of
I 638.57 feet; thence North 1 degree 57 minutes 27 seconds
West, a distance of 150.59 feet to a point on the north line
of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant
156.07 feet westerly of the northwest corner of said
Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter as measured along
said north line and there terminating.
IALSO EXCEPT that part of the east one-half of said Northwest
—Quarter lying westerly of the westerly right-of-way line of said
New County Road No. 17 and southerly and easterly of the
Ifollowing described line:
Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter
I of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 23; thence South 1
degree •50 minutes 17 seconds East, bearing assumed, along
the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northwest •
Quarter, a distance of 675.00 feet; thence East, a distance
I of 305.00 feet; thence North 40 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds East, a distance of 270.00 feet; thence North 2
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 200.00
I feet; thence North 19 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West, a
distance of 323.00 feet; thence North 69 degrees 00 minutes
00 seconds East, a distance of 130.00 feet; thence North 20
degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 410.00
I feet; thence North 89 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, •
distance of 395.74 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of •
New County Road No. 17 and there terminating.
y -
il 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR LOCATION PURPOSE ONLY
(. • I/
All that part of the east one-half of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver .County, Minnesota
lying easterly of the centerline of old County Road No. 17 as
travelled.
•
•
•
I
1
f
I
. 1
•
1
1
..t., .. ,
_
1.
_
3
•
..11111
li
• ...,
,...,
. 1111111
•
1 1
1
- _I L k 1. i c
________ _
GO
....- ,..-- -----. I
,_,---:ls ..
I — — • \........----- " , , .,,...•- ." .---" t„.. -,.. '''''
---_--,..---_,;-__---- ,IA — --z:_-.-'-‘A:.=:-.-:7- ss:\\:;N:i••
fr1;.° -----z-1.--------- -----‘---:----; ,- ,. _ .11174. -, . ;If: li 4 .
I 0/, eleb ...:
--- :4;11:15°9-27,V17.-2 ,47iilio,r`r••--7.--7;;Aieriitfrit.4401- --10.-%-- 1 3
I It IP
k
_..4.- 5..?1,,-1-411011‘;■r2r,
Volg j \ V -40,10(tOg■Clir
v. •
2\ \ ,•• -1:01j1I.V,VP t'XL .s %iv:1,01g c- _AN.-4ifit7---,,s,‘ .,..,-.: \ ...., —&•,-tA.
I ---„,,,, ---- •••••_-0- — -
■ ' gel. ':/'',."-4 XtrIgt-.-.4$.1./.OW fr\\\Vi\ /IA. - ___IP;/S...■...-11 t4:\,---:----- lei'ft
2 ,‹ -..111 tt1114-466>te:idtai•- 4 4,,e7A.V4‘ (44,'_-&1 -.1"....-_-_-4b,W AZIP:4190TVA.7": 174,..:-
.(# - - ,....,04 ft0A, 4•11Ct -.47•0:-=---,----47, -.... 2 ....I. st
4,.. .--- "".. 7'ter .4.,dr „re."' .1 • ....d421117.%..----'•,. 41L;0,N,, AVir V...11V:A1111 : .
\ \ "'S.. ------riei .:-- .- tki, ,%e'll•..11 IC: ,jp) Ni, ..05real..,:,. 071‘
1 -‘ ....;;;i0 V‘ lit. : IklIP7 N *, ii.
\ - - - , ...-.2t,
I \ ---..eorinc'.1,--..zz_7-4------..:81241 *.v.. .ii,.„,1,1-)X-c-c,"%kc1
\ , &Ng, f...,,j,....--4----N... . ,:-. ,,,,---,-yep %'-‘ 4 i'mli* au G,• ■ .
%.., "Fitz, / "IiItt.,:s\vdiNit:\ s..--,_•• •,k,,,,,oit 0,,,,,tzlit
• , t 0.4,' 4,v,....N 4L .tit‘'-‘4,,.-,...--ir-ai-A,..-■,rnik.., a ,
y t%It oiNuigr' Zr'-'11,1!"\-\NnyAllita.7,6;', 61-.4.Sy./443/4741Q-le.0744V 4,0' /
I .
Iljp,x-
'1 Atilek: to.,A \ \ ■Ar, - -ljr.ablt4 ' ;' I
yli 'r 111 '..A *":4 '•■•,-:.it r'' 7 "s k y 4, '4!•0-;-. 'All t" .AO..4
'EA " ki,..• `- -'4%. 4 Alt,* -qt40 • ■,/ ,/ /
i__. - i -A-- • • -,....,...,„ .0„.._ ,,,,.,... Iliti,.,Aill .....s.. ii■A.. T ' , '
I_:".tly,iiiiii NI '• N.... ."Z..if,■,-7.o. A*/ • i . , tilir77 v\A.,'W • ? 1%....,
iagiory 1,4'4,41.11 v 44"..,..441:_sr-••'....,‘,..- NY silit a cr.''''.5.--'&4' ''''''; • s'' . - -
I I ki...0•1 rTli • -..._"14& •.4:
f"•-■ . wh, 0' 1. ' --,„:7-. .■• :‘,,,,,, ---„ L.,•N.;,,,,..,•_,,,,,A4i.... ; jw r :P,S4,-•••.--+..---''''''''''''''' F
• I !•••V. V,. .-• Nc'''-'-'. 4N1 ...,. ' --tiiteAkilt?.(--.„,-_,.*:--r.Vitt ':',..:.----•=---'.::::•:-:--.:;...._,. : ' .
I
7-■ti.44::-.9
',.%,41...-.:y/ ,....7.1,,,,,,lb., ?•:..--...\:.r ,..44. `s•ti.....Z.V.:=.... .`V'
- „_•■•,,_ ...,,,,,„_, ......-4,...„14, c.,kr,.___-,..a.. ,
'44‘W4111:- .4k1 ;; W5 it■
S.-•- .;:r% ,,' lik ss. ‘..\ --N., 1 .41,6,_. t"•••1:0%..."-_,- fie
---,tip,,, IMO.,...•:;:,,:-:-...•''!.1,,•.7...---.---_,==.::.•_;.:Z■z. ....1, i, 1."414n, _,-..._ :-:-._ _---(..4.- ,..:.....- .. %-:Z.:.-7:4-E. ::
4 .01...•solo— um at_p_91..... s___
111 ,_
■ ,:i:VIIIIkl_ditti,,. ....,„..---.. .„-. .--.....:_. ,
, . ...I i F •....• •''.--' ..."- 'to. 41:'
t..y:- ,G1'■ is=:.;/74;,7•••11,16..1.1'^Hi....,..r....›t. •
'ff.. -414111it;db==Migniiiiiiif."01Wr_... , ,,
if
II
4--41u,-np111.1111 -%
I h '1 iNc N`lr-. C
,„..i..----..•..-.-...-....6=._,tp_, lid lik - ,, ,,, , ./..._.....-__________ .....,.....
___ VitilliLl 2 fil Wit (ist\ lb: vi 'if ' f /--
1 r \:s ‘slig 41/4 1--
111.11■4',fr. 1 -, ir I ..... ._
' ' ii Eir , Pilli1111111■••*,41 ifp . , .
I 'OA • \ \( /s's •V 4411010 illti 04,0,. "
'X /
‘ v% ,e/
‘ . - 112.4„,..e.ii; , ......„.......
--....,
low--
ii Z
1 3 41\\*...._
A X , ,-.., .1-,:::ZraMellihZ INN
• •<' \ \/** 0{323112MINI ittlirze.4 ri.:' :,10.• .--At: .,_ --- -_,:y.-:--=%
- 4, 0;;,-,:-- ,-
-- ,‘ - -'-,_--------
- -...,..-.....
14 \ ‘)
,,, ., % ••••••••-__w' „.1.--- ..,„%,
• -. , , ., • - \...„,
.. -
\
•
I i
i I
...-- ,---.......„
- ,
'''''',..---, • NN.,,,, s.0.. :1 *
--.
\ ,‘ ., 4 t‘• III
\ _
Al . ta. , , 0,11 e ,01: . .L.f..: ■ i
. .
• 1.•
II "AIL • _ ,-
• . • IF • ,
o •
• ,
I .
I •
. • .. , . . . • . ,
• •
. -
- r
I. Dui, -- - E
,..
,... ,
_ ' 111111
si, , ,
F ____ �_____ ;;•t
i I
I
it,31
.� _ ,. 1
‘....--- y; -- :___ --i---4_, ,-,-.4._.gg il;;,..,.1,i,.---,_
_ '� - , rte
%�''�r�►��'�� ( F r-�`1 ail !RL s�i' "
is'S s•,4": -; ;•-•'15 "N.: 1?)"•_?. ga ,\Ittrii.,..;10.... _.e... .%„-,,:::.t....m4,4n,..> ‘ e,
\V .......ii. ..4.i,-„T I . cirit,„ 0. __...._ , _...0„,14,.,,,:„... ... •.. ..,....._: .
-11lA\7:4 kkrai- "'flirt fc \lit,. ..........-...,tiv\i'4,.•---r--._-!-:---.-:_:-.:,;,, --,ii -
.- `,"" (e-,.%,--, it 4„ ;ix,0.4!:4 4 ... f'-' \(4,-.L-ii.-"tt-,----ai Lf, 8 riet,ki.-----,i...=\, iv,
I
) ,\-- 441 :04;azoiLel,.... .-.1r. ...1%, 4,---- --- * AtteiNii;;;;-\‘' ,--
/ \ \ :tr.,A.‘,..■•61 .7141p,,__ = ` 777
, \ ft-1,0, iiii----7,-, -Awir4),s_-":;...---,, -.i.'4.,,,-,s."0,7F-_,-It.-jel■,,j_40.1. " / ii
1..
r/..„#,-,,,,,,,,,,„ , .� - 4_,j� _ ������
.�� �- fi . �, , 1 I,
1 •
. ;rte: : _
I
�. _ - .t �
- .ter !' � ,.�;.-a``` -c j-- '�� L —���` ;
I
..----c: 4Y-8*Z4rETI ....,011111,.`�. T't ��.; s i
r I
fir" i�' ( ��'� � i '
1 111 ! /-1 w
- • /
P.
II i
Q i 8,11 =
4
0 . .....:
. 1
...._
_-
1
Ti ,» - ~
1.' City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 --
-1 REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE
2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES
TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 212
IAND TH 169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE. ----
Mayor Hamilton: Co Council members have any problem with this? It's
Iadjoining BF District that we zoned.
Councilman Johnson: It was unanimously approved by the Planning (bnmission.
IIMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Rezoning
Request #87-2 to rezone the entire two acre parcel of property located at the
southeast corner of TH212/169 from A-2, Agricultural Estate to BF, Business
11 Fringe District. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
LOCATED ON THE FAST AND WES SIDE DE OF POWERS BLVD. (CR 17) 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF TH
5, DON PATTON, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
II Barbara Dacy: The plans that were dated June 26th in your packet reflect the
most recent suhnittal by the applicants in response to the Planning Commission
action on June 17th. I'm going to keep my comments bried because I know the
I applicants have a presentation that they would like to give to the Council.
To summarize the changes that they have made, in your original Staff Report it
was noted that there were a number of lots or I should say there weren't
enough lots size 15,000 square feet and above and the applicants have gone
1 back and corrected that so approximately 57% of the lots are 15,000 square
feet or above. Therefore, their overall square lot size has increased also.
Secondly, the major concerns of the Planning Commission was the overall
II reduction in density. The original zoning plan anticipated a certain amount
of R-12 and R-8 and the proposal was to reduce approximately 30 acres to the
R-8 zoning. This plan reflects, if you look on Outlot D, originally that was
I designed as R-4 and now they are proposing that as R-8. Outlot D is
approximately 10 acres in size. Another comment from the Planning Commission
was to make sure that the recommendations from the Park and Rec Commission
were being met and the plan that you see here proposes park space on Outlot F,
1 Outlot G, Outlot H proposes concrete sidewalks along the interior streets and
an 8 foot bituminous path along the west shore of Lake Susan. The bituminous
path is to be located within the acreage that is supposed to be dedicated to
I the City. Also, the wetland area in Outlot A is also proposed to be dedicated
to the City. Another concern the Planning Commission had was to look at the
site plan for sensitivity to natural features. Right now a majority of the
site is now cornfields and being used for agricultural production. it does
1 contain steep slope areas and the shaded areas are slopes in excess of 16%.
A remaining concern that Staff has is location of the cul-de-sac at the end of
II Block 11 here. It looks like according to your drawings would be encroaching
into the 16% slope area. We would want to look at that in a little bit more
detail and look at the impact into the adjacent wetland areas. Other
sensitive areas are up along the northeast corner of the site adjacent to Lake
[E:
II Susan Park where there is a pocket of existing vegetation. This plan also
reflects proposed landscaping plan. Another comment identified by the
II 26 4
) '
IICity Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
•
Planning Commission. fey are proposing a rear and sideyard treatments II
• through to the site as it is existing as an open agricultural field. It is
going to be difficult to vegetate the area. With that, you have the Planning
Commission recommendation in front of you. The applicant has submitted this
II
revised plan to attempt to address some of those concerns. The Council needs
to direct the applicant as to whether or not they feel the proposal is a PUD
and whether or not they should proceed to the next stage of PUD application
II
process. If not, then a straight subdivision application can be applied for.
Mayor Hamilton: She applicant gave me some letters that he had received and I
was wondering if you could, I know we don't normally like to have, but seeing il
this is the concept plan, put these in your file for this particular project.
I belive these are comments from local, companies.
Don Patton: Mr. Mayor and Council, as a part of the growth of Chanhassen you II
need a good employment base. You need a good retail base and you need a good
residential'base. We're proposing the development, 299 acres of residential
development. It was carved out of the old Dunn & Curry project from some II
years back. The owners of the land are here tonight. Mr. Tom Reeves, Mr.
Mike Forbes and Jim Lamson. I bring this to the Council. The single family
lots as we will go through, have been bought on a puchase agreement by Joe
II
Miller Construction represented by Ron Dahlen and Bob Count. We think that we
have done a good job in planning this. We have met the requirements of the PUD
I=
Ordinance. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who will make a
I
presentation.
Jim Hill: The picture that is on the monitor now represents the original
application. By the hanks to the partnership it is still 300 acres. Some 893 I
dwelling units consisting of both multi-family and single family- detached.
Approximately half and half. With the higher densities along Powers and
adjacent to the Industrial Park and Business Park to the north. Since the
il
application and reviewing with the Park Commission and Staff, the partnership
has made a modification of that plat. What we are reivewing represents the
latest land use plan but this is a modification of the land use plan wherein
the park dedication and the densities have been modified to reflect the R-8 II
densities giving us about a 5% increase in overall densities. Reflecting the
additional 8 acres of park that was required by the Park Commission.
Addressing their issues with regard to concern that is it a PUD or is it not a
PUD. The proposal on this PUD is to provide now some 933 dwelling units in
classifications of R-1, R-4, R-8 and R-12. Generally the multi-family are
against Powers and against the Industrial still. She PUD addresses the
II
natural features of the 300 acres. Those are the slopes, the wetlands, the
existing trees and existing road system that is in and through the 300 acres.
In addressing all of those conditions and all of those natural features,
including Lake Susan, we have come up with this alignment of the roads. The II
number of cul-de-sacs don't differ from the PUD that was approved some 8 years
ago. The cul-de-sacs still stay because the land has not changed and the cul-
de-sacs recognize those slopes and recognize the drainage areas. Along with
II
that, consideration for PUD, Planned Unit Development Ordinance of Chanhassen,
it gives the developer the opportunity to vary lot sizes. The PUD says and it
specifically says that lot sizes, single family residential homes, can be ,
varied within a PUD if it meets their standards. The data that has been
•
27
I
II
ill �)
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Isubmitted to Staff meet those standards and I appreciate that when you take a
residential plat, whether it be a standard subdivision or a PUD subdivision in
R-1, you're going to see very little change because what you're doing is
IImeeting a PUD ordinance that says you're varying the lots. In the 300 acres
the reason for the PUD is to vary the lots and vary the land uses so that we
can achieve and stay with the natural forms that are on the site. Recognizing
II Lake Susan. Recognize Powers Blvd. that goes through the area including all
of the wetlands. The recommendation by the Park Commission calculated under
the Park requirement of Chanhassen that 33 acres shall be given and that will
II be the requirement of the 300 acres and the 930 dwelling units. In their
calculation of 33 acres, they gave credit to the 18 acres here, the 7 acres
along Lake Susan totally 25 and that's the reason for the change where we add
an additional 8 acres of park. tinder the proposed PUD and that 8 acres is
here adjacent to the residential high and 3 acre parcel adjacent to the R-4 in
the single family.
I • Councilman Boyt: Could you go through that one more time for me. Where
you're having your parks.
Jim Hill: Park requirements of Chanhassen shall be the number of dwelling
Iunits times 2.8 people per dwelling unit times the number of dwelling units
divided by 75 and that's the number of acres you shall provide. That's 33
acres. The Park Commission looked at a proposal of some 50 acres of open
I space proposed in the PUD and said of that 52 acres we shall credit you 25.
25 consisting of the 7 acres along Lake Susan and the 18 in the southwest
corner. Along with that southwest corner we had proposed and provided a park
II layout to the Park Commission and they accepted it. Ballfield spaces, soccer
and skating, totlot and future tennis. 25 acres of the 33 required was
credited against the 52 so an additional 8 acres remained...
ICouncilman Boyt: What's this open space now? Outlot G and Outlot H?
Jim Hill: All the green on this site. The 18 acres in the southwest, the 8
I acres in the northwest and the 2 1/2 acres in the center and the 35 acres in
Outlot E being the lower wetlands or the corridor to Lake Susan and the 7-7
1/2 acres along Lake Susan comes to a total of 62 acres or 21% of the site.
II Part of the proposed PUD, and I think this was explained quickly to the .
Planning Commission is to provide additional landscaping. The builder has
agreed to allow the streetscape, around other subdivisions you would not have
additional planting within the streetscape over and above one tree per lot.
I You would not have additional landscaping in the streetscape as you drove down
the street. What the building.is proposing to do additional plantings in the
street, adjacent to the street boulevards and that is represented by these
I clusters of greens that you see along and throughout the single family
detached lots. He will provide approximately a $65,000.00 budget for that
landscaping throughout. Over and above that the multi-family, a low average
for multi-family would be approximately $530.00 per dwelling unit and that
Iwould constitute against the 500 dwelling units of multi-family for attached.
That would be another $250,000.00 in landscaping. Part of the proposal and
agreed on by the Parks, that the developer shall provide and build the
I pathways and the sidewalks within the street. That is approximately 3 1/2
miles of concrete sidewalk and/or 8 foot bituminous. That will be buit and
I28
II
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I
;� Irl
constructed during the I
ng phases of the PUD. In conjunction with the PUD, the
developer shall also grade the parks. That's some 33 acres. The 18 and 8 for
some 26 acres. We have proposed a park layout for the southwest park, 18
acres. That was generally approved by the Parks Commission. The developer
has agreed to grade the access road, the ball diamond and the soccer field and
seed and produce cover on the disturbed areas. If one counted all those PUD
give me's in this POD, one could Dome with a number in excess of a normal
subdivision of some $400,000.00. If you didn't like those numbers and you
just said James, figures don't lie but liars do figure. If you just looked at
the POD that they are proposing and say to yourself over and above what is
proposed is some $60,000.00 to $65,000.00 in street landscaping in the single II
family area. Park grading to the tune of $50,000.00 to $60,000.00 ard' the 33
acres that is acceptable credits for the park, which is one-half of the green
space that you see in a PUD, of the 33 acres only one-half of it will be
II
credited against the $415.00 that you would normally accept and require if no
land was given so that's another $190,000.00. So you could count over a third
of a million in the POD that is extra in their eyes over and above a normal
II
subdivision. The Lake Susan West community is a neighborhood of mixed
housing, unglading lands, lots of open space, access to the Lake Susan,
pathways and parkways and available parks that are graded and useable. That's
the PUD and the developer is trying to provide a neighborhood of people that II
can function within itself and have the amenities that are there without
destroying and going to the cookie cutter, grid system of planning.
Don Patton: This is the current zoning that we're conforming to. You see the II
R-12, single family here and over in through here. The R-8 is in this area.
Again, we're changing the arrangement of that. Some of this is outside in the
A-2 we would be looking at rezoning that. The MESA line is this line. Co
some density transfers moving that into the..MUSA line. Fran the standpoint of
phasing, it's a big project and obviously can't be built at once. What we're
looking for is, in trying to figure out the natural topography, you've got a
II
line that goes basically like this. This draining back towards the Riley-
Purgatory Creek area and this area draining to the west into a different
Watershed District. This is a natural boundary for the west phasing. This is
II
the line that we defined as Phase 1 of the east side. The phasing that we're
looking at is in the single family on the west side, the market bracket, and
again if it doesn't sell it's not worth developing, are $90,000.00 to
$140,000.00. On the east side we're looking at $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 to II
$250,000.00. If you've ever been down along the lake you'll see the
desirability of a lot of these lots. As a part of the development we would be
looking at Phase I in the high income housing project and the moderate income,
II
this would be Phase 1. Developing to the south, Phase 2, again Phase 2 here.
Phase 3 here. Phase 3 down here. One of the things that we see in defining
this and trying to maximize the topography and terrain in this development is
to define the multiple size so those can then be marketed for multiple II
construction. We're looking at covenants. A high level of construction. The
homes in here would be wood and masonry. Timberline roofs and panel doors so
we're looking at something that we would be proud to live in and something you
II
would be proud to be building in Chanhassen.
Councilman Geving: What was the price range on that Don? I
•
29
II
1
ill City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Don Patton: Qz which one?
[-
Councilman Geving: In number one.
II
Don Patton: We're looking in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00. Qie of the
things that we've done, if we can pull some more of rabbits out of here. (Mr.
I Patton then showed a slide presentation showing the different housing styles
that Joe Miller Construction builds.) As a part of our partnership in the
Chanhassen community we met with a lot of the business people, Mr. Jerome
IICarlson from United Mailings.
Jerome Carlson: Don talked tome a week or so ago and we went over about what
you've gone over I suspect. What interests our company and me is that we have
II a lot of employees, as you know, who really have a hard time finding
affordable housing, maybe any housing, out here. I believe that this would
significantly help fill a need for our employees. it would be more
1 affordable. It would be convenient without a,doubt. I also believe that it
would be a selling point for new employees, which we are having difficulty
finding. We constructed a facility in Little Falls and moved in to that last
August. Less than a year ago. The only reason was because we were unable to
Ifind people within a reasonable distance to fill jobs. This year, less than
one year later, we are in the process of finalizing plans for a 45,000 square
foot addition to the Little Falls facility and that is 100% based on a labor
II availability business decision. We are anticipating as we have experienced in
the past every year severe labor shortages as we enter the late summer and
fall and winter and spring season. Our slow time generally is May, June, July.
This year that did not happen. We are fortunate but we are really trying to -
accelerate the addition in Little Falls because quite frankly gentlemen it is
very difficult to find enough human resource within a reasonable distance. We
are raising the minimum wages. We are doing a number of things so that you
I can assured we are working very hard in all kinds of ways but the fact of the
matter is, affordable housing that would be conveniently located would be a
boom to the community marriage of business and housing and I would imagine the
I redevelopment of the downtown. It all fits together in my mind. This goes
back many years when we were working on a redevelopment plan that goes back a
few additions. That's what I came to tell you. I am in favor of this and I
hope that you can find a way to get on with it at the earliest possible date
11 because we need those people.
Mayor Hamilton: I appreciate your being here for one thing. Co you feel that
I if you had the affordable housing here and you feel by being able to attract
new employees to this area that your businesses would expand here and perhaps
you wouldn't have the need to expand in Little Falls and the expansion could
Itake place here?
Jerome Carlson: We have additional apace in our buildings that is not being
utilized. That was on the basis that we would fill these up originally before _
Iwe would be going elsewhere. Now, in Instant Webb and at Victory, the labor
shortages are not nearly as severe as they are at United Mailing. We
certainly would not have built a facility in Little Falls when we did if the
I labor had been available in Chanhassen. That I can assure you because it's
added expense to a facility that we've already committed to and we have no way
I30
I
,
w.F- City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 I
out of that. 'lb the extent that labor becomes available Tom, down here, that
will directly impact the rate of growth in Little Falls.
Councilman Geving: Jerome, have you ever done a market analysis or an
employee evaluation of where your people come from to get to work in
Chanhassen?
•
Jerome Carlson: I can't say that we have one that is real recent. I think I
the most recent one is at least a couple years old and there have been some
people that have moved over time to the area from where they were.
Councilman Geving: I drive TH 5 east every morning and it seems like there f
are as many people coming from Bloomington and Edina and wherever they come
from from the east coming our way but it seems tome that what.we're talking
about here tonight t haven't seen any, what I would consider, affordable
housing. We're talking $90,000.00 to $140,000.00. Are you having trouble
getting executives out here too? Your middle managers or your manager types.
Jerome Carison: Cur primary concern right now, frankly because it is so
critical, has to do with the young people who are 30 and under and the
affordable housing issue. It was always my understanding going back over the
years with the zoning that in fact the City was going to take care of that.
Going to take care of that and address that so we would have not just middle
to higher income housing. That we would address it for all of the people who
we need in the community. '
Councilman Geving: What we didn't get from the developer yet tonight is an
indication of the multiple family and higher density areas and what those
might do for our community in terms of affordability. I haven't heard that
yet. Maybe you could address that for us:
Jerome Carison: Those, in my opinion, are absolutely as critical. Those '
later phases of those multiple dwellings. We would really like to see those
available.
Don Patton: Let me just address that point. One of the reasons for this R-12 II
is for the lower income. We're looking of course for these high densities,
you're looking at 360 units in this orange area. Projections on that would be
again based on that king of input I think would be certainly find some builers
for that in the $65,000.00 to $70,000.00 range which would address those
concerns.
Mayor Hamilton: Don, maybe you could address the C)utlot, the one right along
CR 17? You had at one time I think proposed to downzone that.
Don Patton: Yes, again that was what I was showing on this slide. I guess ,
the feeling that we had is that downzoing was appropriate. The feedback that
we got from the Planning Commission was that that was not desirable. Again,
we want to be a good,partner to the City of Chanhassen. We want this to be
successful and there are a lot of things that make things successful. The
market makes it successful. Good planning makes it successful and by changing
this area right here to R-8, we will accommodate that and we appreciate those
31 '
1
LI . -- -
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987 -
comments from Jerome on the housing needs. The buyer that we have right now
is for the single family but again we feel that by saying this is where single
family can best be designed and go up according to what Mother Nature gave us.
II Don't fool Mother Nature, we're trying to design around that. Platting the
outlots as we've seen will give the buyers when they come in and market for
multiple family housing. We have talked to several people.
II Mayor Hamilton: Do you have anything else you want to present or does that
conclude it?
I Al Klingelhutz: I guess I would agree with Jerome. The fact that Chanhassen
has a lot of businesses and we have more employment in Chanhassen than we have
people to fill the jobs and the only way we're going to create a little
II
different climate for more industry to come in here is to get more people to
II live in Chanhassen and put developments up like this is one way of doing it.
II Councilman Johnson: I agree with the Planning Commission on this one. I see
a lot of hocus pocus with these numbers. I'm 'literally very upset to tell you
the truth. It really baffles me how in Blocks 8, 9, 10 and 11 we can increase
the lot size of 24 lots between Planning Commission and here and one lot was
1 decreased by 300 square feet so somehow we've taken that 300 square feet and
divided that amongst 24 of the lots. Some of them increased by over 2,000
square feet and did it in the same area and having the same amount of open
II space and the same amount of outlots. This is hocus pocus. This is
unbelievable. The only thing that was done, when you took this, you changed
the numbers here. All the lot lines are identical. I can't find any of the
i_
lot lines that are different. I can't find anything on the east side of CR
II 17, any lot that's been decreased in size except for one. I found one that
actually was. It went from 15,300 down to 15,000 but within that 300 square
feet we're able to pick up 24 lots and increase them up to 15,000. That's
II hocus pocus to me. They say there are 934 dwelling units. Mr. Carlson wants
more affordable housing and this development keeps going smaller and smaller
on the multiple families. There aren't 934 dwelling units. There are 857
now. We've decreased the amount of dwelling units because we cut back by 12
Iacres the R-4. We cut back by 5 acres the R-12. We did increase the R-8 by
10.4 acres. It's interesting that we had 360 dwelling units in the R-12 when
we had 30.1 acres. We decrease that by 5.7 acres and we still have 360
l dwelling unit in the R-12 district. This is hocus pocus folks. These numbers
are not right. Somebody is figuring. I don't believe that Outlot B is
useable for R-8. There's no way to access it. It's hardly wide enough for a
I regular lot no less than putting in R-8, medium density, residential which is
what Mr. Carlson wants. Ererytime you turn around we're cutting down and
adding more. This is not a PUD. We need internal parks and totlots in here
versus making everybody walk way out to the periphery and the areas that we
Ican't develop anyway. I don't really see that this qualifies for a PUD at
all. I would like to see more of the multiple. I would like commitment to those multiples so we can get affordable housing. see some
9 S90,000.00 to.
I $200,000.00 housing is not what I call affordable housing. I see an R-8 right
nest to an RSF. I see RSF right next to IOP, that's not good planning. You
don't put residential lots-right up next to the Industrial Park. You put R-4,
II R-8 or R-12 next to Industrial Park but are you going to tell the people that
IEE
are going to be buying these lots what's zoned behind it is industrial or
II32
II
City Council Meeting - -June 29, 1987 '
1+�
zoned next to it is high density? If there is someway we can make it required I
to disclose that information, I want that disclosed. I sat and listen to a
developer tell somebody, Bill that he was going to have single family housing
next door to him and it was zoned R-12. That was a different development. I
believe as far as for single family housing, Chanhassen Hills and than Vista
are going to provide more affordable single family housing than this
development. than Vista starts at basically $80,000.00 then if you want a
porch from your back door it's a little bit more. The people who are moving
in there are the young, single, married, I just had 32 people move in behind
me and just about every one of them is in their 30's down with one kid or no
kids and just getting married and the type of people that you're looking for
are moving into than Vista right now.
Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick to this.
Councilman Johnson: I'm just making comparisons here. That was a
didn't get much for that. I'm in total PUD'and we
agr�nent with the Planning
Commission. This does not deserve to be a PUD. I get very upset when people
do hocus pocus arithmetic because it's technically impossible to make larger
lots with 300 square feet. The numbers in this chart are totally wrong. The
only thing that stayed the same was 427 single family residents and that's
what they're trying to do. They're trying to push the single family
residents. i don't think we'll ever see R-8 in t)utlot D. I'll let somebody
else rant and rave for a while because I'm voting against this because I don't
think it's a PUD.
Councilman Boyt: Let me start out with some good news. I think the move to
put public open space along Lake Susan should be applauded. That's something I
if other developers had taken that same approach we would have a much
different city lake system than we do and I really appreciate you doing that.
I think the 3 1/2 miles of walkways and trail systems is a credit to you and a
credit to the Park and Rec Board. I would however like to comment that it
would have been nice to have the Park and Rec Minutes to read about this. I
assume you guys discussed it and we didn't get your Minutes in our packet.
Jim Mady: I don't believe they are ready yet.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're an important body and we need to get that
sort of information to make a reasonable background search before we meet. I
think what you have is an excellent opportunity to be creative. You've got an •
open field. You don't have neighbors. You can basically do all kinds of
things with this piece of property. You have by the nature of the zoning that I
the city chose to put on this, you already have what I think might have gotten
you a PUD under other circumstances. The desire to do this has already been
zoned in there by the City so maybe you were thinking a lot alike. I've got a
question for you, I would like to know how many acres do you plan to grade in
each of these phases?
Don Patton: Part of that will depend, obviously we're asking for concept I
approval so we can come back with the preliminary-.plat and as we talked about •
in our phasing, this would be this phase 1 and this area up here would be our
1st phase of initial grading. Again, we would like to get that in the ground
33
•
1
ill •
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
11 so the next sales will, happen this fall yet.
Councilman Boyt: Can you give me an idea about the number of acres that are
II going to be opened up? If we're talking four phases, are we talking 70 acres
a tract?
I Don Patton: I think this was about 30 acres and this was about probably 12.
Part of this, unfortunately, to get the necessary water and sewer
intrastructures started, it was more than we would like to open up but that's
again, the requirements of developing a wetland, the ponding, because of the
Ilakes, everything has to be ponded on-site. In ponding, grading in the
sewer, connecting on the sewer provided through here. Connecting on the water
line that goes along CR 17, it's just bard. We want to minimize that.
IObviously that's a cost factor.
Councilman Boyt: One of the things I would like you to do is bring to us some
II sort of idea about how you're going to minimize dust going into Lake Susan.
Having lived on an edge of a dustbowl for the past month, I can tell you
you're going to dump a lot of dust if you open up a lot of that ground. Kind
of come with that in mind. We heard a good bit here about the need for
II certain types of employees in Chanhassen. Mr. Carlson, it would be my guess
and I have no idea that you're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.50
per hour. Is that roughly in the ballpark?
IJerome Carlson: That is the lowest number.
Councilman Boyt: Let's say you're paying $5.50 per hour. If someone works
IIfor you full-time they are grossing $11,000.00. I will maintain that there is
no one who can live in anything that's going to get built in this town that
makes $11,000.00 a year so I don't think that these people are going to be
I . providing. Not being a banker I can't tell you but I don't that anybody is
going to buy a home with a total income of $22,000.00 so I don't think that
this offers an opportunity for you to find people to work for you.
IJerome Carlson: A lot of the people who work for us are also second income
types. They generally are married to, if they are married, to a family
II situation where the primary income is not that great and that's why they're
there. The most typical profile of the lower end wage earner at United
Mailing, the most typical profile is that they are a two family income family
so what the gross wage that they could pull for housing would really depend in
Ipart on the primary wage earner.
. Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying, in my opinion Mr. Carlson, that you are
II . indeed in a dilemma. If the City will not be building housing that can
substantiate or that someone can live in with the sort of income that a
business like yours is forced to pay because of economics. I think you're up
II against another problem and that is unemployment in this city and Minneapolis
is 3.6% and that's full employment. There just are no bodies here and what
you've done in Little Falls is go find a place in which people are locked and
in which they are very happy I'm sure to see you there, we're happy to see you 6
I here but you have a different kind of employment base in Little Falls than you
do in the Twin Cities and we're not going to be able to change that.
I34
11
I
li
* City Council Meeting - June 29,. 3987
}
II
Ir- Jerome Carlson: The multiple dwelli though i
P ng ug in some of these outlots as they
cane on-line, I believe would provide part of the need. I still maintain that
the lower end housing in this development, because of the second wage earner 11
and the primary source for many of our employees, many of our employees are
the second wage earner, this I believe would be a significant resource for us.
Councilman Boyt: The gentleman here on the Planning Commission had said there II
is no market for multiple dwellings in the R-12. I think that speaks for
itself. As far as Jay's comments about this being a PUD, I would agree with
the Planning Commission. I think you could make it a PUD but what I'm looking II
for in a PUD is something that really shows creativity and innovation. I
don't think we have a better opportunity in the city than you have right here
and that's what I expect from you or I expect this to come in as a normal
subdivision.
Councilman> Horn: I was involved when this concept was originally approved and
I remember one of the criteria we used at that point was that this was'a good II
area for this type of development because we had some concerns about moving
multiple housing adjacent to some of our existing single family housing. The
neat part about this piece of property is that there is no other single family II
housing immediately adjacent to it so I think they have somewhat of a unique
opportunity here to create a type of PUD neighborhood. I agree that anyone
who locates in that must be aware of what the whole plan is for the I
neighborhood. I'm seeing that type of thing happening in Eden Prairie next to
IL_ I believe it's Mitchell Lake over here when they had some very nice homes next
to the lake and now the multiples are going in and I think it's a matter of 5 II years later when all the phases are completed but now the multiples are being
put in place and I would envision this being a similar type of situation.
Where we have very nice homes next to a lake and in the same subdivision
putting in multiples. I think they've done some neat things here in what
II
they're providing in terms of amenities. The property does't allow a lot of
natural amenities other than the lake at this point but it appears to me they
are doing things with landscaping to make it very nice development. I
Councilman Geving: I think what we have to realize here is this development
by itself represents approximatey 25% of all the housing units in Chanhassen.
Can you imagine what this will do to our community and the growth of our II
community if it adds 25% more units? We only have about 3,500 units in the
city right now. This is one heck of a big development and we've got to do it
right. We have a need for it. We have a need for a varied array of single
II
family dwellings which apparently are the hot item right now and are selling
but we also have the need, as Jerome mentioned, for the multiple units and I
can tell you one thing, I know a lot of these young kids that work for Jerome.
II
They're not just living by themselves making $11,000.00 a year. There are 3,
4 or 5 of these kids living together in a house or an apartment and they are
sharing these units. Maybe not even in Chanhassen but they are sharing units
and combining their income. That's how they're surviving. I would suspect II
they could do the same thing here. They could buy one of these units, 3 or 4
kids along, together, whatever, and they could survive. They'll make it go
but what I saw and heard from Jim Hill amazed me a little bit.. Some of the
developers amenities that he's willing to do for'us. I haven't heard from a II
lot of other developers some of the prospects of giving us for example all the
35 II
II
`vw
4 1
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
lakeshore on the west side of Lake Susan. Not many developers have done that
for us other than Jim Curry. I think I would like to look at approximately 30
acres or more for parkland and totlots spread more equally among the
development I don't know what this 18.2 acres looks like on the southwest
corner. Maybe Al could tell us. It might be more flat than I realize but it
just seems like it's fairly far removed from the plat and it might be very
difficult to get at and get to. I would like to see more of this parkland
spread throughout the development. This is a big development and there is
going to be a lot of need for example for that 360 units in the northern part
' which are high density residential and I believe that Jim you said that is 8
acres that you had set aside there.
Jim Hill: That's approximately 5 to 6 acres. 5.7 acres.
Councilman Geeing: Okay, 5.7 acres. 11b me that is not a lot of land. You're
talking about 360 units. There may be over 1,000 people in that one little
' area in the north part of the development and .6 acres just isn't going to cut
it. I would like to see us add a couple more acres to that. At least, I've
always been under the impression that unless you have a minimum of 5 acres you
can't even put in a ball diamond. If you intend to put in a totlot and some
ball diamonds and other things, 5.7 acres in that area for 360 units is not
enough. The other thing I saw on this particular development, we talked about
, the possibility of some sidewalks and maintenance, who's going to maintain
those after we build them. It's always nice to have those in our community
but what do we do 5 years after the developers gives it to you and we take it
' over and start to maintain them? I don't know. Where does the money come to
develop that to keep it going? Also, I see an awful lot of cul-de-sacs in
here as was mentioned before. There should be a way and the Mayor and I have
talked about this, he had some ideas on how some of these roads could be
' better aligned and cut out some of the cul-de-sacs. I don't thin you're going
to give up any land. I don't think you're going to lose any of of the
potential for lots and I think the road alignment could be better developed.
II Overall I like the plan and I like what it could do for our city. I believe
it's a positive thing. It's something that would have happened. This
development would have happened 10 years ago if it hadn't run into some bad
economic times and you wouldn't have had just 892 units, you would have had
' over 1,000 units but there are some very positive things here. I do have to
question one thing, somebody mentioned something about a 50% credit for
parkland. Was that agreed on Jim?
' Jim Mady: It was discussed that, at that time the 892 units, we were looking
at 33 acres of parkland and I believe, and I'm holding my memory because I
' haven't seen our Minutes either, we were recommending that we reduce the park
dedication fees by 50%, getting all the land so we would have the monies
available to put into the park equipment. The comment on your 18 acre
parkland, our Commission toured that parcel. There is room on one hull to put
' a soccer field and there is a considerable slope but I believe the developer
is planning on putting one ballfield down below the slope. That's it for
passive use really.
Councilman Geving: You might want to explain a little bit about the grading IEE
because I think this is the first time that the developer has done that for
36
I
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
us. We've always asked for it but we've never gotten it. I
Councilman Johnson: Centex is going to do it.
Jim Mady: When the developer came in front of us he mentioned something about I
grading but really didn't have any specifics for us at that time.
Councilman Geving: These are the rough grades for the ball diamonds? ,
Don Patton: What were looking at here is a soccer field in this area. A
road in here, tennis. This is a nice slope through here for a sliding hill.
Softball down in through here. We're going to need ponding and again, various II
real complex drainage on the site from the north, make this a dry pond and use
that for hockey in the wintertime.
Councilman Geving: This idea of the totlots throughout the developed area,
was that mentioned at all in the Park and Roc? Did you discuss that and how
that might be achieved? ,
Don Patton: One of the things that was talked about, they were looking at
neighborhood parks and they agreed on four. From the standpoint and correct II me if I'm wrong, you do have the other ball diamonds for your leagues in other
areas. The envisionment of this was really for the neighborhoods.
Councilman Geving: Would you care to comment on my question about the 5.7 '
park on the north part of the development and what you intend to put in there
in terms of how it could be developed for active play areas?
Jim Mady: What we were seeing at that time, as I remember we were looking at '
about 3 to 3 1/2 acres of land so this is all new. C)utlot G is new.
Don Patton: Yes, they were saying that they needed about 8 additional acres
in the formula so that's when we talked about fulfilling that requirement
which is part of that.
Councilman Geving: I understand the 8 but I'm looking really for more on that II
very high density residential district up there, the R-12. You're going to
have a lot of people in there and they're not going to be going to Lake Ann.
They're going to be going out their back door looking for someplace to play.
If you're going to have kids, and more than likely it will be kids in this
particular unit. I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you're going to
have high density residential, you're going to have small children there. ,
Councilman Hoyt: I would like to make a suggestion if I could. I think this
gets into the area of creativity that I was talking about earlier. You have
an R-12 density but there are a lot of ways to get to that density and that
you could certainly create a good bit of open space which would be very handy
as part of that area.
Don Patton: That was part of the discussion we had that night was actually,
this entire 32 acres was the R-12 district and we were looking at this being
the trade-off of the open space for that design of the orange area. ,
3?
1
i
ill _.. - k_f „
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
k Councilman Geving: That's something that you might want to come back to us
with. If I were a Park Commission member, I wouldn't let up on this one. I !-
would really want as much space in that area as I could get.
-' Barbara Dacy: Another option would be, in conjunction with the high density
development, sometimes there are totlots developed immediately on the R-12
property immediately adjacent. That there could be some private recreational
1 areas there also. If it is approved as a POD you could make that as a
condition of approval that when the site plan comes in that that site create
recreational areas on the site.
ICouncilman Geving: I really don't have any other comments. I think it's a
positive thing for our community and it's going to happen. I think that we've
got a good development company working on this. I think it's going to be
I great for the community. I'm in favor of what I see here with some
adjustments. I do not believe however that it is a POD. That's all I have.
II Mayor Hamilton: I had some questions more on Staff's recommendations than
anything else. I spent quite a bit of time reviewing this and reviewing the
PUD and what some of the conditions are that are called for in a PUD. It
I seems to me that this is a PUD and that the developer is meeting the PUD
requirements. Just look at the Staff's recommendations. 1, a plan showing
existing natural site feastures and how they would be preserved. It would
II seem to me that the developer is doing that by working with all existing
slopes. Trying to build the roads to the contours of the land and preserve
all of that that they can. You have to remember this is all cornfield. They
don't have very many wooded areas to work with. Consequently it's going to be
I a little hard to work with site features when there aren't any. Item 4, a
landscaping plan showing additional landscaping along the boulevards over and
above the typical one tree per lot. I'm not "sure that our ordinance requires
IIsomething over and above one tree per lot, does it Barb?
Barbara Dacy: There is the section in the ordinance where it says
landscaping, that is one of the criteria to evaluate whether or not it is a
I PUD. There is specific language in there. Provide a landscaping plan above
and beyond what is typically required. In response to, again the Planning
Commission in it's original report, they prepared this plan so that was not in
IIthe original submittal.
Mayor Hamilton: I know that the POD ordinance states clearly in more than one
place that PUD should indicate planning design over and above what a normal
Isubdivision would and it seems to me that the developers are doing that. As
Dale commented on, the plan with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs, I guess
Don if you could come up to your drawing here, I would like to just ask you a
II question about some of the cul-de-sacs and see if there is a possibility of
redoing any of them or just throw out my ideas. The one on the northeast
side, next to Outlot C. I'm wondering if they can't be looped instead of a
Icul-de-sac, terminating in a cul-de-sac if that can't be looped?
Don Patton: If you look at the terrain, you see the natural contours, this is
II a natural hill. You've got steep slopes around it. The reason for taking the
hill on the top of the slope is you can make that cut then build the house
II38
II
_
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
4- ir f
benches around here so they would be walkouts around. If you start going I
across that you start getting into some heavy fill situations and again, were
going against what Mother Nature provided. This is a natural area. Certainly
it can be done but we feel like were doing the least amount of environmental
grading, causing the least amount of grading adjacent to the lake which is
certainly a concern under the developed land use.
Mayor Hamilton: I have a couple others I wanted to ask you about. Again, I'm
not terrible familiar with the topography onoe you get past the hill here. If
you go to the west from that cul-de-sac, the first one. If you took that cul-
de-sac and extended that somehow in a looped manner again so the road is
looped.
Don Patton: Again, you have steep slopes right in through here. This is kind
of a natural ridge in here and what we're trying to do, originally what we
*anted to do was continue the road straight in but to get the grades of 7%
grades, we really needed to take this approach here to minimize the grades for
safe ice conditions.
Mayor Hamilton: From a maintenance standpoint it would be advantageous for
the City if there was someway we could go through. Moving to the west again,
the next set of cul-de-sacs to the west, that one and the next one to the
west, if those could be joined together.
Don Patton: If I could go to the slide. This is part of your packet. It was
i Sheet #7. There are some wetlands designed in this area. Again Dr. Rockwell,
we've already walked the site and designated this one here, one here, one
here, one here and one here. '
Councilman Johnson: Are those existing?
Don Patton: Those are existing wetlands and our tops require staying back ,
from them so to use that, the top one being here and getting the size lots.
One thing, if I could make the comment, these are larger lots in the PUD that
you look at down here because of the change in the zoning ordinance so we did
have to do that. The lots here. The road in here and then bringing this up
in to kind of preserve and keep the proper setback distance from those
wetlands. You see this wetland for the drainage here, again that wetland,
when this road, again this road is designated and there has been a feasibility
done to develop that road as a part of this IOP area, would utilize some of
that ponding area for the storm water retention. Again that then falls down
through a culvert and open ponding system and down into the park area that we
talked about earlier into the creek area so there are a series of ponds. To
answer your question, sure we could bring that across but you're going to put
culverts in and have to again bring up the expense and everytime you raise
expense you cut somebody out of the market.
Mayor Hamilton: The cul-de-sacs directly to the south of the one I just
mentioned and then going ease, can you connect that one going across there?
Don Patton: That certainly could be connected. What we end up with that flow
that goes in through here in our ponding.
39
1
III 4
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
11 Mayor Hamilton: Then right at the cul-de-sac at the end of your pencil, if
you connected can that go across the ridge? I'm looking at those primarily (--
from a maintenance standpoint. It's going to be a whole lot easier if we can
Ihave someway to plow and bring those through.
Don Patton: The thing we're trying to do is maintain the drainage that is set
IIup there and the topography. Those could be taken across.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 8 in the Staff Report, traffic analysis to determine the
need for turn lanes on Powers Blvd.. Do we need to do that Barbara? I would
' think that's a pert of what you're going to do there anyway. You want to have
turn lanes there anyway so why would we...
I Barbara Dacy: Carver County requested that and they will have to do an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet so there will have to be some information
of traffic flows in and out of the sight so the County can properly evaluate
II the needs for -those intersections.
Mayor Hamilton: Item 9, I think they've already done that. Designating
existing wetland areas and providing a 75 foot setback. Item 11, a new
I phasing plan providing a new south and north connection of the easterly street
with Powers Blvd.. Maybe you can tell why that's necessary.
II Barbara Dacy: The main intent of that was to connect the two streets so we
wouldn't be ending up with one long cul-de-sac operating on it's own for a
significant period of time. It wasn't in your objective.
IDon Patton: What we talked about doing, going back to some of the original
history, when Powers was developed the current owners of the land donated that
to the County for that and as a part of the original PUD established sight
I distances from an engineering and traffic standpoint at this location and this
location and what we've been trying to do is some of those givens, again those
didn't change. Those sight distances didn't change. Those intersections
II didn't change. What we were saying at this point. Again, we can't develop
the whole sight. We would run a temporary road from here out to here to
provide that point. Obviously when Phase 3 is developed you'll have the
II connection coming all the way through and it won't be a temporary access.
Mayor Hamilton: I really like the concept and I think and feel very strongly
that this type of a project is needed in the City of Chanhassen. I p y
I,
I more than anybody, has spoken out in the past for the need for smaller lots
and for housing to accommodate.employees such as Jerome's company employs. I
think the thing that we're perhaps overlooking is those people, if they want
Ito, afford this housing and it will make the labor market more stable here for
companies such as Jerome's. Your employees would tend to be more long term I
think instead of saying, oh heck, I just don't want to keep driving out here.
They are going to seek housing here and they are going to be a part of this
I community. Also, if you look at the PUD ordinance, which I've done and
hopefully interpretted it correctly, I feel that this does very much so meet
the ordinance as it's written. It is a PUD. There are a lot of loopholes in
I that PUD ordinance. It left a lot of openings in there and we left a lot of
discretion up to the Council to say it's not. I think that was done because
I40
_ �_ i
IIlv
'` City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
I/
we didn't want to see PUD's any longer. We wanted to see subdivisions, not
PUD's. However, I think the developers have met the letter of the ordinance I
and the intent of it and I would like to see them move ahead with this project
and to start building and to come back to us with your next phase. I would
like to ask Don if you or Jim if you would care to answer any of the concerns II that Jay brought up about his hocus pocus and do another magic trick for him.
Jim Hill: Jay, it wasn't out intent to make a list of lot sizes and shortly
thereafter modified the lot sizes without changing, that's not the intent. We II
have so many acres. We have stipulated that the PUD ordinance shall be met.
We've indicated that 57% of the lots indicated on the PUD will exceed 15,000.
The intent here is to demonstrate that on a scale of 1 inch equals 200, a
II
pencil line is 10 feet so my technician, in her inventory of the lots, made
some errors and when I looked at it the second time I adjusted the tables. It
wasn't the -intent to make any hocus pocus. With regard to the density of 934, I
we have discussed the idea of taking 8 acres and placing the 8 acres in these
two areas and I suggested that because we didn't want to move density in the
PUD, that we transfer density. I have done that. We have done that on this
latest plan. In other words, the original PUD had some. 30 acres of R-12. 11
We've taken some 6 acres, let's say, off of the 30 and wound up with 24. We
stayed, if you look at the table, we stayed in the R-12 with the same number.
360 units. The density then will be 14.8. That's given the open space and - II
still maintaining the 600 units for that parcel. With regards to the 5 or 6
acres adjacent to R-12 or 360 dwelling units in the north, in the final
drawings of Outlot A that bring in the attached housing, at this period of
time the developers don't know what that attached housing will be. Will it be I
condominium? Will it be carriage homes? Manor homes? I don't think they
know today. That's why we don't see innovative drawings of Outlot A or B or D
and C. But in the development of the multi-family tracts that you see there,
II
the higher densities, they and we all know that on a PUD that site plan will
be approved maintaining density and maintaining open spaceffor the number of
people that will be there. That shall and will be addressed, I hope by the
II
Council when those parcels come in under this PUD. If it is the wish of the
Planning Commission and/or Council to combine all of the private open space on
Outlot A and combine it over towards the wetland that is located here and
adjacent to the public parkland, then we would be starting to achieve the land
II
use space. As I indicated earlier too, we have separated the single family
from the industrial park. The only place we didn't do that is right in here
where Jay rightfully said that we've got it backed up to an Industrial
I
Business Park but this, as Don indicated, this area right here is a lower area
and will be used for ponding and I'm sure the folks that drive into the
• industrial park will be dumping water into it and that system then will be
ponded in this area and this is a 1 inch equals 200 so we have almost 2 inches II
right there from that cul-de-sac to Creek Drive and that represents 400 feet.
This here has got to be at least an inch and a quarter so that's got to be 250
so we do have that spacing between Creek Drive and the future industrial.- II
Part of the cul-de-sac system and correctly stated, yes this one could be
connected to here and this one can be connected here and this one can be
connected here but the overall drainage system does wind through in this
II
system in this manner. It's the intent to leave that as is and not disturb
that but these cul-de-sacs can be connected. If you look at the plat closer
you will see th darker areas of the 16's, 20's and 25% slopes and you will see
II
41
II
VI
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
ill that there are very few, if any, in this area. than Vista was mentioned as a
PUD and Chan Vista and other PUD's prior to this one, is under the new PUD
ordinance. The old PUD ordinance did provide for small lots. 75 foot widths
II and lot sizes under 12,000. Nearly 10,000 square fet. That's where we
achieve the lower modest housing. Under the new PUD ordinance that this one
is being constructed under, we have stipulations and under those stipulations
I our overall average in this PUD, under the new PUD, our average lot will be
16,100 square feet. If you look at the minimums we are going to look at our
80 to 85 foot widths with 80 being our bare minimum at the setback. Under the
old PUD you could get down to 70 to 75. Higher densities and that's where you
IIcan achieve the lower end of the modest cost housing. Modest cost housing
today is anywhere from $80,000.00 to $90,000.00. It just ain't there anymore.
I Mayor Hamilton: I would like to ask Don Ashworth, the City Manager, for
comments. Don's been involved with the development of this site since the
days when Ed Dunn and Jim Curry owned it and were talking to us and I think
IIDon's input would be important.
Don Ashworth: The process started well over one month ago in meeting with
developers. Many of the enclosures you have in front of you were prepared
1 based on the information that we had again one month ago. Initially meeting
with the developers, the Staff made them aware of the fact that this was 1987.
The approvals•that were given before are not in any way binding and that in
II fact the overall density would in fact change from what had been given. One
thing I would like to note is that I am very enlightened to hear the
developers speak this evening to a number of the issues primarily which is in
I the park and recreation area. I think we've had some good discussions between -
developers and staff. As the Council went through that codification process
you made changes in that park ordinance. We made changes bringing over to the
ordinance that requires a greater amount of land to be dedicated for the
I public requires park trails and payment in there. I was very enlightened to
hear the comments regarding their willingness to not only grade but to
construct the trails as a part of this process. When the original report was
II prepared by Planning going to Planning Commission, those forms of concessions
had not been offered. And I think it was just a matter of time in working to
come to those positions but what I'm stating to the Council is that the
positions that Staff has asked for in the last month, to the best of my
Iknowledge, every issue that we have gone through with the developers has been
met in the current draft or with the positions that you've seen in your packet
as well as presented tonight. Construction of trails. Dedication of
II additional green area. Grading of those are all areas that again have
improved in the last 30 to 45 day period of time.
Don Patton: If I could say just one other thing, I guess I've heard the
II comments tonight that you want affordable housing. We can gold plate the
thing and make it unaffordable. We think we have planned, provided, working
with staff to provide a good community and the compromise of $60,000.00 in the
I R-12 to 225 so your workers can be there or your executives can be there. We
think that speaks to the PUD. Again, we can keep giving things away but that
goes into the price so the request, the demands of the Council, the Planning
L:
II Commission and the Staff, go into the price of the house and I'm hearing that
we want to hold that price down. I think we've given what we can to make this
II42
1
City Council Meeting - dune 29, 1987
II
--: Irl affordable. II We request from you tonight to give us PUD approval so we can
came back in as quick as we can with the preliminary plats.
Councilman Boyt: I guess I'll have to represent a minority opinion here. I
II
think you've got opportunities to provide whatever Chanhassen has by means of
affordable housing in your R-12, R41 and your R-4 and I am flat out against
small lots in residential development. When you come to single family, those
II
people need room. I am comfortable with your cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately,
those become playgrounds for a lot of kids in your neighborhood. i think you
have done some things that by our PUD ordinance would suggest that you're on II the right track. You certainly have got a variety of housing. I gather
you've done something to try to protect the environment although our
ordinances are fairly strict and the PUD clearly says that you have to act
above and beyond what would be asked of you in the ordinance. When we look at II
this a second time I would sure like you to come back indicating what you've
done with it. Your off-street pedestrian ways, which is one of the things
that we've asked for and you've offered. 'iie landscaping, I gather you're
II
offering. I guess my sense, as I said earlier and I'll stop, is that we have
such a tremendous opportunity to develop some nice large tract with a variety
of things that I know Steve &innings wants in a development in terms of variety
in housing and I just don't see .that you've done enough for me personally-to II
say that you qualify for a full reduction under a PUD.
._. - . _ _ _ _.,f.. •_, •. ., - ..[t: ._ ;;.
Mayor Hamilton:: I think we've Covered :most of the issues. Unless there is
something new that we haven't brought up at this point then I will ask you to
make your comments and try to make it brief so we can move on and get done
with this item.
Councilman Johnson: This is definitel Y the gg est subdi bi I
vision and most
important thing were looking at tonight. You talked about house benches, are II
you going to be grading in all of the homesites? Basically- digging out and
preparing the house pads for the builder as a part of your subdivision? Is
that standard?
Don Patton: Yes. We really need to do that as a part of balancing the land II
and to assure that you don't have bad material for the footings.
Councilman Johnson: That's one part of the PUD where, in this case, much of II
this area in this area you don't have any problem. You're talking cornfields,
no big deal to do that but the cul-de-sac in Block 11, Lots 7 through 14,
that's a treed cul-de-sac. You're going to take out almost all those trees
II
that you're indicating on here to do that. Up on Block 10, again to put in
housing pads, you're talking clearcutting again and one of the things that I
see is if you want a PUD you're going to have to save those trees. You're
going to have to say okay, we'll individually cut in home pads. These are II
your $200,000.00 homes.
Don Patton: . That's the plan is to cut in the streets. • ' .. :.". . 1
Councilman Johnson: That's not what you just said. - .
43 I
1
� J
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
Don Patton: You asked two questions. One is the open area, you grade in the
lots. In the tree areas, you bring in the street and the driveway to put in
the utilities and leave the lots natural to design the house to conform to it.
Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I'm trying to make sure.
Don Patton: Trees add value to the lot. lie don't want to take the trees.
Councilman Johnson: I heard that before then
I saw the trees leave.
' Don Patton: 4b assure the Council, I developed our 13,000 single family lots
over the last 15 years and believe me, trees are hard to get rid of for one
thing and they certainly add value in the sales price when it comes to putting
on a house.
Councilman Johnson: I've heard that argument before. Just to reiterate, I
believe the entire street layout and everything would be done just the same
because of topography whether it was a PUD or'a regular subdivision. I think
if we look at it by the contours, I'm not totally convinced. There's a few
small things that are being given. Trees here and there. ' I don't think we're
getting that much parkland for what we're giving. I still think that there's
a little more room to negotiate.- Through some tough negotiating we-can get
some creativity going in here. I see ponding in people's backyards without
any real connecting the ponds. A trail system in a subdivision that I lived
in in Iowa when I lived in Iowa briefly had a trail system through the
subdivision along ponds and stuff. We're putting ponds in people's backyards
but only those people can get to it. I can see something much more creative
here that would convince me this is a PUD. With a few lots out of 427 lots,
we may end up with 400 single family lots or something. I would want to see
that number drop a little bit so we could get a few things._ Sidewalks, we had
1 in our ordinance that we can ask for sidewalks in a regular subdivision. It's
not a PUD to ask for a sidewalk. There is very little here that we can't ask
for in a regular subdivision and get it anyway.
' Barbara Dacy: One technical item, the plan before you is the one that's dated
June 26, 1987. The PUD ordinance for the general concept plan states that the
Council may approve the plan but approval shall require four-fifths vote of
' the entire council so if there is a motion to approve, it would benefit the
applicant to specify items that need to be revised in the plan if they are to
proceed with the PUD.
' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been trying to do.
Councilman Horn: I would like to go on the voice of the minority in saying
that I would appreciate leaving the cul-de-sacs as they are. I think they are
a great amenity to a housing development. I think for the minor inconvenience
they cause the city, they are well worth of the safety aspect for the people
' who live on them and I would vote for leaving them as they are. That's all I
have.
Councilman Geving: Just one quick item, I noticed throughout the whole
development a lack of identity. A concept or a theme and originally this was
44
I
ii
City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987
II
proposed as Lake Susan West or something like that and I'm surprised tha
haven't brought this out in t you
your marketing strategy here to sell this to the
Council as a total package. What I would like to see at the beginning of the
II
development as you come into it, a monument in terms of entry and access
points and so forth. ,
Don Patton: Lake Susan Hills... I
Councilman Geving: Lake Susan Hills is the official name. Are you planning
any of these entry type monuments with shurbery and so forth as you enter the
II
area?'
Don Patton: Again, we're reviewing a concept right now and those are the
things that you will see in the preliminary plat.
II
Councilman Geving: I know they will come later but I just want to emphasize
that that's the thing that looks good. That's all I have. I
-
Mayor Hamilton: i will entertain a motion that the developer would like to
see concept approval for the PUD so he can move ahead with his plans and come
back to us with the preliminary plat.
II
The motion was made at this point in the meeting and discussion followed.
IIMayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer has the comments that all of
us have made and is supplied with the Minutes so they can review those, it
would be helpful,to them I would think. . I
Councilman Boyt: As I understood what Barbara said, our motion has to include
the areas that we want addressed. Is that correct?
IIMayor Hamilton: I think that's what we've been doing now.
Councilman Boyt: I'm okay with this if that's what we're doing but if we're
II
making a motion that basically incorporates our comments, that's a heck of a
job.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what we've been doing I think for the last hour or so II
and that's why you have the discussion is to give the developer those concerns
that we have and they get a copy of the Minutes and if there are any other
questions, if they have any questions, they can find them.
II
Councilman Boyt: Co the one hand, if I understand all those comments
basically get distilled into what comes to us next time, then I can live with
II
it as a PUD but if on the other hand we basically turn him loose carte blanche
and say, you look at these things and you adjust them the way you see them,
then I'm voting against it.
IIMayor Hamilton: My motion included our comments. I sta
comments would be given to the developer ted clearly that our
respond to those appropriately. If he chooses form d of Minutes and u is hi
That just makes his job tougher. Y them, .that s up to him. II
45 1
II
}
7 City Council Meeting - June 29, 1987\
Councilman Boyt: When this takes the next step down Barbara, does it still
take a four-fifths vote to go beyond the first?
•
' Roger Knutson: Yes. When you plan to rezone, when you get to that point,
when the final rezoning takes place when you get to the point of doing the
final plat, that would take four-fifths vote.
Councilman Geving: So we have another shot at this. All we need tonight is
the concept.
Councilman Johnson: What does the preliminary plat take?
Roger Knutson: That takes a majority vote but that won't do any good unless
' you grant the POD because if the preliminary plat does not fit into the zoning
you can't do it. Unless you approve a PUD, which is a pre-requisite to doing
any•of this, stuff, it takes a four-fifths vote.
Councilman Johnson: That's not final plat, that's rezoning?
Roger Knutson: Right. Rezoning takes a four-fifths vote. They can't final
' plat until they get the rezoning.
Councilman Boyt: We're not rezoning tonight?
' Roger Knutson: _ No, you're not rezoning tonight.
Councilman Johnson: Now much additional information do we have before we go
' to rezoning? I see a lot of changes to convince me this is a PUD.
Roger Knutson: What you'll end of having is final plats and development
' contracts. All the details spelled out. Grading plans, landscaping plans.
Barbara Dacy: The next stage is called the development stage which is
synonymous with the preliminary plat and under the ordinance it says with the
appropriate notification, the Planning Commission shall conduct a hearing on
the preliminary plat and the rezoning reports making recommendation to the
City Council.
' Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconced to approve th review for 427 single family lots and 465 multiple lots, that's not aann exact
' number any longer but the plan that we have reviewed tonight as a POD as a
concept including the Council comments as stated in the Minutes. All voted in
favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION FOR $204,000.00
TEMPORARY TAX INCREMENT BONDS_ SPECIAL
SERIES 1987.
Don Ashworth: I wanted to run a listing to show the impacts of, t mentioned
the Pheasant Hill project and the potential problem we may have in that area
and a potential benefit of a loan from the city over to HRA. Not 'only to
serve their financial needs in obtaining some liquidity but also to really
46
•
_ ilk ) i; -
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
II
REGULAR MEETING
s- JUNE 17, 1987
II
(Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order
9 at 7:45 p.m. .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad and James
II
Wildermuth
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Howard Noziska and David Headla
IISTAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst.
Planner ` City
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN OF 342 ACRES INTO 892 RESIDENTIAL UNITS !'
ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, R-4, R-8, AND R-12 AND LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD (CR 17) ,172 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, DON PATTON,
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST.
IIPUBLIC PRESENT:
Name Address I
Kathy Holtmeier 8524 Great Plains Blvd.
Tom Rice 61000 Sally Lane
Neil Hamer 1225 Bluehill Bay
I
1.- Greg Brick 4679Parkridge Drive, Eagan
2obert K. Kupp 22088 Navaron Drive, Burnsville
Ron Dahlen - 15028 Butternut Lane, Burnsville
II
Don Patton 7600 Parklawn, Edina
Jim Hill 8300 Humboldt Ave. So. , Mpls.
Jim Lamson 5132 Medina Ridge
Bill Goers 1601 Lyman Blvd. I/
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the PUD concept plan for Lake Susar
Hills West.
Don Patton: I would like to introduce some of the people involved in this.
Jim Lamson and Carl Reeves are two of the landowners involved in it. Jim II
Curry is also one of the landowners. The builder is represented by Ron
Dahlen of Joseph Miller Construction who is proposing to build the homes.
The thing we're looking at is really two separate communities. On the west I
side we're looking at homes in the $90,000.00 to $140,000.00 range. In your
exhibit you've seen the kind of homes that are being proposed in that. On th
east side we're looking at homes in the $140,000.00 to $225,000.00 range. The
conservative estimate of what this will bring to the community is about 9
million dollars of taxable real estate. We have changed some of the zoning.
We're trying to maintain the R-12 here. Again, RSF, as Jo Ann has said, we'rell
meeting all of the requirements of the Ordinance. Minimum 12,000 square foot.
Average 13,500. 20,000 square foot lots along the lake and 15,000 square foot
average or more than 15,000 square foot average along the wetlands.. And
Lagain, you have designated wetlands in 'these areas. In through here and here'
t i■
1
I
IllDiv
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 Page 2
11 4and through here, we're looking at 15,000 square foot with 75 foot setback
from the wetlands. The building at the setback will be 80 and 85 feet. One
Iof the reasons we feel this is important to do as a PUD, it's a considerable
area of land. There are several areas that have critical services in them
from the standpoint of drainage, because they are adjacent to the lake and
because of the sanitary sewer. Especially down through here. Jim what is the
II maximum grading?
Jim Hill: Anywhere from 30 to 60.
IDon Patton: So with these extremes it is important to have an overall plan to
. put all the services in. I would like to introduce Mr. Jim Hill who has done
IIthe planning on this and he can give you some of the details.
Jim Hill: The opportunity to take 300 acres in Chanhassen, the owners have
combined their efforts in ownership and taken that 300 acres and we have,
Iunder a PUD, have the opportunity to vary both the land uses, the house
styles, the densities, the lot sizes and how the neighborhood overall is
planned for the intrastructure and the park systems that hopefully we can
IIachieve in the Lake Susan area. We have taken the higher density parcels that
you see in the yellow and we've put that as a buffer to both the industrial
and the business park to the north adjacent to Creek Drive and we've kept the
higher densities along Powers Blvd. for the opportunity for the vehicular
traffic from the higher densities will not traverse the residential
neighborhood but will go directly to the major collector and that being Powers
31vd.. So we've kept that higher densities then as a buffer and also adjacent
to the arterial. That gave us an opportunity then, in looking at the
topography of the site and existing tree cover, wetlands, the low lands, Lake
Susan, gave us an opportunity to determine where the homes should be built and
IIwhere a family should live. We took the position that between Lake Susan and
Powers Blvd., we would have a single family residential area that would
recognize the wetlands, the opportunity to have the PUD addressed and be able
to have access to the entire PUD, have access to Lake Susan through the system
Ibeing development and/or sidewalks and trails. So we allowed that to happen
along the edge of the shore of Lake Susan. When we get to the park plan we
will show you the pathways and sidewalk systems. Along with that we have
' recognized the wetlands and the lower area that is this green strip of land to
the south-southeast of the PUD. We recognize that as low. We recognize that
as a drainageway to Lake Susan from the south-southwest. Eventually in time,
II I think that can be a very passive area for people in Chanhassen to traverse
III and view nature. Along with that then we have and I forget the number of
units we have on the east side of the PUD, east of Powers, but if you walk the
area, the entire parcel has beautiful views. It was the assumption of the
1/ developers and the landowners that we would have a larger, more expensive home
on the east side of Powers Blvd.. We get to the west side of Powers and here,
if you get on top of the ridge line, you would see that the west neighborhood
Ihas some beautiful locations for some homes. Both in views and the unglading
landforms that exist in this entire area west of Powers. Beautiful area for
homesites. We've taken that in this general area and again we are recognizing
and I'll show you the wetlands and the drainageways through the west
IFneighborhood, but recognizing the wetlands, recognizing the higher density
I
t
Planning Commission Meeting
,_ June 17, 1987 - Page 3
(parcels and provisions for parks on the west side also. We have come up with
this plan for the residential layout. In this neighborhood we wanted to
separate the residential neighborhood from the multi-family density and also
from the business park. For that reason, we had no tie, vehicular or industr
between the multi-family and the rest of it. We want to separate that
vehicular activity. That should be oriented to Creek Drive which is as II planned. The park system is approximately 18 acres to the south in the very
southerly area of the parcel. Considering the plan and the layout, there are
three designated city wetlands and we recognized that and we will achieve bot
the lot sizes and the setbacks as the individual preliminary plats come in
for additional review by Planning Commission and Council. You can see that
phasing on how we will be finishing the entire PUD. These three wetland will
be recognized and planned accordingly with the residential development. '
Although with that there is a DNR wetland and that's this larger area along
the southeast line of the property. Included in the west village we have a
major drainageway and ponding system that help in the overall storm water
management plan for the Lake Susan west PUD and that storm water management II
plan will take the run-off through a series of ponding areas and eventually go
out through the normal drainageway not exceeding the run-off that is taking
place today. That's part of the storm water management plan and also part of
the Watershed District's requirements. In the original PUD, as proposed and
in the narrative proposed, the park system and amended plan for sidewalks and
bituminous pathways consisted of this plan here. Approximately 18% of the II
land open space and parks outlined in green and just short of 2 miles of
, pathways and sidewalks located in this area. In meeting with the Staff and
. ast night meeting with the Park Board, what you have, I believe the
resolution or comments from the meeting. The developers have accepted their II
.comments. The park plan now becomes just short of 62 acres representing 21%
of the land and it's located in these outlined green areas. All of this
additional 8 acres that you see in this area that are split will come with thil
final approval. It is suggested here that 5 of the additional 8 acres and 3
of the additional acres be located... Along with that an additional sidewalk
was proposed from the original plan. Proposed to go to the southwesterly paril
of that. On Powers Drive we have a pathway on the easterly side. A 5 foot
sidewalk will be built, on this roadway included a 8 foot bituminous path in
this portion of the Lake Susan. ...3 1/2 miles of sidewalks and bituminous pa
represents 62 acres of open space representing 21% of the land. The cul-de-
sacs and landforms, I have colored this map, these forms right here, these
darker browns, are slope areas that exceed 16%. That's the darker areas. The
reddish brown is that wetland drainage storm water management that I just II showed you a minute ago, representing this system through the west village.
The question was, can we do a better job in planning this in eliminating some
of the cul-de-sacs and believe me we've looked at that. We've traveled the
site. We've looked at the landforms. We've looked at the percent of grades
and remember that in the City of Chanhassen maximum street grade is 8%. These
indicate 16% or they go up to 30% or 40% grades. Recognizing those landforms
and recognizing the drainage plan along the storm water management plan along
the west village, we selected this plan as proposed to more readily locate ou
homes, our families and keep the landforms that are there. Those landforms,
if you look closely on the plan, are in the rear yard in most cases and will
not be disturbed. I can see only a few that would be touched along here
I
11
_4
. Planning Commission Meeting _
June 17, 1987 - Page 4
'bringing this westerly road through. Most o
9 of them will be maintained as is
right here. Most of them will be maintained as that present road on it so
Ithere won't be additional erosion and silts out of the subdivision. For that
reason we have the cul-de-sacs. Because of those landforms. For example, if
I said, why don't you connect these two cul-de-sacs here, there's a
differential of 50 feet between this cul-de-sac and that cul-de-sac. This
1
II differential here is 32 feet and I have only a short distance to make up that
32 feet knowing that the grade of the city is 8% maximum. If I'm going to
meet the 8% max, I've got to do a lot of heavy cutting. That's starting to
Idestroy the landforms we have here. That was the purpose of that and I
appreciate the fact that Staff has looked at the fact that we have a number of
cul-de-sacs on the PUD. If you look at the original PUD you will see they
Idon't exceed the original that was done some 8 years ago. Again, another
study of the PUD from 8 years ago came up with the same answer that we do have
to have some cul-de-sacs. Unfortunately or fortunately, if you are buying a
Ihome and you want. to live on a cul-de-sac, fortunately because of the landform
and drainageways we've got to recognize and hope to protect on this plan. In
the EAW, which is required under the PUD regulations, the PUD will recognize
the fact that some of the areas outside of the MUSA line, and that's a corner
Ihere and a corner right in here that is outside of the MUSA line and if you
looked at the transfers of densities and uses from the original PUD that was
approved to what we are proposing now, that the small amount of residential
homes that would be added to the MUSA line should be a housekeeping item with
Ithe Met Council. If you look at the zoning map today in comparison to our
proposed PUD, you will see that we overlap them and changed some of the R-12's
and the R-4's and eliminate the R-8's. To us that's a housekeeping item and
Iif and when the PUD is approved, the zoning can take place under the new PUD
or the housekeeping can take place as each preliminary plat comes in for final
action. It should be noted that under the old PUD, there was some 1,023
Iunits on 340 acres, 3 units per acre. We don't have 340 acres today. We
have approximately 300 acres at 3 units per acre so our density is, in
relationship to the land that is in this PUD, we have not lost any units, it's
just smaller in size. In the park plan, the park department has required an
1 additional 8 acres. Generally the park plan has provided that 33 acres
according to code if you take the number of dwelling units and multiple it b
2.8 people per house by
per dwelling unit and code indicating that 1 acre park be
Isupplied for every 75 people we come up with 33 acres. Of the 53 acres that
were proposed and still are proposed in the PUD which represented these two,
approximately of those acres were accepted by the Park Commission as
Iacceptable acres for park credit. That left the owners with 8 acres of park
that was not creditable against the 33 and that's where the 5 and 3 comes
about. The additional 8 acres. If it happens in these two areas, the R-12
and the R-4, we're asking that the resolution also indicates that the
densities, remembering that the 33 acres was calculated on the basis of 884
dwelling units and 94 dwelling units and that if we take 5 acres out of here
and 3 acres out .of here, we've just lost 72 units of dwelling units that we
I would like to still build those dwelling units in those spaces so we would
like to have the density transferred in a sense. When outlot A becomes
buildable, we would still like to build as proposed in the PUD. The 316
dwelling units and as Outlot B comes in for a development plan and site plan
approval under the PUD, that we would still build R-4 at a total number of
I
I .
- i. i _ 1
} Planning Commission Meeting
.June 17, 1987 - Page 5
I
units of 144. If this is not feasible, the wish of the Planning Commission
and Council, then we will have to recalculate and I think the 33 then will •
become 30 acres and we will change that. I don't think the overall density oil
3 units per acre is a strain on the 300 acres. I think the dwelling units
proposed for those two outlots can be still achieved or combined with all of
the multi-family and still be achieved under this PUD. The lot sizes will
II
vary. You have a tab and an amended tab on the lot sizes. /hey will be
between 80 to 100 feet at the setback. They will be, as in the tab, meeting
the code with 56% of them in excess of 15,000.00. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure l
that we've covered all the items but we would answer. questions.
Don Patton: I would like to show one other transparency. I think this is
relevant to what we're talking about. The question on phasing and the reason '
for that is topography, access of sewer and water and drainage. As you see
here, in the upper level housing, we're looking at developing this again with
the street coming in here, the cul-de-sac and generally, all these lots would
be wooded. Phase 1 on the other side in the medium income housing, is this
area down in through here, Phase 1. Phase 2, on the Lake Susan side would be
here. Phase 2 here. Phase 3 then ties onto this. Phase 3 here and again
Phase 4. We have no projected use or layout of the multiple family lots. Well
do want to get the zoning at this point so once they are defined and the
density is defined, it's much easier for someone to come in and then that
would then go back through the whole approval process with preliminary plat I
based on the PUD approval. But this is the phasing that we're proposing
rprobably over 3 to 5 year period.
Kathy Holtmeier: I live on the north side of Lake Susan and I'm here for the '
Lake Susan Homeowners Association. I have a question about the trailway on
the western side. They are to give up approximately 80 feet to the City
right? That area is dense woods on a hill and it's heavily treed and I'm
II
wondering, 80 feet goes approximately halfway up the hill, correct? It
doesn't go all the way up the hill?
Don Patton: It goes all the way up the hill.
Kathy Holtmeier: So the entire hill would be given to the City? Okay, so
then the building will be on the flat part?
I
Jim Hill: It would be on the top of that.
Kathy Holtmeier: And the trees. would be a buffer?
Jim Hill: Yes. Again, this is in, last night at the Park Commission, the
comprehensive trail system for Chanhassen with Staff and we have tried to make
our planning as close to that trailway system that is recommended in the
Comprehensive Trail System.
Bill Goers: I live on Lyman Blvd. and I'm in the process or I think I'm in thI
process of purchasing some property adjacent to that on the west side of that
development. I'm concerned because the zoning of that property is the same II
(..3irectly to the property that I'm in the process of purchasing. I'm not real
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 — Page 6
(knowledgable about this but I'm concerned as
to whether I can tie into that,
if they are going to develop that higher density, then I wasn't originally
' aware of, is it possible to tie my property into a higher development also and
gain access to it? If not, I'm not as interested in the property and I'm sure
the existing owner would have the same concern.
IConrad: You are outside what we call the MUSA line and they are abutting
right up to that. Within the MUSA line it's a higher density area and there
Iwould not be a great chance of including your property in this particular
development. The Metropolitan Council governs where that line is and it
doesn't move without a great deal of energy. It's always your perogative to
try and change the MUSA line along with the City but realistically speaking
Iit's would be really tough.
Bill Goers: What would be the possibility of getting approval for this to be
• like 2 1/2 acre sites?
I Conrad: Normally what you would have to do, if the MUSA line moves one way
the city has to take out some other property in exchange for the part that
' they just put into the MUSA line. They are going to have to take some part
out of the MUSA line which means you and the City would have to persuade
somebody who's already in the Urban Service Area to take their property out of
' that service area. Most people don't want to do that.
s Bill Goers : So in other words, it's really a long shot.
IConrad: I would say it's a real long shot unless Barbara, I'm just speaking
and saying a small parcel like that may be, by chance they wouldn't care.
' Dacy: You summarized the process very well. I understand that you spoke to
Jo Ann about that and the Commission tonight really can't address his issues.
IEmmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Conrad: Just reminding the Planning Commission, some of you who have not gone
through this stage on a sketch plan, the point of a sketch plan is to be real
upfront before the developer does a lot of stuff and be able to advise on our
opinions of how a big parcel should be developed. In the PUD process, this
Iwas important because we found in the old method a lot of plans came in with a
lot of energy and by the time they got to us, they were real firm. They had
done a lot of engineering and if we didn't like what we saw, there was a lot
' of wasted energy. I think tonight it's a chance for us to get some comments -
in on this. I guess if we could focus on two issues for sure and then
specific questions or comments about the plat that we see in front of us. But
question one is, is this a PUD? Question two, if we down zone basically, and
' that's really what the developer is asking us to do. He's putting less units
in the area where we thought there should be high units. More units in.
Where should the City of Chanhassen find other land for high density? They
(� haven't totally taken the high density away as you know but still, Chanhassen
is obligated in the future and if you've been around for a while you will
I
r l -fi -
Planning Commission Meeting '
1 June 17, 1987 - page 7
- tremember that we look for high density areas. There aren't a lot of areas i l
n
Chanhassen that are well suited for high density. We have earmarked a few
around the core city but I think you have to consider'the impact of this PUD
in terms of how it effects .the Comprehensive Plan and our zoning and where i
future high density areas would be placed. I give you that as my thoughts as
we review that and a little bit of background.
Emmings: As far as a PUD goes, I guess it appears to me or maybe I should
say, the way I've been accustomed to looking at this from another one we've
looked at, the question always seems to be, is the City getting something
for what it's giving up? Giving up in terms of allowing smaller lots. It
would appear that they are proposing a variety of housing. They are working
to the extent that they have gone actually a long way towards preserving the
natural site features to the extent there are any but they haven't done '
anything else. They haven't done anything extra in terms of creation of
parks and open spaces then what they are required to do in a subdivision.
I'm not sure we're getting much to make it a PUD. It's a huge project.
I've never been here and looked at something this big. It's really hard for ,
me to do. As far as specific questions on this, I don't know why we'•re
looking at this without looking.at a specific plan for the high density
development. it seems like all the emphasis is on the single family and one '
of the things that we're interested . in is a variety of housing. I don't
know why they don't have a specific plan for the other lots. That bothers
me. It almost makes me feel that they're not as serious about that as they
are about the lower density areas. I was sitting here looking at this and
wondering if they are planning to do the higher density last and I'm just
wondering if they're going to come back later on and ask us to change that ,
area to single family because they are going to tell us at some later time
that that's what the market will bear and that's all the market will bear.
Conrad: There's a good chance of that. Obviously the single family is what'll
moving in the market right now and that's why I posed the question. If we
consider this, we 'better know where the high density is going to go in
Chanhassen. We are obligated to Met Council to have areas for high density.
Emmings: The other side of that is, if we would go along with this plan, I
think they should know that approval will be contigent upon them building
that and then I wonder if they'll ever get it. If they get done with their
first 3 phases and phase 4 is high density and they preceive no market for it.
So are we getting anything at all for allowing this to come in as a PUD? Lik
I say, it doesn't seem like they've done much in the categories that we've go
and where they have done one, in terms of at least laying out where an area o
housing would be, I really question whether we're ever going to see it.
Someone mentioned a 3 to 5 year period to build this up. Are you saying '
that the whole thing is going to be built, all four phases, in 3 to 5 years?
Is that your plan?
Don Patton: That would be our plan-if interest rates stay where they are. Well
can't predict the interest rates and the affordability of the buyer.
I
i Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 8
IEmmings: But when you say 3 to 5
Y years, what did you mean? Is that your plan
today?
IIDon Patton: For the land that we have sold at this point. That is, projected
absorption rates based on fair marketing approach.
IIEmmings: I don't understand that. The land you have sold?
Don Patton: The single family. We have a buyer who I introduced earlier.
ilEmmings: The builder?
IDon Patton: If I could say one thing, by approving the PUD, you've really set
those densities. Mr. Hill actually asked that those densities transfer in the
additional land that the Park people asked be given. Be transferred into
those higher density areas. We're actually trying to keep the density.
IIThat's our objective. .
Emmings: Do you see a market for the high and medium that you've proposed
Ihere now?
Don Patton: I think probably the medium yes. As we've indicated, the high
ii. density, the R-12 could not be developed because of the access so we feel like
something is being given up in that by having that built were it be developed.
Emmings: I'm not following that either. Outlot A is proposed for high
1 density. Do ;you foresee their being a market, at this time do you foresee
there being a market for high density in that place?
II Don Patton: That 's the only place in the project for high density.
Il Emmings: That's not the
question. Do you see a market for high density?
IIDon Patton: I guess I don't see that much market for it.
Emmings: Then my question is why are you proposing to build it if there is no
imarket?
Don Patton: That's the zoning for that area.
IlEmmings: You are including this in here simply because we're requiring the
zoning?
IDon Patton: We have tried to accomodate your zoning ordinances in this plan
yes.
IEmmings: As market conditions stand today, you wouldn't build it right now?
Don Patton: No we wouldn't and we couldn't because of the access to that
drive.
41
I
I
A' -Planning Commission Meeting
I
June 17, 1987 - Page 9
Y! CEmmings: I don't understand that
either. I
Dacy: The street has to be built.
I
Don Patton: The access for C and D are to this road here. Outlot A access, '
again we didn't want the high density coming through the single family. The
access to that would be onto this road when it's built.
Emmings: When is that supposed to be built?
• Dacy: Hopefully within the next 3 to 5 year period also. ■
Jim Hill: There was a feasibility study done last year.
I
Dacy: It depends on, Opus owns the land now. First hases of
p the business
park is to build it up. They are marketing lands on the north side of Lake
Susan. They are also marketing this land and we would anticipate that as the
PUD is developed obviously we would have to construct a road. Given the past
industrial growth that should occur very quickly.
Emmings: Do you have any comment Barbara? To reserve an area of high I
density which doesn't make any sense in terms of the marketplace today.
What they are proposing is to build a bunch of small townhouses and the only
reason there's a blank space up there at the top of the map is because they ,�
' needed to do that to get lower density and that's seems to be subverting the
\.#whole notion of the subdivision Ordinance.
Dacy: To address your first issue about the R-12. From a land use standpoint
to have a higher density there adjacent to the business park would make sense.
I think they are recognizing that and saying, yes we want to keep that there
also. It's not so much the R-12 is the issue really. In looking at the plan
you can see that there are more R-4 areas being preserved and really what's
being eliminated is the R-8. Just' rubbing it out is approximately 32 to 35
acres. You multiply that by 8 units per acre and you get roughly 240 to 300
units. So, when we did the Zoning Ordinance review we anticipated that these
types of land use patterns could exist on this pattern and they are coming
back and saying we would like to rearrange that but as Mr. Hill said also, I
what's being reduced is the amount of R-8 zoning. Now, the Commission
potentially 2 or 3 options that we could investigate with the developer. The
first option would be to look at some type of redesign of the left side there
to hold out an R-8 area and work with that Outlot B contains very steep
slopes. Look to reserving some additional area there. The second option for
the Planning Commission would be to look at other areas within the City to
zone as R-8 because the Met Council will come through the Land Use Plan '
Amendment process and say, Chanhassen you have responsibility to keep the
percentages between single family and multiple family fairly reasonable to
provide a multiple housing choice. The third method that we could investigatil
also, which has not been done before in Chanhassen, is for example shifting
the R-8 to the R-12 so you have a density of 20 units per acre. Transferring
that density up to that Outlot A. You make up those units in that development'
but as I said, that high of a density has not been proposed in Chanhassen.
•
•
I
1 Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 10
Emmings: There probably is some value in preserving for high d
IC
g areas g density
whether they are being built now or not.
1 Dacy: Like Mr. Patton said, it's very hard to predict the American
marketplace and right now it is leaning toward the single family but on the
other hand, there is demographic information, there are smaller household
Isizes coming on. You've tried this for single family homes to become mother-
in-law apartments. More families within single family homes so I think there
is a need out there for attached units and so on.
IEmmings: I was wondering what the Staff's reaction is to the notion of
allowing them to the stuff that they're losing by having a park on the
1 Outlot A. .
Dacy: It's an option we can discuss.
1 Emmings: You're not adverse to that?
Dacy: That's the purpose of this meeting.
Emmings: It looks to me when we had this done before, and he was showing
why he had the cul-de-sacs, that appealed to me as a matter of common sense
what he was saying. What do you think? Why are you opposed to the cul-de-
II sacs?
\rOlsen: Just what it did to the utilities and servicing that many and
Iemergency access a lot of times can take a lot of turns in dead ends.
Typically we prefer to have a less number of cul-de-sacs but as we point out
in the Staff Report, they are preserving some of the site features by having
Ithese cul-de-sacs. We just wanted them and it sounds like they did, look at
it to see if there was a possibility of extending or connecting some of
those cul-de-sacs and still preserve the site features but they said they
couldn't.
IEmmings: The trail system, one part that I don't understand, unless on
Powers Blvd. it shows the trails they are shown with dashed lines on the
1 streets. What are those?
Olsen: They will be all street trails.
IDon Patton: Those will be concrete sidewalks.
Emmings: Every bit of it is off-street?
Olsen: Yes. Even on Powers and that will probably be bituminous.
' Emmings: The City, as I understand it, will allow them what's called a
public open space along Lake Susan?
Olsen: Yes. •
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
II
June 17, 1987 - Page 11 -
Conrad: At the end of
I
our conversation here, we're really not looking for a
motion, we're looking for opinions. We're not necessarily looking for
= consensus but I'm sure the developer would like to hear some type of
II
consensus but in terms of what goes to City Council, it's not necessarily a
motion tonight.
Dacy: You need to give them direction. If you feel the plan is good the II
way it's submitted, fine. If you don't think so, you should say achy.
Conrad: Don't need a motion. Basically the Minutes from our hearing will `'
go to them so they're going to hear our concerns or our positive feelings.
Siegel: In the Staff's conclusion here where you say the application does I/
not appear to meet PUD requirements. I do not see where some of thoes have
but could you put those into like a 1, 2, 3?
Olsen: First of all it was the percentage to plot. We had to have a II
certain number, 50% 15,000 or above and they have adjusted that now so they
now have above 50% at 15,000 square foot lots. Some of the other concerns, il
it was not clear that they were preserving the natural features. That's
just because I did not have a plan from which to see where the trees did
exist. Now they have submitted a new plan showing all the existing features
and again, some of those cul-de-sacs are cutting into those more than we
would prefer. - This is really-the first-time-we-Lye-reviewed the PUD undeL il
rthe new Ordinance. We were just trying to point out some of the
3uestionable areas and those were some of the reasons why it was stated that
way. The number of small lots. There are a lot 12,000' square foot lots.
What are we getting in return for that? What over and above a typical
subdivision and I think one of the major concerns was that those different
density areas exist now and are we just using that to make smaller lot
il
areas. Those are some of the concerns..
Siegel: The density transfer question of those lots below the MUSA line,
II
what exactly are we exchanging on that density transfer of those lots to
include them in the MUSA line and where is that shift coming from? We're
talking about another density transfer.
IIDon Patton: If you look at it, it goes around the park. The current MUSA
line goes down here and around this area, it's an area that's being
dedicated as park. We excluded that part from within the MUSA actually. 11
Dacy: Some of the single family lots here are outside of the MUSA line.
Don Patton: Yes, but I 'm saying the MUSA line, in through here. II
Dacy: But what the density transfer is applying to is the single family
lots. 1
Olsen: What would happen is how many single family lots they are proposing,
they would have to give up a potential 30 units within the MUSA line to
c.allow for the transfer.
II
II
1
t
1 Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 12
If
lit-Siegel: Is there any indication of where that transfer...
iOlsen: I'm sure in the high density and the amount of single family that is
being .proposed, with the higher density that can be accomplished.
Siegel: Okay, but this is not in relationship to us losing the R-4 zoning?
IIOlsen: Part of that would be more within these higher densities than the
high densities. So in a sense yes, if they were to develop it to the
Apotential of all the high densities that exist there, they wouldn't have the
capacity to transfer that unless they gave up some open park area within the
development.
ISiegel: How does that relate to, ...the points of getting density transfer
for the forfeiture of parkland areas. Outlot A and Outlot D as sort of a
density transfer Situation too which would not be related to the MUSA line
Iat all.
•
Olsen: I really didn't look at that closely about that loss of density
I also.
Siegel : In other words, we're not really getting anything there.
Olsen: Initially they requested something within the site and as a
compromise we accepted some of the higher density instead of giving up
'� single family.
ISiegel: I guess I'm not really that concerned anymore with the point 3 on
the plan showing lots designed for solar housing. That's sort .of a loaded
Iquestion as a requirement. If they are amenable to it, fine. Having to do
with whether the points were the looping requirements of the City Engineer
on the watermain, the looping requirement because of the number of cul-de-
sacs in this plan, I guess I wasn't firm in whether that was addressed in
Ihis recommendations firmly enough about them meeting those requirements.
This is a premiere example of extensive use of cul-de-sacs and of course a
lot of people think that possible use and opportunities it provides for land
Iuse but there is an incredible amount of cul-de-sacs in here and it does
pose problems I 'm sure with watermain and utility service.
Olsen: That will be addressed as a condition as part of the preliminary
Iplat. We were just pointing out some of the items that will have to be
addressed with the preliminary plat. Show a detailed utility plan and now
the applicant is aware of that and I'm sure they will provide looping out to
1 the cul-de-sacs.
Siegel: I get the impression that this is another one of those computer
Iactuated housing developments for maximum amount of useage made utilizing
cul-de-sacs as the culprit to do that because of the configuration of some
of the cul-de-sacs. Some of them are real short. The access is just an
access off a primary road and maybe those are easier to address from a
11 utility standpoint than the bigger ones but it does seem to pose some
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 13
problems from that standpoint, utilities.
Wildermuth: I agree. Particularly in the western, Phase 3 area. I think
something has to be done about the number of cul-de-sacs there. It doesn't I
appear that the topography issue is quite as critical there. I would hate
to have to look for an address in that area. I think it would be a real
problem for emergency services. I just don't share some of the other
Commission members concern for the density issue. I guess my feeling is
that despite the Met Council, lower is better. So as far as I'm concerned
and the fact from a commercial standpoint, the higher density units aren't
very attractive from a business standpoint right now, that's fine. I don't
have any problems with deferring the plan for those outlot areas. Or even
decreasing it a little bit. What I do have a real strong concern for, and
I'm not throwing stones at what I see in the handout, but I'm very concerned II
about the quality of housing that's going to be in the area that is the
western Phase 2 and western Phase 3. We've seen a number of subdivisions
come to the City in the last few years, well let's be generous and say that II
the housing quality, construction quality is less than desirable. I would
hope that's not going to be the case. I would really like to see this be a
subdivision rather than a PUD. Conferring with Ladd, the subdivision would
require the 15,000 square foot minimum and I think that would be appropriate
here because I don't think the City is getting very much for the PUD
concession.
T Conrad: If you could relate to me, the parkland on the southwest, 25 acres II
. ar 18 or whatever it is, because the MUSA line comes in there, is there a
park on the other side of the MUSA line or do we have a park? I see Summit
Trail coming up into the park. What are we left with? I'm sure the Park
Commission looked at that but we basically have a park that narrows to 50
feet in the middle of it. Is that the way I read that and is that useful
park? i
Olsen: We went out to the site and it's outside the MUSA line so it could
not be developed but it can be used as parkland. It's going to be split.
There will be a baseball field in one area, a sliding hill and then the
other area will have a softball diamond and soccer field. -
Conrad: So on the other side of the MUSA line though we do have residential 11
areas and those might be 2 1/2 acre parcels so we sort of have a park
situation around those people. If you want to go from one section to the
other, you're kind of funneled down to a little shoot there. The park
conceptually has not been planned I assume.
Don Patton: It's a planned park.
Conrad: Are parks generally better on the fringe of the community or do you
like to see them in the center of a community?
Olsen: From what Lori Sietsema was saying, they would prefer a park right 11
in the center.
11
r
id
11 Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 Page 14
,Conrad: So what we've got are some parks that are on the southwest and
fringe outside the MUSA line or close to it and we've got a park on the
IIfringe again on the northwest so we've got people walking to get to the park
which I supposed is okay but it looks like a park inconvenience. I don't
know that the park's really been designed at this point in time into this
community and that's what a PUD does. To me it designs things and features
11 into it. This kind of looks, at this stage, that it's tagged on to sbme
fringe areas.
IIOlsen: The Park plan has been accepted.
Conrad: By the Park Commission? Jo Ann, you comments you talked about
IIwetland alteration permits and I'm not sure how I heard those words. Is
that just forewarning the developer that there are wetlands or did you see
something that said we're already planning to alter a wetland?
II II Olsen: I didn't go into details but there are wetlands throughout the site.
Class B wetlands and they will be using a pond area. So because of them,
they will have to receive a wetland alteration permit.
IIConrad: At this point in time, is that our consultant's opinion that that's
good use of those wetlands for ponding areas?
Olsen: She visited the site and yes, she agreed. There are four wetlands
on the site. Actually there are five but when we visited it, it was gone
IC
and Elizabeth agreed that it was not there. But the four wetlands are
IIlocated by blue. This larger wetland was the nicest one on the site and
they are not going to be altering this at all. It's adjacent to a Class A
wetlands, Class B wetlands so this is the one that they really should not
IItouch and they are not going to. The other three were more meadow, low
areas, drainage areas. ...a need for meeting the Fish and Wildlife
regulations on level bottoms with open water. Elizabeth Rockwell agreed
that they could be altered that way.
IIConrad: Just my thought. We've got a lot of acreage here so I don't see
any reason we can't do things with the wetlands that are the right things to
Ido. We don't have to compromise on the wetlands. As long as Dr. Rockwell
is recommending the use this way, I'm comfortable but I'll be looking at
her report to see what she's saying and again, when we have this much
property, it's not like we're trying to eek out a few extra lots. We have
" enough room to take care of the wetlands and to do it according to ordinance
so I really don't see any reason to alter our ordinance or compromise our
ordinance as it stands unless I hear Dr. Rockwell talking to us about the -
Igood reasons and apparently she has already seen some of those things.
Bottom line for me, in my opinion this is not a PUD. It's a subdivision.
We're getting exactly what we have gotten in other subdivisions so I would
Iprefer to see this come back as a subdivision rather than a PUD unless the
developer can persuade us there are things beyond the typical subdivisions
that we've been seeing but I don't see it yet in this particular sketch. It
looks like a subdivision to me. When we decided what would -be good to get
I..for the PUD, it doesn't mean we need all 7 of those things. We're just
II
r
-Planning Commission Meeting _
June 17, 1987 - Page 15
'looking for things that would assist in this community. Make it work
better and I do not see things that are significantly beyond and what we are
requiring in our subdivision ordinances right now.
Emmings: As I sit here, I basically agree with you in that this is just a
way to get small lots but we are getting that space. One thing we wouldn't
be getting is the space set aside for higher density. I
Conrad: No, that's already there. It's zoned already. You look at the
park, and they would have to have the same parkland in a subdivision. The
35 acres of wetland, they can't build on anyway. They're not donating that.
That's protected.
Emmings: Basically what you're saying, if they brought in a subdivision on I
it the way it's zoned now, we would be getting all that stuff?
Conrad: We'd be getting the same thing unless they can tell me we wouldn't.
I appreciate the way they are'preserving some of the features of the site
but to tell you the truth, I don't think because, especially in the western
part, there aren't that many features to preserve. When there's a PUD with
lots of wooded land, then I can see making it a PUD. The nature of this
site just doesn't tell me it's a good candidate for PUD. We've already
zoned the land for high density and medium density and low density and
again, it sort of takes some of the impetus for a PUD out of it. The land II
r zoning is already there so therefore, I guess the bottom line for me in my
comments to the developer and to the City Council would be, it sure looks
like a subdivision candidate. I don't mind the cul-de-sacs as proposed yet
I do think, because I think the developer is looking for land features, they
are sensitive to the land features and I appreciate that. I think there
might be a few less cul-de-sacs in the Phase 3 part of the western portion
of this and I suggest that they look at that to see if they could minimize a 1
few of those. It didn't look to a novice, which I am, that the land
characteristics were that tough to deal with in that Phase 3 area to
eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs but it's not a real concern to me at this I
time. I'm not overly concerned but I would recommend that we take another
look at that and see if we could minimize a few of those. The last comment
that I would have is that to approve a PUD or subdivision like this, I
really would like to know where the R-8 zoning will be in Chanhassen. In
other words, because the developer is down zoning and generally know how we
feel, I'll guarantee you there will be pressure for us to put in higher
density and before I could vote for a plan that's close to this, getting rid 1
of that R-8 area, I would really have to feel that we have another area
identified for higher density because it will happen. Right now I don't
know of too many neighborhoods that are willing to stand up and donate their
property as potential zoning candidate for R-8. We worked a great deal of
time to come up with the current zoning and the Met Council was appreciative
of some of those high densities that we had there. This looked like a good
place for it. I appreciate the developer wanting to do what they want to do I
here. There's a market demand. I understand that. I understand that. I
guess it's a concern I have however that we find, if we allocate or we
identify other parcels that could take over where we are tempted to allow
I
t -f
__�
0 Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 16
1 .
down zoning like this and I don't think I've ever said anything like that
before on the Planning Commission where I was concerned with densities
Igetting low but I think that's appropriate. Any other comments? I think
what I would like to do with the developer is at least to leave them with
some kind of consensus or some comments here.
IWildermuth: I would like to get back to my original statement about housing
quality. It's very difficult to legislate quality but one of the ways in
which that comes about is with larger lot sizes. More expensive lot to a
Idegree dictates a larger, hopefully better quality home and I think in going
from a PUD back to a subdivision, we're requiring all lots to have a minimum
of 15,000 square feet. We're going to encourage that.
Emmings: I think it looks like a subdivision to me. That's why I started
and particularly this last point that you made clear. The zoning is already
there. We're not. going to lose anything in the zoning. I am concerned
Iabout having the higher density but that's already in the zoning so that
takes away my last concern. I agree it should be a subdivision.
IConrad: Bob, is that a consensus? Do you feel it should be a subdivision
versus a PUD? Speaking for four planning commissioners at this time, it
looks like a subdivision to us. There are three missing tonight. My guess•
leis that they would probably follow suit. I think it's worthwhile taking it
forward to the City Council and seeing if that's their perspective also. I
think it would also be appropriate for Staff and the developer to talk about
t:he zoning and the R-8 void the city has so we get a feel from them whether
Ithey're concerned that we don't have right now a replacement for that R-8
zone and I think we need direction from the City Council in terms of if they
are comfortable with this particular density arrangement then I think they
Ishould also make some recommendations as to what we should do with the
higher densities that we're losing and giving up in this area. Along with
the Staff Report, I think the comments that Staff had in the report in terms
IIof what you would like from the developer, I agree with most of those
• comments. If some other commissioners doesn't agree please jump up and say
that but the only one I'm not totally positive about is the comment of Staff
with the reduced number of cul-de-sacs. I think I would like you to look at
Ithat again with Staff, especially on the western side. It doesn't bother
me, as long as we're all comfortable that it's good planning and good design
using those cul-de-sacs, I could go along with that but I guess I would
Lprefer to see that we try to eliminate a few of those in the western part of
the plat that we're looking at. Any concerns Steve on cul-de-sacs? You're
neutral on that?
IIEmmings: It looks like a lot and I would prefer to see fewer but if they .
can show the same kinds of justifications through site features or
elevations like they've done more to the east, than I wouldn't have any
Iproblem with it.
Wildermuth: I really like the development on the east side of the
boulevard. it looks very good along Lake Susan.
fr
I
1
3 i
I Planning Commission Meeting I
4, June 17, 1987 - Page 17
Conrad: Mr. Patton, I guess those are our comments.
Don Patton: So mainly it's the downgrading of the R-8? I
Conrad: In my opinion and it's not that what you've done is bad, it's just
that I'm looking at Chanhassen saying where are we going to get that? Where
_ are we going to have the R-8 area when that particular market comes back and
we need it. We don't have a location for it right now. I think that has
to be a factor in how we look at this.
Don Patton: One thing that I guess was hard for me to follow, I recognize I
the R-8 I also kept hearing that you didn't want to keep the density up to a
certain level and you do achieve some of that with the PUD, have a little
more free style planning of the lot sizes and configurations rather than
cookie cutter style.
Conrad: But in the developments that we're seeing coming in to Chanhassen, I
we're not seeing the cookie cutter type. A lot of our developments are
coming in that our subdivisions are looking very similar to this and we're
saying, because that's what we're seeing, we're not seeing a. change from
those subdivisions in this particular plan. At least that's my perspective.
Wildermuth: With the topography on that big parcel there, you probably
couldn't use a cookie cutter if you wanted to. 1
Jon Patton: Actually you really can't because if you walk the line, one of" is
the reasons, .-if you walk this, this is a natural ridge line that goes all
the way down here and if you look at your wetlands plan, the break goes
right through here with this part going to Lake Riley/Purgatory and this
part going another way so you really end up, as we mentioned with the •
phasing, this is a natural phasing area for this. There are some very
critical things, because of this, this being much higher than this, that's
the other reason the PUD is so important. This is lower and you have
critical points in here and here and here and in through here to get back to 11
the sewer line that goes across there.
Conrad: I don't understand why, is the PUD so important to that? I
Don Patton: Because there is a substantial cut that has to come through
here to achieve gravity pull for the sewer into the lower area. 1
Conrad: I still don't follow. The same would be true for a subdivision
wouldn't it?
Don Patton: If you came in with an individual subdivision, there's always
the opportunity that that might not be put in at the right depth to be able
to service all of this. You've got to go to the extra depths to achieve
these other areas. It's really important especially for the sanitary and
drainage that you've seen here.
•
Emmings: Why can't you plan them together as a subdivision? I
I
1
01 Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 — Page 18 -- -
VDon Patton: A 300 acre subdivision with a phasin g plan. That's possible.
IIEmmings: I think that's what we're saying. Whether it's done as a PUD or
as a development, those things should be done. I agree with you so you do
get it at a depth the whole area would need.
IIConrad: I would just make a recommendation that when you go to City
Council, again, when we do a PUD we're looking for things a little bit in
exchange. PUD's in my mind are a little bit creative. There is a variety
'1 of density in the PUD and you cluster and you have open spaces and you do a
lot of different things. You put parks in central parts of the community.
You put in trailways and I think you're getting that with the
IIrecommendations of the Park Committee but some of those things are required
in a subdivision as well as a PUD. I think when you go to see City Council,
you should really be focusing on what the community is getting other than
the depths of the sewer. I guess you should be talking about what
Chanhassen is getting or . that community is .getting in terms of creative
approaches. We've listed seven of them in our ordinance. Whether it be
improving solar housing or additional parks. If we require one acre for
every 70 people, I would guess a PUD in my mind might come in with 2 acres
for every 90 people but we give you greater densities or whatever. I don't
think we're looking at a density issue here. At least I'm not. I think Jim
is. You're going to hear a little bit of difference in strategy but again,
if you do some creative things with the land and get more park and then I
think I would be tempted to give you greater densities if you wanted that
:%,.3ut you're not. I think those are the things I'm looking at in a PUD and
this is a straight subdivision in my mind and I've looked at quite a few of
them.
•
Jim Hill: Under the PUD ordinance we have an opportunity to vary lot sizes.
We've done that here. We've done it because we have given 62 acres of open
space.
Conrad: No you haven't. You haven't. The 35 acres, you haven't given
that. The 35 acres you can not build on. That's wetland.
Jim Hill : I accept that but if the City of Minneapolis took the same
attitude 100 years ago, we would not have the city of lakes.
Conrad: I miss the point but go on.
I/Jim Hill: Lowlands are acceptable as open space.
Conrad: They are but you haven't given it. They are there and they are
11protected right now. You couldn't develop on it.
,Jim Hill: Surely the person who is paying taxes on it. . .
Conrad: Very minor taxes.
(IJim Hill : That's a difference of opinion.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
It June 17, 1987 - page• 19
Conrad: No, it's absolute. Taxes
on wetlands are quite a bit less.
Emmings: You're not saying in your opinion they can build on those
wetlands?
Jim Hill: I'm not taking that position. We're saying the PUD is there.
Conrad: What's the range of densities and sizes of lots that ou've of
here. You said you had a variety of lot sizes. What's the range?
g
Jim Hill: It's in the handout.
Conrad: But what's the range? Is it something than what we have seen in
other?
Jim Hill: It meets the PUD ordinance.
Conrad: It meets it but we see that kind of range in all our subdivisions
too. Most of our subdivisions.
Olsen: You answered my first question. I just wanted more clarification on I
what it was that you were looking for so we could tell the applicant when he
asks. Then also, just for clarification, if they came back in maintaining
that R-8, it would still be the straight subdivision. You are asking also 11
T for additional open space, creativity, clustering.
Conrad: In a PUD.
•
Olsen: Right. If they came back in showing R-8, maintaining that, that's
not necessarily what you were meaning as you would accept that as PUD. I'm II
afraid that the applicant might be thinking that if they maintain the
existing density that is there now, then it will be accepted as a PUD.
Conrad: I think they are sort of separate issues. The first issue is it
doesn't look like a PUD to me. It is not a PUD. The second issue is a
broader issue that the City Council and Planning Commission has to deal
with. If we agree with down zoning, then it's our job to find another area I
to designate for R-8. The developer has all the right in the world to
continue the direction of changing our zoning.
Olsen: So he can come in with it down zoned but with the PUD clustering, 1
open space and then they would just have to provide for that higher density
elsewhere?
Conrad: Then it would be my direction that we find it elsewhere. The logic
for where this zone is, the R-8 and the R-12 is excellent. We worked those
over for a long period of time but I also understand that it's hard to
forecast where things should be and we're certainly not rigid in that area. II
We don't know that many things about trends when we do comprehensive plan
and zoning, we're guessing and when a developer comes in with a specific
proposal I think we should be sensitive to that proposal so I'm ruling it
I
Planning Commission Meeting
June 17, 1987 - Page 20
out that we can't down zone but we do have an obligation to find that land
someplace else and do something about it immediately. Met Council is going
to force us to do that anyway.
PUBLIC HEARING:
IREZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, 'AGRICULTURAL
ESTATES TO BF, BUSINESS FRINGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF THE HW 12 169 INTERSECTION, TED PERUSSE.
1 PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name Address
Tim Thornton 1221 Nicollet Mall $700, Mpls.
Bert Noterman 1520 West 10th Avenue, Shakopee
IDennis Coyne 1221 Nicollet Mall, 4700, Mpls.
IBarbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Rezoning Request.
Tim Thornton: I represent Bert Noterman, the owner of the property. If
Iyou are familiar with this parcel it's the old Tri-Y Drive-In down on TH 169
in Chanhassen. That's a front view of it. This is what it looks like from
r the back. This is looking across TH 169. This is looking down TH 169
k. towards the Drive-In from the motel. This is looking back towards the Super
IAmerica. Here's looking at the Drive-In from the Super America and this is
looking north up the road. Significantly, we like the Staff's
recommendation for the rezoning. I think it's important to remember this
Ihas been a commercial use for 35 years as a Drive-In. To suggest
agricultural zoning doesn't make a hell a lot of sense. Nobody is going to
grow soybeans there for example. We're mindful of the constraints, the real
constraints that are associated with the wetland situation here but the
Iactual uplands, the lands that could be built without a lot of permits from
Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers, are a little different than the
use that was there. The owner is not aware of any acquisition by MnDot.
MnDot has talked to us from time to time about acquisition but so far there
has been no acquisition. This we think is about 170 by about 160 but the
uplands that has been the result of some filling and some natural uplands
IIIgoes about like this. It seems to me to be very spot zoningish, if you
will, to suggest that you're going to only zone 20,000 square feet. It
seems to me that if you're going to zone, you have to zone the parcel.
Mindful that the use or any use in the Business Fringe District requires a
conditional use or specialities permit. At that time you will have a lot
more details as to exactly what use is proposed or not proposed. What
barriers, if any, you need between the wetlands and concerns with fillings
and things like that. We were talking about a 400 acre zoning project the
last time and now dropping down to 20,000 square feet. What we would like
to ask is the recommendation of the entire 2 acre parcel be zoned mindful
that when we come back, we wouldn't be talking about using any of this
wetland or lowland but would have a specific plan to use the uplands and in
i`- - i
i
City Council Meeting- October 5, 1987
4. Mange be restricted to business use relating to the sale of bows.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
11
LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST
SIDE OF POWERS BLVD., APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE SOU'T'H OF HIGHWAY 5, ARGUS
DEVELOPMENT:
A. APPROVAL OF CONCEPT PLAN/PUD AGREEMENT.
Barbara Dacy: If I could just speak to item a. The City Council, as you
recall, had a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to consider this item
and what the intent of the Planned Unit Development Agreement was was to
include in that agreement all of the items of concern that were brought out
from the Planning Commission and the City Council that would guide the future
phases of this development. For example, there would be the recommendation
from the Park and Rec Commission, language as to what outlots should be used
for multiple family density and at what density, how much acreage should be
given to parks, etc.. Unfortunatley we were unable to meet with the applicant
in time to discuss and really have a good discussion as to the terms of the
agreement so the recommendation is that the other items of approval here be
subject to execution of that agreement and that will be brought back on a
future agenda. I
Mayor Hamilton: Is there anything we need to go over? We've done all this so
many times and maybe we should just get into discussion and express our
questions. On (a) I know Bill had questions on (a) apparently. Why don't we 11
just do that. Bill you can start seeing as how you probably have more
questions than the rest of us.
Councilman Boyt: I may well be able to satisfy everybody's concerns. I guess ,
I'd like to ask, first Barbara, is what you just said, that item a is going to
came back to us again? I
•
Barbara Dacy: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: When item a comes back to us again, it needs to have the I
following. One of the things is that you'll notice on the map that there are
several loops. All of those loops need to have a trail system on one side of
the road. That means the Park and Rec has already asked for a trail on half
of that. My discussions with Park and Rec and Lori, they do support my
request for trails throughout the loops. The other item is that I feel the
Park and Rec fee of 50% is going to be required to provide the necessary
equipment for those parks. I certainly think the developer deserves a 50%
reduction. He may deserve more but I think we have to protect enough money ,
in the Park and Rec fund to be able to fully equip these parks that we'll be
building. The other point I want to see included in that is, I want to see
some definite figures about the maximum amount of surface that will be
covered with hard surface in the high and medium density outlots and the
activities that the developer is proposing to take to blend those high density
lots into the high and medium density lots into the single family residential.
29 1
1 L►
F -City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
_11 Those are basically the concerns I have. I think there are several there but
II-
I tried to be concise.
1 Mayor Hamilton: Clark, do you have any you would like to add there?
II Councilman Horn: No, my only concern was, from this body trying to eliminate
the cul-de-sacs.
Mayor Hamilton: Trying to eliminate cul-de-sacs?
IICouncilman Horn: Yes.
IIMayor Hamilton: We tried that. Dale, did you have any?
Councilman Geving: No, I'm very pleased with the development. I do want to
II ask Lori, since she's here, if the 50% park dedication reduction fee was
passed on by the Park and Rec Commission.
Lori Sietsema: Yes that was.
1 , Councilman Geving: That was your recommendation? -
II Lori Sietsema: . That was my recommendation to them and that was their
recommendation to you.
Councilman Geving: Okay. I have no other comments.
IICouncilman Johnson: I'm going to go wholly in favor of everything just said
there. Trails throughout the loops make absolute sense. To put trails
II halfway down the street and then the other half of the people don't get them
is ridiculous. Because in order to create parkland we've done density
transfers to make some of the high density more dense, I don't think there's
1 any need for any more than a 50% reduction. It would take a lot of talking to
get me above a 50% park reduction fee. Your hard surface on the outlot, are
you concerned that we don't have enough water retention? Is that what your
hard surface question is about? I need to understand that one a little bit.
IICouncilman Boyt: In discussions with Mr. Patton, he has agreed that they
would provide underground parking and I think in the discussions he's had has
II demonstrated a definite willingness to make a good transition Bone and to
provide a good bed of non hard surface in those high density areas and to me
that's one of the best parts of the plan. I think he's probably going to say
something about those in a few minutes and I want the POD approval to hinge
upon those being appropriate.
Councilman Johnson: I guess this probably gets into wetlands that is later on
II with this but are they calculations for our sedimentation basins and
everything? Do they take into consideration the impermeable surfaces to be
built in the high density or only the surfaces in the single families? I
II guess Larry's not here.
iE:
Barbara Dacy: Just the single family.
1 30
I
3 t 1 r t
IT
t'- City Council.Meeting - October 5, 1987 1
Councilman Johnson: Is there room within the outlots for the high density to
put settling ponds and etc. or should we be looking at those at this point?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, there is acreage available within the multiple family
outlots. As a comparison, the sites that are zoned R-12, for example the
northern half of the James piece, the zoning district lists a maximum lot
covering 35%. .Building and parking area can not exceed the 35% of the lot
area. That dictates really 65% of the open area. In Mr. Jacobson's
II
development on the James property, he did include a small retention facility
along Kerber Blvd. Some of the outlot areas in the PUD development will be on
a larger scale as far as density, 15 to 16 units per acre but again, staff can I
easily work with the developer to establish a ratio of 40% to 50% of the lot
so there will be, if needed...
Mayor Hamilton: Don, do you want to respond to some of those points on the
concept plan?
Don Patton: In response to the coverage, what we've done is taken each of the II
outlots you see this. We've combined C with D and shown a layout. As you can
see on Outlot C, it's zoned R-8. With the density we're looking at, the
design would be 32 units. The acreage would be 35. We're not quite achieving 11
that with this plan. Again, it's kind of an odd shaped piece. The coverage
including building and parking is 31%. In Outlot D below, again the same
zoning and again this did have the density transfer as you mentioned. The
parking is down south of here. Is the medium density R-8, 96 with what was
planned for the area and the density transfers from the park, we're getting 96
and we're zoned for 95 so we can achieve that fairly well with underground II
parking. One per unit. The coverage on that is 27%. I guess the way I'm
approaching these is probably the way we see it be developed also. This is
the outlot B. This is a little more difficult site to deal with. It's zoned
R-8. 48 units is what we can see going in to it at this point with this 11 design. By the acreage, we're looking at 91 units. A little over half on
that. The coverage is 30%. This is the multiple site. Outlot A, high
density R-12, we're looking at 378 units on there. The design of the PUD
based on acres is 375. The coverage on this is 31.5% so I think all of the
density coverages.
Mayor Hamilton: Are your questions being answered Bill? I
Councilman Boyt: They are being answered. I have a question about the
greenery on those. Can you tell me if those represent trees?
II
Don Patton: Yes they do. The thing that we would anticipate, and I think a
normal standard that I've seen in development that you would see with each of
these would normally be $400.00 to $500.00 per unit landscaping for greenery
II
in all of these.
•
Councilman Boyt: Are you able to provide that sort of tree coverage with that il
amount? $400.00 to $500.00 per unit?
Don Patton: I guess we haven't cost it out. That's some of the job I'm doing
right now. One of the things that this doesn't show here, as you see here, 1-
31 . II
1
i yi )
0 j }
City Council Meeting — October 5, 1987 _-
IIthere is some natural greenery that goes through some of the areas. I know
that's a concern on this. We talked about on single family that would be 150
per unit with the single family PUD. Again, I think $500.00 is a reasonable
I figure. Again, your concern was coverage, transition, I think the
landscaping, berming and design will really help in transition. Again, each
of these outlots will come before the Council again. We understand the
Council and as a part of our negotiations with, this, when density will open
this, that will be achieved with this so I think that that would answer those
questions. With regard to blending transition...
II Councilman Boyt: May 1 ask a question? You indicated berming. Could you
tell me a little bit about that or show what you mean?
II Don Patton: The thing, as you look like this, this is a pond here. This will
be collecting water from streets over here and also from this area coming down
here into the settling pond. I think you're looking at probably some berming
in through here. With the park being here you might want to do some berming
Iseparation on that at the top of the road. This is a very steep slope going
down. It's impractical to do that. We've gotten into some of the designs
with the engineer. We're looking at another ponding area right down this way
ISO that slope here, I would see some possible berming here. Again, I don't
want to profess to you that this is what will be built on the site. These are
strictly possibilities of what could be built.
IICouncilman Boyt: Mr. Patton, I don't want to confuse you about this but if
it's not this good or better than I'm not going to vote for it so that's what
I want a commitment to is that we're building this or better. By better I
I mean that you're going to have this or less hard surface. That you're going
to have this or more greenery. I think that's what we've been talking about
right along.
IIDon Patton: I realize that. My point is the buildings may not be exactly
this design. They may have more bend. That's exactly my point. I don't want
IIto try to decide that. I don't think you want to at this point.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any other issues?
I Don Patton: I guess the other issue I wanted to address was the looping of
the walkways and park credits. We've been through the Parks Commission.
Their recommendation was one side. Sidewalks on the major streets. Access to
I the parks. This is really what has been settled on. That recommendation was
that the 100% trail fee be credited to the developer as a part of that.
Again, as a part of developing the parks in through here, it had been
recommended as 50%. I guess the thing that we would like to see, there's
Ireally three things that I see the park people. One is to buy land. One is
to grade parks and the other is to buy equipment with. We already talked in
our discussions and made a commitment to you that were donating land. We've
I already said we will grade the parks down. Again, the demand here is to
provide economical housing. The more burden you put on that is going to push
that thing out of sight and if anybody has been trying to buy a house
I recently with interest rates going up, the market is going down dramatically.
I would like to see the Council give us a greater percentage of the park fee
II32
.I ) _
- _#
r
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
II
to help cover that cost of looping any of the walks in here. Greater than 50% il
I'm suggesting. 30% to buy the soccer field goals, backstops, build tennis
courts and again, you're looking at 1,000 units so at 75% rate you're still
looking at 1,000 times say $125,000 to $130,000.00 so you're still looking at II substantial number of dollars to provide the standards for the parks. I think
that's a reasonable request. The other thing that I guess we really do need .
to talk about and Gary Warren and I have had several discussions on, as a part
of the original design it had been indicated to us that there was strictly a
II
gravity system desired in the sanitary system. As a part of the request
that's coming out now and in the study, they've asked for lift stations. I
guess if that's what engineering wants, that's no problem. The thing I guess
I am concerned about, and I just want to use this as an exmaple. There will II
be changes as this, we're talking about a PUD and we're talking about a
development. We've expressed the willingness at some point, depending on what
the storm sewer, again talking that this pond here is going to cover it, that
II
there would be a pond here with a swale going down through here for the storm
sewer. If .it's decided that's not needed, this can be brought across. I
think we do need to have an understanding but I think we also need some il
flexibility because as we get into things, we had shown you a phasing diagram.
If the lift station is going to be required down on the sloped areas, we've
got to change the phasing because we have to build a road to get to the lift
station. We want to work in good faith with the City. With the staff. With
the Council. We want to build affordable housing for people who want to live
in Chanhassen. I think you've given a wide enough income range from densities
here, high density here to medium housing to very nice housing here. I guess
in summary, we do want to provide the transition. We're willing to do the
looping. We would like to have 75% credit on the park fee. Again, from the II
standpoint of cul-de-sacs, we don't have a problem doing that. Changing it
later. Again, working with the engineering department. Are there any other
questions?
Councilman Boyt: Please let me kind of conclude this. Since Lori is here,
II
one of the questions that I asked Lori to research for me was do we need
$200,000.00, which is approximately half of the fee, to provide the necessary
equipment for these parks because I think as Mr. Patton has stated, that that
really is what the park fee encompasses. The equipment along with what he's
already given us and Lori, maybe you can respond to that and if you would also
respond to your sense of this question about trails through the loops.
Lori Sietsema: Okay, first of all on the $200,000.00 which would be about
half of the park dedication fee, will develop those parks. I'm pretty
confident with the grading done, we can go in and finish off those parks. I
can't tell you if it's going to cover, if we would have an excess or not
because the Park and Recreation Commission and the Council haven't decided
what they want to do in those. If they want to see buildings or if they want
III
to keep it to the bare minimum. So I can't tell you how much in excess of
that $200,000.00 will be spent but I feel fairly confident that...with what
we've done in other neighborhood parks. As far as the trail, at the Park and
I
Recreation Commission meeting we did not talk about putting trails along the
loop at that time. At other times when the Commission did talk about it, they
did say, some said, they never made a motion on it. I can't say it's a
consensus that there was a formal motion made about it but there was
I
33
II
-_ City Council Meeting — October 5, 1987
or was that something that the developer brought back tonight and you haven't
seen before?
Lori Sietsema: The trail fees were recommended at 100% credit be given. That
was recommended by the Commission along with 50% in park dedication.
Councilman Geving: So now if we take $100,000.00 away from the original
$200,000.00, we're down to $120,000.00 roughly. Can you still develop the
parks the way you had envisioned?
Lori Sietsema: Again, not knowing what exactly we're talking about going in
there. I know that two tennis courts on one location cost right now roughly
' $25,000.00.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask you again, if we were to go back to your
original position and we put in the trails ourselves, the loops ourselves and
went for the original 50%, wouldn't that be a better situation for you?
Lori Sietsema: If we put in the trails and ask that 100% trail fees be paid?
' Councilman Geving: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: The additional trails.
Councilman Geving: Any additional. I guess the question I'm asking is, are
we absolutely evinced that we need the trails that are being asked for from
the Park and Recreation standpoint? Is your answer yes or no?
Lori Sietsema: The understanding that I had gotten from the Commission that
those trails are very important.
Gary Warren: I think the point that keeps coming up in these developments
also, is whether we're talking bituminous or concrete and you're talking twice
as much roughly for concrete versus bituminous so when you start talking
credits, I get the feeling that we're leaning more towards concrete as you
recognize the expense for maintenance on that down the road.
Councilman Johnson: Are we talking 5 foot concrete?
Councilman Boyt: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Because you're not talking 8 foot concrete?
Councilman Boyt: No.
Councilman Johnson: Because this is through somebody's front yard here. Some
will be bituminous.
Councilman Geving: And that was the original recommendation from the Park and
Recreation, is that correct?
35
1 .
-City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
Mayor Hamilton: We have a Park and Rec Commissioner here, perhaps he can
clarify that.
Ed Hasek: I think originally when we looked at this particular project, we I
were going on the basis of the things that we had looked at in the past and I
felt being a new commissioner, it had been suggested that perhaps all we
needed in this project was the main road be taken care of. On closer
examination, in realizing that we've got a fairly intense development as
compared to other areas of the city, we felt it absolutely necessary that we
get a more intensive trail system to serve the people that will be living
there. That's why we have... Not only that, I think probably that decision
came after the results of that survey was sent out as well. The City as a
whole is interested, the people are interested in trails so there's no point
in not taking care of that problem. I didn't see the topography on this
particular study but just in looking at the topography, just the way it's
proposed, I heard comments about the number of cul-de-sacs. _Did the developer
_ come back with a plan? I
Councilman Geving: You're looking at it.
D3 Hasek: This is the revised plan? I
Councilman Geving: I don't think it's been revised a great deal. I think
this is pretty much the same in terms of the number of cul-de-sacs.
1:-
Don Patton: We've taken some out. One of the things that you've got here is,
it's really basic what we did here. We did save the current loop for one
street up in through here. This could possibly be done if we would eliminate
this drainage down through here but again, the topography is very tough. We
had a contour or if we want to study this, you can see the very steep
contours. Again, this hash mark is 15% slopes which is really dictating.
Again, we've got a ridge that runs like this with a flat area in through here.
Again, your slopes, you're just going to eliminate or necessitate the cul-de-
sacs. I
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, I think we've reviewed that pretty extensively in the
past. Thanks for your comments D3.
Councilman Horn: If I heard right, what we're hearing is that the
recommendations we're getting now for additional trails and the fee are not
the original recommendations that we received when we reviewed this from the 11 Park and Rec. New things have come up in the meantime.
Lori Sietsema: The fee is the same. The fee recommendations are exactly the
same. The only thing that is in addition is to build trails along those loops.
Those are the only additional things coming from the Park and Recreation
Commission.
Councilman Horn: You said 100% for the trails without the loops initially.
Now you're asking for the loops and then 100% for the trails and 50% for
parks?
•
36 1
I
- City Council Meeting — October 5, 1987 `
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
II Councilman Horn: I guess I have a concern with changing the rules in the
middle of the approval process. We went along with the original
recommendation and I don't think that came to us via Park and Rec.
II Lori Sietsema: No, I wanted to emphasize that Park and Rec did not make a
formal motion with this addition. They just merely mentioned it. That they
had seen an oversight on their part. That they didn't ask for that at the
II beginning but there was no motion made and maybe it should have come to a
motion and then would have been brought to your attention earlier.
Councilman Horn: I guess that's the only concern I have. I don't like to se
IIthe rules change as the progress happens on the development.
Councilman Johnson: I believe that to say something in defense I guess of our
I/ Park and Rec Commission, we have many new members on the Commission. This is
their first PUD and I don't think they really understood the PUD concepts of
what a PUD was and the negotiation processes of the PUD and I think that as
Ithe group has matured now. They're fairly new.
Mayor Hamilton: Can we talk about the issues rather than the Park and Rec
Commission.
Councilman Johnson: I think they've come to grasps with the issues because
they now have much more experience in their job and they are now giving us a
recommendation that I think is very appropriate.
Councilman Horn: What was the dollar amount due to the change in the
recommendation?
II
Lori Sietsema: I don't know that the Park Commission.
11 Don Patton: $75,000.00.
Mayor Hamilton: Do, you have something additional Ed that we haven't
II - discussed?
Ed Hasek: I guess my question is, the body that makes the decision on this
thing, the governing body is you folks. We send you these recommendations.
II If we are recommending that we created an oversight, certainly it's within
your power to change anything that you've done in the past. Councils do it
all the time.
IIMayor Hamilton: You're right. I think we're well aware of that.
IICouncilman C3eving: We try not to though.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to make one summary point here. I think we're
being reasonable in saying the trail fees cover trail development and I think
the Park and Rec Department has said they would have asked for all of those
trails and wish they had. The most they would have given, had they asked for
II37
City C uncil Meeting - October 5, 1987
all those trails, is a 100% reduction in the trail fee. I don't think we
should be taking money out of the park fee to build trails. They are two "-
separate fees. We set them up with a trail fee sufficient to build trails so
now what I'm suggesting is that this is a good development. . I'd like to see I
it go forward but to get my vote I'd certainly like to see a 50% reduction in
park fees, 100% reduction in trail fees. Thank you.
I
Roger Knutson: May I suggest, since as Mr. Johnson pointed out, this has not
been written up. I would suggest that your approval would be appropriate, if
that's what you want to do, subject to us writing it up, meeting with the
developer and going over the specific wording and bringing it back to you.
Perhaps putting it on a consent agenda.
Councilman Horn: I still have a concern with requiring additional trails. ,
Mayor Hamilton: That seems like a good idea. If we're going to do it, we
might as well do it right the first time and get it finished rather than
wishing we had.
Councilman Johnson: Are there any trails we could trade off? '
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve, subject to Staff
review, the Concept Plan/PUD Agreement for Lake Susan Hills West with the
coverages mentioned by Mr. Patton in terms of impermeable surface in the
medium and high density areas not to be exceeded. With underground parking to
be provided as stated in his remarks with $400.00 to $500.00 per unit being
provided in landscaping and terming efforts to make a transition in those
areas. That the park fee be reduced by 50% and the trail fee be reduced by
100% with trails completed through the loops and subject to the execution of
the PUD-Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried. 1
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
TO INCLUDE 15 ACRES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDESIGNATE 40
ACRES AS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 37 ACRES AS PARK AND OPEN SPACE, AND 75
ACRES AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
Mayor Hamilton: Do we need to have discussion of this?
Resolution X87-108:. Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
adopt the Land Use Plan Amendment #87-3 to amend the MUSA boundary to include
15 acres for low density residential development and to redesignate 44 acres
of high density residential, 33 acres of parks and open space and 31 acres of
low density residential to land uses shown in Attachment $13 subject to
execution of the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and motion carried.
REZONING OF 29.9 ACRES FROM R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R-8, MIXED MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R-4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL.
38 1
Z ` i
,•
,
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
1Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the first reading
of the Rezoning Request 487-3 to rezone 299 acres of RSF, R-4, R-8 and R-12 to
PUD-R subject to approval of the final plat and execution of the development
I contract. Also, subject to the execution of the of the PUD agreement. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
II PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 39.4 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED
PUD-R.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the preliminary plat
11 #87-3 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 16, 1987 with the
following conditions:
•
I i. The proposed access points from CR 17 (Powers Blvd.) must receive an
access permit from Carver County.
I 2. The applicant shall provide a detailed landscaping plan for City
approval prior to final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan and shall reforest
I lots 5 and 6, Block 1 as recommended by the DNR forester and approved
by the City Engineer.
4. The linear strip of land along the west side of Lake Susan be
obtained as shown on the concept plan #3 and that an 8 foot wide
bituminous trail be constructed on such at the time of construction
of phase 1.
5. A 5 foot wide concrete off-street trail/sidewalk be constructed along.
the main street that crosses Powers Blvd. and that the trail be
II placed on the same side of the street in both neighborhoods so as to
match at the Powers Blvd. intersection.
II 6. A park access of not less than 50 feet be obtained off of the main
street on the west side of Powers Boulevard.
7. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit and compliance of all
IIconditions.
8. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the City
I and provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement
for completion of the improvanents.
II 9. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by
the DNR, Watershed District and the Office of the Carver County
Engineer.
II 10. The applicant's engineer shall provide calculations evaluating water
pessure/flow conditions for watermains at the end of the cul-de-sacs
ill- of Blocks 1 and 4.
II39
II
})
11
City Council Meeting - October 5, 1987
11. An additional gate valve shall be added to the 8" watermain in the
vicinity of the southwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1.
12. An intersection landing zone being a street grade of 0.5% for a
distance of 50 feet shall be used at all intersections with CSAH 17.
13. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all I
slopes greater than 3:1.
14. Type II erosion control (staked haybales and snow fence) shall be ,
added along with the proposed silt fence adjacent to wetland areas
14-06, 14-07 and along the east ends of the development which are
adjacent to Lake Susan. A floating siltation basrrier shall be
considered as part of the final erosion control plan to protect Lake
Susan.
•
15. All utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for I
urban construction.
16. Clearcutting of trees will not be allowed. '
17. Completion of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
18. Subject to execution of the PUD Agreement.
1:-
All voted in favor and motion carried.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 FEET AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A HOLDING POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND.
Councilman Johnson: I'm looking primarily at the wetlands next to Lake Susan.
The discharge into Lake Susan from the ravine that is in Block, 1 running
between Lots 23 through 28 and 20 through 15 of Block 1. As I reviewed this,
and I went over looking at what the existing wetland basin is discharging
through that ravine and the changes that are being made. The number of houses
going in and without doing a whole lot of sophisticated math on this, I
believe that the rate of water going up that ravine is going to be increased
as far as a cubic feet per second type of rate which is what causes erosion
and sedimentation to Lake Susan. I have some real concern on that ravine.
While the total flow of water into that ravine may be somewhat reduced because
there is a slightly smaller watershed area now. Because there is much more
impermeable surface, the water will get to that ravine much quicker causing an
increase in erosion to that ravine and a detrimental effect to Lake Susan. I
think that issue must be looked at very carefully. We may have to put some
sedimentation or some kind of float control in there to protect Lake Susan
from that ravine. So far I haven't seen much about that.
Gary Warren: I guess we're looking at a number of areas. Specifically in
that area I'd have to look, again I don't have my plan with me on just what
were providing. Maybe Mr. Hill could address that. I see he's here but as
far as the plans and specifications reviewed for that area,. I guess we'll be
40 1
City Council Meetiri, .L October 5, 1987
4
lir- given the details on the final design.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, so approval can be conditioned.
' Councilman Johnson: Okay, the next one is that pond that you were pointing
to. Currently at the Class B wetland, an area of dubious uses and benefit,
where we're going to fill part of it in and extend another part a different
' direction. I personally believe there's a lot of uses for a Class B wetlands
primarily in nutrient uptake. removal of nutrients. Ground water
infiltration and things like this. I haven't seen a lot of information
' addressing whether when you redo this wetland and the primary design as I see
so far is to make sure that the water outflow out of this wetland is the same
as what it is presently or I believe it eould be less than what it is
I presently. I don't know what happens to the infiltration that's going on now
and if you now create a pond instead of a Class B wetland, do we .decrease the
amount of phosphate uptake? We're going into a very phosphate sensitive
system. Now we're going to have more gallons of water per pound of
' vegetation. Right now we have a lot of vegetation for what little water goes
into this Class B wetland. A lot of grass and a little water. Now we're
going to have a lot of water and a little grass. We're going into a system
' that the Osgood Report.
Mayor Hamilton: Is there a specific thing that you would like to see done
with that particular wetland that you can point to with some conviction and
say they should do this or that?
Councilman Johnson: I'm foreseeing a problem and I'm not the engineer to
create the problem. I don't think we as a Council should be doing engineering
and not create the problem but fix the problem.
Mayor Hamilton: Then you must have a problem with the wetlands in general and
if Gary is going to review these and work with the developer, that will be
satisfactory for you I presume because they will come back to us anyway.
Councilman Johnson: Right so the wetland alteration permit, I want this one
reviewed in more detail on phosphate uptake and the overall wetland issue.
' Mayor Hamilton: Is that to review these with the developer and have it back
on the consent is something.
' Gary Warren: We can do that. In fact it's important for Councilman Johnson
to recall, I guess the Osgood discussions is that the impacts to Rice Marsh
Lake, the phospherous impacts and such, he's saying even distilled water is an
impact because of the excessive amounts of phosphates that already exist in
' the area there so it's pretty difficult to rely on a Class B wetland such as
this to have any benefit as far as phospherous uptake. Plus it would take a
research study in itself to probably identify what is happenin in the wetland.
I guess we certainly will review it and we'll apply our standards that we have
in other developments to see that they're not aggravating the situation
anymore.
Mayor Hamilton: We could have Dr. Rockwell go out and look at it. That's why
1 41
I
1 ) )
City Council meeting - October 5, 1987
we have her on the staff as a consultant to review these things and if there
appears to be a problem, to point those out to us.
!-
Councilman Johnson: I must disagree with what you just said on your quotation 1
of the Osgood Report because I spent a lot of time this weekend reading it
again. Cr reading it for the first time I should say and he does say,
consideration of the entire basin for eliminating phosphates before it gets to
Rice Marsh Lake should be a consideration in this entire watershed district
and that just because distilled water will cause harm is no reason to put
distilled water plus phospherous down into the system because that will cause
more harm.
Gary Warren: I'm not saying that we want to add anymore than we have to but
likewise he doesn't give us any solutions to how to eliminate the phosphates. ,
Councilman Johnson: I agree. His report is very short on solution and very
high on problems.
Councilman Boyt: Cn page 2 of the report ,
sport on the conservation district, he
indicates concern about building sites being evaluated to make sure that there
is not going to be flooding. I hadn't thought of this area as a potential
flood area but he makes that comment. I know in our building code, or at
least I think in our building code we indicate that you can't build a basement
unless it's 2 feet above the water. Is that clear there? It has to be 2 feet
above the water table.
Gary Warren: Above the 100 year high water mark.
Councilman Boyt: So really they can't build there anyway?
Gary Warren: Right. ,
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just wanted to clarify that.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Wetland Alteration 1
Permit #87-13 for the alteration of Wetlands 14-06 and 14-07 as shown in
Attachment #16 subject to the following conditions:
1. A drainage easement shall be provided over the wetland area and all
structures shall maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland
boundary. ,
2. The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions established
by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to i ,
a. ) pe increase
shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and
resting birds. I
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to
20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
42 1
y
^: f % t
111 City Council Meeting-- October 5, 1987 ._
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contours for variable
' lir water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of
wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b)
1 encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow
water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with
emergent vegetation.
1 d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (much from an existing
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
Ie. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
3. : -Subject-•to' approval of the Agreement. _ . .
1
All voted in favor and motion carried.: . - _ .
1
Don Patton: If I could address one other thing and Barbara if you can help me
:1- with dates on this. The PUD will be published as of today, is that right?
There is a 30 day period for that to be advertised for the ENW which will come
back November 3rd I' think. As I recall, the time to the Council will move out
to the 19th which means that grading of the site couldn't start until next
year which is going to be awfully hard to get through. The thing I'd like to
ask the Council to authorize the City Engineer, is if there are no negative
comments, if you would authorize a grading permit to be issued as soon as
Ipossible with your authority to him based on approvals of the EAW.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we've done that previously. Are we in a position to
do that now?
1
Gary Warren: We've done it in the pest with the contingency that a
development contract be executed and a letter of credit as security be on file
1 with the City.
Councilman Johnson: I think we can put that on our October 19th agenda to
1 consider that. Kind of call it a preliminary review of the gAW.
Mayor Hamilton: What the developer is saying is he'd like to start as soon as
II possible and if he can meet the City requirements and satisfy the City
Engineer and City Manager, he should be able to begin grading.
Councilman Johnson: That's November 3rd before he clears that period so
IIOctober 19th-is plenty of time. - " - - .
il— Barbara Racy: October 19th may be a little premature on some of the E W
comments.
II43
1
.. _ ,_
- City Council Meeting — October 5, 1987
4
Councilman Johnson: We're not doing a final EAW approval.
Barbara Racy: Even if the Council wanted to do kind of a preliminary review
of the EAW, it's been our experience that a lot of the agencies wait until the
last minute to submit their comments. There is a meeting on November 2nd that
we could look to the development contract evaluation but to get those other
steps in line prior to the grading authorization, we have to wait for that 30
day time.
Councilman Geving: Let me ask, how soon, what is the soonest we could allow
them to do the grading? When is the first date we can go ahead and tell to
go?
Barbara Dacy: Technically the City Council has to make a finding of negative ,
declaration meaning that an EIS is not necessary. _ What Mr. Patton is saying
is that the soonest that that would occur -is November 16th, the second Council
meeting and what he is requesting is the ability for staff to allow the
grading permit after the 30 day cycle is-up but prior to your official action.
Councilman Horn: I think you've got that. I
Councilman Geving: I would say we should authorize that.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't see any problem with that. I
Gary Warren: Prejudging the need for the EIS.
Mayor Hamilton: Well, based on the site I can't see that would be a problem
there.
Councilman Geving: I think we should just poll the council and let him go 1
ahead.
Councilman Horn: Wasn't what Jay was saying is we can do.that at our next i
meeting. Put it on our consent agenda with your recommendation as to how that
should be worded and that would still give us time. That's what I heard.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe by the November 2nd meeting we'll have a better idea of 1
what the comments will be.
CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
•
Mayor Hamilton: This is one of those things that we see every-year
unfortunately. Some of the same ones but you see some new ones on here that
kind of raise your eyebrows. People like Jack Barnes and the Richliff's and
Jim Congdon so it's a little discouraging that we have to do this. I'm all in
favor of shutting their blasted water off and letting them come up here and
pay their bill but apparently we can't do that. Some towns do that I know.
Afiy can't we do that.
I!:
44 ,
I
city council Meeting — Just 28, 1989 `
ICouncilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Qmiel: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor and a second to table to
II gather the additional data and information with access and tie in the puzzle as
per se.
IIMayor Qmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
preliminary plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots south of
II Pleasant View Road and Fast of Powers Blvd., Van Eeckhout Building Corporation
to gather additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
E. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: I see where there should be recommendation of staff. There
Ishould be an item 7 which is formerly item 11. That should be added.
Jo Ann Olsen: For the 2nd or 3rd Addition?
II Mayor Qmiel: This would be on the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The
recatmendation on page 2. It appears as though you left off item 11, the
sedimentation basin shall be repaired prior to final plat approval. Has that
IIbeen done?
Jo Ann Olsen: It has been done.
la Mayor Qmiel: Okay, it's repaired. Then we'll strike that.
,
Jo Ann Olsen: Any of the conditions that were not repeated have all been met.
IMayor Qmiel: Have they? Okay. That was my major concern. I didn't see that.
So with that I would move that we approve item (e) .
IICouncilman Workman: Second.
IMayor Qmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Additions pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. CHANHASSEN HILLS: APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF
II SANITARY SEATER AND WATER TO EATS 9 AND 15, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN HILLS 1ST
ADDITION.
Mayor Qmiel: Just a quick question to Cary on item f, Chanhassen Hills. The
I 50 foot easement. Is that going to be recorded with the County on the
Abstracts?
IIIGary Warren: We would record that against the property, that's correct. That's
our normal approach because it's not worth anything until it's recorded.
II
31 i° V
I
_1J -
• 1
-There's a lot of different things. My first suggestion is that in the RSF, R-4
district that buildings should not exceed 80% of the size of the primary
-- structure. I don't know if 80% is a good number or not. That's still pretty
big, and not to exceed a total of 1,000 square feet. I would take (a) and drop
it back to 140 square feet or a minimum setback of 5 feet. Then I'd say for a
house between 140 square feet and 400 square feet, have a 10 foot setback and
II
anything bigger than 400 square feet which is 20 foot'by 20 foot, go to the
regular 30 foot setback. So theoretically your house can be 30 feet from your
back property line so you've only- got a 30 foot backyard and somebody can then
II
build a huge storage building just-40 foot away from you. Those are my
suggestions for that. Then we add that (c) there. -
Mayor Qmiel: Yes, I agree. I think we should pull this at this particular
II
time. My reasoning is that I would like to have this as a regular agenda 'item
and open this for discussion because I'd like more input from the people in the
.oc munity if they have any I
Councilman Johnson: I don't think there was much input at the public hearing
that was held. I do remember being there. I
Mayor Qmiel: Yep. I was there also. I just want people to be aware of the
fact that this is there and I want to make sure.
IICouncilman Johnson: A neighbor of ours built a large barnlike structure in
their backyard. They've got the 12,000 square foot lot and they actually put it
right on the property line right next to the guy's garden so his garden became a
shaded area. They spent a long time- getting that garden going and they built
1:
this structure right next to it so that's what I'm trying to prevent. Stuff
like that. I move to table it then.
Mayor Qmi.el: Very good. I'll second that.
•
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Qmiel seconded to table the first reading of an II
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance regarding Accessory Structures. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. 1
D. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 13.49 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS,
EAST SIDE OF POWERS BLVD. APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, LAKE SUSAN I
HILLS WEST, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Councilman Johnson: I actually- didn't have a whole lot of problems with the
II
preliminary plat itself but I've got a problem with the pond that with the ice
•
melt they had a pond get destroyed, a sediment pond and it's been what, a month
now and it hasn't been repaired and now we've got sediment running into Lake
Susan because there has been no repair. I don't see why we should continue. II
This should have been repaired immediately. Do you know what the status of that
is Gary?
Gary Warren: We followed up and had contact with the developer, Argus II• gus
Development and their engineer. They've changed engineers in the process o£
going from the Second to Third Addition so I don't know if that slowed them up
iir
but we've been in contact with them over 2 weeks ago to address it. You're
2 1
1
tea.vv
Alk-
City Qounci 1 Meeting - $, 1989 ` 1
right, I was out yesterday looking and I made a note that it had not been done
yet so.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, there's nice light brown water flowing out of there
Itonight. .
Mayor Chniel: Have we received revised landscape plans on this as well as did
IIwe also receive the Watershed and Carver County permit for this Gary?
Jo Ann Olsen: We did receive the revised landscaping plan. Carver County, no
II they have not received for the temporary access? They have not received that.
We have been in contact with then and they feel there will be no problem with
taking it. I don't even know if they've made the application yet.
II Mayor Chmi.el: But you've had discussions with the County regarding this and
they don't have any problems? The pond to be repaired, that should also be part
of that basic approval. Jay are you going to make a motion on this?
rCouncilman Johnson: Okay. I thought Ursula wanted to talk.
Councilwoman Dimler: I had something other than that. My point with it. I was
I under the impression that we had a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Is
that right Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: This is a PUD and so they were permitted smaller lot sizes.
Councilwoman Dimler: May because I noticed there were quite a few of then that
_ were smaller. Also, do we have a minimum width at the setback that the lot has
to be?
Jo Ann Olsen: It's 90 feet at the setback.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: It's 90 feet wide at the setback. Okay, do they all meet
that requirement? y y
IIJo Ann Olsen: Yes.
ICounci lwcman Dimler: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
Councilman Johnson: I'll move approval of item 1(d) with the staff's 10
conditions. Adding a condition 11 that the sedimentation basin along CR 17 be
I repaired as soon as it dries out enough to repair it. You can't get in there
and work on it now but in a timely fashion.
IICouncilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat to subdivide 13.49 acres into 9 single family lots on the east
side of Powers Blvd. approximately 1 mile south of Highway 5, Lake Susan Hills
West, Argue Development with the 10 conditions listed by staff in the staff
report and an additional condition 11 stating that the sedimentation basin along
County Road 17 be repaired in a timely fashion. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
II
3
LAW
a.. City Council Meeting - Mak t. 1989 _
It
3
Mayor C oriel: Ursula, on the Minutes.
1:-
Councilwoman Dimler: The only thing I wanted to know is, I wanted to ask Gary
Warren, I know at the last meeting I brought up the fact that the cul-de-sacs
should be large enough to allow school buses to turn around and Gary indicated
that he would check with the school board on that. Did you do that Gary? Do
you have an answer?
_ tr
Gary Warren: We did do that and we couldn't find anybody there that said they
had a problem with it. This was the first that we heard. We checked our
turning radii width, the standard .detail plates for buses and we are in
compliance with the minimum turning radius on our standard plates but other than
that, we did call the school district and did not find anybody that had any
specific complaints that they chose to give us anyway.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, then there must be a miscommunication because the
party I'm referring to did call the school board and complain.
Gary Warren: This is an individual resident that complained about it? ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Gary Warren: We talked to the school board directly now. I'd be happy to
follow up if you've got a name you want to give me after the meeting and talk
about it.
1:
Councilman Johnson: I know there are some people in Chaska with the same basic
complaint. Some people on our swim team that my son's on. It's the same thing.
They want to take as straight of a shot as possible. In fact there's one place
where they could take a loop and loop through and go out on another street. If
they don't do it, you still have to walk a quarter mile up to do it.
Gary Warren: The comment we had back from the school district was that their 1
contract with the bus agency was that they were not required to go down
cul-de-sacs. Therefore, it's not necessarily a bad turning radius on the
cul-de-sac. It's just as Jay's eluding to somewhat, they have a direct shot so
even if we had cul-de-sac that had a 100 foot turning radius, they probably
still wouldn't go down them. That's their contract with the carrier.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll pass that onto the resident I'm concerned about then. 1
Thank you.
RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING.
Dave Pederson from the Villager drew a name for the Recycling Prize. I
4
=C[iPiNEII�SSEN CITY COUNCI j
- REGULAR MEETING
-
JUNE 26, 1989
Mayor Chni.el called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
IICOUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Bo yt, Councilman Workman ,
Councilwanan Dimler and Councilman Johnson
.' STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary Warren, Todd Gerhardt, Jo Ann
Olsen and Jim Chaffee
IIAPPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda with the following additions to the Council Presentations:
II Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss Council ethics in working with developers
and a possible conflict of interest on his part; Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
discuss the RTD nomination and the SuperAmerica at TH 7 and TH 41; Councilman
I Workman wanted to discuss the Lake Riley chain of lakes project and Lake Lucy
Road watermai.n project; and Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss the Public Safety
Commission Minutes, Eurasian Water Milfoil and goals and objectives. All voted
II in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion carried. -
RECYCLING PRIZE.DRAWING: Mayor Chmiel drew the name for the recycling program
prize and presented it to Dave Pederson.
I .
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
IIa. South Lotus Villas:
1. Approval of Plans and Specifications
1 2. Approval of Development Contract
3. Resolution #89-77: Land Use Plan Amendment
4. Final Plat Approval
IId. Consider Cooperative Agency Status with M hot for TH 212.
e. Approval of Temporary 2 Day Liquor License for Chanhassen Rotary.
Ig. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of Lake Drive and Market
Boulevard.
IIh. Wetland Alteration Permit for Construction of a Duck Pond, Alan Lenhart.
II j. Approve Liquor Concession Agreement Bloomberg Companies and International
Broadcasting Corporation.
k. Approval of Findings of Fact, Convesco, Oak View Heights.
1. Set Special Meeting Date, Joint City Cbuncil/Park and Recreation Commission
Meeting.
II
1
I
City Council Meeting - 3unf vp, 1989
4
n. Accounts Payable.
o. City Council Minutes dated June 12, 1989
Planning Cannission Minutes dated June 7, 1989
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated June 13, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried. I
I. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 3RD ADDITION, ARQJS DEVELOPMENT. I
Councilman Johnson: I noticed when we did the last preliminary plat we had a
condition that the sediment pond be repaired before the final plat. The
- sediment isn't repaired. It's still there. They've had 5 months now. 4 months
now and the sediment pond that failed this winter is still broken. I move to
table any further action on Lake Susan Hills Wiest until that sediment pond is
repaired. I
Councilman Workman: Jay, where's it located?
Councilman Johnson: Right along the highway there. Right along CR 17. I
Gary Warren: North of Lake Susan Drive. Right on CR 17 on the west side.
IICouncilman Johnson: They've ignored staff's pleas to do it. They've ignored
the Council direction to do it and now it's time for action. They're coming in
asking for more without doing what we told then to do last time so I'm moving to
table.
Mayor Chniel: Ray, do you wish to address the Council? 1
Ray Brandt: Yes. I'm Ray Brandt with Brandt Engineering and Surveying. 2705
Woods Trail in Burnsville. That situation has been awarded, I mean Probe
Engineering took care of the design of it and Nodeland is going to install the
whatever you call it that keeps the leaves, I can't think of the word but
there's a box that's going in there. Skimmer and I was just told today that
should be done very shortly but I can't tell you what shortly is.
Gary Warren: June 8th staff received a submittal on the bafflewear structure
from Probe Engineering and it was explained to us that that would be done
shortly thereafter. Constructed, we basically said that the plan was
acceptable.
MKayor Chmiel: When was the discussions? 1
Gary Warren: This would have been June 8th, June 9th timeframe tight after we
got it. We've been trying, in fact today even to track down representatives
from Nodeland who haven't been returning our calls now so we still are on the
hook. In fact not in concert with Councilman Johnson, I had drafted a letter
today to Argus notifying than that we were going to suspend building permits
until that was completed so I guess we have been concerned that there's been,
!!:
enough time.
1
2
11
1�tJz.
City Council Meeting — r l' 26, 1989 -
Mayor Chmiel: It sounds like that's consistent with your motion as such.
Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that if the City is going to suspend building
permits, that that handles the problem and we. should go ahead and make progress
on this plat.
Mayor Chmiel: I think I'll stick with Jay's motion Bill until it's finalized. I
' realize that there may be a problem there but we've requested that several
things be done and this is about the only way we can make sure that it's going
to be done. I'd suggest possibly that you contact the individual who has drawn
this together and have than get ahold of Gary and get that resolved. I have a
motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Boyt: I hate to see this carried over when we've already done the
background reading. It's just going to add something to a future agenda. If
there's additional discussion, maybe we should hold that. I've got a couple of
conditions I'd like to see added here so if it comes back up, it can came back
IIon the Consent Agenda and just be passed.
Councilman Johnson: There's been no second as of yet so we can just continue
the discussion on it.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what we could do Bill in conjunction with that is to
approve it with the 2 conditions that you have and approve it under the
condition that once it's in, then you may start procedure with the construction.
Councilman Johnson: That's what we did last time.
Mayor Chmiel: That got put by the wayside?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
' Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't received final plat approval.
Gary Warren: On the 2nd plat.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that was the final plat. They haven't received it
iyet?
Gary Warrens This is just preliminary.
' Councilman Johnson: But the last time we voted was a final plat?
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly preliminary- plat.
' Councilman Johnson: And they haven't asked for the final plat approval yet?
' Mayor Chmiel: Not yet.
Jo Ann Olsen: Not for the 3rd Addition.
Gary Warren: The 2nd he's talking about.
3
1
_ _Y Council i Meeting - June 26, 1989 _`
1 }
II
;; Councilman Johnson: The last time we told him to fix this was in conjunction
with the final plat approval. I ey.haven't gotten their final plat approval
yet?
1:
Jo Ann Olsen: We haven't signed off on the mylars or anything yet.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so we've still got than held up on that plat too? _
Ckay. Since they really haven't taken any action on what we said last time, as
far as they haven't gotten their final plat, which is when we told than they had II
to fix that before they get their final plat, that continues. they can't start
moving dirt out there until they get their final plat so I guess they haven't
violated our specific wishes except for 4 to 6 weeks is too long for something
like this to hang fire. I'd like to withdraw my motion and add a condition that
we support Gary's no future building permits as one of the conditions to (i) and
whatever the other conditions Bill wants to add in here. Get it on in that way. I
Councilman Boyt: Okay the first one, Cary, mentioned Lake Drive East and that's
a collector. I would like all deeds to include recognition that Lake Drive East
will serve as a collector. The other condition also relates to something I'd II
like attached to the deeds of each piece of property. All lots must demonstrate
location of a house pad outside 75 foot wetland setback. That's in relation to
one particular lot in which there's same question if they can do that. Along
II
with that condition, all property holders must be notified if further expansion
of their house, deck, additional garages would require a variance. There's some
12,000 square foot lots in this particular portion of the POD and my intent
would be to make it very clear that those would require variances and that
variances require a hardship out of the control of the property owner. I think
we need to be sure that people are well informed when they buy their property.
Mayor Cimiel: It's a buyer beware.
Councilman Johnson: We're helping than to became aware. 1
Councilman Workman: At what time would a buyer be notified of same of that?
Fran a realtor?
IICouncilman Boyt: They'd see it on their deed. It would came as one of
conditions. the
IICouncilman Johnson: TO tell you the truth, I've never read my deed.
Councilman Boyt: Well the development contract isn't enough. I want the
property owner to be notified in writing of the constraints on that piece of II
property. So how do we do that?
Roger Knutson: In the development contract which is recorded against the 1
property. Before the final plat, simultaneously at the recording of the final
plat, the development contract is recorded so anyone who buys a piece of
property in that plat sees that contract has been recorded against his property. 1
Councilman Boyt: The question I would have is, what happens when the City signs
off on a development contract? All the streets and sewers are in and we
relinquish our hold on the escrow monies? '
01.7
4 1
11
City Council Meeting Jibe 26, 1989 ) )
III
Y" , Roger Knutson: We relinquish our financial hold.lir
Councilman Boyt: So it's still in place?
IIGary Warren: We've been releasing lots though from the DC.
Roger Knutson: What we can do is just release our financial hold on them when
there are restrictions like that.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying, ins
to read the development '�' g. teal of reading their deed, they have
Prent contract which is 100 pages thick too and they won't
I even have that with their deed. There's got to be some way to inform the buying
public of these problems.
II Roger Knutson: That's the best way to get it on the deed. It's not on the deed
physically but it's on their Abstract so when they buy the property they see it.
Councilman Johnson: They see that there's a development contract. They don't
II' see the requirements.
Roger Knutson: It's just like when you buy a home that has covenants against
1 it. You don't see the covenants written on the deed. The Abstract says there
are covenants recorded against the property and anyone who's concerned would
read than.
IL Councilman Johnson: Okay, it won't just say there's a development contract
recorded against the property?
IIRoger Knutson: That's what the Abstract will say.
Councilman Johnson: The Abstract will say that? And then it's up to the buyer
IIto figure out what that means.
Roger Knutson: Zb read them. Anyone buying property with an Attorney or anyone
who is at all knowledgeable will read that.
IICouncilman Johnson: Not everybody attorneys.
Y uses ys.
IRoger Knutson: No.
Councilman Boyt: Tb move this along then I would adjust that condition so staff
II would work with our attorney in developing language that reaches a clear intent
of notifying the home owner of the constraints on that piece of property. As
part of that, there should be the conditions it requires to achieve a variance
I because I can picture the people with 12,000 square foot lots are going to be
thinking that they can build decks for instance and the problem just comes back
to us.
Mayor Chmiel: It's just like the two that we have right now.
I: Councilman Workman: Wouldn't it be easier to require a builder to make room for
a standard size deck an option on that home? I don't know, a house without a
deck these days is getting to be fairly rare so a deck is something that
•
1 5
qty Council Meeting — June 26, 1989
iv
;. } 1
somebody would probably want seeing their neighbors have one, so wouldn't it be
easier to make it such that one could be applied in the future?
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that that would be a little difficult. Roger?
1:
Roger Knutson: You don't have an ordinance requirement that says you have to
have a deck. What you're really saying is if you have-a small lot, maybe I
would prefer, I being anyone, would prefer to have a larger master bedroom and
no deck for example. Maybe I would prefer to have the deck or maybe I would
prefer to have a larger bathroom so what you're really doing by requiring a deck
is you're really taking someone's... (
Councilman Workman: I guess I'm not requiring. one but...
Councilman Johnson: I think what you're trying to say is the design of the
house should be to where the deck will be within the buildable area. In other
words, on these narrow lots you don't want the house designed as such that the
deck will go on the side yard which will infringe.
Councilman Workman: We had people before the Board tonight who want decks.
Their back yards face each other and they have sliding glass doors for an
alleged deck which is going nowhere. 1
Councilman Johnson: Designed into the house.
Councilman Workman: So it sounds to me like the builder didn't know about it. 1
Councilman Johnson: The builder kind of created that situation.
Councilman Boyt: I think this is a topic that needs further discussion but at a
separate point all by itself. • -
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I think what we have now is any further discussion first
of all.
Councilman Johnson: I'll move the motion. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval with the conditions as specified by Bill
and also the condition that no further building permits be issued within the
entire Lake Susan Hills area until the settling pond is repaired. 1
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the
preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills West, 3rd Addition for Argus Development
with the conditions that no further building permits be issued until the
sediment pond is repaired, that all house pads be located outside of the 75 foot
setback from the wetlands, all deeds to include recognition that Lake Drive Fast
will serve as a collector, and that all property holders must be notified if
further expansion of their house, deck, additional garages, etc. would require
a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
!!:
•
•
6
1
1
• . .. ' 4 .: , ,, , .1,.\-lit' \--%-,-:4, '8 li. fi li g .T. se 0. ii eil er• - . . . ee.
• ' i 1•• . ..”- - •'1, / te• /1•41■ rer/ 4, ,, „, ,
11111 : " log x 4 II 1 ilks
V 1,.,•t k. , ‘F. ....--zA,-...-,___---• • • . , rt.
IlLqii" LI an . iirb•-, i , •• ‘, -4,,...: • --, • • ' T. * • ' ' •
,ri- )' '-• 4.4',:' ,•.CE. ;11311
0 .116111111 id rk Stki •• \ \.1 s, ‘''.„..‘"i7..-..2,-4 ..-' . * *. • ....: , 411La 1,.. •
It k t: i ' ... • 4; . /Fall 41121* .041311/111111 '
c
IAA ,... ,,,\ ....,•:\kft...,.. ••-!4--:-:-•--f'.1 1,..,::.1:, . •..•,:,' , • Orr.
11111n1r:1311rii;;-11111.4 IP 7 .
)11 . A -421 moruallin4111
• ' & ,'
.. . . % ' .. c . .., •
■,...."•- * .... ; /...
<`■••• ) li •• • ' •isj,II MIlig.a flail i• I•."'
IA i WI:r illnairlaillit,iiiiiro Mall \i . ,zz, s\ .--..k` =4,,--..0 7: . . . ;....-. ..,.. ..... ,..„.--.. , . .
,
N • /? It Wt •VA% It tall it4 • __..a .4810.,,,Lffili -1\ : q..:... .k...s,1 ss...,..I.' . .4. ?.%...,,,-ei.(3- .---...:._Akt)ii., /7 , .....›,..,, g .1ft•o,i
nI.- - ' ....4** ■■ j. .‘
5
• . •' •''' .... N71 '.:-II14,__,/•'•„--
‘.-:,`,‘::-..,•4,4 . '• • •
- •.e) --.14‘.** Nial elpiNiltstisSvarte:_mrillogilal rim" ...,..1 ._--.. -3z-- ,‘-\'` ,1• - 1-- 4•.; • '' • % %I
':•4‘,, \ . \ ' • " / „ -•• . ''''''t ' 111 allabihsV r .,,,•4,, .t e ,.* 04%1.. ., * \c''''-•-•;r-.3"...T.- .,. ,... .. • ,. p
' .. I'` ...f.'s ........"1, ' • • - \ ' • 1,
:,.. Atk...Zo•. .1... 1 ! I ,. • ■ YEA: I. -'- °Z1"4 ■-gb 0147 Olt 11113.11-
',.....0-1-*..*4 40 F••,...., 's
.4,_:,_. ,„b4.. t. .,,,.., ,...,_..... :.! ..,2._____:...._.. . , Nt, • • ', ' A 1
2 4
.s..s :' ,... '''A.):4%.,* \ . ■44C-- :. . .?'.4'.- i .. .4: \4s:41 - I 11---..' :4; 'MP' ,..f0 V titi‘1.0... V', \ '\:)!rz...1.., -141..-" 7".••'''' '''l f • ,'•• -.•:.
• -...,...*.i..: ;*,•,, .- ..4---• ari; i •I ', 1 SlitInte..-.1.,;4' ..r... , ,,,-%CP. 4 49 ,.. ; ,. itiet. deit'''..:, \. . .., ;.i..: ,• -...*".4.C.N...'j.7 1. r- - 4-c,---. •III
„. -*.`z" .\‘' .;,..,...?,•S.e.f- (L.,...) -.....a•.,.; tr..:q. - .- ""'T I I 4-' ,....,\
' -...-•- J .. / ..•• tire's'''.- • '3,•:;1. Z
de,-:11., ilta WON' , ..-7----,
■,'");^....--,."-,' ;',0,tri,„",''',.'":41 ::% -,,4% - \ ,'''. ..! . „,cfir...t -, 1 114Spi
w-deigok MI -....,..• 4•. • .
. \\,' ':' 4'i•-44:,:i.'6:4-......" :"'. ' - • '---..it • A.1 :10- . 4... -. • . ilik. ,,40, - ....110.161,,,,--469111,0 ',..• ''' . •."-': ,,. ,. . '''' 1 ...71,T-T- :.-I-- • 3 ..
:,•,*1'.-, ',:il' .; .;:;-..„-,.4-,-,,-c4f .i.,..,.....- <, 0... ea to. -44. e .. 4. - ■alf&,;•V I U ELIIIIMENISFEI WC V"!•....,- $ :... ...._. ' i ' :•••-1 ' i
'"\ *
,„ .... $
-.,--l..4,:-..,-... ..44-4.7.•,::: .,. ..•„ _ -..,z...,:: , ., . - . .-., ,,, -.... ---- .• 40"...via : ..„ .sara.v.oci -5•-•:.:•§,..:;-.,1 -s---. ; . • .. • ....,.. ../... •!. 4
..:,.--4..-v,..1.--0,1 -i•/.•../.. ..7.7 .., -3..• .(,•• -.:....--• ---• r." ..:-r :_, ••
4V '''•• 1 . • e' '• . 0
. .. .
:-.•••=---11-S(I.•I's•••....4"-'•.! Z''' "•'1 • •-•11. . ...,-.4-41,...„4.,....... -.:,....... Alt 024.. • -d 42 ii:117.1)13," .--: , .. ,..,-,,. , rmimmini, onam__ _, y.l. ......•\ stk.,. ,..z:,'•-•: .......• ''. •",/ 7....44.1...- ( ....v. ,
/001-
-'1..‘,,,e,-,:t4' ..4,. i.,• , :" ,t3: • ,.; .J•-• •,,,ii*.• - - CiAT: 474p )': - ,14 4.e'''
-zi .....,4'„ .- ., 7!2: 1 i'41.1.1,_•: . , ii) ■'',::: Ijk,Ny itib.t4 :, fq ;J:,.42••A / / - We,a• ..4.4,11,,e t,.46.41 •,„„,„.111101 .-- s • - !.. •\ _-;,--.-...,,..,..,.-k. , .;,i---.
..... . .,:...,:-..! .. ...;e),f ;•. ■V..":4 .- '...4.)1 -.:4''r 41r4P1.t* '7"'-' ....' • '-.:411 - cuts , i.,1.‘ ,i,...i. s,:-..-. - •••;,.• ":•::.-- '-i.i..-,-7:;•---, :.;;
' r.. 'Z,.,.,‘ ;•;,•.:..I ..,/:::::•%1,:*.r!--.1.-.!'• ' lirft:r I je,"-.;:••e.,AO kippr la ikkhigitr '1121,;, ‘:.''4,' ': 4111'. : -'. '144ii:4_ I.S) , --.,..*1•1 ,e'"' ;L.r._ .
TT- _.,,,0,ir,I.,_____,.,_//7 ,... •;.: •:.;:..,......,4,.,. • ....:!---, ......s. At.44111,).1pan Irdip7'1,4VA WiNitiAll . - . , . - •
=.7 *`67) 5...,:','.-•''7/?:', ' 7:=". '_LI /*I 't .11.,...---::.. en.• ili. .7-..z oeiPlork, Ilo
II
At . wittzet.-um--+„;-'"•=i;: ,.' 4'.:* -..„* i',-.--t::•:..r:r5 ,•
...,:,.....9,,4
-%it.". 1. . .......
•••••••
•AMIN.
/. *.: .....). i\t‘...,.<;:■.,,''' .17.. ......". , U 11 4:■711:.:.1 111"..- W . .5-4.6 p sa •... -. .,-: .7..-- ,... •,
:;'4';1,1"..P. ...1.
c;I
.. r.....---__;.._,--,-:-,..:,,...;:?-,;1 .:.- .- -,,- ,. . tie?, •• - , .- ., - 0,(1;
-.--_-:_-___-___-___-;;;;..-;z:-. 4, -PA....* :::Fti 3i i 110,,,h..uve- .' - . •40'...--/ ....,,...,p._,.,,044z. .bA,,..
.. ...._....,2,-...-7,-.-„:-_ _=,==.-„,.-al -,.„ • 4 ti /)' ` '.2' •Wii,
.. _ ,, .,411, ir,,,,,a4if vir. -,,,a0 _• . ....:, ,,,.,_...„_,,....,:__•-.44,..4.,01) • •e
..., .
I. ...,s„,.....7-27.....„::;;-!--,-,--;-. .:,, ...::•;..,•. ."-,, 1.-- , 0 .... ,i, s deg-•
":77.4■5 ,..:• -•• .S4.0,;-:
Tr r ''zz".---'''-‘1 H'•'-1•`,:./. --A:, - -'s..-•,'--,-:- '' - , ,, . , NI-\/• - a 1
.... .),, ,,.._.. . .\. ,, ,..„:„...„ ... . . I
.-'..•:„,.. 4 z
..,14,,,,.:,' 4..-....-..z.-___..,;.,,,-.w•-- . - .. :- .....: 4.
.... . ...-....4_1. .%.*--. .:,-.:-- ,(7:-."‘.'Vsrls- •-•41-'
\ ■
lite
- 9•. Af. tys., . /4,, _. _ _ ._
I a
--..... , •••• . , . .......-,, ...,::-1 ,, --. .,, • ...s , , , 1 . •
*-. -,44,";, •,, yi 1 ■ •
-4. ?:.,-...7..1..--",ik-,', :••- .2 A -4 --; ...,,,:.• .',_•....,-,,,,,h- 1 ,.N. ,....,- , :• . • 11 61 k 4ihoOirlhdii,, . ( z4 ' „ ;
,-
,
-;.'"-z ••\\••'•: •-,-. •i, •••,,, --: -,---:----,.-;-7.., , . -ii../..• ..:7 i:„..' .1.• .s..-,,,___- , Maii, .,, ... Ilk ' ‘v-4,,i,,,4* ----yei• '-'---; LL_ .. 1 ____
...! • .,..
'Mill
- -..,:::•,_,:l.c.,,' %,",:,,,,.......)....../11,:144.1.-.:::'=:..k'. .. . .4 ..----.;"\ m- ; 0.
Iii\ • •••-...k
WA , !s• Tele:7049,--01;;*. .%. ..i .- -i
. ;- •;":"C'',0-1■1:77- 1".".' .'--- -"*"1 I IS
-■("...7:-."")`'\1/4_,....:itic \\( ....• ... • ' ... ---------,-.........id '' .:. '., io. • --.a.".'' ot., , •••trvai.. •6:101(1^......S--.01
...A\...... . - - ' , •• /....' -••■••.7:.."-I' ...... ,■1•'•"*"'.
,,.,
)/ ttirr "iiif:1,.?,);-,,,S.,-.- - . .. . . •..•
' .*:: - V ' ALVi . 4 _ ....
., Inem••■
14_, *-0 4*'.‘' ' ),..41..,...••....___ ,.. ,,z--t, • . -----,
.4 •' ,••:'..„,j‘‘\.4...< ' '..-„ 1 I •
, air,- . , ..... ., 4,.. .miticstot. .,. 1..1 1,...is 1 It i_ iii; ,
;---:...: . F. :s.,...,* 1.- ., •••'
.. :,.. ,•
:
,.k / • , ... ., .: , ,.
)
. _.
.... • .'‘ .. • / t Ilit_Sr( 1.1 ' Atr.
..: . .77* AtalpifillantUl ‘ ,,' 4.1 el rii ail - d-
..1 * :,......, . • t. -e i rn • i i% . 'ici ,+'-'".• 11&.,. .117,11iNL C• '4' ' ' Ila"S 11.3111%t• 131 1-:1 r c
''' ..0 Ae\ ' \:.• k.. -•• ... ) ...<7..-- .----(., i I, c:lb, i' ..f.•tV0-'
i • (' . .. . 1 irw.. .,. ..!..;,..,.. ,, ... ....,...„, ..
. ., ,..: ,,,.„, k..____ 4, • . - ii.m... II_ ip . -, Hi ii.. 111. i
atr.m. 2 I
.t. W. • .... I .i.-. .:N •f ,- -;:i•:-,' lig11.0.1 E i Ii.1 . 1.111
:.c."--.-..e.....-:i.c- ' '4:. -4 ,--77- ---,.,-.1.,. lif ••••. 1.. • - .P,,1-.. ••," e- o• • I ' 1 I ;i Is. r: ..
- • 'I-1
.,.,,,,,,, , .i......, t ,,,,y,c•- -, --,-- ,; ‘...k...._ , , -„,.40, .1tito il,,,31.„,„ . .. . .,i.
Els* i ,..-
•-*t.• ie. i ' • ‘, / •••‘`. • .Aist' al . , - ••• \ 40 *the-...., (:' .•-,T.,., ,.; , . ,po,, ..ee,;,..,„, , ,, sz a a 1,112 3.* .1 21f; . 1. . ,.■.
'1/41- U.. ''• gir-Ret 1,,, ,__,...tift : 4C1.....:!'rii' ' L Ii=ier•we.2
r. iii
vasx' iall i •cc_ . -----_ : ----z.• __ "sr,: --.,-,-"...,,,,,,....•. glil 1 111.11._11 . Iii 418 ri' •
- 7?110-1671-Ch--- lierlik . lierhi ,.7-tUldINMO IF L. in.. --44,edllil■
---__.u.--.7.-4.44.----... _ _.,..t.."...... 1 s.
: 1 %.„._.7_7,,.., iS:1 ' gulp FS• VII •
•- "•:-_,.._.,_____: -. --...-------'.-:. -,.../. _ '1. ,...,•-.._ i.. •Iiiii!: I'.-t4.11. 1:4 114' t..
---_,,, . __,,, • • - .......-.,---- - .••• •-•"--... 41, / '13" al -f.P.:....3 "4
' *
-.....r. ...rani,./.1 . a.. 4•r. -.-;---", :vitK. 7icy..: 1 iitie lit 111:11 1.%1. . s
.....- ......0..„,..,„ s • WM! ,.' 't ., , ..' •., ,,, •*•f‘e, e.;• - •- '!'v.i. ,....„4 ,-.--V ,.•...- ..•••rx,:p.... . i 'I( -e tli le. :.*. ;i1 ,:,. . ji-Ellit IiiiiiT;.4 itl ii:gi 4its .i,
_ .. 4.•,k7.%..,..,,..i.f.... ,..,., - , : • A':'„ • A...1, .ai • .! :,, .,'',0 ':* Z..3...1.,.'''''.7. ,',. '..'4•72.. . ' •) :i.• ..-N'.... ....• ' r lz,.• ir.v,, -, 0 iii.....,11 ...1%1 ill I,'
..f. .......4...:..• .,7„..t , , ,e. , . „I ,„ • ..,,3, ..'• F-,1 1.-.• ..",t .:.4:,-",;'.b....:.4"4..,',',41....„ A., -:.I.,. •- .•Nt.,...s‘ •-•.„_-'.......14..i.......,.;',01; ' ...,...,,,'1*- . .,-.'',I • I -31-1
11 t a
,,,' .. '......r.....,..;.,.. .i 'At' - ,..;;.,'.-• ,.' ',.:-....-,....;.;..; ,,i.:3*.‘4,1/....VIA{11:00q ;,... I. .vile ,..„oaks., c -
Pe•• '' . 4 4°1 !■11•Ntr:'1, iliilla IliU1 II -li rIP
B4cieriutli,..ttl,...1..-r....- ; i?„' -%:?, 6.?.)-....i'..,-..:,.. i.., it. --11.:-• /,1`. • 'tt.ts'A'ti'`4`''''• :••'" 1'. • *".. -'1101 --": * '....' '''''''. -1 . . mil- • I ails i 1111* &lac .
_,..,....„.. ..,„ ... ,,,„„,,„..• .,.,„4,.... •,.: ,...„... 4„..:',,• , •,,, :.-;le A.,•,,, „,,, 1,, ___. ..n., •...# ... , . ■, ,
*. t ,,i4iti-gsli:' ,.74l).4.,•..:%%.114;• ." ■..'A.''' '''t'l .r.• : . '''''"1.;1 ..." e •..• , ' . .s' 6:4?,'.q ." .V.Z-4,z,47:.....„. f---1:,c.;:'"'"-..44. 14":1145'•' ..V.16'"• . '' '....• I .1‘ 4 , •I
2 •i I
..• ., .• . .,
Ati ..:* or •'''' •# • ,.., -u : ‘.7.4. •,',,''.. `r,et, ,.,, ..e ' ..''• ,'-' . - r -1. ..747TIt.t
--. • •• X.. , ' '
“,, -.
e ...-• •
. • min EMS 1•111. IIMI NM MI IN INIII NM SIMI NM NM ME MN 11111 MI NM 11111
'-.4.: ' (..-7 Ore '‘ ' ; 4....-- ---. ; I NA,c>t.rri.....arrilt■ i itirii-z.10—
-- 6 ' !. \ )itt I/ 1Ca1.,�1ye�EL1srT 1 - 1 •/r I MP
f .; /JAL/. ('_. .t x*&.1 E A- ) '♦ • j,/, • I. / I a , / f .• ��� t jL,�' % - �\\4.1,on
It -` Z S \ .r , i 1 4• manJ it%
� �� -. 41*.- ,,,,k.: "/J '� 6 (!•-• o 1•�M. :a ��C-� TAT' '
. -* lino ,„/‘ _::--..\ \-,y, ....,, ,,,,, ,1 . t
•. , ' .. .-- 1 . 0 4r).1 . P.I! '.. 4,, t .... y; . -
�°% • \ 44414g.; &.�f � •74- ,- .�►' �.t v,r - a
tr--;41Ik '°".it OA--10
`v� �gpi 44.4741'
:� v lik: ,, tea. 2141
fit% 4Vit 'm' 0
• so, ,J , or .jjtp,s, -.. , i A 20 ,ig ‘AILILIri;:".• ,. t, viiii-... ... to .: .,. . , • lir
14. Y
!..-4.- lit•ite "Arial Pik 115111.1.0LI' vgg_,e0 7.A1067 -7',;••:;:*-.- •fki j .t.0 --.'z'••#6 '•,'.: 'w71111 Iiii
P.:eik, Viir Agi 116W.), ltrAW „,,Vg.W.,_‘‘..4■ .-:-.:: -. ..- * ; , - ''.-”' - •
.:- i4i1V7 .garilimak mill..- . A--. .k \---- --46-1*--1,71.---e, 4.. .... -, • .
' di 1111194 .- ,- 7 ar :"..,._ tia 1,
. .,„ . . Ch.1.1.) . , „ if, 41'..". 014.,' • i ..
: ), , ,,...... • • . gilt_,
411 tvilimallirtflt, -•4?..i.iitts\ • • . ....„ igi
"14,414 S.-C.4 i• A ' - PuerA.: . Or
ii11117.t■ . IV-N'..t .1! -- ., cvmha or,..;
-,,ti'lk1161 ) 11‘ IL,,,-- . inest-,2 „ii,„0, „Iva:A ,, ,c, ) ......,_
....1. \ iip. ,i :\ ,4:12 j !I . 2006 11,11r:
111/: . i .0
•••:IVI:irOo. 41 1 • / • re.\
--.',FA
Volkial,,iii .; i4 vi, Iv) , .,,,• ,„.,,„4" ..,
4-h t...„. As
1D) imr4110 Villirdlit allt, 0 so ......
f • • Jh. 10.
- ten® -if t♦ �• -
• �� . ∎At .r ;AS 's { .,
I 'i - -
- ‘vep%A 4504:-/ ' # 176.1k-v,4 0 NS N
Vt.-■11, A im4.11-0144, ,.
. ,„
,......*
- - t, ,,---;-,=.--0 ., .,- 11r %. 4,0r.‘ a3.41k 0:
I..• 1..1 ..z. 14,0 ...rils-k „.. , is_ ...zst . A, 1,41,).wii". 0.
,‘ • _9 . 1.r.:„.....:-.' ........ a 1.,), Os ,4,4',..itei,...14$44V , : A,,-,4 tt-0474,14, sl :. L Igor w -.4,„.6......_,...,
f---)
-▪ • --- _kl. !It .., ,,,Its>;:-.7.w tkr Atirwr rvulvaisimir •;,,‘!,,mi .4,4V..,/,_,1111.
"ft'. ■,k1 ,, 4r ja, 4 ...I 1 ,..,
-. s4.,..-4/ ., .v::.....,-. 4, ,,...\:,t4,-vilittrsiz.,, ,-471 ibis, .),1,3[3 .ps.. on la .:: •/.- .---r::. • . •
• 4-e.-: .t ,..s.,......i.z.4,---- . ....if/ ap r, ,,,,,,t-, r
,,i, / /..r pa
1:1..:.: ..,-- 1 _ . N... 11110,-,,N 47 %IF i,,;, ••:...4:.# is-, ,....73:- N. '10•1‘ ;-.;,, ..../, . .ii /- .i:.. i
:34!. . tl ::::'%:,4.1.,:: �. '' a I) �►• a; y,, • • ' ,� /�� "'\� '' ` r ` ,• w`\ t T ..... ,�., e/ .Y .i , r. �T' J I+11� X11 i is '�Sti W i '•a .. .::.3.
1 / ), ' nn Q,`/-�i i����:�i`13%yT_�.. . of /J..�=�1 �, `.� r�� �'�� , 1 . _•yr -.i ......�:r�ii. 1 L%::::0
!/N. t _ '4 �)7 ' yye+sM1"+:� ) •.i k,x
U• stleset p•tt•t •t a M : I t iii v.
—• r
Mottles il. ell is i \•a — ••
l t•
sty. Ifl•uNt•lying 1' f' 'I. _
'•c • •st•ttt•g te the ir� �'/R, t't; \ ~•! J ' •� n�
.t••a lyi•a •ettlwstetly /�� {� ,
e•rtawscsrit •cts•dwc j �1" / , y ,1 �.•1 _ t ,•� j a ;
ar j
t d▪ estmse 44 el 17
y tM NetMtlt U et - \ / 1 -i•ea ata•N test to t/e j '~ 'C E "�. !' • \` ` 1 1 t•
es aeeati/Nt ammo tsttl ` .�ttr`��•° ( I /JJJ/// \ .4 't `,�l ; . . �' +�.1 et. •aIta••ee •t !11.71 I
i'ft I .: I 1 `•` C -..?•%;I ��� ° .
r.0 la e•tede het. • 1 7 1 ?� i J r•." 4 i. . 1 �1 . . ! i/ ■
t
C. Wetlands Pies. 14-10 and 23-01 as shown in Exhibit •G•
shall be preserved in their natural state.
ID. The following shall be the maximum percentage of
allowable impervious surface: Outlot A 32%, Outlot B 30%, Outlet C 31%,
Iand Outlot D 27%.
€.1""I Z. The Developer shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per
multiple family unit and $150.00 per single family unit.
I7. Effect of Planned Vnit Development Approval. For five (5)
Y ears from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the Cityls
IComprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the
use, development, density, lot size, lot layout, or dedications of the
Idevelopment unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in
Iwriting by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding
i anything in this Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted
Iby state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedicating
Irequirements enacted after the date of this Agreement.
Is. Phased Development. The Developer shall develop the
development in eleven (11) phases in accordance with the PAW. No earth
Imoving or other development shall be done in any phase prior to approval
of final plats and development contract for the phase by the City.
I !. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Developer
represents to the City that the proposed development complies with all
Iapplicable City, County, Petropolitan, State, and Federal laws and
Iregulations, including but not limited to: Subdivision Ordinances,
Zoning Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations.
egulations. The Developer agrees
Ito comply with such laws and regulations.
I ..4- 41
,.�1 i , ;•
•• ~
b k
•' `\� ` .4_\ - 1 1 i +/tom,
. ' \ ` i J - 1 �l� :
i
`, , /' vJ ~ ;\ afi / / r
E
�� • � �� ,i ate
��.ter � �� — �� �...�. a ��, _
- \tom '���� -
.- ..a �• t ,a ,� I t o (
WWI 113■43 1§..4.4Y4S: 3114.10cSaS3XV1
• - •...... ..... - • • ,1114109.14,8.14upamenak's::*.VinkfAM4st .
' L31t011.1 3.11.1,a1140-8A.30•SnekiV sm..° ' '•••"•••"."."......•••■■•04.1111' .., ""*".""Iwo:"1" ...
.1.331/11 Sill 31111110.0111 OM/111101011411•Iis wall Oni 4i
:sr.:.\\I WI °tit lig 'Ve5010151IIP"Plr %
. "",-,..X0 I I i I i 1 I i it `I•• ,: I . .,
• ' NON i, hi; in, #4 • ,,,,,,. . ...... . ,c, ,D • 7. I . :1'. •. ...• t 1 ..' - ' •"•••"' 712. .......: •: ..•4.' • ."'• .s• Al t',...-:%.,'%.t: ..,-),%,'.,„*.s.f., ••• ,"
• . ,...--,-- ..., ., ,e)j...,:.1, e.. Oa
51 : ,-.1, /7 y• -fa' :t1;a4,.1,.d 1,: . :-r• '• , ,., iss rr , :N741T."...%. „4 . 67.. '-":- e":, •'1;1'' ';71 ( Art trtc;,..„.±-,irp•fr,rtirew..7 .. ,,;„. .;.. ,.. ••••*, .•III;,,V1.4%VeLVI,. :1-,W.':::.1-..•%.„•
1
■••....1 ., v
I- • s.••1.,,„?4....0,„,
1 i/ ■arValaiegjo, 4 .........:YK,:. 1'0. . '/INOS0.44.474c., 44,`■„,
' - ' .'",. ,..it , pan, „61.,• . , • * •••••,,,r.#., . ,„.. •• lit‘V"..• 4t,,,,VVIA
7 Z•r".77‘.../•:111.r:;172: 1W1:, %;•; .'./.4n.,,,.,:4.• '
1 .4. It• all• '1; 4 144 tik4 " 7•0.,!IR 4;!r y .,4-14,I .:-.7'''''''''',:.. 1/4.:ft.„ ',, 4 ...."P ANtliit. 4 .•
••:•••• ••-•;••••• • 1 • ...',,V 717 ,1)1:d.4 ,' , t'':'...4`... . V:" ... .. . • , : ; ' .'"Vli''' ..,.... 4,;,,,-'.:" ,%,
- .
liAlfr :4. V(.14 \ I tor'
, .,1, 1 , , . .:, :,:. ,,„;,„ :, x-...,.., .• : .zi: :.• .... • ., - 0,. vie \",Nik.i4N;sz•
/17:,,,./v‘e. r°A3y, 4:, .-.., ;;; , i• Ak , •
..: .,. , • , b , .4.;‘, J. . # P-;:. ''' ' .#.' ..•3.4fA, .t.• : ...• •••.... ',„
• ' '/ '1/1./ v'"/ 1/.jel :fe.„ -....- 0> 0%,II 1141 /P 1.1-+ f.:i. t.• :1.../".:.41,..,4,.....,.. 44::•si'#,,,f,r. st„.:...• . •:44:.•••,,"1\v_litty 110. ".., 4..N\,, .
.'•", • 1•':ri..•••..-i If__"/ ,:• 4. is.ic-„,-,—.. , a
-iie,.., •••••/.'.' P.,Li?, i 69 ti.1‘
, . .
'IV 1 ' .1" 8 ,i ,.".. ...... ; .."1. •''''..4' i itt .4 • '''' % 1
_../..-%.71.1‘,/,••=1:_,,::?„lip" c.?.-, 4010keir , ,AIM* / ) .k.s.‘•• ! Il• 1 4 ' ' •• I I : 1 14 WI Iii I . A
17.•••:::••;:j.....,4.1,: e//I' Fi V 4,4" .. P 04 ..-.: ...... .
it kV, / tti , s li I i , if i •
4.1%nt-
f;;;,-.....,.—...te,,...,....,., . , ,,p10-. . V' ilk Ilk& - A 0 ,11 • a 1. qri.. k It, P ' *r 1 • :\ 1 ' I II in s Pit is A i(V.` ,..,.
..•..•-,::.. -..,•...' ,- ;, ''.-'".•. .- ,s it I,,II.,iki , 4,■ 1.4-io : : s ; , : ..
•.:,.. „......• •,. I .07; •,,, :- 1!'..../.."," I"' 11 lig Lifht CI -I Or t / ., , I
... . '.4 7, •.) • ...• , .. 4:1,1,1 Alb z. - 14
`. I •
%.•.,::.. .........,..g/4 Al; -/ #,„4 4A1P Alk 74%,..4016, gl S..1:1......4'. toll III' I, ,. 'IV,I" . ••. 9 t;
44
,
so.%•
ii:'1!14:i 41 • ■
V .,44 --vc..,. Pi. 7."0 I 1 ii*ii- ..1 r, ••I r•- 1 „ , ,
. ,,. .,,,„ i,„, • .• , , t, sq: t,„; a fi,/,i 1,1 1 e ...t,
i t: t fil ,Jol Ir it,, 4 I 0;1 . 1'• %.s.
..1,.: ....;.,:::,.....•ell b.14 .iil 4.' 1.1 . ' 1 _Al Allikv, ..3147,15,"-- .0, . ...or 4 -, ,- ,•,.. ,,..
,vow • I - , ■ . •,.. ol, sow A o,y 4 .•...
.1. 1;114 ,.. ,V r•••••.. .;--411k (IN. „...• a,..v. A•mr, .gt: ' -,r= ,.1• • ; I , lo, ,„ ,4,,,, r,,e sit A 1 .4
'/ ;%,)••• TIP, .,. ,/ y , ,s7,.. Ary,4111411
: 4, 18 $" 0 10 1• :i. I,‘ 1%. 4.
y I I Ie. it •) 1 11 1 • Ir,...*4:•-3("4$V 40,?'•If/ .bpi !.•.44...1.:!! is '.t \ -
VI I' .j•i;, ,i• - 41 IF / ". \ ... - • ;.-•*:- N — • -W-'• •t"I'3'. -•I r
5
' I pi! Ile di: 4: si .z.‘,11i
,v., . ... -ff • I •'I •i
kt '•• #0 •e • • o , ,
.:i.r , 1,.o fr• ,*/), o..•0 .-!",
$ s',
-....., o.,.• , _ •.. Al"
-0 4.1:•.•t • 4-, ..., . , .,... , %-,,,.,.....„.,,.. .• s.,,40,.,6„..,,,„, erir4,v%ekit141 0 ' r3%;,%, 4444s,‘,.;;;Fiz.N1 ).•1 4
...1, i It\ ik., .,.,... 1 i 7.,..,1 1,, pi,..\.c,.‘,,,.,,,,, 6+04.060 caw",1403 ,;7., tte.v Bt.,. iss• LI., 1 I:•
;,-. "Mg:///p .v.f• ,
11:fr. . .; 74.4p . i- :.,•.. , _ . ip,- ,. - ,,,P,g•,,-,4t- i 1 .1
el' ,.vA• ' ,, afis 10. . --' .... .:,Ar■,... .
, . J
I' , is '■: , 11V+, , r to.b4' , : ---% i ,........:*.• .`) 1..,11 oil, ,;-,.41,4,,,,e. ;;,, o
U.:*:', 11(••• ?. I° , ./IP, ,, — •
;•• is ...1
/ - *."*.""47 •jtv,•Oakiri,?(;,/,-/.. ,/,...b /.
!. . •,
'io..1-..1•E i 1 -4 44,,,Iti#
, t, 4,1,.. 11 A--- .. --1- Oi Ili ...-- 1 - ..-- • • 1.....,,,r... •
•Ir':. I ."4. '11 . V .
AA ,I% ./% , I Nii*/ . \i
i .• I i' ...r,.."::::•_•1. 1..4,\It. k I I ••../.
-.:• 4. 1.
■■ st /. - I ■ t A?,' .. -e.1%‘$%0,1 II 0,,..•'° ' ..,
\ t:t,..:
A•„I; ...1 - • 1116. etri--.1 '',., - ,k.,..LF*41/
,- . 1 • .1/ . ....,,_> .: , ,•. : .1., ,,.. 6 1 Ai, -1 4'I;lo I o • i's
. l• \,. i •..y .11,
'''';',•• ., ) „- ,1 . I \I. - si• i - . ,..
,
•ka4f 40 i 1 i ' . '.
. ,, .•.; r %•
I . ....11/........-- Allif .. ... 1. . Yit .1" • IT i \
,0 • ./...-‘ ..- ..,- ../. Tit'y , 1,4141 i I i,d-'*-1/4. ,. ..,, •
.. IA H. .4:a -„,, ., •, . ,
.........
•, .„,....„., : 1 , 1/..:-i iik„,.....::, . o, .,;-. ...., .,,,, lip. fit, .. -7'"," ..--4.1 •
• • ,..../4 ''' •I' ■ ; 4 %Zi .
.1'4%, '4444 . •
.. k ,. o',/ -,-•-.T.:7:- oft, ("ell t : ,,i ..
•v.. • ,..• % ... .... I
,, 4.. fr....../. 100- 4A ,,' o t!,•,:‘‘
.i
, , os, •,,,, .• , .0' 'I • . . ,
, ": .......%..1:,......... ....m••■■. ....■. .....• ••■■■ ...... ow. ••■•■ •■••
I I.
, •1,. / i /,•„,,, ' \„174,,.............+........' .
:.. . J: •
/ : ,„. ,
•• Al 4,4119.
...:;, ' -7::4*/ # '"I : 1 4 If 1611 Stgil!,719 : .
,
•0;i, ' \ •,,e,. . . •'
%`‘,.."•*'.,.. ' ••■ i i : I i i 1 .....,-...-.........- -- -- .-- ----- ..-- -- •
0 l' I
S
'ell 1.0 1 . .0 . .
' 40
‘ .
04.A.6 .1 .r 1' ' ..., 1 ;'....:,..7:** . . • : t4 1A •
- 4
i . - i k .• • o4 dlit. ../ •
10171.'4 46 IC•A A ° ....;A *.. 40 1V.1/4 ...., "..-. f J 1. •
...
.f, 4.4, • ..0 ......IF i .11 l•i
7 V I
•1..,. • , , •
•/ , / :•/PI
:/. • it • .•- ' ,I.A,.0." /14.7 ',•••••••• .
It/ •
,4 • •••• : / .", ..%
-_•/• j: • \ • .• .../ . „,, .V14/7;;;;-„,.::-.• -'2,41'.....7. 'NI* Y/ I
•.•;14. u. . .witmr..„ '• lip ! - ..‘,%v
... •
... .•
, /..,°' 41.7.'''i'; ''...)/44%.•"'" ..1..:1144‘.... . Gr. b....,,ilyi 11.
A" . ... 40P ...• i i .::::...47.i.
I I 4 ' Ilit: 7/ :::;.fe...S.:: ' .•. ". ''‘IfiliffAk '/A414 ,air onsoino
1n-r----: • . . t‘ , e
14.1°,.4... . ."ee.-11:' fft.:;ti;:4'4,4::.•,:....e..f:;7'11:-4'11°411rf- '.It' '' IS, :".....,---,... , ....1,1,i ,-: 14 1r , . •
.,.... 3 , . . .
. ) • 'it.: ,•,••,..., • A s ,i
, i . , / , •,:_ , ....- .........,.... .....,•, Ir i.,, , .....
- ....,...e.. ..,1:•• .., , Akf ei,„,140. 1.,.,1 1 ‘••b. •
' f ; 1;k%. .‘ r•.•.•:::t. ' ' ..• •j11161146,44:.....;::.111 '4ii
...•••'..V ..! ;,4• .1:4- 's 7 I, •••• e'
41.ti, • 4 4 ---" .. ••-.',-
_- .•%. ,: 1141%0 I.SPOZANI ,. --•,,,,...0„ f "rgre.',.• Jih kst■' .', .4-,,... ..... .1 4 • 't ' I
.. .. - Ai, . ...... t• .
• ss.:.:74`,-*:, II v\ . li / / •i lat .1"...
i ‘
„...- •. • •
....
f I I •I
•5.,21...--,%.11, • t '.1 1 •
• ■ ''','"'"*"'''•.416.. :/.., ..e..,.; s )NiNg'‘ 41,.4111" ' / . l'•• 1• ••• ;•• • •
i I
I 1 .
4.01.irimptib.. 1 ii%
...
41 % , el •
• '
, •
4 .. ,1•.,F. CI I . ..,..41.......,If'1.,';?,' ' „7.4 .• •
• AleVigErighth:• --4116b.., % - : •/". ' .,'
... . ,•184 ■ :V.: 1. Dr••••••." ;;;;:.'4;1051 /..P.,444 I i I Ap.,.. , .i. .
,4/, - • ' o 1 ‘'... * ! • ''' ,11„ .
o , •-•
--•:',Xl■-- 1- k .,-.•",""No, --7---. -""'nfMf se..1,...)).:".!pito.' %b.. f4r ,.„, . . yir.........:ht, ." ,.. .......4 illtatellnpti" \ t . , •••/• •• •
r. ii '''Af■- sOr-Ilagigattlir.,'. ...... ,
rk' . ■....Air -' i d'' 4...di•..,, /40P.7.) 4 e 7
/. i I ' / ,• •
/ ,..., •
i • ./....., ..c
• ••••' . .:r";41:77.°' '41*.:.t"'..'.. i
4 „.........
!gii ...."- ".411.7w)A4: ... ' . f.' '•■• ...:Ii/aA.' -. /1 if, • . • -2-...---.1. '''Zi- ' e
--"•:•; .,I Ili /. ...--,; :-,-;'"..igtitibili., .' fil• , /•• / • i . ,• a AI• ■ ••• 1 ...tr:. ..../-• .
T \ GI (.i. lippr, ••1/ : . '-'11 '''''
...4.140' / , •
.,. Ai._ 1„ •„., . ,. 4,Vet,,vw-,..1 r thriatleilio
o I oi t
, •s • t i
4 ,
i____... . , •,, . se 4:1,1 :g.: _ 4iiiMmi41114111 :, / i 61 . A' • e.-
, ,...- ...;._„/ ....."...
V ••
71 rillir
•Irr,r1 I 1 4:
. 11‘
` rilir--sr(041„,e • . i 0;1,p / 0., taw. --
•.. .
, , \ , .. •r,
• . ,
, %, ■ ■t -\ ..., %. r i, .• • ,... ...,•-• .0, . ,AIIII, L....,51. Cal...., 4 , .
... . .. : 7-.ae . o, 4 1 1 1, .4.. ;°' IN.
'4 1 IL \ .
' '• -•
•: Viraa.Ill .• • I ..' MI
.1•-■ ' ,i .1 ' %%11.1111 / ' I
: • '
"P ' •Itt,ivrit•
I
a r
t high density multiple family residential property shall not exceed 375, I
or a density greater than 17.4 units per acre. *xcept as modified
herein, the development of the high density multiple family residential I
shall be in accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the
R-12 Zoning District. - '
C. Multiple Family (Mixed Medium Density Residential) . The I
development shall provide a minimum of 23.6 acres of mixed medium
density residential units. The total number of dwelling units of mixed I
medium density residential property shall not exceed 221, or a density
greater than 9.3 units per acre. Except as modified herein, the '
development of the mixed medium density residential shall be in I
accordance with the uses, standards, and requirements of the R-8 Zoning
District. I
( 4. Parks. The Developer shall dedicate to the City Outlet P
(18.1 acres) , Outlet G (9.8 acres) , Outlet R (3.9 acres) , and Outlet E. I
A credit of 6.7 acres for park dedication will be given for Outlet E.
Unless otherwise required by the City, conveyances of the Pa rk land
shall be made when the final plat, wherein a park is located, is signed I
.
by the City. The land shall be platted as Outlots and transferred to the
City by warranty deed. The Developer, at its sole cost, shall grade the I
land for the City in accordance with a timetable and plans to be
furnished by the City. The Developer shall be given a credit of 50% of
the park fee per dwelling unit in the plat for the conveyance of the
above described land to the City. The balance of the park dedication
fees shall be paid in cash in an amount and at the time required by City I
ordinance and policies in effect when final plats are approved.
( I
kt IV
I
-2-
I
Ir • •• . •
•
s . )
5. Trail and Bidew►alk Development. The Developer shall
1- dedicate trails and sidewalks throughout the Development to the
g � City as
Iindicated on the Comprehensive Trail Plan. This dedication satisfies the
City's trail dedication fee requirements. Trails shall be completed at
Ithe time street improvements are constructed in the phase where the
trails and sidewalks or portions thereof are located. The Developer
Ishall construct the following trails and sidewalks:
I (1) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous trail along the vest
side of Lake Susan.
I (2) . Eight (8) foot wide bituminous off-street trail along
the east side of Audobon Road; and an eight (8) foot
wide bituminous off-street trail along the east side
of Powers Boulevard.
(3) . Five (5) foot wide concrete off-street trail-sidewalk
along one side of all internal streets except cul-
de-sacs when the streets are constructed.
(4) . Twenty (20) foot wide bituminous off-street trail .
li easement on the vest side of Powers Boulevard. This
trail segment shall only be constructed if ordered by
the City Council. If ordered, the Developer will
convey the easement to the City without cost, but the
I City will pay for the construction. Construction
timing will be at the discretion of the City Council.
. 6. Additional Conditions of Approval.
A. The Developer shall provide buffer areas, acceptable to
the City, between multiple family and single family areas to assure
adequate transition between uses, including use of beans, landscaping,
Iand setbacks from lot lines.
ID. The Developer shall not damage or remove any trees
except as indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved
by the City and submitted with each plat. Trees shall be protected from
destruction by snow fences, flagging, staking, or other similar means
1 during grading and construction.
.
I _3-
y f • .. '
i • 0 . . i
°- 1 - I
I.
a s +nod
ig
• . _1
w
0 a z��
t� � ..... PET R.
�t , ,
. I _-_- ____ 10,-.=---.-. -.----v,- , -----,.jis - ..4.‘if
1 ----, --_.=1•1 =-t --,,....mveroll- MI p112.1..-,- .....4.. , -0‘ =
1 - "":4-1 � t . . _ r �; 4 om. _ - __ _ ? ,
:jig...- 1( Irk-WOMPIref 1-: & -11111` 24147.■14;;;: , .t$ -sq*'`'... 4,4_,..:,,,,,,,,, Ws!, L.
-.0Ptiir Atli
,e)N\ ire, ,p _.. .,---'1111/ j1441,1 , , 4 .•.
S . !It . 1 ' t:\VtilitAV-414‘7t N4 % .. -- P
d \ \,-,:- _ •107----,-.---,;-:...- roti..... _ \‘‘, il ri, \ ■11,49Alti, `r ---"° -s--_ Q
le , . \ isilaw„...:1%-_,:ar ,,y,.....r.e,-4.pk,:. Nip ay, \\„‘„Givomv
?At *s. -_-_.0164,147-.ftis,in ,14... k,,,I. 4 ,:•,,. A,„ 44:1\ --0---=.4 Irv:.--1:° ,
3 ° • ' �' - ayal,,, 7 4‘..V.\ j P J !l `� �c
i ktilKilaCj•
, 1 n .111 ?
,---. • ,i . V'1 -
A -.1i.-,z,--4,i; „.\. ,4:,,,,„ -,■,;„/,/ ._
i iii 0,. 2,,,tit. .irrt_... ..- ,,,,:.,_t,:_„:‘,‘,0„,_, %,. - v kairri,
-�.�"'1 x-...,_,.........., . ,..),. 0,,,,„..„ joie,4„.,„0, N. ,
, , Pt i Marla ezi". ••••., 4%. iris% . ....• .. . .,„' -, ...-
3/4-- 1,;--„,,--z .jtatal ' ,4, , -‘, ‘.‘ , ‘ ,„,,,,...4,,,, _ .
ra "4 -41.7- //- 1 $ lilt ,k , 4. /,/;- -x-b.
41-iii.,4;;V:N-,,,--N',...,,H,\ ..,..;$44-.0.--4.drit-,..,.: „ifs::"........3------. "7,,,„,----------;. t
, , . , 506 .1.10,- 7
,c---- f ik,'J., I ivatz.-- __ X--c-.-„,..._‘; __..___--- 4,-,--------. ,1 !.
CP ,: . ... _ _A.,. . ..,_----___1.,_ Vs-N1,. flipprammil- ser— 0
Oinnest I L0051010 WI .
i= _ r' ��` 6 `mow�`0..,.$t 41(
ti-. 16,.Fik 75"larir-.1---a 'MM. •=1"S‘ kip. N.*,•;•1
111■11111. ri \,'11" it IC..•-•-•-Craw.-wAl I- -k-an V
/ r ' ,iii 44' ..;
,k - Nitir :""i"..-Altiliii3 t
it p•itip A zp,
I ii
•-••••Li,a1:. 11/ "ne iteliPA*
ago
in
.. /.>.?,,, 4"N`FIAAL*5;tatikt:
■-. t . , i . i N...............7.... \''‘'.\\:".\ 4,
1 I 1
• 1
K.,...\........... ...._
i
;3 ,
t
113 • . .
a
1
ASPHALT COMPANY
I
May 29, 1990
I
City of Chanhassen
\\ ATTN: Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: CHANHASSEN PLANNING
COMMISION PUBLIC HEARING
Scheduled date of June 6, 1990
Dear Ms. Olsen: •
Due to a prior commitment I am unable to attend the above referenced hearing.
However, I would like to express my opinion on this matter.
II am strongly opposed to the number (159) of units proposed for 63.7 acres of
land. This only allows for approximately a of an acre per lot after street
construction. I recently purchased my home at 1380 Oakside Circle for the
privacy factor in a country style setting. This is possible due to the fact
that all of my neighbors are set on 21 acres or more also.
I propose this same situation for Argus Development. Build a better class of
I homes with ample acreage. This would be more adaptable for the existing homes
and topography, and still allow for expansion in this area.
1 I would like to add that I am very proud of my new residency in Chanhassen. I
feel as though it is a "best kept secret" as far as location and setting. I
only hope the area remains natural and is based on quality living rather then
quantity.
Thank you for your time.
dially,
- W +619.
I Daniel Da fenbach MAY 30 1990
Vice President
Resident of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PSP EME"
10939 89TH AVENUE NORTH, MAPLE GROVE, MN. 55369 (612)424-2100 FAX(612)424-6896 PV
•ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONTRACTORS•
I ND DEVBIAP!®,* APPLICATION - I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
-A 390 Coulter Drive
- Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
1612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: PleT4s Developw0*3 !tic,. MINER: At,quS btk.Tt .a41, 114,4,
ADDRESS t 9133 (oolap Ave. So, cl I
-ADDRESS Se�� .
Far r►-►'svtio„►,Ma 5 s024-
I
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime) 4I-7 of TELEPHONE
'
REQUEST:
�'S t' 117.1.
I
Zoning District Change ✓ Planned Unit Development
Zoning Appeal
Sketch Plan
te Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan I
Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision
• Land Use Plan Amendment _ Platting I
Metes and Sounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation I
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Lakes Ste, .,li5 L "-�uD A w�2w�'mem - II
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION S', 43*. 01 Res. 4 per,,
R
II
EQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Ste_
PRESENT ZONING P OD R I
REQUESTED ZONING Sa fte.
USES PROPOSED S', Le. Fain li tLes . E G74 pa,ek. I
SIZE OF PROPERTY V2• S 61 ^CK•S
LOCATION SoL,tt Cr(' 1.414.S4s2ti kills, lid St4
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST We. Peel +AL. ex:.sil a fret ea POD LU
h0`E aeS� 16ka.e if Stic ule) kle-_
II
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
II
A?t1;0614 reel s = el.SO at. x it IS°D = it 1,237. S I I
300 . 60
. 4 I x37.51
t
4� CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' JUNE 6, 1990
Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Annette Ellson, Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth
and Joan Ahrens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Steve Emmings
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner One; Gary Warren , City Engineer ,
Mark Koegler , Consultant and Charles Folch, Asst . Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
' PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 159 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 63.7 ACRES OF
PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF POWERS BOULEVARD (CO.
RD. 17), JUST SOUTH OF THE EXISTING LAKE SUSAN HILLS 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS.
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Vice Chairman Erhart called the
public hearing to order .
Brian Olson: My name is Brian Olson and I 'm with Argus Development , the
developer on this project . Argus Development is owned by Joe Miller . He
also owns Joe Miller Homes . We 'll be the only builder in this subdivision .
I had 'a few things to go over on the conditions of approval . I think I 'll
just pretty much all the conditions are basically okay . I would just like
to be able to work out a couple of the issues with the engineering
' department on a staff level . If there 's anything in particular it 's the ,
I guess it 's condition 9 on the staff report . It has to do with the
ponding area . If you would like , I 'd like to give my own presentation
about the ponding area . Do you have that one transparency? This diagram 's
I a little misleading . What you see there as far as the dark area , that is
what is going to be a wet pond at all times . What you see as a shaded area
is a 100 year flood level elevation of the pond. This pond has to be
located in this part of the site and it was also approved in that location
as a part of the original PUD . Now the reason is is 3/4 of the storm water
drainage from this new development is heading to this area and this is the
lowest part of the site and the wateshe.d district is going to require a
I sedimentation pond in this area . We had quite a bit of discussion of this
at Park where the staff would like to see the pond moved to the northern
part of this additional park area but I think it was pretty much consensus
at the Park 's commission meeting that it was okay where it was unless
certain things were met and that was with the trailways that are going
around that area . Just so they were always out of the 100 year flood area .
Now the ponding area , you can really design that to be any kind of
configuration , especially the 100 year flood area. I think you 'd want your
wet pond to have more of a natural outline to it, around it but a 100 year
flood you could have it really any; kind of odd shape . It 's only going to
happen perhaps once in a 100 years so we can design this so it will fit in
just right with the trails and make all the grades to work out and I really
don 't think you 'd want to have a pond on the north part of the site anyway .
I They are not really bad soils there . There are some organics and there 's a
high water table which limits for building construction but now that 'd be
just perfect for some park use and it's also one of your few flat areas ,
that you have for your park uses there . And as a matter of fact , if we
AW
Planning Commission Meeting
;�- June 6, 1990 - Page 2
were allowed to have additional single family lots as part of this PUD, we I
would have single family lots in that area . But since we were limited , we
just chose to take the most prohibitive for footings and road construction
and keep them out of that area because it is costly to correct it for that
area . So that's one thing that we would like to see happen here is to keep
the pond where it 's at with some slight modifications to the configuration
just to staff recommendation on it . The other thing was about the street I
grades . Apparently you have a city ordinance that states that you cannot
have street grades over 7% in slope and we're showing 3 areas of 8% slope .
Those areas are right here adjacent to the pond and just to the west of the "
County Road through this location and a little bit in here. We would like
to still see it at the 8% slope . Really what it means is a difference
between an 8% and a 7% slope would be 1 foot of height and 100 feet which
when you add up 1 ,000 feet , you know that 's 10 feet and really what we 'd
have to do here to keep these grades to meet the standard of City
ordinance , we 'd have to take off another 10 feet off the whole top of that
site and we 're talking over quite a few lots . Right now we're a little I
long on dirt the way it is and I also heard from the County yesterday and
they are now renigging on part of their agreement to us to take 110 ,000
yards of dirt . They want to move it back to 80,000 yards so we have a lot
of dirt out here . We 've got to put it somewhere so if you 're going to
require the 8% , we 're going to have to take off another 10 feet off the
top. It just is going to prohibit the development . So that 's one thing
that we would like to be able to at least work that out with staff and I I
guess if they 're convinced about it , we would prefer to keep it at the 8% .
Other cities allow up to about a 10% grade and I think the real concern on
this minimum street grade is when , especially when you have a dead end
street so like in the winter if you can 't get up the grade , at least you'd '
have another access point out and in this location they could always , well
it just wouldn 't happen at a 7% or 8% but if they had a 10% , you could II always turn around if .there 's ice in the road and just go back the way you
came but with a 7% slope , you won't have that problem . I think that was
pretty much it from the conditions on the report here . I 'd like to just
point out again that we are just gifting almost a 4 acre additional land toll
the City for park . We didn't have to do that . There 's advantages to us to
do that . We can get some more park lots you know around' it but that area
that we're proposing to give to the City I think is going to be one of your
more heavily used areas because it's the most centrally located area of the,
park that you're going to have in this location. We have quite a few
access points to that park area and they are shown as actual deeded
property to be given and not easements which is mentioned in here . But I II
think that 's pretty much it that I have.
Erhart: Brian can I ask, while you're up there, can I ask you a question . II
The 4 acres that you're referring to , was this above the PUD development
plan? Is that acres above and beyond what the original PUD development
plan called for?
? Brian Olson: It 's not quite 4 acres but 3 something .
Krauss: But it 's a matter of what are the acres and what 's their utility . I
It's not just cursory .
t
ill ... __ ___ __ ...
Planning Commission Meeting
=` June 6, 1990 - Page 3
IErhart: So it includes some of the pond and the drainage area? Okay .
IIBrian Olson: Well the pond was always shown to be in that area and that 's
exactly the same area that was shown on the original park as part of the
PUD . So what we 're gifting to the City is area that was never proposed to
have a pond .
IErhart: Okay. Does any other commissioners have any specific questions
for Mr . Olson at this time?
IWildermuth: Are you planning any trails connecting the north part of the
park with the south part of the park through that 100 year flood plain?
IBrian Olson: That 's up to the City . As part of the PUD agreement on this
project , the developer 's not required to do any of the construction of the
pathways and that is up to the parks commission and the Council if they
II chose to have some of the trails in there . We are assuming they are and
we're going to grade the park to fulfill that need and it is up to the City
to determine what they want in their park areas because again we 've got to
Irough grade these park areas . That will be done this year so .
Wildermuth: Can you talk about that Paul or Jo Ann? On the park and rec .
ilOlsen: Whether or not there are going to be trails within the park?
Wildermuth: No , connecting the north and south part of the park .
IIOlsen: Well that 's one of the things that we 're , if that pond does stay
there , one of the only ways that we would allow it to remain in that area
I would be that there would be trails or berming around the ponds so that
people would have access , dry access . So that 's one of the options we
could look at .
I Brian Olson: As a matter of fact , we are showing a park access right off
the part of the property here . The other park access is right in here and
right in this location. We are assuming there are going to be trails
Ithrough here but we will bring it in. . .
Erhart: Okay , we'll get back to you if there's any other questions then
' when we get into the discussion. Charles, did you want to respond at all
at this point to the points about the pond?
Charles Folch: Sure . I guess our only concern, I did not prepare this
I report however I 've reviewed it and am in pretty much agreement with it .
Our only concern I guess is before we get to the final process here is
initially it looked like at the second stage where the pond was located to
I the north , that it was much larger than what it is now and I guess we would
like to , when we get to the final stage process , at least see the
calculations that are involved to make sure_ that if we do accept the
II southerly location that it is adequate for that 100 year storm capability .
So that 's primarily what we're concerned about is just to make sure we get
the calculations to take a look at and review that before final approval .
As far as the street grades , I know there was one area in specific that I
1
IL
Planning Commission Meeting
f- June 6 , 1990 - Page 4
•
believe we could make adjustments to the 8% grade. I think that 's
something we can maybe work out . At least we 'd like to see another look
take in that, the layout and see if we can make at least some adjustments
if possible to the vertical grades so that's the only comments I have . If
you have any questions.
Erhart: Okay. Which condition was the grades referred to in? Jo Ann, do II
you remember?
Ellson: Oh I do. It's 21 . ,
Erhart: Okay , is there any other comment from the public? Comments from
the public at this time . ,
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: Alright , why don 't we start with Annette. Do you have some
questions on the proposal or comments?
Ellson: Can you review again for me how you're going to make sure that the
decks are going to be big enough and that the problem of the people
starting to make them and requiring variances. '
Olsen: What we do right now is when we get a building permit we look at
the elevation to see if there's a patio door and if there is then we check
to see if there 's still you know depth in the back yard or side yard to be
able to have that deck , like a 10 x 12 size . But that still isn 't catching
all of them . I mean what 's happening is that by the time it gets to that
stage it's almost too late so what we 're trying to do is to have them show
that if there is that patio door , to have them even be showing a deck on
the plan. At that time to be showing so we can see whether or not the deck
really would fit . So the builder would have to add onto the survey the
deck. So it can be shown that yeah ; it will meet it . We're hoping that
will just add one more step to it and make it a little bit easier to catch
because when you get a lot size 12,000 square feet and they're still
building pretty good sized homes on them, it's always looking at a
variance.
Ellson: We didn't run into any problems with the Public Safety and I just I
felt like that one road is awful long. It winds into a lot of different
cul-de-sacs and things like that . We've had problems in the past where a
really long cul-de-sac isn't recommended and this is a long cul-de-sac.
And I didn't get that comment like I 've seen kind of consistently before .
Olsen: No , you didn't get it this time. What 's happening is, let me see
if I can show the phases . This is Phase 1 . Right here you have Phase 2 . II
So again you have that connection . Is this the cul-de-sac you 're talking
about?
Ellson: Yeah . ,
Olsen: So that when this comes , the 3rd phase and this is developed, it
4
I
Planning Commission Meeting
1/
June 6, 1990 - Page 5
I . .
will have that access out of there. It won't be a long cul-de-sac . So
it 's 1 , 2 , 3 . I think the presentation by the developer or builder makes a
I good point on number 9 , which by the way we have two number 9's. But I
understand the City 's position of if it's not big enough but I think if
that 's the lowest point and everything like that, logic would tell us that
U with good planning would put the pond in the lowest location and keep it
there so I could see subject to review by our engineering and allowing him
to keep that pond where it is . And again , that 1% grade difference I also
could see changing that pending another review by our engineer and I don't
II know that I have the authority or even the knowledge to know what a 1%
difference is . I don't think it should be done because they have to take
out a lot of dirt and they don 't know what to do with it now that it 's more
I dirt but if it 's from a safety standpoint or something and it isn 't any
less safe , then I would do it .
' Krauss: If I could add, the 7% standard is a fairly common one in many
communities and it 's based on safety . We have varied that on several
occasions but the only time we 've varied it is because we 're trying to save
trees or fit in a road in a very difficult place to put it in . That 's not
I the case here . This is wide open area and there's really no clear reason
why we should deviate from the standard and it would take a variance to do
that .
IIEllson: Good point . Those are the only comments that •I have . Otherwise I
think it looks pretty clean .
IErhart: Okay , Brian?
Batzli : On condition 1 , the signage stating it's a temporary cul-de-sac?
IHave we ever done that before?
Olsen: Yes , we have . Well we 've had the barriers or paving up to the lot
IIline to make it look like it 's going to continue .
Krauss: It 's the culmination of many years of banging our heads against
the wall and getting streets connected that were supposed to but people
I moved in after the fact and claimed that they never knew it was supposed to
be extended .
I Batzli : This is just kind of near to my heart because I did this and there
wasn't a sign on it .
IElison: You bring it up every time .
Krauss: We actually did it on Vineland Forest which you didn't do because
it was at the City Council for so long because of the road issues but it 's
IIin the conditions for Vineland Forest .
( Olsen: And we 're starting to make it as a condition all the time .
IIBatzli: On condition 4 . When you're going to pull tha cul-de-sac , pull it
back . I mean close to the road , isn't that going to really affect the
square footage of Lots 10 and 15 by doing that? Aren't they going to have
, '
a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 - Page 6
that whole redo tha w o there?
to totally h southern end there.
Olsen: Well we were thinking, assuming that they'd probably lose one lot
by doing that .
Erhart: Yeah, I think you'd want to respond to that.
Brian Olson: Well this is a designer on it . I think there 's room to move II
it. This is just the preliminary plat and we'll be looking at some
modifications in there. I think I would like to just kind of run that by
staff and see how we can get that to work out. I don't have any problem
with that.
Batzli : Okay . And I heard something about earlier you were talking about II
platting and designating the park plan as an outlot and dedicating it .
What was your comment on that again? Have you already done that?
Brian Olson: No . That 's what we would be doing through the platting '
process here . We would prefer to do it as we do each phase instead of just
giving all the parkland up front right away because when we come through •
with every final plat , see we're going to have to guarantee that 50e of
these lots and things go over the 15,000 square feet and I would prefer to
give the parkland up in chunks as we go along here .
Batzli : So the parkland that we 're discussing now is the one for instance
between Blocks 5 and 6 and south? You don't want to do that right away .
You want to do that as these are. '
Brian Olson: I would prefer not to maybe do it right now and I can for
sure guarantee it by spring of next year because that 's by the time we'd be
platting out the next phase but if it 's the commission's wish to do it now
we will . It just creates more inconvenience for us as far as computing our
final plat .
Olsen: That was also a condition of the PUD that as the lots are developed,
around the parkland , that they would be platting that parkland as a part of
that plat and this was again, with the Park and Rec Commission, they wanted"
it to be platted at this time. .
Batzli : At the preliminary plat?
Olsen: At this first phase.
Brian Olson: I don't think I understood the whole park though. It would II
be just that new area?
Olsen: The most northern part wasn't really going to be used for active
parkland. That was just kind of like an open space that was going to be
provided ..
Batzli : On the first condition 9 I" guess I agree with Annette and I 'd word,
it the applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering approval
demonstrating that the ponding areas proposed between Block 5 and 6 within
the parkland meets 100 year storm requirements . Something like that if
Planning Commission Meeting
•
June 6, 1990 - Page 7
that would be okay for our City Engineer here . I liked the part about the
patio doors going in . And the 7%, did we recently give a variance on Near
' Mountain for the grades? What's the difference between that and this?
Olsen: They had a lot of vegetation that we -trying to preserve with that
one and that one you didn't really have much, you're talking 10% was about
as low as they could go .
Batzli : Without bringing in hundreds of thousands of yards of fill .
' Wildermuth: Taking the top of the mountain off.
' Batzli : Yeah. But how can we justify not doing that here? What 's our
rationale?
Olsen: As Paul said , it 's really kind of a plowed field right now . He 's
got a lot of room to work with to adjust that .
Ellson: It doesn 't have vegetation like the other one does .
' Olsen: It can be met I guess is the reason .
' Brian Olson: There are spotted areas of vegetation out there and there are
vegetations even in the parkland that we 're going to be dedicating , the
additional area but as far as the grading plan that we show right now , we
do have some undisturbed areas along the slopes and if we have to comply
with the 7% maximum on the street grades, it 's going to be totally altered .
There 's just no getting around it .
' Batzli : I guess usually when we look for variances we look for a hardship
and if in fact it is just a matter of grading some additional land and
we 're not trying to save some significant features , I guess I don 't see the
hardship . Those are my comments .
Wildermuth: I agree . In the absence of a compelling reason for a
variance , I think the 7% maximum grade has to be met . Do you have any
I problem Mr . Olson with number 17? Where the intersections meet. Providing
that landing .
II Brian Olson: Yeah , we did discuss that before the meeting I did with my
engineer and 200 feet , we felt it was excessive. This all gets back to
this grade now again. If you look at the overall plan, we are connecting
' into the county road there on the very southern part and you'll notice that
we start to climb up the hill and with the number of street connections
there and if we stick to a 200 foot minimum distance with a very shallow
grade , that just means I can't be steepening it up at all . Again, it's
II really going to prevent us from really having a logical development out
there as far as the grading . How it 's going to be looking and things .
( We 're going to have to knock off the whole top there . It 's either that or
I we propose not even to have an access point out to the county road in that
location because with the conditions there and I would think a good
hardship too is just the case of there's too much dirt. That is a
hardship . That's part of the natural conditions out there in that
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 - Page 8
property. You know you have a number of different things you can be
looking at . You 've got ponding vegetation and what about the earth .
There 's just too much earth there . And now the problem that I have with
the County you know , the County's starting to renig on their agreement and
we're going to have a real problem out there and it's just going to cost us,
thousands of dollars. I wouldn't doubt it , if we have to haul it off, you
know we're going to have to throw in probably another couple grand per lot
or something and the homeowner 's going to pay for it and I 'm trying to
prevent the homeowner from having to pay for it .
Batzli: We 're of course not the final arbitrater on that but if there is all
true hardship, then I think you really need to bring in some evidence to
convince the City Council .
Brian Olson: I 'll be glad to deal with that issue specifically with the
engineering staff and the City. I could show all that .
Wildermuth: It looks like a condition that at this point we ought to keep
in . The only other thing that I would like to see is on the first number 9
I 'd like to see north/south trails connecting the upper and lower portion
of the parks on either side of that ponding area . Not just one trail on ,
one side .
Olsen: Within the park area you 're saying?
Wildermuth: Yeah . To a north/south trail on either side of the pond .
Olsen: And is that for the developer to do? I
Wildermuth: Right . The developer to do if the pond remains as they
request .
Batzli : Grade for them or actually install them?
Wildermuth: Install them . I guess then in summary, I wish there was ,
something to do or something that the developer could do to enhance the
appearance of this development . I don 't get a good feeling when I drive
through it . I
Brian Olson: I 'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
Wildermuth: I said I wish there was something that could be done to
enhance the appearance of the development . I don't get a good feeling when
I drive through that development . I don't know, it might be planting more
trees or doing some additional landscaping but at this point it doesn't
appear as a very attractive development.
Brian Olson: Right now we 're having a lot of problems with the streets
right now . They didn't get in last year and . . .so we went through a winter
season here not having blacktop and with the rains this year . . .replacement
of curbs and also we 're having a problem getting the paving done . The
pavement will be going in within a week and a half . I
ir
Planning Commission Meeting
ttJune 6, 1990 - Page 9
0
Wildermuth: That will probably be a big help . That 's all I have .
Erhart: Okay , Joan do you have something for us?
Ahrens: I just had one comment and I 'll address this to the developer 's
representative . I 'm sorry, Brian? Number 8 refers to the access points to
the park . That 's going between the single family lots and it struck me
when I was listening to the discussion about the decks and whether or not
' people could get through the lots . That there are going to be problems
with the decks and size of the structures on the lots and I was wondering
what you were planning. It says that the staff is recommending that the
' access points either be paved or a sign put up that they're public access
points. What do you plan on doing with that?
' Brian Olson: I don't know right now. I would assume that we would
probably have to sign them then. I don 't know the exact purpose of this
here though . Why that is even in there . I don't know if it 's to warn .
' Erhart: Excuse me . I think that might be a mistype . Is it? Is there a
typo there? On number 8 because I had it circled here . It says either
paved and or signed . You 're talking about 2 different things there I think
' aren 't we?
Olsen: It has to be paved and signed . Both.
Ahrens: I was picturing this little sign sticking up out of the ground
saying you can walk through here if you want if you can make it under the
deck .
Olsen: Again, we just wanted to be clear that that 's public property and
public access .
' Ahrens: So it is going to be paved and signed?
Brian Olson: By the City .
' Ahrens: I don 't think they think that .
Erhart: Well you still have the word either in there too . It's real
confusing I think ;
Batzli: Take out the either then. Shall be paved and signed.
Ahrens: Paul was shaking his head no. He doesn't. . .
Krauss: Yeah, we had the intent that it be installed by the developer run
past the houses and it 's a very clear reason for it is that park
development typically lags the development of homes and there are just
innumerable examples of these things being platted and nobody knowing that
they 're there and people feeling very possessive that their property
extends to the neighbor 's property line and they get upset when people 'are
' walking on what really is public property. The only way we know to hit
that head on is to require the posting of a sign and the paving of it at
least up past the property line .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 - Page 10
Brian Olson: Okay , that was never my understanding on it . We are paying II
park dedication fees out here and we are also just gifting to the City
almost a 4 acre park . It seems like some of these conditions are up and II
above even the original PUD and it seems like I 'm just kind of being taken III
advantage of here just because I 'm a developer in the city.
Ahrens: It 's great that you're dedicating all that parkland but I think II
what we want to make sure is that people have access to it . Lots of times
like what Paul said, people don't feel comfortable or people don't want
them walking between their houses if there's not a clearly marked pathway
to get there .
Brian Olson: That should come out of the park funds . We are paying park
dedication fees . And that was the understanding of the whole PUD
agreement .
Erhart: Jo Ann, was number 8 , was that a recommendation of the Park and II
Rec Commission? Was that something we added?
Olsen: It was one that we added. I
Brian Olson: I might add it was also the understanding at the parks
commission that we are not building any trails in here . We are building
sidewalks along the development but no trails in the development .
Ahrens: We 've required that before for other developers haven't you?
Access to the parks through paved trails along side people? I
Olsen: What was that?
Ahrens: You 've required that type of pathway before haven't you in '
developments?
Olsen: In the parks itself? 1
Ahrens: In the parks .
Olsen: Yeah, we've never required them to be paved. This is you know
again we 've had problems with that and now we're learning from our mistakes
before so we do want that to be definite. If you want we can have the , I
can discuss it with the Park department and the park Commission to see if
they do want to just use the trail fees for that. For the paving of the
access points . As far as the trail within the park, I think what we 're
referring to is around that ponding area because that ponding area is going"
to be cutting off access and we want that to be preserved so I do think
that that is above and beyond just your basic trail within a park . That
that is the developer 's responsibility. '
Brian Olson: Again, that 's contradicting the Parks Commission. We had a
very detailed discussion about this and that ponding area is not going to
be in the trails . We 're also talking even a 100 year flood elevation or
that the trail , we 're not even going to have that in the 100 year flood ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
IFJune 6, 1990 - Page 11
none of the trails and even if it was, it might be one day in a 100- years
so we worked it out with the Parks Commission that we are going to go in
and grade those areas and ensure that those trails will not be in there .
But there was never anything about building the trails so now suddenly
these conditions are coming on even after the parks commission so.
' Erhart: Anything else Joan? Okay . Item number 1 where you state that the
turn around will meet City standards . Does that mean that they're actually
going to put like a 60 foot diameter cul-de-sac , asphalted? Is it 42? Is
that the standard now with curb? Okay. So what's the reason for the
Ibarricade? So they don't drive over the curb?
Olsen: Or to put the sign on.
' Krauss: Just to notify people that that is not a permanent cul-de-sac .
It 's a temporary one .
Erhart: Okay , the rest of the street 's curbed and so the cul-de-sac 's not
going to be curbed . Okay, so it won 't have a curb or a ditch so there will
be nothing to keep people from just driving right on through so that 's the
purpose for the barricade?
Charles Foich: That 's correct .
Erhart : And when do you plan , someone else owns that property right? The
next property to the west is somebody . Argus doesn't own that do they?
:' Brian Olson: No . What we have here is just . . .on the proposal and we were
required to show a street going out to the west property . . . It just makes
sense to do it .
Erhart: What 's more costly? Putting a curb in that cul-de-sac now or the
barricade?
Brian Olson: You mean a curb around the cul-de-sac?
Erhart: Yeah .
IIBrian Olson: Putting that in .
' Erhart: Okay . Number 2 for the record, we actually had a builder that
built houses in the city where they put a sliding glass door which was
. intended for a deck and then the deck couldn't be built within the
buildable area? Who was the builder?
Krauss: More than one .
Erhart: More than one? Who were the builders?
Olsen: Well we had a lot up in Chan Vista and some in Hidden Valley . I
I mean it 's been , you can pretty much pick and choose any subdivision it 's
happened .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 - Page 12 1
Krauss: PUD subdivisions. I
Olsen: With the smaller lots .
Erhart: Is it an interpretation that somebody wanted to put a 16 foot deck
and couldn't meet the buildable area or they didn't even have 8 feet?
Krauss: There wasn't room for a 10 foot deck . _ I
Olsen: And in some even 8, 6. 1 mean some could only get the little .
Erhart: Boy that's kind of incredible so I encourage you to come up with II
any way that we can prevent that. I think that's pretty nuts. Regarding
the pond, I pretty much agree I think with Annette and I think Brian
expressed it . There 's some technical things here that I don't think we
have the drawings and the details to really make a strong recommendation II
and so I 'd like to see the thing be recommended that engineering work with
the developer on this thing but just for my comments , I 'd almost like to
see if the pond isn 't in the north, it 's probably just fine where it is but,
maybe it should be moved to one side or the other . What I 'm concerned
about if the water does go up , what you 're going to do is force people to
constantly be walking next to somebody 's back yard where in fact it may II
out a little bit better if you look at it , to move it to one side or
{ the other and encourage people to stay in the middle in the park . Or make
it longer and whatever so I don't , without more details I don 't think we II
can get into that detailed discussion . So whoever makes the proposal may ill
want to look at that condition . The 8% grade, somewhat I think the same
thing . I 'm a little curious , how much time have you talked about these
grades prior to this meeting?
Brian Olson: There has been very little conversations with staff . It's
just a matter of us getting the report and having the time to respond .
Erhart: Right . So my sense is that there 's some flexibility to work with
engineering . I mean I can see on one token where you're coming off this I
the collector . We certainly want that access point and you're limited to
what you can do. The hill exists and it's a long hill . On the other hand ,
your comment about having to take down hills to meet the 7% which you II didn 't include the fact that you can also fill in areas you know to bring
the road, slope down to a 7%. So again, I don't know how we worded the
condition to give us a little bit of flexibility but I 'd like to see us
work with engineering on it again. Item number 8, my feeling of that is .
Condition number 8 where we're requiring them to pave the access points .
My sense is that it 's a great idea but I think we've delved into, my
interpretation of it says it will be delved into starting to develop the 11
park. I think we may be imparting too many requirements on a developer
there . I propose that that one be removed and the reason is, once you
start with paving that I mean where do you stop? Why don't we have them
( put in the trails and so forth . My feeling was that at the park meeting II
was ,that they were asked and they agreed to do the initial grading but that
the actual improvements were to be done. by the City .
Olsen: Again this wasn't really considered, we weren't looking at it as 1
starting to develop trails . It 's more to . . .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6 , 1990 - Page 13
Erhart: I think you 've identified it definitely as a problem and I just
' don't feel that the developer is the guy who should have to pay for that .
Olsen: So how would you do it? Just signage?
Erhart: Well to me it's, the park has to do that . To me that's the park .
' Ellson: Well if they're saying the people who buy it and they said well I
never knew there was supposed to be an access through my thing and maybe
even put a fence up and stuff.
Brian Olson: They know .
Krauss: No they don 't .
Ellson: No , we 've had the history and it's showing that they don't and
that they've been misrepresented .
Erhart: Or signs .
Ellson: Like on their thing , it 's like . . .
IIBrian Olson: They have to get a certificate of survey that goes in for a
building permit so both people are very involved in that as far as locating
their house and things . We 're just going to put it right on here the park
access . . .right on there so they will know .
Ahrens: And they 'll say I didn't know what that meant .
IIErhart : Somebody ought to sign it and whoever makes the motion can , I 'll
just give you my opinion of that one . Is there any more discussion on that
particular item? Okay . Overall , I guess I like the development and the
reason is , I 've got 75 employees very few of which could afford a home in
Chanhassen and therefore they don 't live in our city .
IIEllson: You don't pay them enough, is that it?
Erhart: That 's probably part of the problem. But in reality is it 's a
I competitive world and I would like to , I think this developer has done .a
benefit for the City in attempting to do a good job of providing some
economical single family homes. So with that is there any other
' discussion?
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Lake
Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition for 159 single family lots as shown on
II
the plans dated May 10, 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 22 and
I 'd recommend that we make the second number 9 number 23 . And I would
reword the first number 9 as follows . The applicant shall provide
II calculations for City Engineering approval to demonstrate that the ponding
area proposed between Block 5 and 6 within the parkland meets 100 year
storm requirements and that there 's adequate room for access between the
11 north and south park areas .
•
r =
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 - Page 14
Ellson: I 'll second.
1
Batzli : Oh, on number 8 I would also remove the words "either " and "or"
from that particular one . So it would read all the access points to the
parkland between single family lots shall be paved and signed that they are
public access points. I
Erhart: Annette, do you agree?
Ellson: I agree .
Wildermuth: What about a trail between the north and south portion of the
park? I
Batzli : Well what I proposed was just that they have to demonstrate that
there 's room for the trail to be put in so there's access between the north
and south areas . I personally don't think that 's up to them to put that
trail in there . I think that 's part of the development of the park . Like
he said , I mean that 's going to be in the 100 year storm area if he can
prove his calculations are right to City engineering .
Erhart: Okay , it 's been motioned and seconded that we recommend the
approval with some word changes to 8 and some additional substantive I
changes to 9. Is there any other discussion? Are you clear what the
motion is Jo Ann?
Olsen: Yep . I
Erhart: Yeah , Mr . Olson?
Brian Olson: So there is no proposed to 21?
Batzli : My feeling is that we weren't given the information to determine
that there 's a hardship tonight and that what you need to do with work with
engineering in the meantime because I'd really like to see the access to
the county road and I agree that I think that that's probably requires some"
. sort of variance if in fact you can't make that 7% . But as to the other
ones , I really think you have to work with the City engineering so that you
can demonstrate to the Council if in fact you need something over 7%.
Brian Olson: Okay.
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of Lake Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition for 159 single family
lots as shown on the plans dated May 10, 1990 with the following
conditions: 1
1 . All streets that are proposed for future connection shall be provided
with a turnaround which meets city standards with a barricade and
signage stating that it is a temporary cul-de-sac and will be a future II
road connection .
all
II
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6 , 1990 - Page 15
I
2 . The applicant shall provide one tree per lot and additional landscaping
II along the entrances and boulevards as part of the PUD approval and the
developer shall provide $150.00 per lot for landscaping .
3 . The applicant shall provide a plan illustrating large areas of mature
I vegetation located on the site . Areas of mature vegetation not
impacted by streets or building pads shall be preserved with tree
removal plans required as part of the building permits .
I4 . The applicant shall pull back the cul-de-sac servicing Lots 11-13 ,
Block 4 to remove the building pads from the ravine areas . -
' 5 . The applicant shall provide a registered engineer 's report on soils ,
footings and structural design and a registered engineer 's grading and
drainage plan for the City Engineer and Building Department approval
Iprior to issuance of a building permit on Lots 11 and 13, Block 4 .
6 . An amended preliminary plat maintaining with at least 50% of the lots
Iwith 15 ,000 square feet or more shall be provided .
7 . Designate the parkland as an outlot which will be platted as part of
IIthe first phase .
6 . All of the access points to the parkland between single family lots
shall be paved and signed that they are public access points .
I9. The applicant shall provide calculations for City Engineering approval
to demonstrate that the ponding area proposed between Block 5 and 6
II within the parkland meets 100 year storm requirements and that there's
adequate room for access between the north and south park areas .
10 . Park Access: The approved PUD plan provided access off of both looped
I
streets . Such continues to be required and should be shown as parkland
dedication , not simply easements .
I 11 . Trails/Sidewalks: The developer shall be required to provide trails/
sidewalks as follows:
II a . Five foot wide concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along thru
streets as shown on the attached plan. Sidewalks shall be
completed at the time street improvements are constructed.
I b . A 20 foot wide trail easement along the west side of Powers
Boulevard shall be dedicated for future trail purposes.
c . The above trails/sidewalks satisfy the City 's trail dedication
requirements and therefore no trail fee shall be charged .
II 12 . The applicant will be required to pay 50% of park dedication fees .
There will be no trail fee required.
•
13 . All building permits with patio doors as part of the building plans
JV •
Al-
Planning Commission Meeting
June 6, 1990 — Page 16
shall provide a survey showing that a deck can be installed without a I
variance to the setback.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and`
provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee completion of
the improvements .
15. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permits required by the II
DNR, Watershed District and Office of the Carver County Engineer .
16. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City Engineer with 1
calculations verifying the storm sewer , watermain and sanitary sewer
pipe sizing .
17 . At intersections where the street grades exceed 3% , a landing zone with
a street grade of 3% or less for a minimum distance of 200 feet shall
be used . I
18. After grading , all disturbed areas shall immediately be seeded and
mulched to prevent erosion. All slopes greater than 3 to 1 will need
to be stabilized with wood fiber blankets or equivalent .
f 19 . Type II erosion control shall be added along the proposed silt fence
adjacent to sediment basin and ravine areas . I
20 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City 's
standards for urban construction . Construction plans and
specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and II
approval .
21 . The applicant shall reduce street grades to comply with City Ordinance II
throughout the development (maximum 7% ) .
22 . Prior to assigning street names , the applicant shall consult with
Public Safety for recommendations.
23. Park Grading: The developer , at it's sole cost, shall grade the park I
areas in accordance with a timetable and plans to be furnished by the
City . The City will develop park plans when the final park boundaries
have been determined.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 17,500 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING
ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, INDUSTRIAL
INFORMATION CONTROLS.
The applicant pulled this item off the agenda . Paul Krauss stated that it II
was tentatively rescheduled for July 18 , 1990 pending the applicant 's
actions .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ahrens moved, Wildermuth seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 16 , 1990 as presented .
r
CITY OF
., „.
CHANHASSEN
„a
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer
1
DATE: June 21 , 1990
SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills West PUD 4th Addition
File No. 90-14 Land Use Review
On Thursday, June 14, 1990, Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician,
and I met with Brian Olson of Argus Development, Inc. and his
' consultant engineer. The meeting was scheduled at the request of
Mr. Olson to discuss some of the recommendations made by the
Engineering Department during review of the preliminary plat.
' One of the main issues for discussion was the location of the
ponding area. The latest plan shows the location to be just
north of the pipeline easement. There are a few concerns that
must be addressed by the developer before this location can be
approved. First of all, the 100-year ponding limits need to be
accurately defined to determine if the proposed trail system for
the park will be impacted. Second, an erosion control plan must
be developed to control the overland drainage from the storm
sewer outlet to the north. Finally, a culvert would need to be
' designed and constructed under the proposed trail to connect
overland drainage with the pond.
Another issue discussed was the maximum street grade requirement.
' I explained that our position remains the same (a 7% maximum
grade on all streets with a reduced 3% maximum and 200-foot
landing area at street intersections) .
Finally, it was reiterated that design calculations for sanitary
sewer, watermain and storm sewer must be provided to verify
' design capacity and sizing.
Mr. Olson agreed to comply with these requirements and provide
the needed information as soon as possible.
ktm
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician