Loading...
79-03 - Sunrise Beach SUB pt 2f"( CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission :and Staff FROM: City Planner, Bob Waibel DATE: March 20, 1981 SUBJ: Final Development Plan Review, Chaparral on Lake Ann, Dunn and Curry, Inc. As indicated in the attached materials, the City has retained the firm of BRW to carry out and independent analysis of the subject development. Throughout this process, BRW has consulted staff concerning the findings of said analysis which has the concurrence of staff. At the request of the City Council, the purpose of this review is for the Planning Commission to carry out a final development plan review with reference to the BRW findings. Mr. Paul Krauss, of BRW, will be present Wednesday evening to present their findings and to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Additionally, attached is an update engineering report from City Engineer, Jim Orr regarding revisions in the subject plans. Since the writing of the attached reports, an item of concern has arisen which is the appropriateness of the naming of the streets on the east and west side of block 6. Presently the streets surrounding block 6 have two names and it is recommended that only one street name be utilized along this alignment. NEW HORIZON HOMES, INC. BUILDING TOMORROWS DREAMS TODAY 3131 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH P.O. BOX 1367 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440 612-559-5770 March 19, 1981 Mr. Bob Waibel City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: CHAPARRAL ON LAKE ANN Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Waibel: As a follow-up to our meeting of March 17, 1981, I am providing the following list of energy -saving items available in our homes: Standard Features: Pilotless ignition furnaces R-38 Insulation in ceilings Thermal glazed windows (double pane) Thermal (styrofoam core) main entry door Pilotless gas ranges Quick recovery, low energy water heater Low pressure water fixtures R-13 Insulation in walls Combustion air -to furnace Optional Items: Heatilator fireplaces with combustion air Attic vent fans Triple glazing on windows Styrofoam insulation in lieu of intermediate sheathing Storm -doors Pilotless gas dryers Brick fronts As we discussed, we do not anticipate any problem in incorporating into the association documents for the townhomes and twinhomes provisions for protecting solar access of individual units. If you should have any questions, please advi e. Ver ru your , Gregory J. Fr K P. E. Vice President of Land Development GJF/pm WILLIAM D. SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E. GILL THEODORE D. KEMNA JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI GERALD L. BACKMAN City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 March 19, 1981 Subject: Chaparral on Lake Ann Plans Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, we have met today with representa- tives of New Horizon Homes concerning the above named development. They submitted revised plans for our review. The minor modifications made since our last review do not significantly change the engineering review. In other words, the sanitary sewer, water distribution, drainage and street plans are approximately the same. We recommend approval of the new plans subject to the following conditions and comments: 1) Prior to approval of the final plat, detailed engineering plans including plan and profiles shall be approved by the city engineer. 2) The question of how the trunk sewer service is to be extended from the south side of Trunk Highway No. 5 to serve the site must be addressed - whether the developer is going to provide same, or if he desires the City to provide this. 3) We suggest the developer consider placement of 18-inch trunk watermain on Pawnee Drive and Potomac Drive, rather than on Aztec Drive and Potomac Drive as originally discussed. 4) We suggest consideration be given to running all drainage discharging to Lake Ann initially through the storm water ponding area in Block 1. This would require double piping in the area of Cochise Drive and Fox Head Road. SCHOELL & MAOSON.INr-. City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel Page Two March 19, 1981 5) The revised plans show a reduction of approximately 20 lots from the previous plans in terms of the number of units flowing to the Greenwood Shores lift station. This is favorable. 6) The general comments of our previous review apply hereto. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. JROrr:mkr _�_ CITYO'F CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Community Development Director, Scott Martin FROM: Park and Recreation Director, Francis Callahan v' DATE: March 19, 1981 SUBJ: Dunn and Curry Development Co. Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission has met with the developer over the past 18 months. During this period of time, many meetings were held defining where the park land should be located, what type of activity should be planned for each site, etc., according to modern park planning principles and philosophy. City staff (planning and park) additionally held many meetings with Ed Dunn establishing the dedication for the entire development plan. Attached you will find the minutes of the January 8, 1980 meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission wherein they made their recommendations. The Park and Recreation Commission was directed to review the proposal again in August, 1980 when there were some concerns about the creation of mini -parks and also concerns about the shoreland around Lake Susan. The Commission unanimously reaffirmed their action of January 8, 1980. This office does not feel another meeting with the developer would be desirable or beneficial. Both the developer and the Park and Recreation Commission are comfortable with the present park plan. Park Dedication Ordinance The Park Commission is an advisory body which makes park related recommendations to the City Council. Through negotiations with the developer, the City Council establishes what the park fee will be, i.e. cash, land or a combination of both. Minutes Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting January 8, 1980 A.regular meeting of the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission was called to order on January 8, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. with the followin members present: Joe Betz, Phyllis Pope, Walter Coudron, Ellis g Thomas and Mary Muehlhausen. Mark Koegler, Bob Waibel, Ed Dunn and 5telios Aslanidis were also present MINUTES: A motion was made by Phyllis Pope and seconded by Ellis Thomas to approve the minutes of December 4, 1979. Motion carried.. No negative votes. A motion was made by Ellis Thomas and seconded by Walter Coudron to approve the minutes of December 11, 1979. Motion carried. No negative votes. PARK.CONCEPT PLAN: Mark Koegler, City Planner, reviewed a conceptual park dedication plan for the enlargement of Lake Ann Park and also depicting an 80 foot pedestrian way connecting Lake Ann Park with Greenwood Shores Park. Mr. Dunn commented on his thoughts about this. conceptual plan. This was his first viewing of the conceptual expansion to the east of Lake Ann Park. A motion was made by Ellis Thomas and seconded by Phyllis Pope to accept the conceptual Lake Ann Park expansion plan as proposed at,the January, 1980 meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission for 19.9 acres of of active play area and -with approximately 4 acres of shoreline, & trail to be obtained. Acquisition options for the shoreline are to be investi- gated by staff and be brought back to the commission for review. Ellis Thomas amended his motion to include an easement for pedestrian trail through the 13.82 acre parcel to connect with the existing trail. The easement shall be 20 feet wide, above the high water level and permanent in nature. Motion carried. No negative votes. PARKLAND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5: Mr. Dunn reviewed the proposed park land dedication south of Highway 5. Mark Koegler reviewed the formula Proposed by the Park Dedication Ordinance. Mark explained that a small neighborhood park was necessary west of Highway 17 due to traffic flow which is projected. A motion was made by Walter Coudron and seconded by Ellis Thomas to drop the eastern leg between Lake Susan South parcel 2 and 3 in favor of a 5 acre parcel located in Lake Susan West. Motion carried. No negative votes. A motion was made by Walter Coudron and seconded by Phyllis Pope to accept the dedication of the green area of Exhibit A, as amended With the previous motion, as the developers dedication to satisfy the Park dedication ordinance for Lake Susan South and Lake Susan West, Motion carried. No negative votes. MINUTES Special Meeting Park and Recreation Commission Tuesday, August 12, 1980 Chairman Phyllis Pope called the meeting to order 7:35 p.m. Members Present: Phyllis Pope, Ellis Thomas, Walter Coudron, Mary Muehlhausen,Tom Schoenecker. Minutes Mary Muehlhausen made a motion to accept the Minutes of the last meeting. Tom Schoenecker seconded the motion. Motion passed. No negative votes. .Snowmobile Agreement Torn Schoenecker made motion to recommend that the City sign the form provided by the Chanhassen Snowmobile Club to allow snow- mobile trails through the city. Walter Coudron seconded the motion. Motion passed. No negative votes. Lake Susan. Lakeshore Tom Schoenecker made a motion that the Park and Recreation Com- mission stick by their original decision of January 8, 1980, and to .accept all available lakeshore on Lake Susan south shore in. Parcel No. 1 for park purposes. Ellis Thomas seconded the motion. Motion passed. No negative votes. The next regular meeting will be Tuesday, September 9, 1980, at the City Offices. Phyllis Pope would like the City Manager to attend the next meeting to discuss the new City Offices grading and the position of Community Services Director. Meeting adjourned 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Fran Callahan Community Services Director r A � • q�- p + � 1 'II till PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURE March 18, 1981 TO: City of Chanhassen FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP SUBJECT: Final Development Plan Review Chaparral West PRD Phase One Back round MEMORANDUM The City of Chanhassen has retained the firm of BRW, Inc. to conduct an independent review and assessment of the Chaparral West PRD. The developer has agreed to this process and has also agreed to cover all costs involved. It !s my understanding that planning for this project has been ongoing through- out the past year. It is also my understanding that the City Council has granted Preliminary Plan Approval for the project conditioner upon a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre and a total number of dwelling units not to exceed 600. On February 9, 1981 this proposal, along with an earlier version of this memorandum, were presented to the Chanhassen City Council. The member's of the Council raised several concerns not addressed in this memorandum and generally felt that additional re -design of the proposal was required. Thus a motion was made to send the item back to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Since that time, the developer has worked with City Staff and myself to"revise and refine the proposal to address these con- cerns. This memorandum is structured in a manner that wi!I permit both discussion of the concern and the developer's response. BATHER. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 PHONE 612 / 379.7878 V� City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page 2 Request As previously noted, the applicant is requesting approval of Development Plan for Chaparral West. At full development th include a maximum total of 600 housing units and possibly a scale commercial area. However, as part of this First Phase being sought to construct 480 housing units including single duplexes and townhouses. Conformance with Long Range Plans the Final project will small, neighborhood request approval is family homes, A review of the draft, 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan indicates that the first phase proposal is in conformance. The Land Use Plan indicates a mix of Low/Medium and High Density residential uses in areas roughly conforming to the current design submitted for review. The higher density uses are located in relatively close proximity to the Chanhassen CBD as required by accepted planning practices. In addition, efforts are being made to comply with the. park and open space recommendations of the plan. I would like to note that the commercial area, proposed as a part of later phases of development, does not appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also likely that commercial development of any signi- ficant size (over 10-15,000 square feet) will be in direct competition with similar uses in the adjacent CBD area as contemplated by the City. Thus, I would recommend that when th i s phase is reviewed by the City every effort be made to limit or replace commercial uses proposed for this area. A likely replacement is moderate to high density housing. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance The subject parcel has been granted a rezoning to Planned Residential Zoning. The P-1 zoning district permits the proposed mix of residential housing styles as well as neighborhood scale commercial uses which are subject to a Conditioned Use Permit. Thus, the submittal is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Conformance with Prior Approvals The present submittal conforms to the maximum 600 units at 2.9 units per acre ceiling set by the City Council. The overall project layout is also in confor- mance with earlier submittals allowing for revisions attributable to compliance with City requests. Project Design The basic layout of Phase One appears to conform to commonly accepted site planning practices and is generally acceptable. The gradual decrease in density from south to north is proper and reflects the intensity of surrounding land uses and access. It is also quite proper to cluster the higher density uses near the park as these units are likely to generate a high demand for recreational space. City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Three I would, however, like to make the following comments. 1. In my opinion, the cluster of single-family homes at Potomac Drive and Powers Boulevard is inappropriate. I understand that this feature was incorporated to break up a potential vista of quad homes along the west side of Powers Boulevard. I feel that this concern is misplaced for three reasons: a. There is already a mix of uses proposed along this sector of the parcel. The progression includes light commercial, high density residential, medium density residential and low density residential. b. Well designed duplex and quad units do not necessarily have a poorer design image than single family homes. c. Incorporation of some sort of increased setback off of Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) plus the use of landscaping and/or compatible fencing, would "soften" the areas visual image. Creating such a pocket of single-family homes surrounding by duplexes fronting on a relatively busy street can only result in a less than desirable quality of development. Therefore, it is my recommendation that these single family units be relo- cated to the north and exchanged with duplex units such that the total first phase proposal remains at the established ceiling. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The City Council and developer did not concur with this assessment. Thus no revisions to the plans were proposed.or requested. 2. Increased setbacks from Highway 5 and County 17/Powers Boulevard have been suggested by the City Planner. The two reasons given for this measure are aesthetics and noise mitigation. Given the present and projected traffic volumes and the long frontages along these roads I would have to agree that this is a valid point. However, I do feel that the 110' being requested is excessive. The mechanics of sound transmission are such that 150 or even 200' setbacks alone would not contribute to any appreciable reduction in sound levels at the building line. In addition, the nature of traffic (i.e. truck/auto ratio, speed, volume) on Highway 5 and County 17/Powers Boulevard present two very different situations. Highway 5 will contain a much higher volume of traffic as well as a much higher ratio of trucks to automobiles. Hence, I would like to propose that building setbacks be a minimum of 75 feet be established along County 17/Powers Boulevard and 100 feet along Highway 5 for residential construction. Commercial construction (not included in this Phase) setbacks should be 75 feet along both roads. City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Four I would also like to recommend that landscaping provisions be established to further improve the aesthetics and moderate potential noise problems. Extensive treatments should be established along Highway 5 when those phases are developed. The developer should be required to submit a plan for establishing a combination of landscaping, berming and/or fencing of the first 25t west of the County 17/Powers Boueevard right-of-way. Combined with the proposed 75' buildng setback along Route 17 this would accomplish the following goals: a. Improve the aesthetics of the County 17/Powers Boulevard corridor. b. Use of setback and landscaping will offer minimal noise mitigation potential. However, it is likely that while actual noise levels will not be appreciably reduced, the residents perception of the problem will be altered. As an added benefit the rear yards of units along Route 17 will become more private offering a higher level of amenity to the residents. c. The Developer will not lose buildable lots as would be the case with the proposed 110' setback. However, it is possible that Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 could require minor setback variances of 15' or less for building siting. This would be acceptable. However, to avoid the need for any variances, a simple solution would be to relocate the cul-de-sacs slightly further west and redraw the lot lines. It appears that this modification could be made without causing serious disruptions to the basic plan. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The proposal was revised to show setbacks of 100' for single family homes and setbacks of 90' for duplex units along Route 17. In addition, where feasible, berming has been proposed to mitigate visual and noise impacts. The entire setback area will be covered with seed or sod. Thus a compromise acceptable to myself and City staff, has been reached. 3. The City Planner has indicated a concern about crowding on Lots 14-16 Block 3 and Lots 35-38 Block 2. 1 have researched the situation and in my opinion, the lots as designed are satisfactory. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The proposal has been revised to eliminate this concern. Recreational Provisions Lake Ann Park represents an excellent recreational amenity for the residents of Chaparral West. The park dedication that has been requested by the City coupled with the proposed purchase of land to expand the park and the strip of land along Lake Ann are appropriate methods of providing for the recreational needs of Chanhassen's residents both from within Chaparral West and the balance of the community. BRW is not commenting on the Park dedication formula itself due to the nature of ongoing negotiations between the City and Developer. City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Five After having reviewed the situation I would have to agree with the City Planner that a paved pedway is necessary. The Park cannot be considered a recreational amenity unless safe and efficient pedestrian access is provided. To satisfy this need a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk should be provided along the north side Potomac Drive from County 17/Powers Boulevard to Aztec Drive and along the north side of the Aztec Drive to Lake Ann Park. The sidewalk should be constructed immediately adjacent to the curb (mountable) to minimize impacts upon the adjacent residential lots and reduce maintenance costs. To this end the City should also give consideration to locating a stop sign and pedestrian crosswalk on Aztec Drive in the vicinity of Nachos Way. Complementing this sidewalk will be a larger bikeway/pedway located along Highway 5 (slated for construction this spring), internal trails in Lake Ann Park, a proposed trail around Lake Ann and a proposed trail along the conser- vation easement running across the southern section of the site. To gain access to the Lake Ann circumferential trail a 20' wide access should be incorporated between Lots 25 and 26 of Block 6. This location would place the access on the alignment of Fox Head Road and would serve the greatest numbered people. The access previously shown between Lots 35 and 36 of Block 6 should be dropped as it serves little purpose. It should also be noted that when the multiple family units are planned as a later phase, they should include some private, on -site recreational amenities suitable to project density and resident makeup. However, this is not under consideration at the present time. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The proposal has been revised to accommodate the sidewalk and the lake access as requested. Pro'ect Access and Traffic Considerations A BRW Transportation Planner, David Warner, was asked to review this aspect of the Plan. The following are his comments. Access to Chaparral West via Aztec Drive The developer of Chaparral West has requested access directly to TH 5 at Aztec Drive. Aztec Drive would be located opposite the Park Drive access to the Industrial Park south of TH 5. This access arrangement has been reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In a letter dated January 9, 1980, Mn/DOT said that right turn lanes would be required as a part of the entrance permit. Capacity analysis (by BRW) indicates that, in that configuration (all movements allowed), the intersection would not require signalizationat the pre- sent time. At some point in the future, however, signalization may be required. In consideration of this issue, two other points should be addressed. One point is the future configuration of TH 5 through Chanhassen. If traffic volumes con- tinue to increase on TH 5, there are two possible ways of improving the traffic carrying capacity of TH 5 and cross streets. If TH 5 is widened to four lanes, with major crossings signalized, the intersection with Aztec Drive -Park Drive City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Six could remain in place (either with or without signalization, depending on con- ditions at the time). If TH 5 is widened and if an interchange is constructed at CSAH 17 (as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan) all access to TH 5 from the Chaparral project should be focused on the interchange. If that occurs, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should probably be closed, along with any other at -grade intersections with TH 5 that are in the vicinity of the interchange. Other possibilities would include the provision of left turn lanes or limiting the intersection to right-in/right-out movements. It may be appropriate to speculate about when traffic signals may be warranted at this intersection of TH 5 and Aztec Drive -Park Drive. Information presented in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that average daily traffic on TH 5 at this location was about 12,000 vehicles per day in 1978 and will be about 9000 vehicles per day in 2000. The decrease is apparently due to diversion of trips from TH 5 to an upgraded TH 212-TH 169 which is expected to occur. Whether signalization is warranted or not depends on volumes on both the major and the minor street during the eight continuous hours with the highest traffic volumes. For both the major street and the minor street, a minimum volume must be maintained for each hour during the eight hour period. For each hour during a continuous eight hour period, either one or the other of the minor street approaches (Aztec Drive or Park Drive) must have 75 cars per hour approaching the intersection in order to satisfy the warrant.* It is highly unlikely that these volumes of traffic will ever occur on Aztec Drive or Park Drive. The second point which should be addressed is the TH 5 entrance to Lake Ann Park. While it is necessary to provide access to major roads, it is desirable to minimize the number of such access points in order to preserve the traffic carrying capacity of those roads. In this case, it would be desirable to pro- vide access to Lake Ann Park through Chaparral West for two reasons: o Elimination of an intersection on TH 5 will allow smoother flow of traf- fic on TH 5. o Residents of Chanhassen would have access to Lake Ann Park without being forced to use TH 5. Recommendation Based on this analysis, it is recommended that all turning movements be allowed at the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive. A right -turn lane should be incorporated into the Chaparral Project. This intersection should be monitored periodically to determine if signalization is required. At the point at which an interchange is constructed at the junction of TH 5 and County Road 17, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should be eliminated. * This assumes that TH 5 volumes satisfy warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Criteria City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Seven It is further recommended that access to Lake Ann Park be provided through Chaparral West and not directly from TH 5, as it currently is. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): No revisions were necessary. Access to Chaparral West via Route 17/Powers Blvd. In general the.access provided from Route 17 are acceptable. However, it would be advantageous to facilitate these movements by providing right turn lanes into the development. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): New request, refer to approval contingencies for resolution. Street Width in Chaparral West The purpose of streets within a residential development is to provide access to the individual housing units. The streets should be designed to encourage relatively low travel speeds consistent with the character of residential development. Minimum street widths in areas of one- and two-family homes and in areas of townhomes and multi -family homes should be 28 feet. This assumes that most parking will occur off-street. The minimum widths are adequate to serve the access function. Additional street width is expensive to construct, to patch, to sweep and to plow, and requirement of such should be considered with that in mind. Recommended Street Width Street Aztec Drive (from Highway 5 to Pawnee Drive) Aztec Drive (north of Pawnee Drive) Nachos Way Pawnee Drive Potomac Drive (from intersection with County Road 17 to Pawnee Drive) Recommended Width 32 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 32 feet City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Eight Recommended Street Width (Continued) Street Potomac Drive (from Pawnee Drive to north intersection with CSAH 17) Pinto Drive Cochise Drive Fox Head Road Pinto Bay Pinto Court Potomac Court Potomac Bay Nachos Court Aztec Court Recommended Width 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet (REVISIONS TO PROPOSAL): The proposal has been revised to accommodate recom- mended street widths. Lake Ann Park Access It is appropriate to provide a new access into the Park via the Chaparral pro- ject and close off the existing access from Highway 5. It is necessary that this be done to improve traffic safety and flow along Highway 5. It would also have the benefit of providing a Park access that does not require movement on a busy highway. As presently designed, this alternative access will be provided from Route 17 via Pawnee Drive and an east/west street through the commercial and multiple - family areas to be constructed in later phases. I have two concerns with this proposal. a. Pawnee Drive is a residential collector street having numerous road cuts for driveways. It is not the ideal conduit for moving traffic to the Park. b. The proposed east/west street connects into the CBD street system (CSAH 16) as is necessary. However, the routing as shown is highly circuitous. At this stage in the development process it would be difficult to suggest any revisions that would substantially improve this situation. A major drainageway is found in the area making more direct routings an extremely difficult and expensive solution. I would propose two modifications to the plan to partially mitigate this situation. a. When plans are submitted for the southern phase they should be reviewed to insure that as few road cuts as possible are created along the east/ west street. The road should also take the most direct possible routing between the Park and CSAH 16. Existing Alignment Proposed Alignment 0 100 200 400 teet north City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Nine b. The road layout should be slightly redesigned to favor traffic flow on the east/west street over Pawnee Drive. A stop sign would be located on Pawnee Drive to control traffic flow. This modification (refer to attached sketches) could be accomplished without severely disrupting the plan which has been submitted for consideration. At Mr. Warneris recom- mendation this unnamed street should be 32' wide. No approvals for these phases (Outlots A and B) should be granted unless they are sub- mitted with binding assurances that the east/west street will be constructed as proposed, in its entirety. Refer to the attached sketch for details. (REVISION TO PLANS): The proposal has been revised to accommodate the modified intersection. Unit Design/Architectural Elevations While the units proposed for.Chaparral West, Phase One are certainly not "spec built" estates, they do represent solid, well designed and functional housing. In this respect they are no different than 99p of the units being constructed in most Twin Cities suburbs. It is also important to note that there appears to be a rather, extensive variety of available housing styles. Thus, the fear that there will be endless vistas of look -a -like housing should not be realized. To further insure that this will not occur it is advisable that the developer be requested to provide the City with proposed plans of building placement by design type. It should be understood that these plans are liable to change due to changes in the housing market, variations in building materials, etc. Proposed changes should be reviewed by the City Planner and kept on file. Only those changes determined .by the Planner to be significant in nature (i.e. substantial alterations in building style, changes requiring a review of parking or recreational provisions, etc.) should be referred to the Planning Commission and City Council for review. (REVISION TO PLANS): The developer has prepared preliminary building siting plans as outlined above for review by staff. However, these plans are subject to change due to the possible inclusion of new building styles as they are developed. Thus it is suggested that the City Planner be given responsibility of reviewing this material and that he be instructed to report to the Planning Commission and City Council to insure compliance as the project is built out. Engineering Considerations BRW has not been commissioned to perform an engineering feasibility study for the project. A review of the Engineers comments seems to indicate that the problems which have been identified are relatively minor and solutions can be incorporated into Final Plat submittals. Thus, I would simply recommend that the City Engineers comments in a memo dated 11/6/1980 (attached), be complied with. City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Ten With regard to the planners recommendations that a no-build/no-grade line be established along the drainageway located at the southeast corner of the project and that a concurrent conservation easement be granted, I fully concur. The request is both valid and reasonable given the nature of the area and City Plans. The City Engineer should be requested to set this line on the basis of a topographical contour line. A telephone conversation with the City Engineer indicated that this line could be established without compromising the proposed site plan. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The proposal has been revised to relocate the impacted lots further north. Thus there is no possiblity that building placement will interfer with establishment of a no-build/no-fill line. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF Protection of Existing Natural Features A concern was raised that the development as proposed appeared to require the removal of a substantial stand of mature trees. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The proposal has been revised to insure that most —of the trees and blufflines will remain intact. A new presentation board which overlays the project on an aerial photograph illustrates this fact. A site visit by myself and City staff confirmed that impacts will be minimal. Incorporate "Innovative Design' Features The Council indicated that it would like to see consideration of innovative design features including clustering of units, variable setbacks and incor- poration of solar energy features. As the City's consultant, I had to point out that extensive use of clustering is not possible as long as the developer is required to maintain large minimum lot sizes. The theory behind clustering is dependent upon a trade-off of lot area for common open space. The obvious result of large minimum lot sizes is the reduction in potential for significant common spaces. It was also pointed out that this project incorporates large re- creational spaces in the form of additions to Lake Ann Park. In addition to required park dedication, the developer is cooperating with the City by agreeing to sell additional land which will also be included in Lake Ann Park. The con- version of a large area to recreational uses has effectively produced macro - scale clustering throughout the entire project. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): A. The proposal has been revised to effectively create extensive variable set- backs along Route 17. Thus the view from Route 17 will alternate between homes and large green areas. In addition, the required mixing of building styles will result in varied front setbacks along interior streets. A new presentation board has been prepared to illustrate this revision. B. Clustering: To the greatest extent possible (while maintaining minimum lot sizes) the developer has revised plans to provide for the creation of-farge green spaces. These areas are illustrated on a presentation board that will be presented at Commission and Council meetings. City of Chanhassen March 18, 1981 Page Eleven C. Solar: The developer has researched the matter in the past and concluded that, at the present time, solar equipment is simply not economically viable. Should this situation change the matter could be reconsidered. As the City's consultant, I must agree. In any case, I have serious doubts that the City can legally require the inclusion of solar equipment. Request that Lakeshore Lots be Developed by Independent Builders A member of the City Council has requested that the developer investigate the possiblity of selling lots along Lake Ann to independent developers. As the City's consultant, I must state that this request may exceed the City's authority. However, the developer has indicated a willingness to comply. (REVISION TO PROPOSAL): The developer has indicated that lakeshore lots will likely be sold to independent developers or will be used for "spec built" homes erected by New Horizon. Request that the Developer Assist the City in Developing Lake Ann Park While the design and development of Lake Ann Park is entirely the City's responsiblity, the developer has indicated a willingness to assist wherever possible. Thus if the grading of Chaparral produces excess amounts of fill, the developer will work with the City to place the fill in Lake Ann Park in confor- mance with City plans. RECOMMENDATIONS After a review of this project, I would recommend that the Final Development Plan for Chaparral West, Phase One, be approved contingent upon the following items: 1. Inclusion of right -turn lanes along Route 17/Powers Blvd. 2. Satisfactory compliance with recommendations of the City Engineer. 3. Subject to signing of a Developers Agreement and review of the covenants by the City Attorney: 4. Satisfactory review and approval of hte Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 5. Satisfactory review and approval by the Watershed Districts. 6. Review of building placement and design by the City Planner as recommended. 7. Agreement that as development occurs, no single access streets longer than 600' will be created. 8. Recognition that development on Outlots A and B is contingent upon satisfactory site plan review. 1 _ �ICIC11 PLAN NING/TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERINGIARCHITECTURE DATE: March 12; 1981 TO: Rod Hardy - Dunn and Curry, Inc. Greg Frank - New Horizon Homes Don Ashworth - City Administrator FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Revised Submittals Required to Chaparral"P.R.D., Chanhassen, MV At the request of Rod Hardy, I am submitting a list of new and revised material required for review of the Chaparral P.R.D. From the 2/3/81 Memo: 1. Provide landscaping plan for Route 17 corridor. 2. Realign the east/west collector and Pawnee Drive. 3. Incorporate sidewalk along Potomac and Aztez. 4. Establish no build/no fill elevation along conservation easement. 5. Locate 1st phase units by design type and exterior materials. From the City Council meeting as interpreted by City Staff: 1. Show proposed variable setbacks. 2. Provide new board to illustrate green areas/clustering. 3. Provide board showing existing stands of trees overlayed by development plans. 4. Indicate lots having high solar potential. List out energy efficiency and solar options available to home owner. Include protection of solar access in covenants. 5. Setbacks along north/south street should be increased. 6. Block 3 lots 4-16 should be approximate lot sizes found across the street. 7. State plans for selling lakeshore lots to individual builders. 8. Have Park and Recreation Committee comment on public or private tot lots. PK: js I�6°ir ill BATHER. RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER, INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 PHONE 612 1 379-7878 March 9, 1981 Mr. Ed Dunn Dunn & Curry Real 4940 Viking Drive Suite 608 CITY DF CHANHASSEN 7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Estate Management, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 Re: Reimbursement of Costs for City Review of Chaparral West and Lake Susan Hills West and South Dear Mr. Dunn: As you know, Chanhassen City Ordinance Nos.. 33 and 47 require that all expenses incurred by the City in reviewing and processing development applications are to be reimbursed by the applicant. These costs include all fees charged by legal, engineering, and planning consultants, as well.. as City staff administration expen- ses. Our records indicated that -you deposited.a total of $7,500. in escrow with the City on January 18, 1980 to cover anticipated costs for the review of Chaparral West and Lake Susan Hills West and South PUD Is. To date, consultant fees•for review of these three development proposals total $7,134.63. Postage and publi- cation costs are an additional $576.49. As we discussed.last,summer,' City staff expenses attributable to review of your -development proposals would also be charged against your escrow account.• As stated in my letter to you dated August 4, 1980, such costs would be determined arbitrarily, rather than by any scientific formula or detailed accounting method. Based on my discussions with City staff involved. in this plan review process, z have determined that --a figure of $5,000. is reasonable to cover City staff expenses incurred in the review of your devel-- opment plans during 1980. Therefore, additional escrow funds are necessary at this time to cover all costs incurred by the City to date, as well as estimated future expenses related to the review of your development plans. Mr. Ed Dunn 'Page -2- An itemized listing of all expenses incurred to date follows: City Staff $ 5,000.00 Legal 4,113.78 Engineering 1,062.10 BRW 2,158.75 Postage/Publication 576.49 TOTAL $12,911.12 Anticipated future expenditures are estimated as follows: - City Staff (1981) Legal Engineering BRW Postage/Publication 2,000.00 2,500.00 500.00 3,500.00 200.00 TOTAL $8,700.00 In summary, the total anticipated cost for City review of your development proposals is $21,611.12. By subtracting the $7,500. you deposited in escrow last year, an additional deposit of, say, $14,000. is warranted at this time and should be received by the City within the next thirty (30) days. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. I assure you that City staff has placed top priority in completing the review of Lake Susan Hills West and Chaparral West so that final City approvals can be obtained as soon as possible. Your patience and cooperation is greatly appreciated. Sincere , Don Ashworth City Manager DA:nh cc: Kay Klingelhutz, Treasurer IMF PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURE Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager 7610 Laredo Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen; MN 55317 4 INVOICE N°. 28517 DATE: January 31, 1981 JOB NO: 62-8032 • Chaparral West Work performed included a series of meetings with City of Chanhassen staff, representatives of Dunn and Curry, review of project history, independent analy- sis of all aspects of plan review including traffic analysis by members of the transportation studio; preparation of a draft project review memorandum and related work. Principal° 4.0 hours x $60.00/ hour $ 240.00 Professional 11 '� 3W 16.0 hours x $37.50/hour. 600.00 Professional 1 00 37.50 hours x $27.50/hour 1,031.2.5 to Cam' 09 Technician and Word Processor & viNHpsQs+ ,mac �'C,ttztl• 7.5 hours x $20.00/hour �•L� 150.00 H. Lake Susan Hills West `; Meetings with Dunn and Curry and Attorney, background research, telephone calls. `! Professional I 5.0 hours x $27.50/hour 137.50 TOTAL DUE $2,158.75 IFl,4 -fir :wwMFttt�ncyNc $,Olt wua�ar�sKsai,d:•,���Y'oA►+u�:� .r �[raui'd BATHER. RINGROSE• WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS. RAN 55414 PHONE 612 / 879.7878 Cl -;-�? , r-) a 4� --) cc)--) � ,-I \ �, C> - crc' C l 2 q E)G - NC,�e. CCL- C� C,� � S Sic � ��✓� C �a�- 5 e��-•� ���C � � e, u`, �--�-cam f 7� A._ n..\�-'I-re- 1IRW PLAN NING/TRANSPORTATIONIENGINEERINGlARCHITECTURE February 3, 1981 TO: City of Chanhassen FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP SUBJECT: Final Development Plan Review Chaparral West PRD Phase One MEMORANDUM Backcround The City of Chanhassen has retained the firm of BRW, Inc. to conduct an Indepen- dent review of the Chaparral West PRD. It is my understanding that planning for this project has been ongoing through- out the past year. It is also my understanding that the City Council has granted Preliminary Plan Approval for the project conditioned upon a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre and a total number of dwelling units not to exceed 600. Thus, I would like 'to proceed with this project review with the clear understandinq that I do not feel it is necessary to reassess the basic validity of this project. In my professional opinion the .City has a moral and poss i - l y legal obligation to proceed with refinement and finalization of plans which have been granted preliminary approval. Request As previously noted, the applicant is requesting approval of the Final Development Plan for Chaparral West. At full development the project will include a maximum total of 600 housing units and possibly a small, neighborhood scale commercial area. However, as part of this First Phase request approvai is being sought to construct 480 housing units including single family homes, duplexes and townhouses. Conformance with Long Range Plans A review of the draft, 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan indicates that the first phase proposa; is in conformance. BATHER. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER. INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 PHONE 612 / 379-7878 . City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 2 The Land Use Plan indicates a mix of Low/Medium and High Density residential uses in areas roughly conforming to the current design submitted for review. The higher density uses are located in relatively close proximity to the Chanhassen CBD as required by accepted planning practices. In addition, efforts are being made to comply with the park and open space recommendations of the plan. i would like to note that the commercial area, proposed as a part of later phases of development, does not appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also likely that commercial development of any signi- ficant size (over 10-15,000 square feet) will be in direct competition with similar uses in the adjacent CBD area as contemplated by the City. Thus, I would recommend that when this phase is reviewed by the City every effort be made to limit or replace commercial uses proposed for this area. A likely replacement is moderate to high density housing. Conformance with the. Zoninq Ordinance The subject parcel has been granted a rezoning to Planned Residential Zoning. The P-1 zoning district permits the proposed mix of residential housing styles as well as neighborhood scale commercial uses which are subject to a Conditioned Use Permit. Thus, the submittal is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Conformance with Prior Approvals The present submittal conforms to the maximum 600 units at 2.9 units per acre ceiling set by the City Council. The overall project layout is also in confor- mance with earlier submittals allowing for revisions attributable to compliance with City requests. Project Design The basic layout of Phase One appears to conform to commonly accepted site planning practices and is generally acceptable. The gradual decrease in density from south to north is proper and reflects the intensity of surrounding land uses and access. It is also quite proper to cluster the higher density uses near the park as these units are likely to generate a high demand for recreational space. I would, however, like to make the following comments. 1. In my opinion, the cluster of single-family homes at Potomac Drive and Powers Boulevard is inappropriate. I understand that this feature was incorporated to break up a potential vista of quad homes along the west side of Powers Boulevard. I feel that this concern is misplaced for three reasons: a. There is already a mix of uses proposed along this sector of the parcel. The progression includes light commercial, high density residential, medium density residential and low density residential. City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 3 b. Well designed duplex and quad units do not necessarily have a poorer design image than single family homes. C. Incorporation of some sort of increased setback off of Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) plus the use of landscaping and/or compatible fencing, would "soften" the areas visual image. Creating such a pocket of single-family homes surrounding by duplexes fronting on a relatively busy street can only result in a less than desirable quality of development. Therefore, it is my recommendation that these single family units be relo- cated to the north and exchanged with duplex units such that the total first phase proposal remains at the established ceiling. 2. ;ncreased setbacks from Highway 5 and County 17/Powers Boulevard have been suggested by the City Planner. The two reasons given for this measure are aesthetics and noise mitigation. Given the present and projected traffic volumes and the long frontages along these roads I would have to agree that this is a valid point. However, I do feel that the 1101 being requested is excessive. The mechanics of sound transmission are such that 150 or even 200' setbacks alone would not contribute to any appreciable reduction in sound Levels at the building line. In addition, the nature of traffic (i.e. truck/auto ratio, speed, volume) on Highway 5 and County 17/Powers Boulevard present two very different situations. Highway 5 will contain a much higher volume of traffic as well as a much higher ratio of trucks to automobiles. Hence, I would like to propose that building setbacks be a minimum of 75 feet be established along County 17/Powers Boulevard and 100 feet along Highway 5 for residential construction. Commercial construction (not inciuded in this Phase) setbacks should be 75 feet along both roads. I would also like to recommend that landscaping provisions be established to further improve the aesthetics and moderate potential noise problems. Extensive treatments should be established along Highway 5 when those phases are developed. The developer should be required to submit a plan for establishing a combination of landscaping, berming and/or fencing of the first 25' west of the County 17/Powers Bouelvard right-of-way. Combined with the proposed 75' buildng setback along Route 17 this would accomplish the following goals: a. Improve the aesthetics of the County 17/Powers Boulevard corridor. b. Use of setback and landscaping will offer minimal noise mitigation potential. However, it is likely that while actual noise levels will not be appreciably reduced, the residents perception of the problem will be altered. As an added benefit the rear yards of units along Route 17 will become more private offering a higher level of amenity to the residents. City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 4 c. The Developer will not lose buildable lots as would be the case with the proposed 110' setback. However, it is possible that Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 could require minor setback variances of 15' or less for building siting. This would be acceptable. However, to avoid the need for any variances, a simpl-e solution would be to relocate the cul-de-sacs slightly further west and redraw the lot lines. It appears that this modification could be made without causing serious disruptions to the basic plan. 3. The City Planner has indicated a concern about crowding on Lots 14-16 Block 3 and Lots 35-38 Block 2. 1 have researched the situation and in my opinion, the lots as designed are satisfactory. Recreational Provisions Lake Ann Park represents an excellent recreational amenity for the residents of Chaparral West. The park dedication that has been requested by the City coupled with the proposed purchase of land to expand the park and the strip of land along Lake Ann are appropriate methods of providing for the recreational needs of Chanhassen's residents both from within Chaparral West and the balance of the community. BRW is not commenting on the Park dedication formula itself due to the nature of ongoing negotiations between the City and Developer. After having reviewed the situation I would have to agree with the City Planner that a paved pedway is necessary. The Park cannot be considered a recreational amenity unless safe and efficient pedestrian access is provided. To satisfy this need a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk should be provided along the north side Potomac Drive from County 17/Powers Boulevard to Aztec Drive and along the north side of the Aztec Drive to Lake Ann Park. The sidewalk should be constructed immediately adjacent to the curb (mountable) to minimize impacts upon the adjacent residential lots and reduce maintenance costs. To this end the City should also give consideration to locating a stop sign and pedestrian crosswalk on Aztec Drive in the vicinity of Nachos Way. Complementing this sidewalk will be a larger bikeway/pedway located along Highway 5 (slated for construction this spring), internal trails in Lake Ann Park, a proposed trail around Lake Ann and a proposed trail along the conser- vation easement running across the southern section of the site. To gain access to the Lake Ann circumferential trail a 20' wide access should be incorporated between Lots 25 and 26 of Block 6. This location would place the access on the alignment of Fox Head Road and would serve the greatest numbered people. The access previously shown between Lots 35 and 36 of Block 6 should be dropped as its serves little purpose. It should also be noted that when the multiple family units are planned as a later phase, they should include some private, on -site recreational amenities suitable to project density and resident makeup. However, this is not under consideration at the present time. City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 5 _ Project Access and Traffic Considerations A BRW Transportation Planner, David Warner, was asked to review this aspect of the Plan. The following are his comments. Access to Chaparral West via Aztec Drive The developer of Chaparral West has requested access directly to TH 5 at Aztec Drive. Aztec Drive would be located opposite the Park Drive access to the Industrial Park south of TH 5. This access arrangement has been reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In a letter dated January 9, 1980, Mn/DOT said that right turn lanes would be required as a part of the entrance permit. Capacity analysis (by BRW) indicates that, in that configuration (all movements allowed), the intersection would not require signalization at the pre- sent time. At some point in the future, however, signalization may be required. In consideration of this issue, two other points should be addressed. One point is the future configuration of TH 5 through Chanhassen. If traffic volumes con- tinue to increase on TH 5, there are two possible ways of improving the traffic carrying capacity of TH 5 and cross streets. If TH 5 is widened to four lanes, with major crossings signalized, the intersection with Aztec Drive -Park Drive could remain in place (either with or without signalization, depending on con- ditions at the time). If TH 5 is widened and if an interchange is constructed at CSAH 17 (as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan) all access to TH 5 from the Chaparral project should be focused on the interchange. If that,occurs, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should probably be closed, along with any other at -grade intersections with TH 5 that are in the vicinity of the interchange. Other possibilities would include the provision of left turn lanes or limiting the intersection to right-in/right-out movements. It may be appropriate to speculate about when traffic signals may be warranted at this intersection of TH 5 and Aztec Drive -Park Drive. Information presented in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that average daily traffic on TH 5 at this location was about 12,000 vehicles per day in 1978 and will be about 9000 vehicles per day in 2000. The decrease is apparently due to diversion of trips from TH 5 to an upgraded TH 212-TH 169 which is expected to occur. Whether signalization is warranted or not depends on volumes on both the major and the minor street during the eight continuous hours with the highest traffic volumes. For both the major street and the minor street, a minimum volume must be maintained for each hour during the eight hour period. For each hour during a continuous eight hour period, either one or the other of the minor street approaches (Aztec Drive or Park Drive) must have 75 cars per hour approaching the intersection in order to satisfy the warrant.* It is highly unlikely that these volumes of traffic will ever occur on Aztec Drive or Park Drive. * This assumes that TH 5 volumes satisfy warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Criteria City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 6 The second point which should be addressed is the TH 5 entrance to Lake Ann Park. While it is necessary to provide access to major roads, it is desirable to minimize the number of such access points in order to preserve the traffic carrying capacity of those roads. In this case, it would be desirable to pro- vide access to Lake Ann Park through Chaparral West for two reasons: • Elimination of an intersection on TH 5 will allow smoother flow of traf- fic on TH 5. • Residents of Chanhassen would have access to Lake Ann Park without being forced to use TH 5. Recommendation Based on this analysis, it is recommended that all turning movements be allowed at the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive. A right -turn lane should be incorporated into the Chaparral Project. This intersection should be monitored periodically to determine if signalization is required. At the point at which an interchange is constructed at the junction of TH 5 and County Road 17, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should be eliminated. It is further recommended that access to Lake Ann Park be provided through Chaparral West and not directly from TH 5, as it currently is. Street Width in Chaparral West The purpose of streets within a residential development is to provide access to the individual housing units. The streets should be designed to encourage relatively low travel speeds consistent with the character of residential development. Minimum street widths in areas of one- and two-family homes and in areas of townhomes and multi -family homes should be 28 feet. This assumes that most parking will occur off-street. The minimum widths are adequate to serve the access function. Additional street width is expensive to construct, to patch, to sweep and to plow, and requirement of. such should be considered with that in mind. Recommended Street Width Street Aztec Drive (from Highway 5 to Pawnee Drive) Aztec Drive (north of Pawnee Drive) Nachos Way Pawnee Drive Potomac Drive (from intersection with Recommended Width 32 feet 28 feet 28 feet 28 feet County Road 17 to Pawnee Drive) 32 feet City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 7 Recommended Street Width (Continued) Street Potomac Drive (from Pawnee Drive to Recommended Width north intersection with CSAH 17) 28 feet Pinto Drive 28 feet Cochise Drive 28 feet Fox Head Road 28 feet Pinto Bay 28 feet Pinto Court 28 feet Potomac Court 28 feet Potomac Bay 28 feet Nachos Court 28 feet Aztec Court 28 feet Lake Ann Park Access It is appropriate to provide a new access into the Park via the Chaparral pro- ject and close off the existing access from Highway 5. It is necessary that this be done to improve traffic safety and flow along Highway 5. It would also have the benefit of providing a Park access that does not require movement on a busy highway. As presently designed, this alternative access will be provided from Route 17 via Pawnee Drive and an east/west street through the commercial and multiple - family areas to be constructed in later phases. I have two concerns with this proposal. a. Pawnee Drive is a residential collector street having numerous road cuts for driveways. it is not the ideal conduit for moving traffic to the Park. b. The proposed east/west street connects into the CBD street system (CSAH 16) as is necessary. However, the routing as shown is highly circuitous. At this stage in the development process it would be difficult to suggest any revisions that would substantially improve this situation. A major drainageway is found in the area making more direct routings an extremely difficult and expensive solution. I would propose two modifications to the plan to partially mitiaate this situation. a. When plans are submitted for the southern phase they should be reviewed to insure that as few road cuts as possible are created along the east/ west street. The road should also take the most direct possible routing between the Park and CSAH 16. Existing Alignment Proposed Alignment 1 1 s 7=j 0 100 200 400 feet north City of Chanhassen February 3, 1981 Page 8 b. The road layout should be slightly redesigned to favor traffic flow on the east/west street over Pawnee Drive. A stop sign would be located on Pawnee Drive to control traffic flow. This modification (refer to attached sketches) could be accomplished without severely disrupting the plan which has been submitted for consideration. At Mr. Warner's recom- mendation this unnamed street should be 32' wide. No approvals for these phases should be granted unless they are submitted with binding assurances that the east/west street will be constructed as proposed, in its entirety. Refer to the attached sketch for details. Unit Desicn/Architectural Elevations While the units proposed for Chaparral West, Phase One are certainly not "spec built" estates, they do represent solid, well designed and functional housing. In this respect they are no different than 9910 of the units being constructed in most Twin Cities suburbs. It is also important to note that there appears to be a rather, extensive variety of available housing styles. Thus, the fear that there will be endless vistas of look -a -like housing should not be realized. To further insure that this will not occur it is advisable that the developer be requested to provide the City with proposed plans of building placement by design type. Engineering Considerations BRW has not been commissioned to perform an engineering feasibility study for the project. A review of the Engineers comments seems to indicate that the problems which have been identified are relatively minor and solutions can be incorporated into Final Plat submittals. Thus, I would simply recommend that the City Engineers comments in a memo dated 11/6/1980 (attached), be complied with. With regard to the planners recommendations that a no-build/no-grade line be established along the drainageway located at the southeast corner of the project and that a concurrent conservation easement be granted, I fully concur. The request is both valid and reasonable given the nature of the area and City Plans. The City Engineer should be requested to set this line on the basis of a topographical contour line. A telephone conversation with the City Engineer indicated that this line could be established without compromising the proposed site plan. Recommendations After a review of this project I would recommend that the Final Development Plan for Chaparral West Phase One be approved contingent upon compliance of the following recommendations: City of Chanhassan February 3, 1981 Page 9 1. Relocate the single-family units from Potomac Drive as discussed. 2. Establish the 75' setback and landscaping provisions along Route 17 (Powers Boulevard). 3. Realign the southern east/west roadway and Pawnee Drive as recommended. 4. Follow the recommendations on the Route 5/Aztec Drive intersection. 5. Utilize the recommended minimum street widths. 6. Establishment of a no-build/no fill line and granting of a conservation easement as established by the City Engineer. 7. Approval of the Final Development Plan for Phase One be conditioned upon review and approval of the EAW. 8. Subject to incorporation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 9. Subject to the signing of an approved developers agreement and approval of the covenants by the City Attorney. 10. Subject to plan review and approval by the applicable watershed districts. WILLIAWN D. SCHOELL CARLISLE MAOSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E. GILL THEODORE 0. KEMNA JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF WILL'IAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI GERALD L. BACKMAN SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC. ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS (6123 938-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 November 6, 1980 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Chaparral West Plan Review Gentlemen: With reference to the above named development, we herein enclose our engineering plan review. Attached is a memorandum that deals with design details. Following are comments in a more general tone concerning specific items of concern. Trunk Sanitary Sewer The plans as submitted do not address trunk sewer service to areas east of County Road No. 17 lying north of Trunk Highway No. 5. Our feasibility study of March, 1980, should be referred to, and discussions with the developer would follow concerning how this is to be accomplished and cost shared. Drainage Although the present plans do not so indicate, the developer plans to divert some drainage to the Lake Ann watershed that presently drains to the Carver Creek watershed. This is primarily to avoid confrontation with the Riley -Purgatory Watershed District and their concerns over Carver Creek erosion. Details are to follow, and we concur with this concept. One change that we request is to divert southbound drainage on Aztec easterly before it reaches the Trunk Highway No. 5 ditch. Such drainage would temporarily run across Outlot A until such time as its development occurs. All drainage plans would be subject to Watershed District approvals. N aCHOELL & MADSON.INC. City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. Page Two November 6, 1980 Trunk Water The City's trunk water plan calls for an 18-inch main to be installed along County Road No. 17. It is our recommendation that this 18-inch main be installed through this development so that lateral benefit can be achieved concurrently. This would require either a public improvement project or some kind of financial credit arrangement for the main oversizing from 6-inch or 8-inch to 18-inch. Subject to the comments herein, we recommend approval of the plans submitted. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. JROrr:mkr (� enclosure ` OL "I i f I- t-o re, 42 17 Z,51 Ar) ulid L Lo 0 z2 Z7� 10- C� �;//;coccj x I d v . 1� ((1� f� if �i t. 1Z ' 27 i1 1 itC!Gi'CPco AL C`l i i J �f �G� L `�' i^`s'S S �r St ` ✓ ����'r�c S . .� C XC! t 4�1 -Z,c ' -- Y, F3 , le xz' 0 P7 tLl 1;7 Le L-L Z'3 cS, S �3 cs, I A xq C-1�5-, 'W�7 "I I I-) & A/Cv r, PLANNING /TRANSPORTATION/ ENGI N EERING 1ARCHITECTURE Date: 1 i 2 i 1's5 t t To: U 0 '\"r' "q- � I An r, 1('j��l/� C tGc Re:ir Item(s): No. Description Purpose-. Remarks: as _you requested for your information for your approval TRANSMITTAL review and return reply to sender other (see remarks) 021 RE,CEIV�,D' r V ILLAG SIN, r� - MINK• ' BATHER. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER. INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 PHONE 612 / 379-7878 BBRIER, PLANNING!TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING/ARCHITECTURE January 20, 1981 TO: City of Chanhassen FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP SUBJECT: Final Development Plan Review .Chaparral West PRD Phase One Background MEMORANDUM The City of Chanhassen has hired the firm of BRW, Inc. to conduct an independent review of the Chaparral West PRD. It is my understanding that planning for this project has been going on throughout the past year. It is also my understanding that the City Council has granted Preliminary Plan Approval for the project conditioned upon a maximum density of 2.9 units per acre and a total number of dwelling units not to exceed 600. Thus, I would like to proceed with this project review with the clear understanding that I do not feel it is necessary to reassess the basic validity of this project. In my professional opinion the City has a moral and possibly legal obligation to proceed with refinement and finalization of plans which have been granted preliminary approval. Request As previously noted, the applicant is requesting approval of the Final Development Plan for Chaparral West. At full development the project will include a maximum total of 600 housing units and possibly a small, neighborhood scale commercial area. However, as part of this First Phase request approval is being sought to construct 480 housing units including single family homes, duplexes and townhouses. Conformance with Lona Rance Plans A review of the draft, 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan indicates that the first phase proposal is in conformance. BATHER. RINGROSE. WOLSFELD. JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. 2829 UNIVERSITY AVE. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 PHONE 6121 379.7878 City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 2 The Land Use Plan indicates a mix of Low/Medium anal High Density residential uses in areas roughly conforming to the current design submitted for review. The higher density uses are located in relatively close proximity to the Chanhassen CBD as required by accepted planning practices. In addition, efforts are being made to comply with the park and open space recommendations of the plan. I would like to note that the commercial area, proposed as a part of later phases of development, does not appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also likely that commercial development of any signi- ficant size (over 10-15,000 square feet) will be in direct competition with similar uses in the adjacent CBD area as contemplated by the City. Thus, I would recommend that when this phase is reviewed by the City every effort be made to limit or replace commercial uses proposed for this area. A likely replacement is moderate to high density housing. Conformance with the Zoning Ordinance The subject parcel has been granted a rezoning to Planned Residential Zoning. The P-1 zoning district permits the proposed mix of residential housing styles as well as neighborhood scale commercial uses which are subject to a Conditioned Use Permit. Thus, the submittal is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Conformance with Prior Approvals The present submittal conforms to the maximum 600 units at 2.9 units per acre ceiling set by the City Council. The overall project layout is also in confor- mance with earlier submittals allowing for revisions attributable to compliance with City requests. Project Des i cn The basic layout of Phase One appears to conform to commonly accepted site planning practices and is generally acceptable. The gradual decrease in density from south to north is proper and reflects the intensity of surrounding land uses and access. It is also quite proper to cluster the higher density uses near the park as these units are likely to generate a high demand for recreational space. I would, however, like to make the following comments. 1. In my opinion, the cluster of single-family homes at Potomac Drive and Powers Boulevard is inappropriate. I understand that this feature was incorporated to break up a potential vista of quad homes along the west side of Powers Boulevard. I feel that this concern is misplaced for three reasons: a. There is already a mix of uses proposed along this sector of the parcel. The progression includes light commercial, high density residential, medium density residential and low density residential. City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 3 b. Well designed duplex and quad units do not necessarily have a poorer design image than single family homes. c. Incorporation of some sort of increased setback off of Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) plus the use of landscaping and/or compatible fencing, would "soften" the areas visual image. Creating such a pocket of single-family homes surrounding by duplexes fronting on a relatively busy street can only result in a less than desirable quality of development. Therefore, it is my recommendation that these single family units be relo- cated to the north and exchanged with duplex units such that the total first phase proposal remains at the established ceiling. 2. Increased setbacks from Routes 5 and 17 have been suggested by the City Planner. The two reasons given for this measure are aesthetics and noise mitigation. Given the present and projected traffic volumes and the long frontages along these roads I would have to agree that this is a valid point. However, I do feel that the 1101 being requested is excessive. The mechanics of sound transmission are such that 150 or even 200' setbacks alone would not contribute to any appreciable reduction in sound levels at the building line. In addition, the nature of traffic O .e. truck/auto ratio, speed, volume) on Route 5 and Route 17 (Powers Boulevard) present to very different situations. Route 5 will contain a much higher volume of traffic as well as a much higher ratio of trucks to automobiles. Hence, I would like to propose that building setbacks be a minimum building setback of 75 feet be established along Powers Boulevard and 100 feet along Route 5 for residential construction. Commercial construction (not included in this Phase) setbacks should be 75 feet along both roads. I would also like to recommend that landscaping provisions be established to further improve the aesthetics and moderate potenti'al noise problems. Extensive treatments should be established along Route 5 when those phases are developed. The developer should be required to submit a plan for establishing a combination of landscaping, berming and/or fencing of the first 25' west of the CSAH 17 right-of-way. Combined with the proposed 751 buildng setback along Route 17 this would accomplish the following goals: a. Improve the aesthetics of the Route 17 corridor. b. Use of setback and landscaping will offer minimal noise mitigation potential. However, it is likely that while actual noise levels will not be appreciably reduced, the residents perception of the problem will be altered. As an added benefit the rear yards of units along Route 17 will become more private offering a higher level of amenity to the residents. City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 4 c. The Developer will not lose buildable lots as would be the case with the proposed 110' setback. However, it is possible that Lots 6 and 7, Block 4 and Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 could require minor setback variances of 15' or less -for building siting. This would be acceptable. However, to avoid the need for any variances, a simple solution would be to relocate the cul-de-sacs slightly further west and redraw the lot lines. It appears that this modification could be made without causing serious disruptions to the basic plan. 3. The City Planner has indicated a concern about crowding on Lots 14-16 Block 3 and Lots 35-38 Block 2. 1 have researched the situation and in my opinion, the lots as designed are satisfactory. Recreational Provisions Lake Ann Park represents an excellent recreational amenity for the residents of Chaparral West. The park dedication that has been requested by the City coupled with the proposed purchase of land to expand the park and the strip of land along Lake Ann are appropriate methods of providing for the recreational needs of Chanhassen's residents both from within Chaparral West and the balance of the community. After having reviewed the situation I would have to agree with the City Planner that a paved pedway is necessary along Potomac Drive, Aztec Drive and Pawnee Drive. The Park cannot be considered a recreational amenity unless safe and efficient pedestrian access is provided. To this end the City should also give consideration to locating a stop sign and pedestrian crosswalk on Aztec Drive in the vicinity of Nachos Way. It should also be noted that when the multiple family units are planned as a later phase, they should include some private, on -site recreational amenities suitable to project density and resident makeup. However, this is not under consideration at the present time. Project Access and Traffic Considerations A BRW Transportation Planner, David Warner, was asked to review this aspect of the Plan. The following are his comments. Access to Chaparral West via Aztec Drive The developer of Chaparral West has requested access directly to TH 5 at Aztec Drive. Aztec Drive would be located opposite the Park Drive access to the Industrial Park south of TH 5. This access arrangement has been reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. In a letter dated January 9, 1980, Mn/DOT said that right turn lanes would be required as a part of the entrance permit. Capacity analysis (by BRW) indicates that, in that configuration (all movements allowed), the intersection would not require signalization at the pre- sent time. At some point in the future, however, signalization may be required. City of Chanhassen January 19, 1981 Page 5 In consideration of this issue, two other points should be addressed. One point is the future configuration of TH 5 through Chanhassen. If traffic volumes con- tinue to increase on TH 5, there are two possible ways of improving the traffic carrying capacity of TH 5 and cross streets. If TH 5 is widened to four lanes, with major crossings signalized, the intersection with Aztec Drive -Park Drive could remain in place (either with or without signalization, depending on con- ditions at the time). If TH 5 is widened and if an interchange is constructed at CSAH 17 (as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan) all access to TH 5 from the Chaparral project should be focused on the interchange. If that occurs, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should probably be closed, along with any other at -grade intersections with TH 5 that are in the vicinity of the interchange. Other possibilities would include the provision of left turn lanes or' limiting the intersection to right-in/right-out movements. It may be appropriate to speculate about when traffic signals may be warranted at this intersection of TH 5 and Aztec Drive -Park Drive. Information presented in the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that average daily traffic on TH 5 at this location was about 12,000 vehicles per day in 1978 and will be about 9000 vehicles per day in 2000. The decrease is apparently due to diversion of trips from TH 5 to an upgraded TH 212-TH 169 which is expected to occur. Whether signalization is warranted or not depends on volumes on both the major and the minor street during the eight continuous hours with the highest traffic volumes. For both the major street and the minor street, a minimum volume must be maintained for each hour during the eight hour period. For each hour during a continuous eight hour period, either one or the other of the minor street approaches (Aztec Drive or Park Drive) must have 75 cars per hour approaching the intersection in order to satisfy the warrant.* It is highly unlikely that these volumes of traffic will ever occur on Aztec Drive or Park Drive. The second point which should be addressed is the TH 5 entrance to Lake Ann Park. While it is necessary to provide access to major roads, it is desirable to minimize the number of such access points in order to preserve the traffic carrying capacity of those roads. In this case, it would be desirable to pro- vide access to Lake Ann Park through Chaparral West for two reasons: • Elimination of an intersection on TH 5 will allow smoother flow of traf- ficonTH5. • Residents of Chanhassen would have access to Lake Ann Park without being forced to use TH 5. * This assumes that TH 55 volumes -satisfy warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic Criteria City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 6 Recommendation Based on this analysis, it is recommended that all turning movements be allowed at the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive. A right -turn lane should be incorporated into the Chaparral Project. This intersection should be monitored periodically to determine if signalization is required. At the point at which an interchange is constructed at the junction of TH 5 and County Road 17, the intersection of TH 5 with Aztec Drive -Park Drive should be eliminated. It is further recommended that access to Lake Ann Park be provided through Chaparral West and not directly from TH 5, as it currently is. Street Width in Chaparral West The purpose of streets within a residential development is to provide access to the individual housing units. The streets should be designed to encourage rela- tively low travel speeds consistent with the character of residential development. Minimum street widths in areas of one- and two-family homes should be 28 feet, and in areas of townhomes and multi -family homes, 32 feet. This assumes that most parking will occur off-street. The minimum widths are ade- quate to serve the access function. Additional street width is expensive to construct, to patch, to sweep and to plow, and requirement of such should be considered with that in mind. Recommended Street Width Street Recommended Width Aztec Drive 32 feet Nachos Way 32 feet Pawnee Drive 32 feet Potomac Drive (from South intersection with County Road 17 to Pawnee Drive) 32 feet Potomac Drive (from Pawnee Drive to north intersection with CSAH 17) 28 feet Pinto Drive 28 feet Cochise Drive 28 feet Fox Head Road 28 feet Pinto Bay 28 feet Pinto Court 28 feet Potomac Court 28 feet Potomac Bay 28 feet Nachos Court 28 feet Aztec Court 28 feet City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 7 Lake Ann Park Access In addition to Mr. Warner's statements I would like to discuss the issue of access to Lake Ann Park. It is appropriate to provide a new access into the Park via the Chaparral project and close off the existing access from Route 5. It is necessary that this be done to improve traffic safety and flow along Route 5. It would also have the benefit of providing a Park access that does not require movement on a busy highway. As presently designed, this alternative access will be provided from Route 17 via Pawnee Drive and an east/west street through the commercial and multiple - family areas to be constructed in later phases. I have two concerns with this proposal. a. Pawnee Drive is a residential collector street having numerous road cuts for driveways. It is not the ideal conduit for moving traffic to the Park. b. The proposed southern street connects into the CBD street system (CSAH 16) as is necessary. However, the routing as shown is highly circuitous. At this stage in the development process it would be difficult to suggest any revisions that would substantially improve this situation. In any case a major drainageway is found in the area making more direct routings an extremely dif- ficult and expensive solution. I would propose two modifications to the plan to partially mitigate this situation. a. When plans are submitted for the southern phase they should be reviewed to insure that as few road cuts as possible are created along the east/ west street. The road should also take the most direct possible routing between the Park and CSAH 16. b. The road layout should be slightly redesigned to favor traffic flow on the east/west street over Pawnee Drive. A stop sign would be located on Pawnee Drive to control traffic flow. This modification (refer to attached sketches) could be accomplished without severely disrupting the plan which has been submitted for consideration. At Mr. Warner's recom- mendation this unnamed street should be 361 wide. Refer to the attached sketch for details. Existing Alignment Proposed Alignment 1' 1 1� 1' . 1 1 I� 1 II 1 I , II Is I 1 I I 1 li I ,I I 1' 0 100 200 400feet D',O;M City of Chanhassen January 20, 1981 Page 8 Unit Design/Architectural Elevations While the units proposed for Chaparral West, Phase One are certainly not "spec built" estates, they do represent solid, well designed and functional housing. In this respect they are no different than 99% of the units being constructed in most Twin Cities suburbs. It is also important to note that there appears to be a rather, extensive variety of available housing styles. Thus, the fear that there will be endless vistas of look -a -like housing should not be realized. To further insure that this will not occur it is advisable that the developer be requested to provide the City with proposed plans of building placement by design type. Encineerinc Considerations BRW has not been commissioned to perform an engineering feasibility study for the project. A review of the Engineers comments seems to indicate that the problems which have been identified are relatively minor and solutions can be incorporated into Final Plat submittals. Thus, I would simply recommend that the City Engineers comments in a memo dated 11/6/1980 (attached), be complied with. With regard to the planners recommendations that a no-build/no-grade line be established along the drainageway located at the southeast corner of the project and that a concurrent conservation easement be granted. I fully concur. The request is both valid and reasonable given the nature of the area and City Plans. The City Engineer should be requested to set this line on the basis of a topographical contour line. Recommendations After a review of this project I would recommend that the Final Development Plan for Chaparral West Phase One be approved contingent upon compliance of the following recommendations: 1. Relocate the single-family units from Potomac Drive as discussed. 2. Establish the 75' setback and landscaping provisions along Route 17 (Powers Boulevard). 3. Realign the southern east/west roadway and Pawnee Drive as recommended. 4. Follow the recommendations on the Route 5/Aztec Drive intersection. 5. Utilize the recommended minimum street widths. 6. Establishment of a no-bu11d/no fill line and granting of a conservation easement as established by the City Engineer. City of Chanhassan January 20, 1981 Page 9 7. Approval of the Final Development Plan for Phase One be conditioned upon review and approval of the EAW. 8. Subject to incorporation -of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 9. Subject to the signing of an approved developers agreement and approval of the covenants by the City Attorney. 10. Subject to plan review and approval by the applicable watershed districts. WILLIAM I]. SCHOELL CARLISLE MAOSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E. GILL THEODORE O. KEMNA JOHN W.EMONO KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI GERALD L. 6ACKMAN SCHOELL & MAOSON, iNc. ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS (6121 936-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343 November 6, 1980 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Chaparral West Plan Review Gentlemen: With reference to the above named development, we herein enclose our engineering plan review. Attached is a memorandum that deals with design details. Following are comments in a more general tone concerning specific items of concern. Trunk Sanitary Sewer The plans as submitted do not address trunk sewer service to areas east of County Road No. 17 lying north of Trunk Highway No. 5. Our feasibility study of March, 1980, should be referred to, and discussions with the developer would follow concerning how this is to be accomplished and cost shared. Drainage Although the present plans do not so indicate, the developer plans to divert some drainage to the Lake Ann watershed that presently drains to the Carver Creek watershed. This is primarily to avoid confrontation with'the Riley -Purgatory Watershed District and their concerns over Carver Creek erosion. Details are to follow, and we concur with this concept. One change that we request is to divert southbound drainage on Aztec easterly before it reaches the Trunk Highway No. 5 ditch. Such drainage would temporarily run across Outlot A until such time as its development occurs. All drainage plans would be subject to Watershed District approvals. m.�HOELL & MAOSON, INC. City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. Page Two November 6, 1980 Trunk Water The City's trunk water plan calls for an 18-inch main to be installed along County Road No. 17. It is our recommendation that this 18-inch main be installed through this development so that lateral benefit can be achieved concurrently. This would require either a public improvement project or some kind of financial credit arrangement for the main oversizing from 6-inch or 8-inch to 18-inch. Subject to the comments herein, we recommend approval of the plans submitted. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. JROrr:mkr enclosure \� I JJack Anderson Associates ATRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 165 WOdwood Ave. White Bear Lake Minnesota 55110 December 12 1980 Joel Katz, Development Plannincl MnDOT District 5 2;55 `ilac Lane Golden Valley. M.N., 55422 Re: T.H. 5 in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie gear Joel , C61 Tnanks again for the opport-unity to meet with you at your office on N ednesday, December 10. The purpose of this letter is to set down my understanding of the points of discussion at that meeting. l had rcgljested the meeting in conjunction with my work for Dunn & Curr f.)n their Chanhassen development. It has become apparent that the discussions over potential access restraints at the proposed Aztec Drive intersection Onsi)r4 ►^ ^^��;�4:_ . :� �,�, � �� a framework of t,i id u a14) i y to the entire l enGth of T.H. 5 through Eden rrair4e and Chanhassen. The meeting accomplished what I hoped it would, an open discussion of probable future traffic conditions on T.H. 5, and a better commoo understanding appropriate traffic control measures to cope with the problems. I am encouraaed that there will be an immedi;�te attemot to determine future signalized intersection locations in a coordinated system, even though at the present time there is no prospect for funding them. Some of the ite?,s of general agreement were: - rapid development in this area is likely to continue the pi osoect for funding T.H. improvements in this area is diva (this anulies to both T.H. 5 and future T.H. 212) the area i- likely to reach nearly full development before With those items in rind, we discussed what could be done at this time in terms of administra�-ive decisions "Co facilitate future traffic -i,ipruvements w1er 'ending became available. Obviously, traffic volumes viill be so high that traffic signal warrants will be met at every public street intersecting T.H. 5. Under these conditions, uniform spacing of signalized in;rrsections is essential to efficient signal progre:sslons. The quest is "!That is the distance between signals t)it would n-ovide the bes !-, trafi "r c service? " At this point th:: . cussion branched out t: -over the various elements that shoulld be eons idered . •(612) -6777 nil j7P W1 canned sjlution ts-,) a t r, e i s f C .2 1.) "i ne ive a fair 1-ivi-led• �raffic t a t ra !ie urs-qress -)n. 0 n a -F ortuni ty to pass who I e oiieue could e same s I oval v a c c e I - -,ir-iears 'hen that the wit ;-ave more t. s a oreat dea, 7 1 :,7 than to. -ur r)ei s. C tt c 1,,-. to s!iooll for h-i I f rRi S ord-!idri 11 y in the mathmati cal A S X I? to C 6�1 I be -y r sip r-i-ti�,,ns on T.H. 5. 1.s ta in ha i� f f i)Odd, Park Or, '7 ,.ill b forward _'ski ire res- is .et iq --k on time -spice 1 that turning movements -ime W, t en,,-s, and that if turninq r I L less unrested area it is -,) :ec-,Jicallv address the -Y the kF-/ intersectiois hi:, used i,; 1,­1 1,;ef ore c f ;.:ix ;i n t f i n a q-r i n q for traffic T1 I j su^-s,-nuently- found out that t ,"ed ofi h,inlipr systems. S ;,ram. In felt it n their !zest interest )roiects. it would be 1 ea,71 1�r tiz.—n. cz1o4s. 'lanes, and a rouoh estimate ,-;f v)as ci,* Ion channel ization,sans sinnal ini ts . nd the nossibility of r.1" f, I ju on future I H. 5 sol uti ��,ns. ry )t,-u I v. vclo. Anderso-i , N. F. 04 % Ito', 3 i h(A# , nh-i.ssen jilp 1' )arkiasser- Mi k,� ofl insen , 'Ar.POT Di st 1. !)nn -,-.-,1e4jsk- . Carver Co 9d '.)unr, W 01 WILLIAM O. SCHOELL CARLISLE MAOSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. OAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E GILL THEODORE D. KEMNA JOHN W. EMONO KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCO'TT HARRI GERALD L. BACKMAN SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS AND SURVEYQRS 18123 9$8-7601 s 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55340. November 6, 1980 City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. P. 0. BOX 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Chaparral West Plan Review Gentlemen: With reference to the above named development, we herein enclose our.engineering plan review. 'Attached is a memorandum that deals with design details. Following are comments in a more general tone concerning specific items of concern. Trunk Sanitary Sewer The plans as submitted do not address trunk sewer service to areas east of County Road No. 17 lying north of Trunk Highway No. 5_ Our feasibility study of March,, 1980, should be referred to, and discussions with the developer would follow concerning how this is to be accomplished and cost shared. Drainage Although the present plans do not so indicate, the developer plans to divert some drainage to the Lake Ann watershed that presently drains to the Carver Creek watershed. This. is primarily to avoid confrontation with the Riley -Purgatory Watershed District and their concerns over Carver Creek erosion: Details are to follow, and we concur with this concept. One change that we request is to divert southbound drainage on Aztec easterly before it reaches the Trunk Highway No. 5 ditch. Such drainage would temporarily run across Outlot A until such time as its development occurs. All drainage plans would be subject to Watershed District approvals. SCHOELL & MASON, INC. City of Chanhassen c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, L.U.C. Page Two November 6, 1980 Trunk Water The City's trunk water plan calls for an 18-inch main to be installed along County Road No. 17. It is our recommendation that this 18-inch main be. installed through this development so that lateral benefit can be achieved concurrently. This would require either a public improvement project or some kind of financial credit arrangement for the main oversizing from 6-inch or 8-inch to 18-inch. Subject to the comments herein, we recommend approval of the plans submitted. Very truly yours, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. JROrr : mkr enclosure �� NEW HORIZON HOMES, INC. BUILDING TOMORROWS DREAMS TODAY 3131 FERNBROOK LANE NORTH P.O. BOX 1367 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55440 612-559-5770 November 6, 1980 Bob Waibel City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Chaparral West Chanhassen, MN Dear Bob: As a follow-up to our meeting of November 5, 1980, on the subject project, I am providing the following information you requested. First, the platting sequence as presented in the submittals is tentative. That is, we must be responsive to marketing conditions, and, therefore, the platting following the first phase may not be in the numerical order indicated on the plans. Second, we would request that the development contract include the entire project, (as was the case in Chaparral), with escrow accounts being provided on a plat by plat basis. Third, any future assessments should be spread on each lot when platted. Fourth, a variance in setback requirements is requested for the twin homes to 20 feet. If you should have any questions, please advise. Ve+ t ul14 yoursy 17 A , e r or Frafik, P.E. Vice President of Land Development GJF/cce cc: Ed Dunn Dunn & Curry �► i 4940 Viking Drive, Suite 608 ^ NIN1980 y Minneapolis, MN 55435 �!� I �AM 4W C'�MilNAM1tM1. ., VRVOL c 1 ` 'Wr'.BURBAN ENGINEERING, INC. Main Offi 571- South Office - 890-6510 6875 Highway No. 65 N.E. 1101 Cliff Road Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432 Burnsville. Minnesota 55337 TO -� % /o 10 l G&I k 0A5SeV1 GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter L❑nn �� �� ���nn ETTEF OF UU11L�1MSL1ULJmm DUMUL DATE JOB NO. O z9 198v ATTENTION Li�1 l RE: L !J► � ✓1 K attached ❑ Under separate cover via LVY�rints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Change order ❑ the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION / n I 11 10 .1 �. -� IZ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: fl F' or approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 115 Lj r` l 11 rr i u � o_ d..t�sdo� A o .� ems.-. b � / 7 / C' ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return _corrected prints COPY TO�� FORM 240-2 Available from Inc., Groton, Mess. 01450 SIGNED: if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. • �q�NNES4T� - ,�O .. _ 20 Minnesota -Dep,-nrtment of Transportation District 5 E._. �`� 2055 No. Lilac Drivc �rOF *�a�� Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. October 7, 1980 Mr. Patrick B. Murphy Director of Public Works Carver County Courthouse 600 East 4th Chaska, Minnesota 55318 C.S. 1002 (T_H. 5) At C.S.A.H. 17 Signalization Dear Pat: J CT ,919,9 (612) 54' S-3761 •r�jHe City A( m,iiis(�3$3�1 �atsfreS 'i:o,. �ttordej - . PbIi-j In response to your letter dated September 26, 1980, the only way Mn/DOT would advance the subject signal project would be if Carver County and/or the City of Chanhassen would pay the entire costs. we must take this position since our federal funds are very limited also. The subject intersection currently ranks 18th on our District Sicrnal Priority List and we have requested programming for a May, 1982. letting. To date, our request has not been approved. " Although your proposal would save approximately $11,000 in state funds, it would cost Mn/DOT approximately $68,000 in federal funds which should be used on other higher priority projects_ If you have any questions, please call me. �; QgAN �, ti Ai11yM� r,� An Equal Opportunity Employer October 6, 1980 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CHAPARRAL WEST Chanhassen, Minnesota MEMO TO FILE: This subject plat was reviewed on the above listed date according to Ordinance 33, City of Chanhassen. STREETS Right -of -Way Widths Streets - Acceptable Cul-de-sacs - Acceptable Horizontal Deflections - Acceptable Grades: Over 7% Less Than 5% 3% Within 30' of Intersection Aztec Drive None None None Aztec Court None None None Nachos Way None None None Nachos Court None None None Pawnee Drive None None None Pinto Court None None None Pinto Bay None None None Pinto Drive None None None Potomac Drive None None None Potomac Bay None None None Potomac Court None None None Tahoe Road None None None Cochise Drive None None None Fox Head Road None None None Vertical Curve Length* * Minimum figured at 20x algebraic difference. There are four instances where vertical curves are less than ordinances. Vertical curves were also reviewed using the criteria of stopping site distance for minimum length of vertical curves. In this process of reviewal, 10 of the vertical curve lengths of the proposed sub- division were found to be deficient. It is our recommendation that this method be used in lieu of the City ordinance requirement of 20 x the algebraic difference method. Cul-de-sac Length Pinto Bay north of Fox Head Road exceeds 500 feet maximum length for cul-de-sacs. Preliminary Plat Review Chaparral West Page Two October 6, 1980 Intersection Angles - Adequate Boulevard Sodding - Not Specified Tangent Lengths Tangent lengths as applied to reverse curves comply with City ordinances. However, the 40-foot tangent at the intersection of Tahoe Road and Pinto Drive is smaller than all other tangents at a location which could carry considerable traffic volume. Intersection Radius (201) - Not Specified Easements - Not Dimensioned Roadway Width - Not Dimensioned Typical Roadway Section - Not Shown SANITARY SEWER Sewered area is divided with approximately 77 units discharging into the Greenwood Shores lift station which will be capable of handling this additional sewage. The remaining 523 units will be sewered towards Highway No. 5 with a 10-inch pipe which is judged to be sufficient to accommodate the sewage for this portion of the development. Serviceability: All proposed lots appear serviceable by the sanitary sewer as designed. Manhole Spacing - Adequate Minimum Grade - Adequate Watermain Crossings: It is suggested that a minimum of 18 inches of vertical separation be maintained between sanitary sewer and watermain crossing pipes or, if this is not possible, the sanitary sewer pipe be constructed to watermain standards. WATRPMA TM Size of mainline watermain is judged adequate to serve this develop- ment. Hydrant Spacing Hydrants are not shown, therefore spacing could not be verified. Preliminary Plat Review Chaparral West Page Three October 6, 1980 Serviceability: All lots are judged to be able to be served by this watermain, however, due to the numerous cul-de-sacs many "dead end" watermains will exist. It is recommended that wherever feasible, these watermains be looped. Sanitary Sewer Crossings: It is suggested that a minimum of 18 inches of vertical separation be maintained between watermain and sanitary sewer crossing pipes. If this cannot be achieved, sanitary sewer should be constructed to watermain standards. STORM SEWER In a conversation with Mr. Pete Molonero of Suburban Engineering's north office, it was noted that the storm sewer plans were subject to change. The "new" plans would redirect storm water runoff entirely into Lake Ann. Therefore, we would appreciate reviewing the revised storm sewer plans as they become available. 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147ECHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Mark Koegler, City Planner Fran Callahan, Community Services Director FROM: Bob Waibel, Land Use Coordinator DATE: August 28, 1980 SUBJ: Staff Review -of Proposed Changes: to Lake Ann PRD PLANNING CASE: File No. P--646 I have tentatively scheduled a meeting two weeks from today with Ed Dunn for the purpose of discussing the changes to Lake Ann PRD in response to the City Council's review. Mr. Dunn has requested that, before this meeting, we present to him as much detail as we can regarding the:expansi.on of Lake Ann Park. (.i.e. LAWCON acquisitions-.,, approximate expansion areas, etc.) I anticipate that such a meeting should not take too long, and I would like to tentatively schedule it for 1:30 Wednesday afternoon, September 3, 1980. Please confirm.. BW:nr 4 SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 11, 1980 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilmen. Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. LAKE ANN PTANNED RESID=AL DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING: Ed Dunn was present. The Council held a public meeting on July 28, 1980, to receive public testimony regarding this proposed development. Councilman Neveaux moved to rezone proposed Lake Ann PRD to P-1 excluding the 12.7 acre; designated as. hatched red and green and solid red on Exhibit lA of Planning Commission meeting June 11, 1980, drawn by Urbanscope. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen. Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to grant preliminary plan approval for Lake Ann POD as shown on the Urbanscope drawing of June 11, 1980, and referring to the Planning Cmmission recommendation of June 11, 1980, with attention also to be paid, during the next step. of the development process, to staff recommendations #1, 4, 7, 10, and 15 and that a density of 2.9 units per acre within the overall 203.3 acres of the project yielding a total dwelling unit count not to exceed 600 units on the property. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SHORT SLEEVE SESSION, 1980 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: Jim Orr and Dale Campbell were present project costs and the methodology used in the proposed assessments.. 1980 ELECTION EQUIPMENT: RESOLUTION #80-24: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolution setting forth the need to switch from paper ballots to punch -card voting system. Resolution seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager Councl. Meeting August 4, 1980 -3-- Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN LIGHTING REQUEST - NEW HORIZON HOMES: New Horizon Homes is seeking approval to light their existing off-prenise advertising sign located on Highway 5. The Sign ComTi.ttee and staff reccnnend denial of the request. Councilman Geving moved to deny the request. Motion seconded. by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. fk-0 PARK:_Energy Controls, Inc., President Lloyd Miller is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot building on Lot 6, Block 5, Chanhassen Lakes: Business Park. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the site plan as presented with the recommendations of the Land Use C000rdinator dated July 21, 1980, except #2 be revised to state that the trash dumpster be screened fran view. Approval is further conditioned upon the City Manager's cements of July 21, 1980, and City Engineer's letter of July 31, 1980.. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. ✓HOLASEK DISEASED TREE UTILIZATION PROPOSAL CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSAL, 8610 GALPIN BLVD. Earl Ho as was present seeking approval of a conditional use permit to operate. a tree chipper on his property at 8610 Galpin Blvd. These wood chips would be used for heating his greenhouses. Carver County would lease the chipper to Mr. Holasek and he would provide a free tree disposal site for trees felled within Carver County. Paul Waldron, Carver County Zoning Office, and many residents of the area were present. The Land Use Coordinator reviewed his report of July 23, 1980. Neighbors are. concerned about noise, air pollution and traffic. Councilman Geving-moved to disapprove the ordinance amendment for the Holasek diseased tree utilization site as a conditional use in an R-lA District. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Geving and Swenson. Councilmen Neveaux and Pearson voted no. Motion carried. AMEND "NO PARKING ORDINANCE": Councilman Pearson moved to table action. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen. Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilmen Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned. Don Ashworth City Manager t AGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JULY 28, 1980, 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 7600 LAREDO DRIVE 1. 7:30 p.m. - Lake Susan West Planned Residential Development; Dunn and Curry; Preliminary Development Plan Approval/Denial Including Rezoning.* 2. 8:00 p.m. - Lake Ann Planned Residential Development, Dunn and Curry Public Input Session (No action anticipated with the session providing an opportunity for presentation of development proposal by developer; considering Planning Commission recommendations; considering previous public hearing comments/petitions; and audience comments) - * The public hearing was closed on June 23, 1980 with final action tabled to this meeting. SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 28, 1980 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order with the following members pre: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Swenson, and Geving. 4 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND URBAN DESIGN CONSTRUCTION_,_ DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMEN' PLAN, HRA, AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY: Councilman Geving moved that the City Council make this a condition as a part: of the- approval of a feasibility study, to direct staff to secure a written agreement. with Kraus -Anderson and Bloomberg Companies that in the event either or both companies back out of the redevelopment plan either will pay 25% of the share of the feasibility cost. If the City denies the project, the City will accept the total. cost of the feasibility study. The feasibility study will be prepared by BRV%T, Inc. Motion seconded by - Councilman -Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. PLANNING SECRETARY, POSITION DESCRIPTION AND AUTHORIZE POSITION: Councilman Neveaux moved to adopt the City Manager's report of July 21, 1980, creating the position of Planning Secretary and authorize the advertisement for same. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux,. Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. - A�- � KE SUSAN WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, DUNN AND CUR COuncilma-n- Neveaux moved r- t e approval of t_ e _rezoning fcsr the Lake Susan West PRD from. R-lA to P-�1. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilman Swenson, Neveaux, Pearson, and Geving.. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to errant preliminary plan approval for Lake Susan West PRD as shown on Urbanscope drawing, Exhibit A, Planning Commission 5-28-80, with a density noted. at 2.68 units per arse withir, all development districts and a total dwelling units not to exceed 979 units. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following votedin favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson,_ Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. LIC INPUT L--ANN PRD, "UNN AND CURRY Mayor Hobbs called the public input session to order on Lake Ann PRD_ Ed Dunn made a presentation of the Lake Ann PRD including density, land uses, open spaces, etc. Bob Waibel presented a summary of the various Planning Commission meetings and final recommendations in regards to the Lake Ann PRD_ Carol Watson and Marcy Kurimchak were present to restate issues previously noted as concerns by the Greenwood Shores Association. Al Klingelhutz and Larry Buchheit were present to present the Chamber of Commerce petition generally in support of the three residential proposals. Council members generally discussed the proposed development -with members of the audience, Planning Commission members and between themselves. A Council Meeting J y 28, 1980 - 2- 41 Councilman Geving moved to table action to allow for additional written comments to August 11, 1980. Motion seconded by Councilman. Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative, votes. Motion. carried. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman e Geving. The following voted in favor. Mayor Hobbs, Councilmn Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager CITY OF CBANHASS°���� 7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA.. 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: July 21, 1980 SUBJ: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Recommendation - Lake Ann and Lake Susan PRD Proposals On July loth the Housing and Redevelopment Authority discussed whether the proposed planned residential developments of Dunn and Curry would effect redevelopment efforts of the Commission. The following action was taken by the Commission (copy of minutes not available): "Recognizing the potential impact that the Lake Ann and Lake Susan (South and West) planned residential developments could have on overall redevelopment activities of the HRA,_ the HRA.hereby recommends that the City Council consider rezoning of the commercial areas shown within the Lake Ann and Lake Susan PRD's in the form of planned commercial zones wherein the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, in conjunction with the Planning Commission, shall develop overlay land uses which will be harmonious, not competitive, and an extension of the downtown redevelop- ment plan". The above motion was made by Commissioner Niemeyer,, seconded by Commissioner Bohn.. Ayes - All. CITY(DF CHAHHASS,EIll�.Irfrxi 7610 LAREDO DRIVE&P.O BOX 1478CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 14, 1980 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: City Land Use Coordinator, Bob Vsaibel SUBJ: Minutes on Dunn and Curry Residential Proposals PLANNING CASE: P-645 and 646 Due to the alternating of transcription staff and the resultant difficulties in the production-:;bf ._the subject: minutes, I am requesting that you review�the:`attached so that your comments and changes may be appropriately recorded for the City Council to review. The only minutes yet to be completed are those of the May 21, 19.80, meetinq wherein the topic was the list of concerns of the Planning Commission. �L ; �A� f r�+t "LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS, CONTRACTORS, GROWERS" INC. MAILING ADDRESS 250 Great Plairu Blvd. Chaska, Minnesota 55318 100 Acre Growing Range — 1 Mile No. of 212 on Hwy. 101, Shakopee, Minnesota (612) 445-6555 July 9., 1980 Chanhassen City Council City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Dear Council Members: on Tuesday, July 8, we heard the presentation from Dunn & Curry, - Mr. Ed Dunn, regarding his Lake Susan, Lake Ann.Building Addition. Representing Halla Nursery, a member of the business community and David Halla.as a residing citizen in the city of Chanhassen, 1 wish to state that we are in favor of the development and progress in housing for the city of Chanhassen. We personally feel that growth and development of the city has been rather slow since our involve- ment in 1962, and hope that in the future years more development.wiil take place for the betterment of the community and the businesses that reside therein. We support quality development and feel, from our standpoint, multiple housing or apartments, ofan economic level suitable for hourly wage earners, would be beneficial to our business climate and to the development to future businesses within the community. I thank you for the opportunity of relating to you our thoughts recogniz- ing that the ultimate decisions and responsibilities for the future and development of Chanhassen remains your responsibility_ c ('rnc JUL 19�sa aCE 9/ ED VILLA0,1WDEH/pm—QHAN14 Sincerely yours, HAL` NURSERY, I Ly • ' C•' Don E. Halla President "THE PLACE TO GO FOR PLANTS THAT GROW" YOUR "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AWARD" WINNING NURSERY FOR DESIGNING & PLANTING - .SHADE TREES'% EVERGREENS (LOWERING CRABS -.-,.!FRUIT, TREES- -.FLOWERING SHRUBS -..HEDGING GROUND COVERS, - FERTILIZERS 9'�rl C/1/-Ir)rc +IA\\/AI CCCr1C • ODIIAIIAie :.'Z: I.ADI�C. TDCC 'AA (lVl�l(:� newt 11,;nttec` July 9, 1980 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager City of Chanhassen 7610 Laredo. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Organization Resolution Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce Dear Don: On behalf of the Chanhassen Chamber, may I express my pleasure with the represen- tation of your staff at yesterday's Chamber meeting. The input from those presen .represented a healthy contribution to our community. The following resolution was unanimously passed by the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce for distribution to the Chanhassen City Council. Be it resolved that the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce recommends to the City of Chanhassen the approval of the development plans of the Lake. Ann, Lake Susan West and Lake Susan South developments with some of the recommendations and changes that were made through the long hearing process that has taken place.. We -feel it is important the City Council approve these residential developments.. With the proposed downtown redevelopment and the new industrial park, Chanhassen will need these residents to -provide a balance of housing: hence, making Chan-- .hassen a total community. END RESOLUTION We hope that this show of opinion from the business Community may be weighed by the City Council as they continue their fine efforts of leading and shaping the future of Chanhassen. With regards, I remain, Cordially, L.L. "Lalrry8uchheit, Jr., President Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce cc: All members - Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce BLIND NOTE To: Chanhassen Chamber Members Ladies and Gentlemen - The Chanhassen City Council will be making the final decision on this important issue on Monday, July 28th. It is very important, REPEAT -VERY IMPORTANT, that the Chamber has a strong representation that Monday evening. Please make a special effort -to attend. Many thanks. ?' LBJr.i .F CITY OF CHANHASS���� 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1470CHANHASSEN, MINNESOIA 55317 (612) 474-8885 July 9, 1980 Dear Property Owner: In an effort to assure that the City Council has a complete and concise record of the review on the Dunn and Curry residential proposals, the meeting scheduled to be held by the City Council on July 14, 1980, to review the Lake Susan West PRD and the Lake Ann PUD has been postponed..'— The rescheduled meeting date will be announced in the Carve` County Herald.. Sincerely, f L Bob Waibel Land Use Coordinator BW:k I; I. CL11- The.. Press I. non mason 14201 Excelsior Blvd. U -LILL L.J " -A- c A- kA %-L 730 Vogelsberg Trail Box 439 Mtka., MN 55343 Chaska, MN 55318 Chanhassen., I -IN 55317 Jerry Carlson Robert Somers Instant Web 7409 Frontier Trail 571 W. 78th St. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,, MN 55317 Al Klingelhutz Cornelia Klein Mr. Clark Horn Klingelhutz/Cravens :i 8412 Great Plains 7608 Erie Avenue 7811 1/2 Great Plains Chanhassen, M 55317 0 Chanhassen, MN- 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Larry- Buchh6lt Mr. Ed Dunn Mr- Walter Thompson Love to Travel Chanhassen, MN 55317 4940 Viking Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 7611 Iroquois Chanhassen, MN 55317 Harold Lund Mr. & Mrs. Dale.Gregory Mr.. James Thompson 7467 Longview Circle t, 1 7091 Redman Lane 6231 Greenbriar Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 L 4 Mr. and Mrs.James Meyer Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Smida Michael -Thompsor, 6225 Ridge Rd. 7081 Shawnee Lane 695 Pleasant View Road Excelsior, MN 55331 31 Chanhassen, I,1N 55317 CHanhassen, MN 55317 Frank Krejca 1-T Mr. & Mrs. John Kurmichak!' Tom Hamilton 7404 Frontier Trail 7130 utica Lane 224 Chan View Chanhassen, MN 55317 k Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 A Bob Robinett Carol Watson Art Partridge 401 Cimarron Circle .j 7131 Utica Lane 6280 Hummingbird Road 3 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331- Dennis Baker. Donald Chmiel Bill Johnson Lake Riley Blvd. 9219 La 7100 Tecumseh Lane 8005 Cheyenne Ave_ Chaska, 14N 55318 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 A Smith Tom Moran i 7101 York Ave. So. 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55435 Chaska, MN 55318 Ar. Chuck Nabor 409 Del Rio Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ms. Edna Lawrence y 8520 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen,"�IN 55317 e Mr. & Mrs. Maher 7101 utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Don Slather : s - t 8508 Great Plains,Blvd. } Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Jim Way Mr. and Mrs. Clark 7176 Utica Lane 8522 Great Plains Blvd. E' Chanhassen, MN 55317 ;i Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Steve Albrecht "_✓ 6951 Tecumseh Lane _ _ Chanhassen, 14N 55317 f< t Mr. & Mrs. Di • ck Lash - _ 6850 Utica Lane Chanhassen, 14N 55317 _ �"t F .. t' - 9'Y r R. W. Armstrong t. 8400 Great plains- Blvd. �- Chanhassen MN 55317` 4r". and Mrs. Hedlund i 7090 utica Lane{' :hanhassen, MN. 55317 i mot:.«,...-.. .'=�D�-?"^s'ef';•�Y - _ - ` {.._..�-.—.....n..a...ataiesa6?�_ria:: a.t +-:.zi;[.. Mr. Jim Tlaletskj- 7334 Frontier Trail 1} -: { Chanhassen, MN 55317� }' Ir -- =:arid Mrs. Gene Quinn 5 pis ;32 Lyman jet ' :hanhassen, 14N 55317 r - - °r ` f'__, 4 .!t- Mr. Ed Dunn Dunn and Curry 4940 Vi.Lcir.V Drive Mirfh4Fiapolis, MN Richard C. Potz Mr. & Mrs- Paulson 6991 Tecumseh Lane t., 8528 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 55435 - Mr. & Mrs. Holtmeier 852.4 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, I -IN 55317 Robert Anderson 7090 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 James Landkammer 6901 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 ON ; �= ' - t Scott Reinertson 6801 Utica Terrace !!. Chanhassen, MN 55317 .t s `k Jim S'chluck 6800 Utica Terrace - 1' Chanhassen, MN 55317 1� Danny Spindler Roger and Norma Casey � 6871 Utica Lane �� 8506-Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 ►� 1. Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Ray Backe E Dale 'Streimiker { 7071 Shawnee Lane (! ;_ 7141 Utica Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 `► 1� Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr".' -and. Mrs.- Jim Murphy -1 ' Ux-uce Arnold. 6850 Utica Circle 8560 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 It i !K John Cox Norm Grant 6990 Shawnee Lane 8504 Great Plains Blvd. tr Chanhassen, MN 55317 j; Chanhassen, MN 55317 i t �1 h Don Gale Richard Nieland 8402 Great Plains Blvd. 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CA June 27, 1980 City Council City of Chanhassen -. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Sirs and Madam: Re: Lake Ann, Lake Susan West & Sout} F'RD-- As we all know, Chanhassen is a very unique and beautiful area. That :. is why so many of us chose to build our homes out here and to raise our families so close to nature. Because of their upbringing, both of my youngsters grew to love the outdoors and I am still verythankful that they were able to have this opportunity. I guess that is the main reason. I so involved myself in this in the first place. I've received" a tremendous education in the process, but unfortunately, I also made few enemies. However, I still feel I should make one last ditch effort, and as the saying goes, go doom fighting. None of us are actually against development, although I think we sometimes wish we could make time stand still at least for a little while. We do realize that if it wasn't for progress, none of us would be here either. However, the wisdom of such rapid development for a community the present size of Chanhassen seems rather questionable. All communities have to plan for the future, but to do it wisely, takes a lot of time, patience, imagina- tion, and pre -planning. Chaparral was a surprise to most of us, but it did prove to many of us what we do not want for Chanhassen. Unfortunately, residents have been so involved with the Dunn & Curry developments and its public hearings, and the downtown development and its public hearings, that many have been unable to give much thought to what impact Chaparral alone with its high - density factor may have on our community, especially with our present level of fire and police protection_, utility services, the school situation, and the possible serious transportation problems we may encounter in the near future. I believe someone said there will be 4,000 new residents in Chaparral when it is completed. Most of these residents, I am sure, will work either in the Twin Cities or surrounding communities. Highways #5 and #7 are the only two major trunk highways into the cities and both already are badly congested, not only at rush hour but during the day as well. Chaparral residents alone will naturally add to the already existing congestion. It is rather mind -boggling to even think of ivhat problems could develop with three more identical developments and an additional 5,000 or more people at this time. Chanhassen has needed its own police force for quite some time. Approval.•; of this necessary addition would have to be by referendum. It has already, -- been rejected on other occasions and we have no way of knowing how. it would be judged at another referendum. Our schools are already close••to capacity. Many residents have already voiced. strong objections to' -sending.. their children into other communities for schooling, but they do not want— to build new schools either, which is the only other alternative. New. schools would also have to be approved by referendum. Our volunteer'=Fire` Department and Utility Department staff would both have to have tremendous boosts in both manpower and equipment. All of this has to mean an increased tax structure for present residents. Chanha.Asen City Council -2- June 27, 1980 During the present depressed economy, any type of tax increase could create quite a hardship for many residents. The unoccupied and incomplete Chaparral structures will not carry their full tax. load until completion, and of course, this.won't be accomplished ..= until the units are sold which is standard construction procedure. Some residents are also worried about the potential tax liability which we could face in the event the downtown development fails. Because of the uncertainty of the economy at this time, it is unlikely that residents would willingly".approve any referendums which could substantially increase their tax liability. Chaparral already exists and contains many multiple units. This area alone could suffice for the present time to meet the necessary housing requirements of our elderly; individuals desiring the multiple dwelling units; and the families needing moderate income housing. Instead of three more carbon copies of Chaparral_, ivhy not wait and see how Chaparral works. What is feasible for one area does not necessarily mean it will be feasible for other areas. Many feel the Dunn & Curry developments could incorporate much more creative and imaginative land use than that which has been demonstrated. by Chaparral, and still prove to be profitable for the developer.. Instead of awarding building rights to -one developer such as New Horizons, allow custom builders to participate and to contribute their plans, ideas, and skills. The economy is bound to improve eventually, and. when it does, prospective buyers will again start looking for their dream home. The Great American Dream isn't dead and it never will be as long as the family unit continues to exist. The Great American Dream. has merely been temporarily postponed, but it will make a come- back, and when it does, I would like to think that Chanhassen will. have more to offer these potential residents than all the multiple dwelling units that have been mushrooming up around the area. Multiple dwelling units will always have their place in our society,. but not at the multitude we have witnessed the past couple of. years. If future facts prove to -the contrary, there will still be time to change our thinking and to plan accordingly. Give Chanhassen a chance. Don't let high-powered speeches from':the�_=,;. Metro Council and high -density developers like. New Horizons influence`.': you to make a possible mistake in judgement that can never be rectified...,.` With its unique topography and its beautiful lakes and woods, Chanhassen stands way above other existing and developing communities. With good..,, planning and foresight, it could develop into one of the most beautiful, communities in the seven county Metro area. cRespectfully, ..: Marcy Kurimchak 7130 Utica Lane Chanhassen, Minnesota mk Cie 1 Dunn & Curry Real Estate Management Inc. 4940 Viking Drive Pentagon Office Park Minneapolis, MN 55435 �o i ,. a7 yu CITY OF ,1 _ 7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' - (612) 474-8885 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: June 23, 1980 SUBJ: Lake Susan West Planned Residential Development Proposal, Dunn and Curry, Developer's Presentation/Receive Planning Commission Recommendations/Public Input Meeting The following documents were inclu4$4 in the packet distributed this past week: a. 1) . Staff report regarding. -the JLake Susan West PRD.. 2). Planning Commission minutes from various public hearings on the three residential developments.. 3). Informational booklet prepared',by Dunn and Curry regarding the three residential developments. If you are unable to find your copy of these, please contact me. This'office sees the following as major areas of discussion: i� 1) . Density:, When ' the three 'residential developments were firsts -proposed, this past: summer, it was- bela,Eved that such "proposals would be beneficial to the Planning commission' in preparing the comprehensive. -Plan.. Specifically, the Planning Commission could. review land use issues in light of an actual development proposal. The process culminated in approval of the land uses and densities in the Fall of .1979 and, was reconfirmed by the current Planning Commission in April of this year. In light of the above comments, it is difficult for staff to make recommendations to the City Council in regards to land use and density, i.e. such a process would. typically involve measuring a proposed land use in comparison to the Comprehensive Plan document. In this case, the proposed densities/land uses corresponded with the Planning Commission recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan. For this reason, it is difficult for staff to understand Mayor and Council V) -2- June 23, 1980 why the development plan was denied by the Planning Commission. Additionally, I did not find clear direction in recommendations of denial or approval, i.e. significant disparity appears to exist in regards to what the densities should be, what types of land uses should be considered, types of dwelling units, etc. It should be noted that the developer did revise the land use plan, from that originally considered by the Planning Commission, to show single family residential adjacent to Lake Susan and changing the designation of outlots A and C to estate designations.. It was the modified plan which was acted upon by the Planning Commission and for which City Council consideration is being requested. 2) Park Dedication: The plan submitted approximately one year ago did not include a park west of County 17. Based on discussions with the Planning Commission, the developer modified the plan to include the 5::3 acre neighborhood park in the southwest area of the development. Staff supported this change as County 17 will act as a neighborhood barrier for park facilities. The large expanse of park area on the southeasterly portion of the development plan can be filled for both passive and active recreational purposes (assumes DNR/Watershed District approval. of such). In this regard, it should also be noted that the park within the business park abuts the northerly portion of the development and will provide facilities within that area. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the proposed park plans for the development and has recommended that the City Council accept these lands for park and recreational purposes. The Planning Commission acted to request the developer to provide more smaller park sites throughout the development. Staff concurs with the Park and Recreation Commission in light of the City's limited ability to carry out maintenance. The Council should note that other green areas within the development are proposed to be under private ownership and of little benefit to the general public., Similar to the issue presented in the dedication of open space as a part of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, a question remains as to whether the developer should receive full credit, under. the park dedication ordinance, or whether such dedication should be seen in light of being meeting both. park and recreation needs as well asfulfilling stormwater/ conservation In this regard, it should be noted that the Park Dedication Ordinance was established to assure that sufficient monies existed for both acquisition as well as development of parks within the Community. Based on the current charge per unit, the developer would be required to pay approximately $300,000 to the City if no property was accepted for Park and Recreation purposes.. Assuming a value of approximately $10,000 per acre, this wouldyield a dedication requirement of approximately 30 acres. In this Mayor and Council 1 -3- June 23, 1980 regard, it is difficult for this office to believe that the City/Watershed District/DNR would have allowed the filling of the lowlands for development purposes and/or whether such would be practical from a development. standpoint recognizing the developer's needs for storm water drainage. However, similar to the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, a finite calculation cannot be made as to what percent of this plan the City will in the future use for park and recreation purposes versus maintaining in a natural state. This office recommend that the City Council accept the open space/conservation/storm water holding areas as shown by the developer as green space and that such be accepted as a 50 percent reduction in the park charge as outlined in the Park Dedication Ordinance (fill for a mininum of 10-15 acres should. also be required to be placed in accordance with a yet to be defined park, plan) 3). Street Widths: This off ice concurs with the Planner's report that all streets within the plat should be a minimum of 32 feet in width and that minor collectors and streets within higher density residential areas be 36 feet in width. 4). Estate Outlots: The change to the estate designation was made in the llth hour by the developer and no staff comments were prepared for Planning Commission consideration. Approval of the overall plan should be made either deleting such designations and re -showing such as outlots, or requiring that such concept be further considered.by the Planning Commission prior to acceptance: as a concept. 5). New County 17 Setbacks: This office concurs with the recommendation of the Planner in regards to the necessity for additional setbacks adjacent to new County 17.. This road will act as a major thoroughfare from the business park/ downtown/community to new Highway 212 and other points south. The developer has stated his belief that the philosophy presented by staff can be accomplished and still maintain land uses as currently being considered. This office - questions whether the developer will be able to accomplish such; however, such would be his responsibility at the time of the next development stage. 6). Schools: Numerous comments have been. made in regardsto the necessity for additional schools as a result of the three proposed residential developments_ Staff has asked for comments from the School District in regards to these points, but no response has been received.. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1980 _ --1- Chanhassen Elementary School, 7600 Laredo Drive Mayor Hobbs called the special meeting to order- with the following members present: Councilmen Geving, Neveaux and Swenson_ Councilman Pearson was absent. �. LAKE SUSAN WEST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROP08AI.: Mlayor Hobbs noted that. this was a special meeting, requested by the City Council., to obtain additional citizen comments over and above those presente'-d orally and in writing at the meetings and public hearings held by the Planning Commission. City Council members b ave received a copy of all correspondence, petitions, and Plan.ning Corr Fission minutes of meetings where this item has been considered and publicly heard i Ed Dunn_ made a presentation of the development;: proposal_ as shown in. Exhibit "A" and- dated May 27, 198.0 t. (Concepplans presented being the same exhibit as publicly heard by the. Planning Commi ssioz:i.) The Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel, read the Planning C:ontmiss.i,on action of May 28,. 1980, y in regards to the- Planning Commission action to approve rezoning of the' property from R-lA to PRD and to deny the proposed residential development plan .-- such latter action including the basis for such denial. Mayor Hobbs requested public comments. Persons present were as -follc).ws with a summation of major points following such listing: Ed Dunn, 4940 Viking Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55435 Jules Smith, 7101 York Ave. So., Mi-nneapoli_s iVN 55435 A.W. Partridge, 6280 Hummingbird Road Planning Conimi.ssioil C.D. Horn, 7608 Erie Ave - Planning Commission Jim Sulerud, 730 Vogelsberg Trail. Norm Grant, 8504 Great Plains Blvd - Wayne Holtmeier, 8524 Great Plains Blvd_ Kathy Holtmeier, 8524 Great Plains Blvd. Gail Murphy, 8500 Great Plains Blvd. Jim Murphy, 8500 Great Plains Blvd.. Mary Lou Chmiel, 7100 Tecumseh Lane_ Mary Kurimchak, 7130 Utica Vane Richard Nieland, 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Marion Nieland, 8510 Great Plains Blvd. Jim Thompson, 6231 Greenbriar -- R.W. Armstrong, 8400 Great Plains Blvd. Don Gale, 8402 Great Plains Blvd. Edna Lawrence, 8520 Great Plains Blvd - Jim Murphy - Reviewed points raised in Lake Susan Homeowners Petition.. .Restated concerns of overall traffic generated by development, overall density, and the desire to see single family residences adjacent to Lake Susan. Higher densities should abut County 17 with. lower densities occurring away from County 17. Roger Casey - Highway 5 impossible to travel. Jim Thompson - No innovation. The styles proposed are all similar. No real alternatives presented to Planning Commission_ Similar and grade differential in dwelling units desired. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - June 23, 1980 -2-- Art Partridge -- No real alternatives presented to the Planning ACommission. Tree, current Planning_: -Commission. has .begun to gel as a coordinated and functional_ group. Denial is desired so that. the. Planning Commission can attempt to present alternatives which are acceptable to that group. Presently, -the City is reacting rather than. acting. Jim Sulerud - Subsidized housing is desirable and the coi=uni_ty needs higher density to assure various economic. classes have. an opportunity to live within -the community. Generally favors the plan, as presented., The City Council discussed points raised with each of the persons speaking.. Council members. generally agreed that a .. meeting date to consider this item should be July 14, 1980, 7:30 p.m., Chanhassen Element`zry School, Councilman Geving moved to close the public input session:.. Councilman: Neveaux seconded the motion. Ayes - All. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Citv of Chanhassen Response, Recreation Open Space Development Guide/ Policy Plan, Metropolitan Council b-. Lake Ann Planned Residential Development, Set Special Meeting Date. Councilman Neveaux moved that the items presented above, under the Consent Agenda, be approved as outlined in the City Manager's memorandums of. June 23, 1980, and with conditions as outlined in such memorandums. Councilman Geving seconded the motion.. Ayes - All. Motion carried. a Councilman Neveaux Moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.- Ayes - All. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager LARSON & NER.TZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 CRAIG M. MERTZ OF COUNSEL June 20, 1980 HARVEY E. SKAAR MARK C. MCCULLOUGH Donald W. Ashworth Chanhassen City Manager Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CONFIDENTIAL Re: Lake Susan West P.U.D. - Dear Don: J, a G �. 0,�Iy Q TELEPHONE (612) 335-9565 OP RCE"ED. YILAAGE OR CkMN ;ASSMS fU MINIM .�ui Please consider this letter to be our response to your request that we prepare a memorandum on possible legal challenges to any final action which the City Council might take on the developer's request for preliminary development plan approval. Ordinance 47 (§14.01, Subsection 4e), states that the City Council has three options with respect to such a. request: 1. unconditional approval; or 2. disapproval for stated reasons; or 3. approval subject to specified modifications. Because we view Council approval of the preliminary development plan as being unlikely to generate litigation, we limit our comments to the ramifications of disapproval. This, however, should not be construed as a recommendation of this office either for approval or, disapproval of the plan. I. The Rezoning Request. The subject property is presently in the R-lA zone, and is thus subject: to a 2-1/2 acre minimum lot size. The prohibition in Ordinance 45 against subdivision of unsewered land would come into play only if the developer were unwilling to sewer the area at his expense. We believe that a denial of the rezoning request would be defensible in court, as existing ordinances would allow a reasonable use of the subject property. Approval of the rezoning request would mean that the City Council agrees to some residential use at a density greater than one unit per 2-1/2 acres_ Approval of the rezoning request would not imply approval of any particular development plan, but this should be clearly expressed by the motion. Donald W. Ashworth -2- 6/20180 CONFIDENTIAL II. The Subdivision Request. Court challenges to subdivision denials usually are structured along the lines of three basic objections, wla.i_ch. I will call (A) the "ultra vires" objection, (B) the "equal protection" objection, and (C) the constitutional "taking" objection. A. The "Ultra Vires" Objection An action of a body corporate, such as a municipality, is said.to be "ultra vires" if the action is beyond the powers conferred upon, it by law. The law in this instance would be the state planning statutes. We do not believe that an "ultra vires" objection would. present a serious problem to -Chanhassen, as the Minnesota Supreme. Court has construed municipal planning powers broadly. The leading cases are Connor v. Chanhassen Township (1957), Almqui.st v. Marshan Township_, (1976), and Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Minnetonka 1968). B. The Equal Protection Objection. The courts have recognized three groups as having constitutional rights in zoning matters: 1. The developer 2. The "insiders" residing in the community; and. C. The "outsiders" who are desirous of moving into the community. Developers frame their "equal protection" objection around: the rights of the outsiders. Zoning decisions which are motivated. by a desire to exclude specific religious or racial groups from the com- munity will be overturned by the courts. In heavily urbanized areas along the East Coast and West Coast, some courts have extended this constitutional protection to low income and moderate income groups. Thus, zoning ordinances which have mandated a. very large minimum.lot size, or which mandate a minimum floor area for residential construc- tion, have been overturned on the theory that such ordinances are motivated by a desire to exclude lower strata economic groups from the community. We are unaware of any facts which would place a denial of the subject request into the suspect category of racial or religious discrimina- tion. We do not believe that the Minnesota courts would find the denial of this developer's request to be a prohibited attempt to exclude certain income groups from Chanhassen, given the low density suburban character of the community. DonA1d W. Ashworth -3- C. The "Taking" Issue The state and federal constitutions prohibit taking private property in the absence of the compensation. Zoning decisions which restrict fashion that no reasonable use may be made of routinely overturned by the courts. b/20/80 CONFIDENTIAL local government from payment of reasonable land usage in such. a. the property are Frcm a legal defense standpoint, the worst thing which the Chanhassen City Council could do would be to deny the Dunn. and Curry proposal for unspecified reasons. We also would have serious legal difficulties if. the Council were to deny the proposal with each Council. member stating a myriad of objections, each of whi,eh is inconsistent with the stated objections of the other Council members. Such a motion offers the developer no guidance as to how to bring his proposal into conformity with local. planning policies. Such a,motion -would be viewed bythe courts with strong skepticism.. The preferrable defense posture would be that of a. denial for specified, logical, and consistent reasons which are endorsedby a majority of . the City Councilmembers. This leads us to a discussion of legally defensible reasons for denial. My.comments are as follows: 1. Zoning decisions which implement an absolute "no growth" policy are generally overturned by the courts. 2. Zoning decisions disapproving specific development plans which are inconsistent with municipal ordinances establishing staged,. orderly and channelized growth patterns are defensible.. 3. Zoning decisions disapproving development requests on the sole ground that additional municipal capital facilities would have to be constructed or acquired and on the sole ground that additional municipal service personnel would have to be hired are generally over- turned by the courts. 4. Zoning decisions disapproving development requests which are inconsistent with established capital improvement schedules are defensible. Five year capital improvement schedules have been upheld. Such schedules, if extended over a period of longer than twenty years,. are of questionable validity. 5. The preservation of the rural, low density character of fringe suburbs has generally been recognized as a valid zoning goal in all areas of the United States except the East Coast. Donald W. Ashworth -4- 6/20/80 CONFIDENTIAL 6. Zoning decisions disapproving development requests -on the sole ground that the development would burden "insiders" with increased real estate taxes are generally overturned by the courts. III. Conclusions and Recommendations. If the Council's decision is to retain the subject property in the R-lA status, the pending comprehensive plan should be adjusted accordingly. If the Council desires to deny plan approval on fiscal.plann.i..ng grounds or on capital improvement planning grounds, then plan review should be tabled rather than denied. The Council should immediately adopt a motion setting a public hearing on a moratorium ordinance for those areas of the City expericncing development pressure. Upon adoption of the moratorium ordinance, immediate steps should be taken to formulate a controlled growth plan and a capital improvements plan for the City. If Council denial is based on density factors, the Council should clearly specify the density ranges which would be acceptable to the municipality. Such a decision should be followed by immediate steps to bring the relevant sections of the pending comprehensive plan into consistency with the Council's decision, Very truly yours, CRAIG M. I,M-RTZ Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney CMM: mep �i ENGINEERING TESTING MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL 6800 S. County Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435 / 612-941-5600 NORTHERN MINNESOTA 3219 E. 19th Avenue, Hibbing, MN 55746 / 218-263.8869 fENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520 - 24th Ave. N., P.O. Box 189, St. Cloud, MN 56301 / 612-253-9940 DULUTH/SUPERIOR 5431 Airpark Blvd., Duluth, MN 55811 / 218-722-4341 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA 40 -16th St. S.E., Rochester, MN 55901 / 507-281-2515 LABORATORY TEST OF BITUMINOUS NOT MIX Project: 79-463 BITUMINOUS TESTS Date Reported: 6/10/80 Kellynne Subdivision Chanhassen, MN Copies To: City of Chanhassen Reported To: COFFIN & ASSOC. Schoell & Madson 3025 Watertown Rd. Jim McCleary Long Lake, MN 55356 FIELD DATA: Sample #: 1 Date Sampled: 5/28/80 Sampled By: None Given Bituminous Supplier: None Given Sample Location: None Given Mix Specification- 2331 BASE LABORATORY DATA: Date Received: 5/29/80 Date Tested: 5/29/80 Extracted Asphalt Content: 6.7 Aggregate Gradation 3/411 5/8" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #80 #200 to - .4► �'``� JUN1980 RECEW-0 _VIA +ems 1r1NrIRC ��i MN DOT Specifications_ 3.5-5.5 % Passing 100 100 98 95-100 90 65-95 76 - 62 35-65 36 10-35 13 - 4.6 1-7 REMARKS: The above sample does not meet MN/DOT specifications at the #40 Sieve. The extracted asphalt content is likely not representative of a majority of the Base Course. BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Norman E. Ball Laboratory Supervisor nklufl- ENGINEERING TESTING MU NNEAP0LIS/ST. PAUL 6800 S. County Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435 / 612-941-5600 NORTHERN MINNESOTA 3219 E. 19th Avenue, Hibbing, MN 55746 / 218-263-8869 CENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520 - 24th Ave. N., P.O. Box 189, St. Cloud, MN 56301 / 612-253-9940 DULUTH/SUPERIOR 5431 Airpark Blvd., Ouluth, MN 55811 / 218-722-4341 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA 40 -16th St. S.E., Rochester, MN 55901 / 507-281-2515 LABORATORY TEST OF BITUMINOUS HOT MIX Project: 79-463 BITUMINOUS TESTS Kellynne Subdivision Chanhassen, MN Reported To: COFFIN & ASSOC. 3025 Watertown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 FIELD DATA: Sample #: 2 Date Sampled: 5/28/80 Sampled By: None Given Bituminous Supplier: None Given Sample Location: None Given Mix Specification: 2341 WEAR LABORATORY DATA: Date Received: 5/29/80 Date Reported: 6/10/80 Copies To: City of Chanhassen Schoell & Madson Jim McCleary Date Tested: 5/29/80 MN DOT Specifications_ Extracted Asphalt Content: 5.8% 4.5-7.5 Aggregate Gradation % Passing 3/4" 100 100 5/8" 100 95-100 3/8" 84 65-90 #4 70 65-90 #10 55 35-55 #40 23 10-30 #80 7 - #200 3.1 1-7 REMARKS: The above sample meets MN/DOT specifications. Asphalt retention factor not included. BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Norman E. Hall Laboratory Supervisor ENGINEERING 7ES7ING MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL 6800 S. County Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435 / 612-941-5600 NORTHERN MINNESOTA 3219 E. 19th Avenue, Hibbing, MN 55746 / 218.263-8869 CENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520 - 24th Ave. N., P.O. Box 189, St. Cloud, MN 56301 / 612-253-9940 DULUTH/SUPERIOR 5431 Airpark Blvd., Duluth, MN 55811 / 218-722-4341 SOUTIuERN MINNESOTA 40 - 16th St. S.E., Rochester, MN 55901 / 507-281-2515 LABORATORY TEST OF BITUMINOUS HOT MIX Project: 79-463 Reported To: FIELD DATA: Sample #.: Date Sampled: Sampled By: BITUMINOUS TESTS Kellynne Subdivision Chanhassen, MN COFFIN & ASSOC. 3025 Watertown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Bituminous Supplier: Sample Location: Mix Specification: LABORATORY DATA: 6/6/80 Date Reported: 6/10/80 Copies To: City of Chanhassen Schoell & Madson Jim McCleary BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Bituminous Roadways 141'E of Co.Rd. 15, 6'N of Curb 2331 BASE Date Received: 6/6/80 Date Tested: 6/6/80 MN DOT Specifications Extracted Asphalt Content: 4.2 Aggregate Gradation Passing 3/4" 100 100 5/8" 98 95-100 3/8" 87 65-95 #4 71 - #10 57 35-65 #40 24 10-35 #80 - - #200 4 1-7 REMARKS: The above sample meets the MN/DOT specifications. Asphalt retention factor not included. BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Norman E. Hall Laboratory Supervisor -14 RIINNEAP0LIS/ST. PAUL 6800 S. County Rd. 18, P.O. Box 35108, Mpls., MN 55435 / 612-941-5600 NORTHERN MINNESOTA 3219 E. 19th Avenue, Hibbing, MN 55746 / 218-263-8869 CENTRAL MINNESOTA 1520 - 24th Ave. N., P.O. Box 189, St. Cloud, MN 56301 / 612-253-9940 OULUTH/SUPERIOR 5431 Airpark Blvd., Duluth, MN 55811 / 218-722-4341 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA 40 - 16th St. S.E., Rochester, MN 55901 / 507-281-2515 BITUMINOUS TEST RESULTS - MARSHALL SAMPLES Project: 79-463 BITUMINOUS TESTS Kellynne Subdivision Chanhassen, MN Reported To: Sample #: Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Tested: Location: COFFIN & ASSOC. 3025 Watertown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Mix #: Course: Field Temp. (OF): Thickness (in): PROPERTIES Density (pcf): Marshall (pcf): Relative Density: Specified Min.: Date: 6/10/80 Copies To: City of Chanhassen Schoell & Madson Jim McCleary 1C 1C 2C 2C 6/6/80--------------------------------------------- 6/6/80--------------------------------------------- 6/6/80--------------------------------------------- 375'E of Co. Rd.15------ 141'E of Co. Rd.15------ 6'S of Curb------------- 6'N of Curb ------------- 2331 1341 2331 2341 BASE WEAR BASE WEAR 5 7/8 1 3/4 5 3/4 1 7/8 143.5 - 145.5 - 143.5 144.2 99 2 95 145.5 144.2 101 95 BRAUN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. A , •E/i�ir ! 'Norman E. Hall Laboratory Supervisor ping Kep ort -J- o une 7, iyuu i There are various-Iternatives to remedy any oblems that may .v however, any changes that might occur would be more ite specific and design oriented in nature. F Recommendation t I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning, and the preliminary development plan for Lake Ann PUD, and the subdivision of the first phase thereof, contingent upon the following. 1. That all densities approved for future phases be contingent upon successful site plan eview. That site plan review futur hases additionally require preliminary development review information required by �.3 Ordinance 47 not submitted for the -present overall review of 4/ 7 Lake Ann PUD including, but not excluded to any proposed covenants and restrictions, development contracts, architectural renderings, and nature of ownership and management. 3. That the applicant .4 ghe __a _--'b e �� address the Planning Commission concerns regarding the arrangement and architecture of the quadrominium areas. 4. That should the Park dedication be accepted, that the applicant disclose to the City any work incidental to the development of Lake Ann PUD which may minimize municipal costs in developing active play areas (such could include grading and landscaping activities) . 5. That as part of the preliminary plat, that all accesses onto major roads within and around the development area be verified by the City and County Engineers for adequate sight distances and need for acceleration, deceleration and bypass lanes. 6. That a negotiable no build/no grading line be established roughly along the 980 elevation isopleth on the drainage swale in the southeast portion of. Lake Ann PUD. (Due to the greatly varying terrain in this -area, this standard may need to be changed considerably and these changes are most appropriately done during the preliminary plat review). Albeit that the Park Road access directly opposite of the proposed access .to. Lake. Ann PUD from Highway 5 is .a temporary full left access; this office recommends that only right turn movements be permitted for this intersection and.that the design of said intersection be approved by the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation. Also, if and when Lake Ann Park expands and when the access from Highway 5 to Lake Ann PUD is activated, the present access' to Lake Ann Park should be vacated. 8. That at the time of development, the frontage road be aligned in a fashion inconformance with number 3 of the comments section above. i -inning Report -4- June 9, 1980 94. That the applicant include in his final p&,.,is, noise abatement methods to be utilized along MTH 5, County Road 17. That the applicant provide pedestrian access to the park areas along side property lines as recommended by staff. That a pedestrian easement to the pedestrianway located in the southeast portion. of Lake Ann PUD should be dedicated in the vicinity of Lot 12, Block 1. �B�That the roadways throughout the quadrominium areas of the proposed development be a minimal 32 feet, and that the major roadway running north and south throughout the development and Lake Ann Blvd. be 36 feet in width. 11. That the applicant design building sites on slope areas so that setback variance requests will not be needed for gravity sewer, 12. That a minimum structural setback of 110 feet be adopted for properties adjoining MTH 5 and County Road 17. 13. That the applicant dedicate the approximate 4 acre.parcel along the shore of Lake Ann as per previous discussions. 14. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City -Council to direct staff to further investigate the fiscal feasibility of the addition_ of park lands as discussed in point .number 1 of the above comments section. That the applicant remove two or three of the lots along the northern tier of the proposed development to enhance the transition from Greenwood Shores to Lake Ann PUD. 16. That approval of the subject preliminary development plan be contingent upon successful completion of an environmental assessment worksheet review, watershed district review, Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources review and Soil Conservation District review_ 17. That the proposed acceptable by the and City Council. covenants and restrictions are found to be City Attorneys office, the Planning Commission N: -8- may 27, 1980 `~Manning Report i. new 13). That a structural setback along major roads, i.e. and old County 17be 110 feet from property line and 50 feet on Creek Dr. 14). That the preliminary plat for the future phases include pedestrian easements to allow access to open space areas directly from within the development. (15). That approval of the subject preliminary development plan - be contingent uponsuccessful completion of environental assessment worksheet review, watershed dm district review, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources review and Soil Conservation Service revievr. 16) That the proposed covenants and restrictions are found to be acceptable by the City Attornev's office, the Planning Commission and the City Council.' 17.