1f. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1996.CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 1, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Jeff
Farmakes, and Don Mehl
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson
Ik
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; John Rask, Planner I; Dave Hempel,
Assistant City Engineer; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE TEMPORARY DISPLAY OF BOATS
LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 7 AND
41, SEVEN -FORTY ONE CROSSING CENTER, PBK INVESTMENTS, INC.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you John. Any questions for staff at this time? From anyone.
Joyce: Yeah I have a question. They're requesting an interim use permit but I look on the
' application, it says conditional use.
Rask: Yeah. That I believe, in the district interim uses, outdoor display is an interim use in
that district. Boat sales are not a conditional use or interim use or permitted use. I don't
believe, I think that was dust an oversight on the applicant's part.
' Joyce: I guess the way I'm reading interim use is the temporary type of thing.
' Rask: Correct.
Joyce: Conditional, I've got the zoning things out of city code, would be like an annual type
of situation where they apply?
Aanenson: They don't have to re- apply. Generally it runs with the land but they normally
' are inspected to make sure they're complying with conditions.
Joyce: So would this case be subject to that?
Rask: Yes it would.
Planning Commission Meeting o May 1, 1996
Joyce: I mean if it was approved, they would have to apply annually?
Rask: They wouldn't have to apply annually. With the interim use permit you can set a date
for termination of that use. It could be a particular event or it could just be a date at some
time in the future. But as part of the whole process we do review it annually to make sure, to
determine compliance with the conditions.
Aanenson: Yeah, and failure to comply with conditions may be cause for revocation.
Joyce: That leads to my second question. What's the enforcement mechanism on something
like this?
Rask: It'd be a periodic review to insure that the conditions are being met.
Joyce: And if they're not, they're fined or something like that?
Rask: That's an option. Generally the approach we take is a notice of violation until it
becomes an ongoing problem and then we'll either, citations are a possibility or court action
to gain compliance.
Joyce: Thank you.
Mancino: John, excuse me. Go ahead.
Farmakes: Are there boats there now?
Rask: Yes, that's correct. We have, we did receive some complaints approximately a year
ago from tenants in the building. We did send notices over the last year. We did get
compliance on a couple of occasions. Back in about February of this year, the boats
reappeared. We sent them notice again stating that they had an option to apply for an interim
use permit. If we didn't receive that, we'd begin legal action to abate the problem.
Mancino: And what was the nature of the complaints from the other tenants'?
Rask: It primarily had to do with the parking of boats in prime parking stalls. There were a
couple in handicapped parking stalls from time to time. I think that problem was taken care
of The boats parked to the rear of the building were providing an obstruction to delivery
trucks to get around. We have had the fire marshal up there to investigate on several
occasions. I don't think he ever found them to be a problem in their location but it did
prevent delivery trucks from going around.
r
1
u
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: Are there two accesses to the back of the building at this point? One at the east
end and one at the west end?
Rask: Correct.
Mancino: And were there boats also out last summer there?
Rask: Correct.
Mancino: So this has been going on, the outdoor usage has been going on for approximately.
Rask: A little over a year.
Mancino: A little over a year. And are we not John looking at two issues here. One is the
request for an interim use permit for outdoor display, but secondly is really that it is not a
permitted use to be selling boats in the area even indoors, correct?
Rask: Correct. The only district that boat sales are allowed are the BF and the BG districts.
Boat sales are not allowed in the neighborhood business district. At the time the business
located we were under the impression that it would be selling life jackets, fishing tackle,
sporting good types of items so we did consider this to be a neighborhood oriented retail
establishment. It was kind of a stretch at the time but it did seem to meet that definition.
We were aware there would be some boats in the building. As I mentioned in the report, we
do not require business licenses so we don't know exactly what they're going to be selling. A
lot of times we don't interact with the occupant of the building until they request a sign
permit or if they're going to do any remodeling to the building. In this case they did both and
on the building permit we had indicated that outdoor storage or display would not be
permitted.
Mancino: And so tonight you're asking the commission just to make a recommendation for
the interim permit for outdoor display? Not for whether it should be a permitted use in the
business neighborhood district?
Rask: Correct.
Farmakes: I know that the boats that are outdoors, or one of them anyway, is way too large
to be indoors in that building. If I recall, when the business first started out it was an
accessory business with small, very small type boats, runabouts or less. Has the nature of the
business changed?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Rask: It appears to.
Farmakes: Within the last year that has occurred?
Rask: Yes. It seems that they've gone more to boat sales and away from the small accessory
items or the sporting good type items. I think as you'll hear from the applicant in a minute
here, is that they do believe that their clientele is in the neighborhood there. A lot of their
sales in that area and it is their belief that they are serving a neighborhood function in that
respect. And what the staff has said in the report is that, we feel that no. That is not a
neighborhood oriented service. I don't think people, it's not something you just stopped in
after work and buy. The district is intended to meet the daily needs of residents, whether it's
a convenience store, the daycare. Things like that that are currently in the building.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. And I'll listen to the applicant now. Any other questions?
Thank you. Would the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission?
Diane Mitchell: Do you want me at the podium?
Mancino: Please. State your name and address please.
Diane Mitchell: Do you want my home address or the address of our business?
Mancino: Both please.
Diane Mitchell: Okay. My name is Diane Mitchell and I represent the Seven -Forty One
Crossing Center and PKB Investments. The business is located at 5500 Wayzata Boulevard
in Minneapolis. My address is 12304 Taupe Avenue North in Plymouth. We are requesting
a special temporary use permit for our tenant, Westin Marine, to display boats in designated
areas of the parking lot. There had been some concerns in the past about boats that were
displayed because of I think the location of the boats. I don't believe that there are any
tenants in the center that at this time are objecting to how they have conformed with where
they are placing the boats. The tenant was selling boats initially from the time that he
became a tenant and submitted a plan to the city, which clearly showed that he would have
boats stored and be selling boats in that location. He installed two overhead garage doors
which had not been in the building prior to his entering so it was very clear that he would be
selling boats. There was not an objection and that has not been an objection. What they
have found is that in trying to run their business at that location, they do not have, there isn't
a real good visibility from either of the highways. It isn't clear what the nature of the
business is and to be able to display a boat, two boats, whatever the number of boats, they
feel is actually necessary in order for them to remain in business. They are in a position right
is
I
n
� -1
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
now where they have determined that if they cannot in some way have some kind of outdoor
display, they really cannot function in that location any longer. This is obviously a concern
to us. We presently have 2,000 square feet unoccupied in that center. They occupy 3,930
square feet. We're then up to almost 6,000 square feet unoccupied or 23% of that building. I
' think you probably know that that does affect the assessed value of the building. It becomes
a hardship and ultimately it could affect the tax base and that type of thing. You know we've
been working very hard to try to keep the standards up with that building and maintain and
' make improvements. We want to continue to do that. Rental revenues obviously are a factor
of being able to... What we're hoping is that rather than allowing us either to have boats or
not have boats outside, we've tried to determine the area in the parking lot that we feel are
' not used by the other tenants. Are at the end of the building that Westin Marine occupies.
Are away from regular traffic patterns to not cause any obstruction or any problems to any of
' our customers. Or any of the other tenants or anyone that would be using the facility. There
wasn't a specific request for the number of boats. I realize that the area we designated could
hold a large number of boats. What we're hoping is to receive recommendation as to what
' the city would feel is appropriate. If it's one boat or it's two boats or it's one boat in one
location and one in another, you know we're looking for working something out to try to help
a business maintain and yet keep the surroundings, keep everything looking good. We want
' the center to look good too. You know we want to keep it full. We want to bring in
business. So therefore a specific amount was not requested. This is something that we feel
we would take part in also policing. Make sure that the tenant does comply. If there should
' be a specific, you know something established as to just where a boat could be. What the
size of the boat could be. You know whatever the requirements might be. The area that
we've determined is also on the Highway 41 side. The center is set down in so it does almost
' create somewhat of a natural berm on that side. I tried to drive around to different areas
surrounding the building and see if it is offensive or what can be seen from the other
neighborhoods. From the spots that I've gone to, I can't see the boats. So you know we feel
that we're trying to do it in a way to maintain the best possible situation for everyone because
you know, I fear for the outcome if we aren't able to come to some kind of a solution to help
our tenant. And I think that's all I have. If you have any questions.
' Mancino: I just have a couple. When this came about, when there was a need for display of
the boats, why didn't anyone from your company come to the city at the time and ask for an
' interim use permit at that time? Why has it taken a year for this to come about and for us to
act on it?
t Diane Mitchell: Well you know, if I understand the question correctly, I'm not sure that, you
know until we received the letter saying that there was a complaint about the fact that they
had a boat there, I'm not sure that we were aware that it was a problem and when we did
' realize that there was a complaint and that this was potentially a problem, that is when we
G
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
started working with the city to see what we could do. And that was when we found that
there are some of the temporary use permits that are available that we may be able to fall
within those guidelines. And also hoping that you know if we could establish something, that
maybe we could set it up for a short term. See how it works for everyone and obviously then
it would be up for review at whatever the designated time period is. So that we're not asking
for this to be changed or to make any official changes as to that area.
Mancino: And what if other tenants have a visibility problem? How do you see us working
with those other tenants? I noticed that there are some, you have some vacant areas and as
you get new tenants in, how are they going to become more visible and have a presence on
TH 41 and TH 7?
Diane Mitchell: Well actually, you know I ... personally I did not think that it blocked the
visibility for the other tenants. And we don't want to just keep one tenant happy. We want
to keep all of our tenants happy and we work closely with our tenants and if that should
happen, then I think we would have to adjust whether or not the boats could be there. If it
started to affect another tenant ... then we're not achieving what we want either.
Joyce: I have one question. This time frame that we're talking about I assume would be
seasonal so the boats come in. Are you suggesting you something here or you don't know?
Diane Mitchell: We're not. We're not suggesting. I mean we're looking for, you know give
them a chance.
Joyce: Well you wouldn't have boats out there in December, right? Or would you? Or
January.
Diane Mitchell: They could have one boat out there just so people could see; that they are,
you know that they do have boats inside. That they are open. That it is still there.
Joyce: Do you think that they're concerned about the season? I mean they'd like to be, I was
over there today and they have like 8 boats out there. I assume because it's a busy season for
them obviously. I guess I'm asking, could we possibly restrict how many boats are out there
per like a certain season they can have X amount and maybe off season.
Mancino: Certainly. Certainly, we can be that specific.
Diane Mitchell: I'd appreciate that.
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
R
L
r
L��
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: Thank you very much. Can I have a motion to open for a public hearing please?
Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public heating. The public heating was
opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
Commission at this time, please come up and state your name and address. You're all not
here for this, okay. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing.
Fatmakes moved, Mehl seconded to close the public heating. The public heating was closed.
Mancino: The public hearing is closed. Comments from commissioners on the interim use
permit for temporary display. Don.
Mehl: I went out to the location on Friday, late morning, and I counted the boats out there.
There were 14. It appeared to be, I think there were 3 pontoon boats. There were 3 or 4
power boats that were quite large and the balance of them were smaller type boats. There
were I think 4 of them parked behind the building. There was one parked at the end of the
building in the drive area. They were parked in the short space right immediately in front of
the building, as well as the long space going north and south. And some of the large power
boats and the pontoons of course are long so they had to park them either parallel with the
curb, which was not, you know the parking spaces were going head on in parking but boats
had to be parked along the curb or angled in so they took more than one parking space. As
many as maybe 3 for the pontoons. I drove through there and I tried to look at the whole
center and to me that many boats in that area was just not aesthetically right for the whole
area. It just didn't fit with the other shops and restaurants and the other types of businesses in
there. I think there could congestion problems perhaps in the drive through area. I know
there's no parking spaces on the end of the building but yet there was a boat there. So I
could see that as maybe being a problem. It's not permitted now, for storage or sales. It
seems like the applicant maybe I didn't understand but it almost sounded like a contradiction.
Wanted to make the produce more visible, you know by having them out there but yet the
applicant stressed they were tucked down and you really couldn't see them. I didn't quite
follow that. I guess I would be inclined to deny it unless we could say limit the number of
boats to say a maximum of three and place them either directly behind or directly in front and
not along that long north /south parking area.
Mancino: We certainly have the ability to limit the number and specify timing. You know
what months out of the year. And also where the locations will be. The designated location.
Mehl: Yeah, I would be supportive of that.
7
I �
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: This community's had regulated use for some businesses for a long time. I recall
the development that, when it was being built or up for planning. There was a large
neighborhood contingent of homes that came in in regards to a shopping center going there.
They were quite vocal in their opposition to that and I think one of the important things that
was worked out on that issue was that it was neighborhood service. And I don't think by any
stretch of the imagination could boats that I saw stored out there be ... neighborhood service.
And they also, the fact that perhaps that business should not be in that location. It's not that
the business shouldn't be in Chanhassen. It's just that maybe that's not the place for that
business. We deal with this all the time. We have car dealers that want to come in. Store
their equipment. We have other types of businesses. U -Haul I can think of for instance that
would like to park their units up front by the highway so that they have visible presence. We
have boat storage that ... like to have their boats storage out so people know that they store
boats there. We have areas where permitted uses for businesses are in our community.
They've been planned. And we have other areas where other uses are not ahowed and it
seems to me in this particular area that it hasn't been allowed at any point, but there are boats
there. As I understand it, one of the applicants tenant's made the complaint :so we have an
issue of not even the neighbors coming in and complaining but ... tenant in the operation. Your
point in the argument that was made by the applicant is that the boats aren't really
objectionable because you can't see them but the reason the tenant wants there out there is
because they need the visibility to stay in business. It doesn't hold up. I can see where, if I
was selling boats, I would like to have a 40 foot long sign out there of a boat. It's not a sign
but a boat sitting out in the middle in the parking lot certainly would suffice as that. I think
we open up a big can of worms as we allow that type of use in that location for other types
of businesses to display their wares. And be consistent is usually the best policy when we
follow these kinds of things and I would move for denial based on the staff ,report.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Well I certainly hate, well I'm sure the applicant knows their business and they feel
like they need to display their boats and see all the boats in order to be competitive, and I
certainly respect that. And I hate, it'd be unfortunate if they had to leave the city and move
elsewhere in order to conduct their business. We certainly would like to have the businesses
and what they contribute to the city. However, I like to think of alternatives and ways we
can make this work and I think you talked about seasonal displays, limiting the number of
boats and the location but there's an additional burden to that. You have to police it and
enforce it and keep track of what's going on there and there's always a tendency to put more
boats in, or to deviate from that. And the city goes through a lot of effort to zone these
3
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
areas. As Jeff pointed out, the residents are frequently input their feelings on this. I'd be
reluctant to approve an interim use for this site.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: I basically agree with the other commissioners. I agree with Don. I feel that there's
some overkill out there with those boats and I'm real uncomfortable with all those boats being
out there and suddenly this is an issue a year after the fact. I appreciate the business and
economic issues to the applicant. I mean this is part of their business and they need to lease
that space but I'd have to say that I couldn't support it either unless there was some way of
working out a very, very specific methodology there of 1 or 2 boats and a certain time frame
but you know they've shown them now in the past that they just put boats out there regardless
of any sort of enforcement so I guess I'd have to say I'd deny it at this point.
Mancino: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I think staffs report is right on the money. Nothing new to add. When we
put in highway business, we worked real closely over many years with the neighborhood. It
was real clear what we intended to do and it was not to put in a boat dealership there. It
obviously doesn't work. It just doesn't work there.
' Mancino: My comments are not any different than those that were just previously said. It is
a neighborhood business district. The intent is in keeping it to serve the neighborhood, and I
do go over and frequent the shopping center quite a bit and it just doesn't seem, I agree, to
' belong in a neighborhood district. So may I have a motion please.
Conrad: Can I just make one comment? ...a neighborhood business is not really a boat sales.
It's clearly not intended to sell boats. It's not. Yet there are some ways to make a center site,
even on a neighborhood level and a boat event on a weekend could do that so I'll end my
discussion with that.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please.
' Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the interim
use permit based on the findings presented in the staff report dated April 17, 1996, 1 through
' S.
Mancino: A second please.
' Joyce: I'll second that.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: All those in favor, oh. Any discussion?
Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
Interim Use Permit 996 -1 based on the following findings:
L Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN District.
2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district.
3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and
intent of interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance.
4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the BN zoning
district.
5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the
neighborhood oriented retail center and residential developments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD INTO TWO SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 3531 MAPLEWOOD
CIRCLE, ARUNDEL ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Crippa
Pam & Chuck Rienstra
Bill & Danielle Modell
Paul Modell
Bob Hebeisen
Leo & Carole Breitman
Gerry Wenkus
Gary Peterson
Bob Swearengin
3503 Maplewood Circle
3511 Maplewood Circle
3521 Maplewood Circle
3441 Shore Drive
3607 Ironwood Road
8549 Ironwood Road
3531 Maplewood Circle
315 East Lake Street, Wayzata
3530 Maplewood Circle
10
L
C
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Shaimin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff iepoft on this item.
' Mancino: So Dave there would be a pond created on Lot 2.
Hempel: Part of Lot 2 and it would expand south into the neighboring property. Where it
exists today.
Mancino: Into the adjacent property. And will there still be, what I saw, will there still be
the pipe that goes down underneath?
' Hempel: The pipe will remain as it is today. It may be necessary to extend that with the
construction of the house on the design of the house.
' Mancino: How much, I don't know how easy this is for you to show us but how many
people's property drain into this now? Now that we have Highway 7 and that re- routing,
' where is the water coming from? Where is most of the water coming from?
Hempel: Most of the water is coming from Lots 3, 4, 6 and 5. There may be some
' additional from Lot 7 going through there. Plus all of the runoff from Maplewood Circle.
You have the front yards draining out to the street and going down through that property
today.
' Mancino: And what about the lots on Maplewood Circle that are north there that you didn't
circle? Where do those drain?
Hempel: The front yards drain out to Maplewood Circle. The rear yards drain out back
towards Highway 7.
' Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Dave at this time?
' Joyce: I do have one question in regards to the water, holding water where you suggest there.
Is that going to be a condition in the recommendation or are you going to use that as kind of
an incentive type thing?
Hempel: No. We're working with the applicant to acquire the easement for it and credit their
SWMP fees in turn for the easement. We're not looking at constructing a pond at this time.
' That would be at a later date.
Joyce: Would that be something we would look at as a condition?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: When you saw at a later date, does that mean when the house is constructed on
that lot?
Hempel: I think it has to do more with the capital improvements with the Surface Water
Management Plan. I think it is outlined 5 years maybe down the plan. I'm not positive on
that but we can certainly check on it. It's not a high priority at this time, and adding one
additional house will not significantly increase runoff to the area.
Skubic: Wouldn't it be more timely to put it in when the construction is going on on that lot?
Hempel: There's really not much construction other than sewer and water service into the
house. It's a little excessive to put that type of condition I believe...
Mancino: Because everybody's generating.
Hempel: That's correct. It should be more of a public improvement project or a Surface
Water Management Project.
Aanenson: Maybe just to add to what Dave is saying is that part of the storm water
management plan, we put together a long capital improvement plan identifying high priority
problem areas. As Dave indicated, this is on the program, it's just years down the road. As
Dave has stated that we don't believe that this is making the situation worst. We have
identified that there needs to be some correction in there and we're programming into the long
term plans to fix it but we felt it would be onerous at this time to expect one, person to solve
the problem when it's a little bit larger. But it is being programmed in the capital
improvements.
Mancino: So it certainly adds to the problem.
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: It won't take it away. Or are you telling me there's a net.
Hempel: There's an opportunity here to ... impact the current situation down there.
Mancino: Thank you. Done with the staff report?
Al -Jaff: I'm done. We're recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined
in the staff report. Thank you.
12
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
' Commission.
Gerry Wenkus: Good evening Madam Chair, commission members. My name is Gerry
t Wenkus. My address is 3531 Maplewood Circle. The property being discussed tonight. I'm
here representing the current owners of the property, Steve Arundel and Arne Wasberg and as
stated, we're trying to do a subdivision for a future building site upon which I would possibly
' construct another home. That's my business. I'm in the building business. I think that the
applicants would be receptive to the proposed drainage pond that Dave is talking about and I
' think currently the situation that we're in now, it seems to work quite well but I think Dave's
concerns were the water quality into the lake and I think that by enlarging it a little bit it will
create more of a sediment than carry out. But the amount of water going into that pond right
' now has been significantly reduced with Mr. Durr developing the property to the west. So if
there's any questions, I'm here to answer those.
' Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing
please, and a second.
' Mehl moved, Skubic seconded to open the public healing. The public hewing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
' Commission, please come up. State your name and address.
Charles Rienstra: Hi. My name's Charles Rienstra. I live at 3511 Maplewood Circle. I have
' a couple, a few concerns about the property that's been developed. I've lived in this area for
20 years. It was originally developed as 8 lots. Even the majority of the lots there have been
subdivided ...concerned about that continuing through the neighborhood. About the drainage.
' I've been there 20 years. I've seen what drainage comes down there. Every lot there, 8 lots,
some part of them drain down that road. All the lots on the south side of the road, basically
the entire lot drains down there. We get a half inch rain, there's a river down Maplewood
' Circle. Until Gerry put that culvert in, and it wasn't a city put culvert, there were times in the
winter where it was a skating rink down there, where the water puddled. The runoff also
comes from Greenbriar. It comes across my back yard in the lots behind me drains towards
' my house and then turns in the swales down in this property. I've seen it first hand. I'm not
an engineer but it doesn't take a scientist to know water goes downhill. And it's a problem. I
think it's addressed properly and the concerns are met, I don't think they are to be handled but
t I think it's a major problem that has to be addressed. The other thing, you have 8 lots there.
There's 31 licensed vehicles on that 8 lots, 3 boats and 4 dogs. They say it's not going to
' affect the traffic. It is. I sat Sunday, 13 cars, none of them belonging to Maplewood Circle
drove up and down that road in a 2 hour period. This is a dead end. Are we going to have a
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
problem with traffic? This is our access is going to be limited on that circle. I bring it up.
Snow removal is another point that's got to be brought up. It's a tight area down there. So
those are my basic concerns.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission.
Bill Modell: Hello. I'm Bill Modell. My wife Danielle. We live at 3521 Maplewood Circle
and—just being here tonight that I have concerns about the proposed development. I'm the
closest resident that's most affected by this proposed development. I'm just to the east on Lot
6, right next to number 5. I have many personal concerns affecting my own property and I've
submitted a list which is in your staff report. She's got the pointer there on number 6. That's
my lot. One of my personal concerns is turn to your page in your staff report. There are
many. I'll make it as brief as possible. The key concern is the interruption of the natural
flow and the drainage of the storm water that runs around, down the street, through the
neighboring yard and my yard's the last one so what my concern is, if this is changed or
stopped up or if the natural flow is changed or lost in any way, what's going to happen? Am
I going to have a wet basement? Things like that. Now my back yard now already has like a
creek almost, or just a low spot where all the water comes in the back yards and down into
the neighboring Lot 5. I'm concerned that there's going to be pooling of water ... and then the
second concern.
Mancino: Excuse me. You did hear Mr. Hempel or Dave say that it shouldn't be any worse
than it is now?
Bill Modell: Right.
Mancino: And that it is a priority on the city's list.
Bill Modell: Sure.
Mancino: Now when that will actually come up to the top, we don't know. I mean I can't
answer that for you tonight.
Bill Modell: Well yeah, no. I understand that. What I thought I heard from him is that
adding another house isn't going to add any more water or more drainage.
Mancino: More runoff.
14
C
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Bill Modell: Runoff towards the lake. What I'm concerned about is adding another house.
' What's going to happen upstream. You know if we change things down there, how it's going
to affect the water that's running through this empty lot now.
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that at this point. Right now there is a house
on the lot. The drainage does go on the property line. The east property line. Until you get
' towards the southern part of the lot and then it does head westerly through the back portion of
the lot. When they built on that lot, one of the requirements in the conditions of approval is
that they submit a grading and drainage, erosion control, tree removal plan for staff to review
' and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. At that time there's another opportunity
for us to assure that the drainage patterns for that neighborhood is maintained. That's another
reason why we suggested to push the house further to the west on the lot. Leave the eastern
' part of the lot alone as it drains today.
Mancino: Could it possibly even be better?
' Hempel: It would not be any better.
Mancino: It would not be any better, okay.
Bill Modell: Okay...we can talk further on that but my second concern is where this proposed
driveway would be getting access to the property. From what I see there, from what I've got
according to the city's staff report, it shows a driveway on or near the property line on the
eastern property line which abuts my property and I'm wondering about a couple things that
' have to do with that as far as like when the snow removal goes on in the winter, where is the
snow going to go? Is it going to end up on my property? Is it going to make more trouble
out in the street where we already have problems when there's a significant snowfall. And
' also it's a big concern because my bedroom window's like 30 feet from the property line and I
just don't want a driveway there...
' Mancino: Let me see if we can answer a couple of those questions. Sharmin, as far as the
private driveway goes back to that second lot that will be constructed, how far away from the
Modell's property line does it need to be? Can it be right on the property line?
Al -Jaff: B ordinance it can o u to the property line.
Y g P p P h'
Mancino: Okay. Does that mean the paving part?
' Al -Jaff: Correct. There is a 30 foot wide easement. Most probably it will be in the middle.
1 15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I'll touch on that a little bit too. There is currently a storm
sewer pipe running along that easterly property line. We would recommend that the driveway
be shifted to the westerly portion of that 30 foot easement to maintain that storm sewer and
also maintain an overflow drainage swale should the water, we get an intense storm with
spring runoff and icy conditions, that the water has the capability of going over the curb and
following that property line back, as it does today. So we don't want to disturb that drainage
pattern that's out there today so we would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the
westerly point.
Mancino: At least 10 feet over?
Hempel: Right.
Mancino: To allow an easement.
Bill Modell: You're saying that would be 10 feet off the property line?
Mancino: Yes. It could go there. And you can certainly talk with the applicant and have
discussions with the applicant about where that does go.
Bill Modell: Okay. I guess another concern also that I stated in my list of concerns in the
staff report would be again noise from the driveway being on the bedroom side of my house
or on the sleeping areas. And also increased traffic flow, which my neighbor touched upon as
well. As far as how many cars are going to be coming past my house. Thai. is a dead end
street and it gets plenty of traffic as well. Another big concern for my wife and I is we like
privacy in our back yard because this house, if you look at that picture would, that would...
my back yard and I have a very private back yard now and that was part of my reason for
purchasing the property and I was hoping it would stay that way. And now I didn't see this
coming. That's a key concern is privacy. There are ways that that can be addressed with
trees, with fences, that kind of stuff but I'd like... I guess I think all these different concerns
could lead to decreased property value, and it's not the money I care about you know
monetary wise. It's the neighborhood in general aesthetically. I don't think, you know I
guess if it was me in that house, I wouldn't want a driveway within you know, from me to
him from our front door and that's what, it brings that driveway over to the other side, it's
going to be cutting right through the front yard of this other house, which is virtually non-
existent or very small the way it is. The front of that house would be all driveway. And it's
like I say, from studying the staff report, this is some of my personal concerns. I mean
they're there. You can look at them but what I see from studying the staff report, it appears
to me that the city has a major concern with the drainage. They've addressed it. They've
addressed it in a large couple of paragraphs in the report and I think it's a problem and they
16
r
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
know it's going to be a problem and if it's not dealt with properly, you know it's going to be a
future problem. And what happens if they grant the ... working at the time but what happens in
a year or two when it does back up or something does go wrong. Where do I turn?
Mancino: What is the process Dave for that? If there has been construction and it's not,
something wasn't done correctly.
' Hempel: It would revert back to the applicant to resolve the problem.
Bill Modell: I guess in closing I just wanted to say that I do believe that the development
would have a very negative impact on the existing neighborhood because the neighborhood is
totally developed in my opinion and after hearing the concerns that I have, I hope that the
' city and the neighborhood would support me in seeing that the approval of this development
be denied. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them right now.
' Joyce: I have a question, maybe for you Dave. You said a key point was the house looking
into your house. Isn't this area lower than the other homes on the other lots? I thought I read
in there that it's a few feet lower than most of the other.
Hempel: It's probably equal in elevation to the property to the east, as you continue. The
south part of the lot is lower but where the building pad is for this whole, and the type of
' home that would be constructed, I'm envisioning the house would be up a little bit higher.
Joyce: Okay but it's not, what I'm trying to say is equal to the other houses. Is it going to be
' overlooking any house there now?
Hempel: It depends on the house type. If they do a rambler. If they'd like a rambler
lookout, then they would elevate the homes somewhat.
Joyce: I'm trying to remember how, I went out and looked at the site and I'm just thinking, it
' felt to me it looked lower but you know I couldn't tell. Thank you. That's my only question.
Bill Modell: Anybody have any other questions? Okay, thank you.
' Mancino: Thank Y ou. Anyone else?
Paul Modell: My name is Paul Modell. I live at 3441 Shore Drive and the person you just
heard from is my son. Bill lives around the corner from me on Maplewood Circle. I'd like to
' refer to Bill and Danielle's property as the Modell property and of course the proposed as the
subject property. My understanding that the Modell property has 130 feet of frontage on
' 17
I I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Maplewood Circle. It has one driveway. My understanding is that the subject property has
50 feet, or there abouts, on Maplewood Circle and it's proposed that that have two driveways.
I've been in the real estate business for 23 years. I helped Bill and Danielle find their house.
Searched it out and did the transaction... One of the major factors when they selected that
house. It was advertised with a large, private, wooded back yard. The whole block had large
lots and that's what they purchased. That's what we found three years ago and now less than
three years later, they're going to give up their entire privacy of their back yard. What Bill
was talking about with the house overlooking his house, it's not higher or lower or whatever.
The point is he has a private living room, dining room, kitchen, back yard. Now we put a
house in his back yard. Essentially that's what it is. It's right next to his back yard. And
that house overlooks his formerly private yard and house. I can tell you from being in the
real estate business for 23 years that this will significantly reduce the value of the Modell
property, and I would propose to you that unless the developer is willing to look at a
significant dollar amount for that reduction, I strongly suggest that this proposal be denied.
Because the damages are significantly monetarily devaluing the Modell property. I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions? Dave, it isn't two driveways. It will be one
driveway with a cross access easement, correct?
Hempel: One driveway access point from the cul -de -sac, which is currently there.
Paul Modell: What about the driveway that's currently there? Are you talking about one
driveway will come off of the other driveway?
Hempel: That's correct.
Paul Modell: So the house in the back will drive, they'll drive right next to the existing
house?
Hempel: It will be like a Y. As you turn off the cul -de -sac and go into the driveway, the
existing driveway, there will be another driveway that Y's off to the left.
Mancino: So you'll either be able to go straight into the existing house or go left.
Paul Modell: I guess I wouldn't want to own either of those two properties...
Mancino: Thank you.
Paul Modell: Thank you.
18
l
7
1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Bob Swearengin: My name is Bob Swearengin. I live at 3530 Maplewood Circle. Just to
the north of the proposed development. My neighbors have addressed the technical issues in
regards to the development of the property. I guess I'd like to address a different point of
view, and that's that a neighborhood isn't all technical specifications and setbacks and
' requirements. There are other factors involved in what makes up a neighborhood. I think we
all purchased property in this neighborhood because of it's larger lots. Relatively low density.
We've all seen Chanhassen develop. I grew up here. I remember when Chanhassen was a
two lane highway and the farm store and Pauly's were the only thing on the street. I've seen
what the City Council and the Planning Commission has done to improve Chanhassen. I've
' seen the development behind my property, which has made a drastic improvement from a
field to a very nice development. I've seen my grandfather's farmhouse support close to 400
houses, which is now Longacres. Chanhassen has become very prestigious and a welcome
place to live and I would like to see it stay that way. I'm not opposed to development. I
don't think any of us are. I think what we are concerned about though is, it's not our
neighbor anymore that is developing this house. He is no longer the one that owns that
property. This is another person that is going to come in and simply profit because there's an
extra piece of land available to subdivide. I would hope that the City Council could say there
are many places we have in Chanhassen to develop, but let us retain the quality in this
particular neighborhood and not maximize each parcel of land that's possible and retain what
we have in our neighborhood. And so I would hope the Council would vote no for this
proposal.
' Mancino: Thank you.
Robert Crippa: My name's Robert Crippa. I live at 3501 and 3503 Maplewood Circle. I
have a duplex at that address. I have a few concerns. The number one is the drainage
problem. I am the one that is butted up against Greenbriar Avenue. Every time it rains, I see
the water come up Greenbriar, through my back yard and... He didn't say anything about the
back yard drainage off of Greenbriar Avenue. Off of the houses across the street on
Greenbriar, which are higher than us. I have had city crews, when they've been coming in
' and repairing the streets, put tar to build up the road so that it won't wash down my yard. It
comes down and it takes all the pine needles with it.
' Mancino: Robert, could you point to where your home is.
Robert Crippa: I own this parcel right here.
' Mancino: Oka thank you.
Y, Y
! Ll
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Robert Crippa: We get all the drainage from these lots. It comes right through here and
comes right through our back yards. My other concern is, I have three young children. The
people across the street have two young children. More cars coming down that road, we're
right at the tip where everybody turns in. They come around that corner pretty fast
sometimes and my concern is, if there's two more vehicles, that's two more chances. There's
enough traffic on that road. The other concern is, hey. I have enough land. I can subdivide
and put up another house too. Do you want to see another house there? You know we all
own big lots. We could put, every one of us could put another house up. Is that what
Chanhassen wants? That's my concern. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing
please.
Faimakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public heating. The public healing was closed.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Sharmin or Kate, basically what the applicant is asking for is legal.
Al -Jaff: Correct. It meets ordinance requirements.
Conrad: For a private drive, are there any special requirements when we allow a private
drive?
Al -Jaff: If you have more than one person, one household using the driveway, it has to be
built up to a 7 ton standard. Other than that, all we need is a 30 foot easement where the
driveway's going to go.
Conrad: In terms of the invasion of privacy, we really don't have anything that protects that.
I did see in the staff report that we may have to take down some trees. That's significant.
Al -Jaff: There are some spruce trees. There's one specific spruce tree that will go.
Conrad: But you didn't make an issue out of it so I'm assuming, and you're claiming it's not
an issue. That's tough. I understand what the neighbors are saying. I think on the other
hand, our role is to review this. I guess I've been looking for, my preference would be not to
add a house there. Yet on the other hand it is legal. I don't know if I can give you anything
that's solid tonight to be honest with you. I think it's maybe another commissioner might see
something different than I but I think the staffs done it's job. I think what you'll find is that,
what you've got is engineering looking at the issue and paying far more attention than you
20
u
n
n
n
J
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
might have had otherwise. I think engineering staff certainly is looking at the major issues.
We certainly, one house shouldn't make a major difference. I'm always concerned that we
don't delay water projects, especially if they impact the lake but as long as I know it's on our
task for making sure that all the area runoff is pre- treated, that's important. I agree with the
' staff report. I just have a tough time dealing with this but I think the applicant has the right
to do this and it does affect privacy and I can relate to that. The only thing I'd like to do
with the staff report is make sure that we shift that driveway to the left as much as we can.
' I'd really like to get it. I really don't like allowing private drives on that property line. It just
bothers me and maybe we should look at that sometime because that just really does seem
' like an invasion of privacy. I don't like it. It's there. The neighbors are stuck with it but
maybe we, it won't help you out but maybe we can take a look at it for other people and see
if there's something we can do. So again I'd like to shift it. I think the staff report's good.
' It's looking at the issues and if we make sure that the staff follows them up, it will protect it
as much as I think we can in the city.
' Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: Well I think the staff did a great job of addressing all the issues that the neighbors
' brought up. I mean I think you did an excellent job. I think the drainage issue certainly has
been addressed. As Dave said, they're looking into a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal,
and erosion control plan so I think the city is certainly taking it seriously. It's not taking it
' lightly. I think it's basically an aesthetic problem and listen, I can agree with you. I mean,
particularly the Modell's. They're going to be the ones, I think you're going to be the ones
that are going to have the biggest impact because it's going to be right next to your property.
' The rest of the neighborhood, you know I can accept the cars going through and things like
that but what Ladd said is right. I mean they have a right to, someone bought this property
and intended to use it for something. It's in the guidelines. I don't have anything else to add.
' I just, I am concerned about the drainage issue but if they're comfortable not putting it in as a
part of the condition but that it will be looked at, and I think it will be, I'd be in favor of it.
' Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: Well I think staff dealt with the issues that they could. Drainage and the grading
' and such and it's unfortunate that there is that invasion of privacy with the private drives so
close to the adjacent land and we've encountered this in the past. I can recall two or three
occasions and I agree with Ladd that that's something that we should probably take a look at.
' I have a question, what is the subdivision potential of the other lots on Maplewood Circle
here in regards to traffic? Future traffic congestion.
21
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Aanenson: How the other lots could be subdivided in the future? A lot of it depends on the
home placement of the lots. Whether or not you could get the common driveway. I think
Ladd's right on the mark as far as the private driveway issue. You have to realize that staff
struggled with this application for several months. When it first came in there was a lot of
discussion as to how it could be, whether or not we even could support it bust our hands were
tied as we worked a lot closer with the City Attorney's office and based on the fact that he
could do a private driveway, which is allowed by ordinance, it did allow it. Again this is the
largest lot in the subdivision. It's well over an acre and as you look over time, that's what
we're seeing subdividing. The pressures for taxes become onerous for some people and they
have an acre and a half and an opportunity to subdivide. Certainly this is arl issue we
struggled with because it does change the character of the neighborhood, which we are
concerned about. But there is an opportunity, the minimum lot size is 15,000 and people
have enough to meet the standards of the ordinance. They have that opportunity. I think
based on the discussion we're hearing tonight, that you would like the staff to revisit the
private driveway issue and see what other opportunities to prevent this sort of situation. But I
think based on the fact that because it is a large lot and we see that all the time, the pressures
to subdivide are great based on financial reasons. So there may be other opportunities maybe
just look at it just a broad brush approach to see. It depends on how the house is sitting on
the lot, whether or not you can get other driveways. The neighbors have indicated that's not
always the most desirable if you're going to split, to have a driveway come closer. But that
doesn't mean people can't ... common one down between two lots where they're set back
further ... but you raise a good point.
Skubic: Yeah, I don't have the basis to deny this or vote against this application.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: Pretty much everything's been covered here. We've seen this issue several times
when older developments come into play with someone who wishes to either finance
development through subdivision or we get into the issue of buffering next to a higher density
development next to a larger lot development. There's no solution for this outside of where
our ordinances are, and we have to follow what is legal. The property owner's entitled to
legally develop their property. Chanhassen does not have a large lot, single ;Family resident
zone. We have a minimum development that is required in this city as far as square footage
goes on the lot. In fact there are a lot of forces both in the city and outside the city to reduce
that even further and a lot of times neighborhoods come in where there's larger lots are in
place and they talk about that they've lived here for a considerable length of time and having
lived here for a considerable length of time myself, it's true. There is an ... there's a feeling
that is not in some of the smaller lot developments and I think it's unfortunate that there is no
recourse for that but that's simply the way that it's set up. We have looked at that. There is
22
C
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
no support that I know of for large lot minimums, as a separate zone. And it is the only way
' that that issue would ever be tackled. We have I think a record out there, if we look at some
of these older urban areas from Minneapolis to Edina to Minnetonka to Eden Prairie.
Eventually all these lots get subdivided because eventually what happens is that somebody
' comes in to purchase the property and uses that subdivision capability to finance the purchase.
And eventually areas are just maximized out for that development under what the minimums
are. There's always exceptions to the rule but primarily if you look around, that's what
happens.
' Mancino: Eventually.
Farmakes: Eventually. And as planners we have to look at the long term development
' situation and we also have to deny or approve based on what the city's ordinances are and I
don't see any way to not approve this. That's it.
' Mancino: Don.
Mehl: I agree with what's been discussed here. They definitely have a right to develop it.
' One major concern I've got is that the street and circle does slope quite heavily down toward
that end. Down toward that property and there's a potential for a lot of water to go down
there. And the thing I'd be concerned about is the, well I support the driveway being shifted
to the west. The driveway's certainly going to perhaps be raised some more so that the
immediate grassy areas, so the water then may be channeled into a tighter, smaller area or
something. I guess I'd be concerned that the drainage problem be worked out, not so it
should work but it will work. If that can be done. You know so the city and the developer
and the applicant can work that out.
t Mancino: Will work that out. Okay, thank you. I have a question about the private drive.
You say a 30 foot private drive with 20 feet has to be paved because it's serving two houses.
Oh, excuse me.
Hempel: Sorry Madam Chair. The private driveway, the common portion of the private
driveway would have to be 20 foot wide. The remaining portion of the driveway could be on
' up to I believe probably 10 feet.
Mancino: Oh good. So as you go into the existing house, you're going straight and then
' when you bear off to the left, that left arm could be 10 feet so it doesn't have to take down as
many trees. Doesn't have to, it can be even go over to the west even more. Great. Good.
J
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Hempel: Madam Chair, that's a minimum of 10 feet. I guess it's typically Lip to a builder.
Homeowner. Standard driveway width's probably 14 or 15.
Mancino: 14 or 15 feet, okay. And that would still, one of the other questions that was
asked was, it would still give enough room for snow removal, etc on each side of the
driveway. Correct Dave?
Hempel: With the driveway being shifted westerly and reduced in width, yes.
Mancino: Okay. Are there trees that need to be added to this development, and could they
be added in a place that would serve the new lot and the existing homeowner to have some
privacy. Could we have the trees placed there so that we do have a little bit of buffering, a
little bit of privacy provided?
Al -Jaff: It's all going to depend on how many trees they take down after they finish
development of the site. That's when we will.
Mancino: Assess how many trees. At this point did you make a general calculation
Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: Correct. Yes we did.
Mancino: Isn't it, was it 2 trees?
Al -Jaff: The requirement is 55 %. The tree removal and the house would take approximately
28 %. So it leaves 52 %. So the developer will be required to replace 3% difference.
Mancino: And we could say in our conditions that any other trees that are taken out, that
those be placed so that they can buffer or make it be the adjoining property?
Al -Jaff: We can require that.
Mancino: Okay.
Al -Jaff: There is a drainage way in that area also so we need to make sure that it...
Mancino: Okay. Okay, I understand. Anything that we can do there, I would like to see the
applicant do so there could be some natural buffering.
Aanenson: I think that's probably the best way to word it. Leave it so we can work with it
24
1
7
C�
L
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: So we can work with that. This will continue happening in areas like this, correct.
Sad. It's hard.
Aanenson: You're going to see a lot more of it, yeah.
Mancino: And it's legal and it's what we do and it is going to continue happening over the
city and that's too bad. Do I have a motion?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion Madam Chairman that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 996 -7, according to the staff
report dated May 1, 1996 with the 13 points listed in the staff report but with addition to
point number 4 that the driveway be shifted to the west a minimum of 10 feet or that
recommended by the staff. Moving the private drive to the west from the property line. My
other, I want to add, it won't be a point but it will be a strongly worded statement to the
applicant that the city's Planning Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work
with the staff to minimize the visual impact to the property to the east through whatever
means possible and I think they should do this just in terms of being a good neighbor and I
would hope that staff could work with the applicant on this aspect of the recommendation.
Mancino: And you did not want to make that a point in the conditions?
Conrad: Well I just don't know how to do that. It's not legal. It's not, I just would like it
there but I don't know that we can force it to happen.
Mancino: Okay. Do you accept a friendly amendment to item 14 that says at this point, the
applicant must plant two trees on a new lot to meet ordinance requirements and I would just
like to add to say, to reword that to say the applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to
meet city, to meet ordinance requirements and to add buffering to the lot on the east. To Lot
6. I didn't say that very well.
Conrad: Boy, I couldn't figure that out.
' Aanenson: The way I understand it is, if we worked to place those strategically so they
provide the best buffering. If we can't put it in that area because of the drainage swale, that
we work to provide the best screenage for the neighboring property. Whether it's so you can't
' see into their living room or their back yard, whatever we work to strategically place that tree,
is that what you're looking for?
Mancino: Exactly.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Aanenson: Provide the best screening.
Mancino: So can you say that in 5 words or less?
Aanenson: And place trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east.
Mancino: To the abutting property to the east.
Conrad: Yeah, I would accept it. That's in addition to what point Madam Chair?
Mancino: 14.
Conrad: 14. And maybe staff could note that we have two 13's on the page.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Comud moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision 996 -7, Aiundel Addition foi• two single family lots as shown
on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin & Gronbesg, Inc., subject to the
following conditions;
1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be
placed along the edge of the trees showing grading limits prior to grading.
2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water
quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751.00. These fees are payable to the city
prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee: for dedication of
additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1.
3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city
engineer.
4. The application will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer '
modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow
26 1
C
J
u
F
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
with the city $2,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final
plat a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and along
the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as fai• as possible
per the staff's appioval.
5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code
Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary
sewer.
7. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to
maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle.
8. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection
fee will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood
Circle to the property line.
9. Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and
recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1.
10. The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement
on Lot 2 for future storm water pond.
11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992
Premise identification (copy enclosed).
12. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code.
13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat.
A demolition permit will be required.
14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and
place the hiees in a way to maximize screening to the piopeities to the east.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
15. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple.
Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed
at the grading perimeters.
All voted in favor- and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated April 17, 1996 as presented.
CM COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: There were light items on as far as planning issues. Just to update you.
Southwest Metro is working on a transit hub located on Highway 5 between Prairie Center
Drive and what will be the new alignment of Technology Drive. They did present those
plans to the City Council. Since we are one of the partners, along with Eden Prairie and
Chaska in Southwest Metro, Sharmin is active in working on, that's one of the areas that we'll
be looking at putting some housing. We're working with Carver County HRA to do a
housing project there so it'd be the transit hub, some commercial and some houses so we're
working on the design of that. Just wanted to let you know that even though it's in Eden
Prairie, that we're pursuing some hopefully some creative designs on that piece of property to
meet some of our housing goals. Then the other thing, there was a planning issue on that
Council meeting was the wetland alteration permit and then I have quite a few ongoing items
I'd like to update you on.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: The Masse request, which was the property off of Lyman and Galpin which was
requesting for the multi - family project, has been withdrawn based on the recommendation
from the Planning Commission. So it will not go to the Council. In that same vein, Mr.
Hoben has withdrawn his application on his subdivision too.
Mancino: On Melody Hill?
Aanenson: Correct. Yes, he withdrew the application. Other ongoing items. Met Council
held a meeting out here regarding the growth options. There's three different options. I'll be
providing a report to the Council and also I'll include that to you. There were three different
options in that same vein. The builders commissioned their own study to present, kind of
lobbying their position on that. Obviously one of the positions is to not extend the MUSA.
What that does is, what they're trying to do is create more infill and when you can see the
pressures of some of that is to provide, where we do have a lot of large lots, is to provide
IF
n
u
1
u
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
opportunities to maybe subdivide some of the lots so you can see what the impact of that
' would be based on what our discussion on this last issue. Instead of going further out, where
the infrastructure's already in place, more intense development... Southwest Coalition, which
this community's a part of has been meeting and putting together some position papers.
' Again I'll be sharing that with you and with the City Council in your upcoming meetings.
Also update on the auto sales. The applicant is no longer pursuing that piece of property.
That's the good news. Flip side of that is, there's five other sites that they're still pursuing.
Most of them still along Highway 5 so we'll keep you updated on that. Then the final thing I
wanted to let you know is the Governor did sign the new wetland regulations... the Board of
' Soil and Water Management will be implementing the new regulations on that so we're kind
of in this interim stage.
' Mancino: What is that?
Aanenson: What it does is allow for some filling of a larger amount of wetland being filled
' without having to get a wetland permit. Alteration permit. What's in place right now is our
city ordinance are still more restrictive than the state law so we have to make those changes
but we want to make sure, we're going to a training session here to find out what the new
' laws, and find out what we want to change because we've always been a little bit different as
how we apply those. We don't want to go carte blanche, exactly what the State says. We
want to understand how those two relate to our ordinances before we make any changes so
' you will be seeing some amendments to our city wetland regulation permit in the future. It
probably won't be for another month or so but there are new laws that are in place right now
and again, we'll be keeping you informed of how that relates to our's.
' Mancino: Is there still the 2:1 mitigation?
' Aanenson: No. There's some flexibility in that now where you get credit for doing the buffer
strips, which again we were kind of out ahead so they will be getting some credit for that for
mitigation by buffer strips and those sort of things so, again we'll be showing you how that
' relates to our storm water plan. Excuse me, our wetland permitting. What kind of changes
we may or may not want to make and how it relates to what we're trying to do out here.
Conrad: Is that a subject that will go to the Environmental Committee?
Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I think that's something we would want them to look at and get
some input on, sure. And then ultimately the Council makes the decision on that so. That's
all I had.
1
L
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
The public portion of the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 830 p.m. At this
point the Planning Commission had an open discussion irgaixiing New Urbanism.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
30