1l. Planning commission Minutes dated July 19, 19951
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 19, 1995
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Craig Peterson, Mike Meyer, Nancy Mancino, Bob
Skubic, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 5.98 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS,
LOCATED AT 7530 DOGWOOD ROAD. GETSCH ADDITION. GETSCH
CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name
David Getsch
Marjorie & William Getsch
John Getsch
Address
5233 Richwood Drive
7530 Dogwood Road
18022 Priory Lane, Minnetonka
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Can we just turn very
quickly. The underlying zoning is RSF.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: But the comprehensive plan guided this for large lots.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: And we go back to the zoning because the zoning predates comprehensive plan?
Al -Jaff: And takes precedence.
Mancino: Takes precedence over the comprehensive plan.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Al -Jaffa Correct.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Does the applicant or their designee
wish to address the Planning Commission? Thank you.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I currently reside in Minnetonka and I'm the
designated representative of the Getsch Corporation. I had a couple of questions on the
conditions. First of all I'd like to go to what originally, how we got to this situation.
Originally the land was bought, I think it was in '78 with the intention of buying 7 lots for the
purpose of building homes for family. My parents bought it. They built a house there and
one of my brothers built a house there. There's 4 brothers in the family. Each one of us was
designated to get a lot and we were going to basically subdivide the lots, you know divide it
up so there would be 5 lots. Two homes, year round homes have been built. There was an
original cabin that was on the property, which is basically been unchanged other than to be
just maintained. In the past we were operating under the assumption that they were 7 lots
and being treated as 7 lots. The city was also acting under that in granting building permits
for houses. Garages on the property. This came about last, I think about a year ago that we
found out that in essence it is one piece of property with two single family homes and a... In
going through and looking at what would be the best solution for, to get basically a non-
compliance parcel into a complying parcel, working with the Planning Commission, we came
up with dividing it into 5 lots, which does solve the issue of basically 5 interests in the
corporation and the reason for it originally was to have a, to be able to provide the land
equally into 5 lots. That's the whole reason the corporation was originally set up. The intent
never was to buy the land, hold it and use it as a subdivision. It was to be to buy the land
for the use of putting our homes on them. We support the planning staffs recommendations
going through. We do have some questions on a couple of the items and asking for some
clarification. The first one would be item 2 on page 6 of the report. It says private driveway
and street shall be upgraded to meet city ordinances, and my question is, right now we're not
planning on doing anything and we really don't want to go through and do a lot of work
redoing the roads in there. And I guess we're wondering would this be, when anything is
changed on the property, in other words a building permit be issued, then the roads would
have to be brought up to the recommendations for use for a private drive. Hopefully a private
drive.
Mancino: It would not be until there was a building permit issued. So I think that would be
good to add to this recommendation.
John Getsch: The next item that I had was item 7, which is a Fire Marshal's condition and in
essence that's kind of the same thing. We're modifying when the road, or the driveway gets
FA
u
�J
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
modified and it would need to meet that. Would that also be upon condition of granting a
building permit in the future?
Mancino: It is my understanding of that. Is that correct Sharmin and Dave?
Hempel: Madam Chair, if I can address that for one moment. I guess the concern I would
have is should the property change hands before a building permit has been issued, then who
would be responsible for the upgrade of that driveway. Who pays for it? If it stays in the
sole ownership of the Getsch Corporation or whoever, then we'd have them to go to. That's
the only question I have. One way to do it would be to provide some sort of security to
guarantee that that does get upgraded in the future. Typically these driveways are upgraded
when the plat is recorded. So you have a driveway at that time already. A building permit
can be pulled the next day.
Mancino: Okay. And couldn't it be, can't we just award that legally so that the present
owners at the time of the upgrade have the financial responsibility?
Hempel: We could address that I believe through a development contract through the
subdivision. That the costs that are born by the original property owner.
John Getsch: The plan really is at the time, you know many of the lots are, would be
separated out for the purpose of building, or sold off, that there would be a road in place that
would meet all the requirements. In essence we really couldn't sell the lots without doing
that. If you look at the plat right now you'll see that the present driveway comes down right
through the middle of the lots so to really do anything with any of them, that has to be
addressed. That was all that I, you know in reading through it that I had some questions on.
And again, we support the...
Mancino: Excuse me, any other questions?
John Getsch: No. Do you have any questions of me?
Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Does anyone wish to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing
none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carded. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff?
Farmakes: I have no comments.
Mancino: Okay. Bob.
Skubic: I have no comments either.
Mancino: Okay. Mike.
Meyer: As long as we can get the street issue resolved, that's what I'm concerned. About the
timing on that. Other than that, nothing.
Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: That'd be my only question too. How difficult is it to write it into, if there is a
change of ownership, how difficult really is it to write that into the contract upon sale?
Mancino: I think we may want to add that to our list of recommendations. Ladd.
Conrad: It looks fine.
Mancino: I just have one and that is, as I went over and walked the property and the area
which is very, very unique, I'm wondering from staffs point of view, we're adding two new
houses. I mean two houses to this private drive and it's 10 feet at this point, is that correct
Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: 10 to 14 feet.
Mancino: 10 feet and we're asking a property owner to make that 20 feet in through there
and I don't know if everyone else has a chance to walk through that area but the road itself
right now is very close to some of the existing homes and also is surrounded by fairly big
specimen trees, and is there another way, a more creative way to keep the road the same
width and, Dave I guess I'm kind of addressing this to you in saying that maybe the two new
homes that are going in there have to have. I know the concern is for public safety and buyer
concern, that those two new homes, instead of widening the road, have to have those interior
4
u
u
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
sprinkler systems. Are there any other ways to look at this to maintain the character of the
area and keep the road the way it is and yet have some assurances?
Hempel: I believe the alternative that you suggested there is a viable one. The Fire Marshal
has gone along with that in the past. The expense of something like that is pretty substantial.
That's up to the property owner to elect to do that. The other option would be to see if there
is another feasible route for a driveway to meander through the woods to leave the existing
driveway in place and connect onto it later probably.
Mancino: Okay. So that is an option. I have no idea if the applicant would like to consider
' that option but I think it's one that we could put in the recommendations and have staff and
the applicant work through that with public safety. My last question is, these lots have
riparian rights to Lake Minnewashta and they have to show two proposed ISTS sites.
Sharmin, how far do they need to be from Lake Minnewashta?
' Al -Jaffa 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
Mancino: Okay. So there won't be any leeching or, thank you. That's all the questions and
' comments I have. Enough said. May I have a motion?
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -11 dated July 19, 1995 for Getsch, is that it?
John Getsch: Getsch.
Farmakes: Getsch Addition for 5 single family lots as shown on the plans dated June 19,
1995, subject to the following conditions. 1 through 9 and how would you like to word 2 on
' that? Do you want to add your condition onto that for legal responsibility for upgrading?
Mancino: A friendly amendment would be to, on number 2, the private driveway /street shall
' be upgraded to meet city ordinances at time of, when they pull a building permit. And
secondly, also that there is a second option of, if the applicant and city staff review a second
option of keeping the road the way it is and using a sprinkler system or something that meets
' safety fire code for the two new homes. And this is to be worked out with city staff and the
applicant.
Farmakes: Work with staff? Okay. That's fine.
Mancino: Do I hear a second to the motion?
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Skubic: I'll second.
Mancino: Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision 495 -11 for Getsch Addition for 5 single
family lots as shown on the plans dated June 19, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. Tree Removal Limits will be established 15 feet from building pad and grading limits.
The locations of trees must be shown on site surveys submitted for building permits.
Any additional tree removals must have staff approval.
2. The private driveway /street shall be upgraded to meet city ordinances at the time
building permits are issued. The applicant and city staff will review a second option of
keeping the road the way it is and using a sprinkler system or something that meets
safety fire code for the two new homes.
3. The preliminary grading plan should be revised to include the following information:
a. Show primary and secondary septic site locations.
b. Show the revised private driveway including turn around.
C. Final grading plan should be signed by a licensed land surveyor or professional
engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota.
4. The applicant shall provide a cross access driveway easement agreement to preserve
access through the proposed lots and to spell out maintenance responsibilities.
5. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
6. Building Department conditions:
a. Show the location of two proposed ISTS sites. This must be done before final plat
approval.
b. Demonstrate the existing ISTS's are not failing or non - complying systems.
0
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
C. Show existing and proposed well locations on the proposed five lots, and existing
well location on lots abutting the proposed subdivision. Revise Grading and
Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation
and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
7. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Dead -end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be
provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. These
plans shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Marshal.
8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
9. A preservation easement over the westerly 150 feet of Lots 1 and 2 shall be dedicated.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 20.25 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF,,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.25,
ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT LOCATED AT 7210 GALPIN
BOULEVARD, FOREST MEADOW.,
Public Present:
Name Address
John Sullivan 2346 Stone Creek Drive
Jeffry Finch 2304 Stone Creek Drive
Randy Lewis 2181 Stone Creek Drive
Slim-min Al -Jiff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Yes. The access to the property, it's referenced as access to the park. I don't
understand that.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Al -Jaff: The applicant is proposing to extend this street, which is Fawn Hills Road, to the
south and then cul -de -sac it. There are parcels that are developable at some time in the
future. Staff is recommending that this street be stubbed to the south and then end it at that
point to provide future access.
Mancino: And there will still be, there will be an access to the park off Galpin.
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: And the existing house that is there, the Stockdale house will still have their own
driveway?
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. So they'll be those two. Sharmin, the parcel to the south, the Turcott
parcel.
Al -Jaff: Would you please repeat?
Mancino: The parcel to the south, how many acres is that? The Turcott property.
Al -Jaff: It's approximately 5 acres.
Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Thank you. Does the
applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Please do. Would you
like to bring that forward a little. Please.
Dave Sevold: I'm Dave Sevold. I'm the Development Director for JMS Company. We're the
applicant. We are located in Chanhassen. 80 West 78th Street. I'm very pleased to submit
this proposal to the city. Basically we feel we've come up with a plan that utilizes the natural
grades of the site. The existing road connection from the Lundgren Development in. We
have met with the Turcott's, the ... property to the south. She is the daughter -in -law of the
Bentz', which are the rest of the owners of the property to the south of us. They indicated
they have no desire for development on their property so our concern is that if we add a
roadway section in here, we'll probably, we could wind up losing a lot. We're not sure how
much it would benefit or cost at this time. Really that's basically our concern, but overall I
think it's a really good plan. Any questions?
Mancino: Any questions from commissioners? Thank you. May I have a motion to open
this for a public hearing please?
8
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Peterson moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Does anyone wish to come up and address the
Planning Commission at this time? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public
hearing?
Conrad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Bob?
Skubic: I don't have any issue with this. I'd just like to say that, I do feel that the access to
' the properties to the south is advisable. I agree with that. At some point in the future there
may be other owners in those areas at which time they may desire, it may be necessary to
have access so I agree with that point. And that's all I have.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
' Meyer: I agree with the staff recommendations.
' Mancino: Craig.
Peterson: I agree with the staff recommendations also.
' Mancino: Ladd.
' Conrad: I really like the plan and I really wish I could figure out a way that we didn't have
to stub in a street, but the land to the south will develop. We've heard this so many times
that it won't, and it does. It does. It always does. So we have to have the access and I don't
want to impact you in terms of number of houses but I think we need that access, so I agree
with the staff report.
' Mancino: Any other comments Ladd?
Conrad: No.
' Mancino: Jeff.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Farmakes: I also agree with the staff report, unless something can be worked out otherwise, I
think the land to the south ... Ladd's comments. Quite a long cul -de -sac there also. That's it.
Mancino: I have a couple comments, and that is, I really like the proposal, the preliminary
plat in front of us. My only concern with putting a road to the south would be, I would like
to conceptually keep it away from the park because I think it's pretty great in neighborhoods
where you have little kids in parks and you have balls and you have people playing all over
and there isn't a street that the ball runs into. People don't run into the street at all so my
recommendation to be wherever the stub goes into the south, or wherever the staff feels with
the applicant that it's appropriate, that it be away from the park, if at all possible. And
especially because Galpin is going to become, and is such a heavy traffic collector road and it
will become even more so that that's my concern. Now the other thing to look at is from the
Benson property, if you could use that to tie everything in. I don't know. Instead of Turcott
property. I hope I'm pronouncing their name correctly. My only other concern, again
walking it is that on Lot 16 and 17, to the developer, that you have absolutely wonderful, big,
the biggest that I've seen in Chanhassen, oak trees there and I would just ask that staff work
with the applicant in saving some of those bigger ones, again that are specimen trees and that
we add to recommendation 21. Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 should be custom graded at time of
building permit issuance. Individual tree removal, tree protection fencing, grading, drainage
and erosion control plans will be required for review and approval by the City prior to
issuance of a building permit because I think the protection fencing will decide whether those
trees live or not. And right now it has been graded in that area and there is no tree protection
fencing so I would like to see that changed. Those are my only two. Oh, my third comment
is, on 17. Recommendation 17. I'm not sure I understand Sharmin. If we have an ordinance
that says you have to hook up if you're within 150 feet, and this house, the Stockdale house is
within 190 feet, why are we making them hook up?
Hempel: Madam Chairman, maybe I can address that. Typically with an urban subdivision
such as this, we'd like to bring the area homes up to conformance with city codes, now that
city sewer and water is available to the site. We've done on some other home sites, the
applicant may have a fairly new septic system that's up to code. It meets today's codes.
We've allowed variances to allow that resident to stay on the current septic system, as long as
they bi- annually supply us with documentation that it's being properly maintained and
operated. At such time that the septic system fails or the well fails, we require that the
resident hook up to the city sewer and water at that time. That is an option here for the
resident to do that. The resident should submit a letter to the city engineer requesting a
variance for that.
Mancino: Okay. So they do have that option?
10
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
F
'L -
Hempel: Yes.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments?
' Conrad: Yeah, just one of staff. There is no connection really between this development and
the park, is there? Other than it backs up to it?
Aanenson: Right.
Conrad: So access for the residents would be also?
Al -Jaffa Originally staff had recommended that a trail between those two homes would be
created to allow residents to access the park. However, with the street stub to the south, it
will be just, there will still be a trail between the street stub and the park that would allow
that access.
Conrad: I like that solution.
Mancino: May I have a motion please?
Meyer: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City
' Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -10, Forest Meadows for 18 single
family lots and one outlot, as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995, subject to the
following conditions 1 thru 21 with the amendment on number 21, inserting tree protection
' fencing between tree removal and grading.
Conrad: I'll second that.
Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion?
' Meyer moved, Com -ad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision 995 -10, Forest Meadow for 18 single
family lots and one outlot as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995, 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 63 trees to be planted on Lots 1 -17. The
vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of
' these easements. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation
I 11
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A snow fence shall be
placed along the edge of the tree preservation easements prior to grading.
2. Building Department conditions:
a. Submit soil reports to the Inspection Division. This should be done prior to
issuance of any building permits.
b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwelling.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
3. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Add one additional fire hydrant. Hydrant maximum spacing is 300 feet. The
distance between hydrants located between Lots 3 and 4 and between Lots 6 and 7
is in excess of 500 feet.
b. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is
to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9 -1.
C. Street name is acceptable.
d. Cul -de -sac inside turning radius must be 45 1/2 feet, not 42 feet as shown.
4. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The park be platted as an outlot in the general configuration shown on the
proposed plat.
b. The city shall compensate JMS Companies $24,000 per acre for the outlot at the
time of sale. (The same compensation offered to Mr. Stockdale.)
C. JMS Companies shall mass and finish grade the outlot per the city's plan at no cost
to the city.
d. All park and trail fees shall be waived for Forest Meadow. (These fees total
$20,400 at current rates.)
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
e. JMS Companies shall administer all work relating to the construction of the park's
' trail loop, trail connection to Fawn Hill Road, entry road and parking lot. The city
shall pay unit prices for the materials consumed in this construction. JMS
Companies shall assume all "soft" costs associated with this work. JMS
' Companies shall secure a minimum of three competitive bids for this work. These
bids shall be submitted to the city for review prior to selection of a contractor.
' f. The proposed trail easement shall be 20 feet in width and the outlot area shall be
reconfigured to include no less than 5 acres of property.
' 5. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned
in accordance with the City and /or State codes.
' 6. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
' the city for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used
adjacent to the wetlands. A rock construction entrance shall be installed and maintained
on Fawn Hill Road until the street is paved. Construction access to the site other than
S Fawn Hill Road is subject to approval by the City.
7. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. Other than one model home permit, no other building permit will be issued
until the site grading is completed and the site re- seeded and mulched.
' 8. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
' 9. The wetlands and wetland buffers shall be delineated on the grading and drainage plans.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
' ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities
and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
' 10. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
' review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre- developed and post
1 13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and /or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department
of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
14. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
15. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands
shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
16. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety
purposes. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
17. The house at 7210 Galpin Boulevard shall be connected to city sanitary sewer within 30
days after the final plat has been recorded. The well may continue to be used until it
fails, at which time the property shall connect to City water.
18. The proposed single family residential development of 13.3 developable acres is
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $26,334 and a water quality
connection charge of $10,640. These fees will be fine tuned during the time of final plat
since credits may be given if the applicant proposes to assist with the trunk system. The
fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
14
1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
19. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer. A drain tile system will need to be incorporated into the construction plans
for those lots which are unable to discharge directly into either a storm sewer system or
pond /wetland.
20. The applicant shall meet and resolve with the property owners to the south and City
staff the placement of storm sewer facilities and extension of a street prior to final
platting.
' 21. Lots 16 and 17, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance.
Individual tree removal, tree protection fencing, grading, drainage and erosion control
plans will be required for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of a
' building permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Aanenson: Just for clarification. We're doing a rezoning and subdivision. Your motion just
said subdivision so you might want to.
Mancino: Okay. Let's redo that.
' Aanenson: Or do a separate motion for the rezoning.
' Mancino: Let's do, do you want to do a separate motion for the rezoning?
Meyer: The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve Rezoning 995 -4 REZ,
' 20.25 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF for Forest Meadow as shown on the plans received
June 19, 1995 and subject to the following conditions 1 and 2.
' Mancino: Second?
Peterson: Second.
' Meyer moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve Rezoning ( 495 -4 REZ) 20.25 acres of property zoned A2 to RSF for Forest
' Meadow as shown on the plans received June 19, 1995 and subject to the following
conditions:
I�
1 15
L1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of
approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The
development contract shall be recorded against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #95 -10.
All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL SUBDIVIDING LOT 3. BLOCK 1. SUNRIDGE
ADDITION. AN 11.27 ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE LOT OF 2.62 ACRES AND AN
OUTLOT OF 8.65 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND
LOCATED AT 8950 AUDUBON ROAD. MARLIN EDWARDS.
Public Present:
Name
Lois Degler
Address
9111 Audubon Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you Bob. Any questions for staff at this point, from commissioners? No.
Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission at this time?
Is the applicant here?
Generous: I haven't seen him.
Mancino: Okay. Let's see, may I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Com -ad moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at
this time, please come up on this issue, if you'd like to.
Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing. Looks good.
Mancino: Okay. Craig.
Peterson: No questions.
Meyer: Nothing.
Skubic: No questions.
Farmakes: No comment.
Mancino: I don't have any either. May I have a motion?
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve Subdivision 995 -12, preliminary plat for one lot and one outlot dated 4/19/95 on
11.27 acres of land as shown on the plans prepared by Rieke, Carroll, Muller Associates, Inc.
subject to the following conditions 1 through 5.
Mancino: Do I hear a second?
Meyer: Second.
Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Subdivision 995 -12 approving the preliminary plat for one lot and one outlot,
as shown on the plans pr-epaird by Rieke, Can -oll, Muller Associates, Inc. dated 4/19/95 on
11.27 acres of land subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate a 50 foot wide right -of -way from the center of Audubon
Road and Lyman Boulevard on the new plat.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a 20 foot trail easement outside of the right -of -way for
Audubon Road and Lyman Boulevard.
3. The applicant shall show the location of an alternate individual sewer treatment system
(ISTS) site. This must be done prior to final plat approval.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
4. The applicant shall designate the remainder of Lot 3, Block 1, Sunridge Addition as
Outlot A.
5. The applicant shall designate this subdivision Sun Ridge 3rd Addition.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY: REZONING FROM A2.
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY: PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL FOR 59 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS AND
ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON 46.27 ACRES: AND WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT TO FILL WETLANDS ON -SITE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8470 GALPIN
BLVD. (THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND LYMAN BLVD.),
SOUTHERN OAKS. SCHERBER PARTNERSHIP PROPERTIES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Craig Scherber
11415 Valley Drive, Rogers, MN
Dennis & Carol Medo
2420 Bridle Creek Trail
Craig & Nina Wallestad
2475 Bridle Creek Trail (Own Lot)
Residing at:
6566 France Ave. So, #1001, Edina
Arvey & Marlene Eeg
2479 Bridle Creek Trail
Greg Bradbury
2207 Boulder Road
Gary Feldick
2231 Boulder Road
Bob Finn
2108 Boulder Road
Bill & Angela Lawrence
2122 Boulder Road
Jeff & Cynthia Olson
2520 Bridle Creek Trail
John P. Fisher
8470 Galpin Blvd.
Dona Lee
2451 Bridle Creek Trail
Scott & Michele Welsh
2461 Bridle Creek Trail
Al Beaty
2193 Stone Creek Trail
Bob & Jo /Ann Schwartz
2507 Bridle Creek Trail
Steven & Nancy Cavanaugh
2441 Bridle Creek Trail
Tom Loueks
8735 Goldenrod Lane, No, Maple Grove
Peter Coyle
7900 Xerxes Avenue So, Mpls.
18
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Gary Scherber
John Bereett
Mary & Mike Minear
Jim & Kathryn Liddell
Rene Schroeder
Kelly Morloyl
Ron Lindberg
Rodney & Janice Melton
Kris Barnes
Susan Marshak
Harry Marshall
Andy Kindler
Jeff J.
Chris Hartwiegson
Kent & Melinda Hollrah
Box 181, Rogers, MN
256 Washburn Avenue No, Mpls
2421 Bridle Creek Trail
2550 Bridle Creek Trail
2337 Boulder Road
2325 Boulder Road
2480 Bridle Creek Trail
2413 Bridle Creek Trail
2338 Boulder Road
2527 Bridle Creek Trail
2427 Bridle Creek Trail
2198 Boulder Road
2151 Bridle Creek Trail
2140 Stone Creek Drive
2450 Bridle Creek Trail
1
1
171
Bob Generous presented the staff mpoif on this item.
Mancino: Thank you Bob. Any questions for staff at this time? Bob, I have one. Or
probably two. Just west of this property is Chaska's city line.
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: And that's industrial right now?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: Industrial /commercial. Just west of Trotters Ridge. The old Carlson property.
That is also Chaska.
Generous: And industrial.
Mancino: And industrial. The entire length of that border?
Generous: Correct.
Mancino: Okay. And Galpin is going south of TH 5 from Lyman to, Highway 5 is now
going to be 4 lane?
Generous: Eventually.
19
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: Is that correct?
Hempel: A portion of it this summer. The remaining will be done either late this year or in
'96, depending on the County.
Mancino: Okay. But there are no, right now Lyman is 2 lane and are there any future to go
4 lane in that, Lyman?
Hempel: I'm not aware of any current plans within the next two years of upgrading that
portion but I'm sure it's on the County's comprehensive plan to upgrade that in the near future
as well.
Mancino: At some point. And the comprehensive plan is for industrial or commercial. What
can go in there? Industrial /commercial.
Generous: A corporate center. Light industries. Manufacturing. Warehousing. The
preference in the community has been for a corporate center. We actually were trying to push
a nursery business that wanted to relocate out into Chanhassen to this site.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to approach the
Planning Commission please.
Peter Coyle: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Peter
Coyle. I'm an attorney with the Larkin - Hoffman law firm in Bloomington. I'm here tonight
on behalf of your applicant, the Scherber Brothers Partnership and the two individual brothers,
Gary and Craig Scherber are here with me this evening. I'm also accompanied by the planner
and engineer for the project, Loueks and Associates, Mr. Tom Loueks and John Berg,
principles of that firm are here as well to answer questions. John Fisher who is the property
owner as well this evening. We'll try to be pretty concise in our presentation. I think staff
has accurately and fairly described the project to you this evening. I think it's fair to say the
issue is about the land use designation. If we get the land use designation issue resolved, the
balance of the staff report is actually quite favorable to the project. There are some minor
issues that they have raised but it's fair to say that we feel confident that we can work those
out with the staff between the Planning Commission and City Council meeting, presuming we
can satisfy any concerns you might have about the development of the property for
residential. Low density residential. Just quickly to reiterate a couple of background issues
for you. The property, as you know, is seeking to be re- guided. Rezoned. There's an
application for a wetland alteration permit, and also a subdivision application before you. The
property in description has 37 acres of developable property out of a larger portion of about
49 acres of land. The proposal is for 59 low density, single family detached housing units,
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
and it will include, as required by your City Code, a 25% minimum canopy coverage pursuant
to your tree preservation and enhancement ordinance. The project takes careful account of
the existing wetlands on the property and to a very minor extent I would say, proposes some
filling of wetlands but there is substantial mitigation provided in the plan according to the
Wetland Conservation Act and the project is in compliance with the Wetland Conservation
Act in that respect. Staff has indicated that the property is directly adjacent to Trotter's Ridge
to the north and Stone Creek, which is to the east and the Chaska Industrial Park. At this
time what I'd like to do is ask Tom Loueks to forward and just briefly walk you through the
site plan. Depending if there are any technical questions you have regarding the layout and
then I'll address a couple of other broader issues that we'd like to ... thank you.
Tom Loueks: I'm glad Mr. Coyle forewarned me I was going to say something. I'm Tom
Loueks. I'm the principal planner with Loueks and Associates and as Mr. Coyle has
described the property. What we're proposing here is an alternative land use for this
particular residential neighborhood. It's 59 single family residential lots. The net density is
approximately 1.27 units per acre. The net, that's the gross density. The net density is about
1.82. A rather low density development. Our basic approach for this residential use is to
minimize the impact and the effects on the natural environment on this site. We are
proposing for example a minimal amount of grading for this residential site because of the
existence of the large, mature trees on the property. Typically on a single family subdivision,
as you may have witnessed in Chanhassen, and other communities around you, the developer
comes in. We do a mass grading plan on the property. Set the building house pads and put
in an inch and a half FHA tree and up springs a nice single family residential development.
We are going to minimize all of those grading problems. We are not going to do any mass
grading on this site. The type of grading we will do will be just sufficient enough to create
some additional drainage patterns on the site. Put the roadways in. We are not going to pre -
grade the building pads on these sites, and each individual home will be somewhat custom
fitted to each site so that we do not have to remove a lot of material in terms of soils as well
as vegetation. The issue has come up in regards to, in the staff report in regards to the
wetland issues. There is less than 10,000 square feet of wetland that is going to be filled on
this approximately 40 acre site. And maybe you should point out where that is. If I can't
John, you will, won't you? This is a major area where we're suggesting some wetland filling.
Our mitigation plan however is we're going to replace that 10,000 square feet with 30,000
square feet of mitigated wetland or additional wetland is going to be added to the property...
Some of the previous staff reports we were able to evaluate... required by ponding and creating
ponding areas and wildlife habitat areas... Our intention here is to create a community, a
single family residential community... existing development... in the city of Chanhassen... We do
recognizing it now there is an industrial park to the west in the city of Chaska. We think, or
I believe that that not ought to dictate development here in the city of Chanhassen. And
particularly when you have a relatively fragile piece such as this. A 40 feet difference in
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
elevation on this property from east to west. There's heavily wooded tract of land. We're
going to replace, or we're going to provide 258 more trees beyond what's in the report, or
exists on the site. As part of our planning process, I probably should mention. I've been in
the planning business for 25 years... about 2 nights a week I sit on your side of the table and
advise a Planning Commission and City Council what to do. When we initially looked at this
site, and it's fair to say that our clients had thought it might be a good industrial site. But
when they saw what was available there as a residential development, their objective was not
to destroy the site. So we went through, we did go through a process where upon we created
an industrial park and you don't want to see the results because it's very difficult to put office
industrial park buildings on a site like this without flattening it. Without removing a great
deal of vegetation. We think this is a reasonable alternative for the property and we think
that, we also believe that in the spirit of the city of Chanhassen we're building in some
protection to the existing neighborhoods in the area. If you should have some technical
questions or just general questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Coyle, I'm
sure will be happy to answer any questions, and our client as well...
Mancino: Thank you very much.
Peter Coyle: Madam Chair and Commission members. I've got a few other points that I'll
make relative to the comprehensive plan issues that staff has raised with you and I will,
where possible, I'll try to provide you with quotations on the comp plan that supports the
application of the Scherber Brothers Partnership. First of all it's worth noting that from a
zoning history standpoint, the City Council in the last 12 years has twice denied application
to rezone this property for industrial use. And so at least we have that little bit of track
record to indicate that the City Council has, on previous occasions not been inclined to pursue
industrial development and a zoning change. The comprehensive plan in it's policy statement
recognizes that planned growth can and should be designed to minimize, and I'm quoting
here, environmental neighborhood and traffic impacts. We think that this neighborhood
property will clearly satisfy that policy and an industrial development will not satisfy our
policy. The plan further states, and I'm quoting again, the more incompatible the neighboring
uses, the more important that transition zone. What staff is recommending, as I understand
their argument, is that the city will be better off by bringing in other industrial development
smack up against two existing residential districts as opposed to developing a new residential
district to buffer the existing industrial district that's in place in Chaska. And again we don't
think that that is consistent with your comprehensive plan policies. The comprehensive plan
goes on to state that the city should avoid running high traffic volumes and /or non - residential
traffic through residential neighborhoods, and I'm again quoting from the plan. The plan
provides that the city should provide adequate land for protective housing growth. The plan
states that some of Chanhassen's most prominent natural features are the areas of extensive
tree coverage. Again, a direct quote from... Trees are important ... of the city's image and
22
u
1 Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
i
should be preserved where feasible. Clearly this plan is designed from the get go with an
objective not only of preserving the tree stand that's there, but by virtue of your very best tree
ordinance, Scherber Brothers will be required to add several hundred trees to the site in order
to bring it up to the 25% minimum tree coverage required by code. The plan states that
single family detached housing will continue to be the dominant planning use and housing
type... proposal. The comp plan favors preservation. I'm quoting, that development be
consistent with the preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic
' amenities. I'm quoting again. If Chanhassen's present residential growth rate continues, the
supply of vacant land within the MUSA will be exhausted by the end of 1993. In the
industrial policy statement, the comprehensive plan does recognize the property as a potential
source of industrial development and the fundamental basis for the conclusion that this is
good property for that, is that it's not being currently used for residential or agricultural
purposes. It doesn't go forward and demonstrate how this property provides an essential link-
up with the city's industrial corridor that's developing along Highway 5, which makes good
sense given the high traffic volumes on that property further to the north and further to the
east. And more importantly, in staffs report, there really isn't a discussion at all of the impact
1 of bringing an industrial development project up against the existing residential projects that
are in place. It's far simpler, as you all know, to convince a neighborhood, a residential
neighborhood that more residential neighbors on a well designed project is in their best
interest as opposed to trying to bring in an industrial project up against residential. That's a
little tough to sell. Staff has talked about permitted industrial uses on the property. I would
note that warehouses are permitted. Body shops are permitted and light manufacturing is
1 permitted as a permitted use. A conditional use on the property would be motor trade
terminals, contractors yards, outdoor storage and mineral excavation. Staff has cited, and is
relying on an article that was published by PAS, and I want to make note of a couple of
comments that are reflected in that article where the authors themselves acknowledge the
deficiencies of the study that lays out the land use ratios. The article notes that all of the
cities surveyed provide different land use categories and that it is very difficult for the authors
to try to reconcile their various land uses in a coherent formula. The article notes that they
had a very difficult time manipulating the data, their word, and that that weakens the results.
The authors of the article went on to note that they had a difficult time interpreting the data
because of the different land use standards. And the authors concluded that the survey
basically ignored land uses that are either vacant, agricultural or not improved at the present
time. So we don't know what chunks of land may have been left out of those studies and
what those affects would have been on the land use ratios. But the most compelling point I
think about the article itself is even the authors don't try to lay out any precise formula or
even a recommended formula where the mix of land between residential, commercial and
industrial. They'd rather just cite a survey of roughly 25 communities and state what their
formulas are, as best they can be determined. I'd like to talk for just a minute about the tree
' preservation ordinance that the city has in it's codes, which is as I say, quite aggressive and
1 23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
one which we intend to comply with. The policy states, or the code states, it's the policy of
the city to preserve natural woodland areas, is what this development proposes. If this project
develops as low density residential, the developer must satisfy a 25% canopy coverage plan.
On the other hand, it says the property, if as staff recommends the property is developed for
industrial purposes, the canopy coverage is only 10 %. So it really is somewhat difficult to
understand how industrial development in this property would be more protective of this site
than the project proposed by the Scherber Brothers Partnership. Having said that, it is
sincerely our intent to work with staff. If there are deficiencies in the site design that we've
submitted to you this evening, we are prepared to sit down with them to work out those
deficiencies. They've probably got some good ideas and we maybe haven't listened too
carefully enough, but we certainly will work with them to correct those deficiencies. We
think that it's quite clear from the site plan to your ordinances to your comprehensive plan,
that a residential development on this property is a preferred use of this land. Staff has
identified a potential economic impact to the property but it's fair to say that the variables that
are essential to determining return on investment are market demand, the type of development
you actually get on the property and what kind of investments the city may be required to
make in order to allow that industrial development to occur. What we know for sure is that
there's a developer who's prepared to pay fair market value to develop this property for a
market that that developer believes to be present right now. What we don't have any idea of
is whether industrial development of this property will occur in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, or
maybe 20 years. That's why we ask you to consider that as well. At this point we would ask
for the support of the Planning Commission and ask you to adopt a resolution in support of
the, both the comprehensive plan, rezoning, subdivision and wetland alteration permit
applications that have been submitted and forward this to the City Council with a favorable
recommendation of approval. We'd be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Mancino: Any questions for Mr. Coyle? No questions at this time. Thank you. Is there
anyone else that would like to speak, Mr. Coyle, from your team?
Peter Coyle: Not from our team at this time.
Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing please?
Comnd moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this
issue? Please come up, one at a time. State your name and your address and we're here to
listen. Thank you.
24
H
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Greg Bradbury: Madam Chairman, Council. Greg Bradbury. I reside at 2207 Boulder Road,
which is in the single family subdivision just east of the proposed project. I think the issue
here, from when I sit and listen, becomes more of an issue of economics than it is an issue of
what is right for the community and what is right for the residents of the community. I think
a couple of things that are being overlooked here, and some things that I should really
compliment the Planning Commission on is the wonderful work that they have done with
changing the city and upholding such high standards for all the retailers and for the home
developers in the area. But I think we owe it to the people in Chanhassen and also the
retailers that have come into this area to help them survive and do well. And I think by
bringing in residential residents who will support our existing retail and keep it strong and
I healthy, is something that wasn't brought up and I think it could be an issue. The other thing
I think if you were to walk from my neighborhood and talk to people, they would be greatly
opposed to an industrial site. I think another issue is also we are building a school on TH 5
and Galpin Lake Road there too and I think the increase in traffic, as the attorney had
mentioned, would certainly not be something, with my wife, myself and our new daughter
would recommend or condone. With that being said, I sincerely hope that the committee
rules in favor of the developer to put in 59 new beautiful homes rather than 6 or 5 ugly big
buildings. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Please come up.
Mike Minear: My name is Mike Minear. I live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail. I'd like to point
out my back yard adjoins this property. I would like to strongly disagree with one thing that
the staff brought up that there's nothing unique about this property. I think what is clearly
unique is the closeness of the new school that we're investing a lot of money in, and the deep
concern we have that the traffic on Galpin Road would be increased dramatically with the
potential commercial business. That we don't know what that would be. I feel as a very new
resident to Chanhassen, we moved here about 4 months ago from Cincinnati and we chose
Chanhassen for the beauty and the nice things we find here and I think we'll feel very
betrayed if you put a commercial property literally at the back ... to my home. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
Al Beaty: Madam Chairman and members. My name is Al Beaty. I live at 2193 Stone
Creek and that is the single family residential development directly east of this proposed
development. I'm proud to say and happy to say that I'm almost a 3 month resident of
Chanhassen. Happy to be here and I have an 8 year daughter and 5 year old son that live
with me and we are concerned about the industrial or office nature of development on that
site that's in question. We would be concerned about the nature and the amount of
commercial traffic that may be generated. We would be concerned about the nature and the
25
LI
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
amount of the industrial uses that we would make to that property. Some of the uses that
have been mentioned here tonight, relatively benign. A nursery doesn't seem like an
obnoxious industrial use, but there are other uses that seem to be incompatible with being
adjacent to the single family developments to the north and the east. I would also be
concerned about the safety of my children and the other children that will be attending the
new school at the corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. And I thought the improvements of the
Galpin Boulevard to 4 lanes was due to the school to handle the increase bus traffic. I wasn't
aware that it had been designated a collector and would be subject to commercial traffic. I
think that the development pattern that seems to have merged in the past couple years may be
somewhat different than it was originally envisioned under the plan that was put into effect in
1991. I would request that you consider that when you make your decision tonight. I think
the marketplace is changing here. I think Chanhassen is a very desirable place for people to
live and I think single family dwellings are going to become very important for Chanhassen,
as I'm sure you know. I would strongly prefer not to have an office industrial development
located in this area. And I hope that you would approve two of the items that are requested
tonight. The comprehensive plan, land use map amendment from office industrial to
residential low density and the rezoning to single family resident. I would strongly support
those two. The other issues that are here, I'm not that well educated on and I think that is
between the staff and the developer to work those two out. Or work those other issues out.
Thank you very much for listening and appreciate the opportunity.
Mancino: Thank you.
Jim Liddell: Good evening. I'm Jim Liddell at, I live in the Trotters Ridge development on
Bridle Creek Trail and my concerns are the same. My house does not back up or is adjacent
to the proposed property. I actually face Galpin Avenue or Galpin Boulevard, and the traffic
is a major concern of mine. The industrial traffic that is going back and forth from the
school construction zone and from that nursery. I don't know the name of it but it would be
south of this one, and their harvest season the delivery trucks are going through there actually
about 70 mph and I think my concern, besides the speeding vehicles, with service and light
industrial, is we are building a school, as you've heard and the traffic in that area is especially
heavy at the same hours that our school is functioning. There's a number of companies there
in that Chaska development region that are working three shifts a day so the change out is at
7:00 and at 3:00 so the heavy traffic patterns there is 7:00 to 8:00 and then from 3:00 to 4:00
That would be like Flouroware and FSI and some of the bigger companies in that northern
Chaska region. So I would encourage you to consider the current traffic patterns as being too
heavy as they are and by putting in more industrial traffic in that area, to burden that area
would not be right for the community. Would not be right for the investment that
Chanhassen's making for the school and would not be right for us homeowners that are
already in there. Thank you.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
Trotters Ridge Resident: My name's... Bridle Creek Trail. I live just, I have the wetland just
on the back side of the—are here also. I'm a mother of three. I'm home all day and in
Trotters Ridge there's probably at least 10 mothers at home all day. There's a lot of children
in that area. I'm concerned just about the industrial already. It's all night there's great big
clanging all during the whole night. I've got a lot of wildlife in my back yard. I've got wild
' turkeys that are there all day ... there's geese and ducks and the cattle are wonderful. We'll lose
those but, we lived 6 years in Bloomington and we moved from Bloomington to Chanhassen
because of the quietness. Because of the country kind of thing there and we'd just really like
to have that stay there.
Mancino: And where are you hearing the noise at night, all night from?
Trotters Ridge Resident: Which building I'm not sure but it's one of those big ones back
there. Clanging all night...
Mancino: Oh existing in Chaska, okay.
S Trotters Ridge Resident: Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you very much.
Rodney Melton: Hi. I'm Rodney Melton. I also live in Trotters Ridge and you've met most
of my neighbors. ...talked about. Jan, Stefan and I, as you most have probably heard Stefan,
have been living here since November of last year. We moved here from Houston, Texas.
And I must say, we really love this area. We looked up in Plymouth. Spent a lot of time in
that area. Decided on Chanhassen. Basically because of the subdivisions. As you know
there's a lot of industrial activity in the Plymouth area. We were out the 4th of July. Very
proud of the fireworks. You know a lot of great things going on in Chanhassen area. We do
not want to have an industrial complex in our back yard. I invite all of you to come over and
spend some time on our deck and look out. Have you seen this property that we're talking
about? It's really beautiful property. There's a lot of property just south of Lyman that's, I
understand it's already zoned for industrial development. There's also an additional 95 acres
just to the east of Galpin that's designated for industrial development. We need to have a
residential community behind us. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Scott Welsh: My name is Scott Welsh and I live at 2461 Bridle Creek and I'd just like to
say, I agree with all my neighbors that are speaking tonight. But I want to add another twist.
I work for a commercial developer, Welsh Companies and I can't imagine that a developer
would take this parcel serious in the near future when there's a lot of other land in
Chanhassen off of Highway 5 and Chaska. This land has a lot of tree replacement and water
replacement. Water shedding. Leveling and taking away a lot of the characteristics of the
land that's already there. I'd just like to give my commercial real estate opinion and I think if
the city is planning on this as a tax basis, you're not going to see a commercial developer take
this site serious in the near future. There's a lot of other property that they'll probably take
more serious and consider first before viewing this property as something that is developable.
Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you.
Steven Cavanaugh: My name is Steven Cavanaugh and again, you've met all my neighbors.
I live 2441 Bridle Creek Trail. Again, I'm one of these, yeah over here. Lot 6. My
perspective is, I own a business in Golden Valley and it probably fits into two categories
what the gentleman is talking about. When he talks about light industrial warehouse and
manufacturing. I own a packaging company, 40,000 square feet. So my understanding is the
company that I own in Golden Valley would be actively welcome in Chanhassen. I can tell
you about the traffic that comes to my building. I probably get 20 semi's a day and
enumerable smaller trucks. I don't think with a school half a mile down Galpin Boulevard
that the children, all these people have children. I don't have children but all these people
here have children. Most of them do. There are children are all over. There are children at
Stone Creek. I can't imagine these children walking down their streets with the amount of
traffic I, in 40,000 square feet, generate. I just can't imagine that in all these beautiful
subdivisions, that a development of light industrial manufacturing warehousing would even be
considered. And again I want to reiterate what everyone else said here. That we are looking
at a gorgeous park right outside of our back. This is pasture land that I thought I had to go
to Ireland to see, but I'm seeing it outside my back window. And then I understand, I hear
this remark about adequate buffering and I don't know what that means. I don't know what
that means. Are we going to put mountains or, I don't know what buffering means. Maybe
somebody can explain what buffering means in a plain language sometime but I have no idea
what it means but I cannot believe that it would be buffered so well that the traffic would be
altered away from the neighborhood or that no one would be impacted... back yard. That's
really all I have to say. I hope you vote this down. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you.
28
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Jeff Olson: Good evening. My name is Jeff Olson. I'm here with my wife Cynthia. Were
also on the Trotters Ridge team and recently moved out there to a new house. One point that
I'd like to make, I've got a couple. One is, there are a few head shakes and a few chuckles
when someone mentioned something about the expansion of the Galpin Boulevard. Before
we bought our lot we contacted the city staff and were told at that time, probably 6 -7 months
ago, that there were no plans to expand that other than some turning lanes and the signal at
TH 5. So this has been quite a revelation to me in the last week to find out what's going on.
And there's a learning curve and I'm quickly getting up to speed here. Quite frankly it's kind
of upsetting to me. I just made a big investment out there and it probably shows. I
personally fail to see the bevy of benefits that have been eluded to here by putting some
industrial development in there. We've already got development, industrial behind us to the
west. We'll gladly share some of those benefits with some other neighborhoods in the
community. They can have those benefits. We'll share them. We've already got our's. The
' other, I wrote down several things. A lot of them were covered by Mr. Coyle in his
presentation. What I'd like to see is you recommend residential development here and what
I'd like to see is that to go forward. There might be some things that I would like to see done
differently here but I think the developers are willing to work with the staff and what I'd like
to see is that go forward and have them work together if both sides realize it's a two way
street and there's no ego problems or battles that develop just because someone didn't get their
way and have industrial development there. I think this thing can work out beautifully if the
people work and see it as a two way street and develop this and save all these trees, which
you know, we had our problems with the tree ordinance when we started building our's.
That's one of the things we came out here for, was the treed areas. The residential. The
feeling of community and I think we lose that if we go the other way on this. Thank you.
Dennis Medo: Hi. My name is Dennis Medo and I'm also part of Trotters Ridge. I'm 2420,
which looks across a couple people ... into the field. A couple things. I've, because of my job,
been transferred several times. This is my third time here in Minnesota. First time lived in
Bloomington. Second time Burnsville. This time Chanhassen. The reason I picked
Chanhassen is, (a) it was a tough job convincing my wife to go out this far. Keep in mind
far. It's not far but to get the feel that you're out away from everything as opposed to being
in industrial. I was born and raised in Chicago. Last move was out of Chicago suburbs. I
would hope to god that this planning commission does a whole lot better job of what many of
the suburbs in Chicago have done. Light industrial, whatever you want to call it, does not fit
well in residential. And if you think it does, then you should move here. Live here in that
approved area. It's not going to work. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
1 29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mark Christian: My name is Mark Christian. These are all neighbors of mine too. We back
way up to the proposed development. One of the reasons we did move out to Chanhassen
was because of the trees. We saw our lot in September and there are gorgeous oak trees out
there. Like 20 inches around ... that are just beautiful during the fall time. That was one of
the main reasons why I moved to Chanhassen. I was out here all year and ... as well as the
neighbors, is the traffic flow. There already is quite a bit of traffic on Galpin and with an
industrial park, it would be even more. Those are our concerns. But it is just gorgeous out
there and we would hate to have those trees destroyed. Thanks.
Mancino: Thank you.
Nina Wallestad: Good evening. I'm Nina Wallestad. My husband and I own a lot on 2475
Bridle Creek Trail and I would guess that the only comment that is left to be made is our
concern over the effects of an industrial office complex on the values of our homes and we
know that this would have a very great impact on the value and future resale of our homes,
which indeed would affect the city's revenue, tax wise and otherwise. The city has approved
neighborhoods and executive homes on two of the three borders of this property and I would
just remind you that you only have control over three of them. The fourth is definitely a
Chaska border and it seems inconsistent now to approve industrial zoning on the remaining
border over which you have control. So again we'd just ask that you truly consider this
matter very closely and consider the impacts upon residents in your community. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission?
Jeff Finch: Hi. My name is Jeff Finch and I live at 2304 Stone Creek Drive. I'd just like to
say that I agree with most of what the people have said here in Trotters Ridge and Stone
Creek neighborhood about increased traffic problems... especially from people with children.
I'm also concerned about the noise. Increased noise issue with the approval of light
industrial. So I would like to reiterate what someone else said here that I would like you to
approve the rezoning at least and then work out the rest of the issues with the current
developer... Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Fwmakes seconded to close the public hewing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hewing was closed.
Mancino: Did we volunteer to do this? Appreciate everyone speaking tonight. Comments.
Ladd.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Conrad: I heard real valid comments from the neighbors. I think if I were there, if I lived in
that area, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I've been trying to say what kind of a speech
I'm going to make tonight because it might be more of a speech than reaction to what's in
front of me but, it will be a speech. I moved here 25 years ago. I did because it was natural.
And that's why most people come out here. It's getting full. It will be full in another 10
years so, regardless of what we think it should be, those fields are drying up and the cows are
going and it's a problem for those of us who have been around for a while. Probably the
reason I got on the Planning Commission. If it's going to go that way, which it does, then
you try to plan. And when you plan, you do what's called a comprehensive plan, which we
did. We probably spent, what year was it done Kate?
Aanenson: It was finished in '91. You spent a couple years.
Mancino: Two years.
Conrad: We spent years figuring it out. And it's going to be wrong no matter what. You
just can't figure some of the stuff out but I don't think anybody else up here has to take credit
for it or discredit for it but I was there when we did it and we made some pretty, every time
you have transitions, you make some compromises in here. You make some decisions. One
of the things you try to do is make sure there's enough space for what you've got planned for,
and I think when I moved out, I was happy to keep this all residential. Didn't need a
commercial building, retail. We'll go into the city so. That's kind of changed and I think
we're now a fairly substantial retail center, but you know we don't have any more retail land.
We're full. So what you see is what you're going to get. There's no more retail land right
now. Well, we can probably make that analogy in industrial commercial. Neighbors, I've
been on the commission for a while so probably have a little bit of background when people
come in and I try to, you know ... some volunteers up here trying to really be sensitive to the
community. Really sensitive, and we're probably overly so. People move out here. They
just don't want change and the problem is, they also don't want a tax increase. And when
we're here, we hear two things. Don't change my neighborhood and don't raise my taxes, and
everything else sort of comes later. So we kind of balance this. There was a reason for the
commercial industrial zoning here. It was that way. That doesn't mean we can't change it.
Staff has done a good job of analysis. You could pick holes at it and maybe have a different
point of view but really they did a, in my mind, a real nice job of analyzing this. It doesn't
mean it can't be residential but there's a lot of logic for keeping it where it is. Couple other
points and there's a lot of insecurity and again I'd probably be saying the same things you
said. If you look at our industrial commercial in Chanhassen, it's excellent. If you find a bad
industrial park, let me know. This is good stuff out here so whatever you hear from another
area, doesn't apply to Chan. If you're worried about buffering, we spent so much time. We
spend hours of our life, days of our life trying to figure out how to buffer things so whether it
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
be, whatever. Buffering solves a whole lot of problems. We even have, we have a draft of a
buffer ordinance that may or may not pass so there's predictable solutions. Again, I don't
think I'm persuading you that you want to live next to industrial commercial but I think, I
want to just make sure you feel that the commission and City Council cares about those
things. Things do make transitions and we're concerned about that. We tend to be very
liberal here. If we see something that's sort of God, Motherhood and the Flag, we'll do it.
Residential is God, Motherhood and the Flag and you know, how can you be so, how can you
go against that? What starts to happen though, somebody has to really raise the tax issue.
Has to raise the revenue issue and if I don't see, if we eat this land up, you know I'm not a
genius on land like this but we really do have to know if we're going to put more industrial
commercial into. We're going to have to take it out of some other residential area if we kind
of want to balance the taxes. Now somebody can make a pretty good point that this doesn't
matter. That this is 50 -60 acres and geez, it's not going to develop for 10 years into
commercial but still. My point will be tonight, I have to know if we are losing that kind of
revenue tax wise. Second thing, I have to be persuaded that this is a benefit to Chanhassen
too. I zoned, I guided it for this. I felt kind of convinced, even though it's a fringe area, kind
of convinced that this was the right thing for that property. But for me to change it, I would
have to see something that Chanhassen is looking for that we need that, and it's not just
residential. It's something special in the residential area. I don't know that I see it here. I
think if the developer came in and presented me something and I said, wow. That's what
we've been looking for. We don't have concentrated houses or we don't have open spaces in
Chanhassen where we've sort of clustered some things and you know, staff did a nice job of
giving us those options. I don't see that here and there's nothing wrong with this. You know
this is, with some tweaks here and there, this is just fine but at this point in time, I'm sure to
everybody's chagrin, you know I'm not really ready to rezone it.
Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: First of all, I'm happy to see everybody here tonight. I'll remind everybody that
there's an election year next year and for you newcomers to Chanhassen, this is probably your
first, I don't know if it's your first but if it's your first situation in a very fluid, growing
community, be involved and I encourage you not just to come in for this and things that are
built next to your house but become involved in commissions and volunteers in the
community relies on that heavily. Often we see a lot of people show up here in relationship
to development of a farm field next to their home and we never see them again and the city's
heavily dependent upon people coming in and volunteering for these situations. That's what
you see up here on the commission. We're people such as yourself. We're living in a suburb
here and neighborhoods, maybe adjacent next to you and we're dealing with issues of
planning that deal with a lot of different interests. As Ladd went over, we have taxation.
Many people that have lived here for years have seen their taxes go up 40 % -50% over a short
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
period of time. The city has grown 300% in a short period of time. Several people who
' came up here tonight said that they just moved to the community. I'm reminded of a meeting
that we had a couple of meetings ago where the developer comes in and he sits down and he
says, the reason we want to build here is because they have all these beautiful trees and then
someone point out. Well, to move there, you're going to have to cut down all those beautiful
trees. He said, well that's a given in development and I was trying to resolve that in my
mind. There really isn't a resolution there. You simply have to work at saving what you can
and realize that the land's going to be developed. This land is going to be developed. What
concerns me is how it was developed prior to getting here. As you can see on a map where
Timberwood was a large lot development that took place to the north of that property, or to
1 the northeast. That development sort of got ahead of planning and I think it was, it has been
I guess you'd say, you can plant a flower somewhere. Pretty soon you've got a bunch of
other flowers around it. And I've always been concerned when the other developments that
' you're living in now adjacent to Timberwood, I believe they came in and said, gee these
houses are too small. These lots are too small. This isn't what we thought would be here.
These subdivisions. We think everybody should be on 2 1/2 acres. That didn't happen. If all
t your houses were on 2 1/2 acres, your houses would be maybe twice as expensive when you
bought them. Again, you're dealing with different interests. Different investments. You're
talking about an investment. That's a county road. It's not even in the city's jurisdiction to
widen it. The reason that they're widening these roads is because people are moving out here,
and they've got to. In case of some of the roads where I'm at, when a car's parked on the
side of the road, two opposing cars have to go into the other lane to get around. Things,
when they were developed and designed many years ago weren't always to an optimum.
They're constantly changing the rules here and that's part of city government. We change
them in relationship to the economy. People are moving out here. The tax base. Money that
t comes in from the State and Federal government. We constantly have to be changing things,
and change is an issue. If you live in Chanhassen, it's like a daily thing. I've always been
concerned about the development surrounding Timberwood and it's a continuing problem. I
brought it up with Stone Creek and some of the other developments and the issues of any
development that goes around there. It shouldn't have been there. If you were looking at it
from strictly a planning issue. It should have never gotten there in the first place, but it's
there and the other developments alike are growing around it. What concerns me is that once,
if this becomes single family residence, it will continue. The lot next to it will want to be the
same thing. Let me finish. Let me finish.
Audience: ...have you even been there?
Farmakes: I've lived here for 15 years.
Mancino: Excuse me. No speaking while the commission is speaking.
1 33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Farmakes: Let me finish. What I'm trying to do is talk to you about the issues that we deal
with here, not only your lot but we're setting precedence for other issues. Ladd was referring
to, if you give and take within a base. Tax base. You're setting precedence here. Every
commission meeting that we have here, we're dealing with this. This is not just this
development. There's several developments on the other side of TH 5. It's the same issue.
So what I'm trying to deal with in one way here is to talk to you about the generalities of
development, and I know that's not what you want to hear but there's a practicality that's
involved in this that we have to, one is legal. The other is that, in general politically a city
wants to service it's residents. And in general you get a room full of people in here that are
concerned. They made investments into the city and they come forward and say, this is what
we would like to have adjacent to us. We'd rather have single family homes than industrial.
That's sounds fine and like Ladd, I'd say that in general, that's how I perceive Chanhassen.
It's a bedroom community. On the other hand, we also deal with people who come in and
say, you just raised my taxes 30 %. Why? I can't live here anymore. I've got to move out.
I'm not sure that I'm not amenable to changing this, and I'll say why. I have never thought
that residential should have been there in the first place, and have voted against it in the past.
On the other developments. I think that the city has created it's own problem here in this
property, and the adjacent properties next to it. And I'm talking about over a period of
history that the city has dealt with this. We're compounding the problem I think by cornering
that area. I think that's what's left over. And I would refer back to the staffs issue of
compromise. I'm looking at some of the issues that they've listed in their report, and I would
consider that be looked at seriously. And I would support the argument that this use is
becoming, the planned use, is becoming less consistent based on the decisions the city has
made already in regards to the adjacent residential development. It's expanded and I think the
city has to come to terms with that. It's long term plan. And should consider looking at
some of the solutions and compromises that the staff has talked about.
Mancino: As in clustering? As in?
Farmakes: Looking at alternate uses to the industrial and further going into what could go
adjacent to existing residential.
Mancino: Okay.
Farmakes: As for this particular development, I'm not going to make a comment on that right
now. But I don't think that that's where it's at, what has come before us.
Mancino: So would you support at this time the rezoning? Into single family. Or would you
rather wait and see something.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Farmakes: I would rather wait until I saw what that compromise situation is going to be.
Mancino: Thank you. Craig.
Peterson: I see a certain amount of irony, having been recently sitting in your side of table
and I was on the part of a corporation, fighting for a rezoning in Eden Prairie that was going
from commercial to residential on both sides of our corporate building. And the residents
ironically were against residential going up against them. They preferred having commercial
next to them. I think corporate offices for a lot of reasons. Number one, being that the times
that they were at home, the offices were generally vacant and so there was cross trafficking.
They were addressing the tax base in Eden Prairie being high. So I empathize. I have been
where you're at today recently and I'm struggling with balancing that right now in Chanhassen
as we deal with this development. I also concur with Ladd that the tax base is a serious
r issue. That I personally heard of people having to move out of Chanhassen because of the
high taxes and going up and up and that has to be addressed and it has to be addressed by us
and by yourselves. I think that I personally would like to see something more unique. That
t was the key thing that Ladd said earlier is that what we have here is somewhat of a normal
subdivision that doesn't create anything that is atypical to the rest of the developments in
Chanhassen. So I think right now, until I would see something that is more creative, I
wouldn't support rezoning either.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Somebody made a comment regarding the, that the city planners, council has done a
pretty good job of developing retail areas. I think that we have to, I think the Council and
the Planning Commission here, staff and yourselves, as Jeff pointed to, all can make the most
of this property or satisfy the needs of the adjacent residents and the needs of the industrial
community to satisfy the tax base and provide employment and so forth. I just think that, and
I think staff offered some good alternatives that meet some of these needs. I think something
can be worked out here. I wouldn't favor rezoning at this point.
Mancino: Thank you. Mike.
I Meyer: I have three conflicts of interest that I can count on this so I'm not going to make
any comments at this time. I won't be voting.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Well, I think I concur with the rest of the Planning Commission.
We would like to see something, have the developer come back and not support rezoning.
Whether that be a mix of single family, larger lots to the north that abuts Trotters Ridge and
1 35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
some industrial in the southern part, or a clustering development, etc. So that's what I would
like to see come back before us. Any other comments or questions?
Conrad: Yeah. I think issues like this are interesting. I think as this goes up to City
Council, I'd sure like to have staff be prepared to talk about replacement of industrial land. If
there is any. Where it would come from. I'd like to have staff give the City Council a
recommendation in terms of our need for industrial commercial. You know it sat, we've
really sat for a while without a whole lot of development and, I'd just like to take a look at
that. As I talk about having enough space, I think it's real important that, you know this is
not philosophy as much as it is in practice. We really haven't built much recently and so
what does that mean? Does that mean we're priced too high for, I guess I'd just like the
staffs analysis to be presented to the City Council along with whatever recommendation we
make tonight.
Mancino: And I'd also like to add to Ladd's, and that would be, and I think the thing that we
heard the most from the residents is, number one, traffic on Galpin and is there a way to limit
that more to Lyman and not Galpin. So that may be residential off Galpin. It may be
industrial off Lyman. And secondly, and boy can I identify with this lately, and that is noise.
I mean you, how do we buffer noise? How do we buffer that third shift? And when you
hear those back -up, I can hear a quarter mile away the back -up on any truck or anything that
just pierces through the sky. I mean it's unbelievable so traffic and noise, I think is what I
kept hearing tonight. Now the public hearing is closed. Do you wish to ask a question?
Tom Loueks: I would like to ask a question. I made a presentation.
Mancino: Okay.
Tom Loueks: The sense of the Planning Commission is this should be developed for
industrial park purposes?
Mancino: Well we have not voted so we.
Tom Loueks: The sense of it.
Mancino: Yes.
Tom Loueks: And so what you would prefer to see us come back with then is an industrial
park plan for this property and I'm not certain, if I understand what the alternative proposals
have been brought forward in the staff report. One is half industrial and half residential. The
other recommendation or suggestion by staff was to do something unique and different. For
36
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
example, create low and moderate income housing. Zero lot lines. Townhouse type
development mix. Is that what you're suggesting? That's my sense of it is that this, as an
alternative to industrial, your preference would be to meet the metropolitan or the regional
planning agency's goal of 10% low cost housing... under a PUD. And we can accomplish that.
Conrad: Madam Chair?
I Mancino: Yes, Ladd will take that over.
Conrad: Yeah, we're not talking about building slums.
Tom Loueks: No no. Absolutely not.
` Conrad: I think what we're saying, or at least what I'm saying. I can't speak for, we haven't
voted yet so, I mean normally we don't enter into these conversations but basically you
haven't persuaded us yet. The residents would like to have single family. You haven't
r persuaded us this is it. You're their chance to make this single family. You haven't sold us
on it.
Tom Loueks: I'm just speaking direction because we will have to make the determination of
to move forward with a negative recommendation to the City Council or to come back with
' an option and I want to know what those options are.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Do I have a motion?
Conrad: I'll make the motion. I'll give the neighbors my phone number. Do we have a
page?
Mancino: Page 18.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Okay, I'll make a recommendation the Planning Commission
recommends denial of the land use map amendment #95 -1, Rezoning 995 -2, and Preliminary
Plat #95 -4 and the Wetland Alteration Permit #95 -2 with, and I'm going to re -state what I
said earlier to staff. That's my motion but I also would like staff to present to the City
Council the issues on replacement land in Chanhassen for industrial commercial. The real
financial impact of taking this out of the industrial commercial zone, which is tough to do.
But again, just needing somebody more expert than myself to analyze this. And I'm going to
paraphrase, I'm going to put the rationale for my request right now is that the developer really
hasn't presented us with the type of plan that would allow us to seriously consider moving
t this from the proposed zone, the proposed commercial industrial zone to residential.
1 37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Mancino: A second?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion on the motion?
Comud moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Land
Use Map Amendment 995 -1, Rezoning 995 -2, Pieliminmy Plat 995 -4, and Wetland Alteintion
Permit 1495 -2. All voted in favor; except Meyer who did not vote, and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL 0.66 ACRE OF WETLAND BASINS NEAR
THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD (T116N. RWE2,
SECTION 16, NE 1/4 NE 1/4). TWO SMALL WETLANDS AND A VERY SMALL PART
OF ONE LARGE WETLAND WILL BE FILLED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SOUTHERN HIGHWAY 5 FRONTAGE ROAD AND A MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THESE WETLAND IMPACTS WILL BE REPLACED AT A RATIO OF
2:1 WITH A WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT JUST SOUTHWEST OF LAKE
SUSAN (T116N. R23W. SECTION 23. NE 1/4 W 1 /2). CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you Kate. Any questions for staff? I do. Could you show the previous
map?
Aanenson: Sure.
Mancino: Now, the frontage road that goes from Galpin to TH 41 is.
Aanenson: This road right here. This is the property line. This is the area that we're
securing for the park. The Park Commission is working with Mrs. O'Shaughnessy in securing
this portion. And then we believe that when the Gateway West property develops, we'll also
get the additional property here. It will be approximately a 100 acre passive park so this road
will ultimately serve as access to that and there will be parking.
Mancino: A question for you. Is that's the only place along that entire roadway, all the way
from Galpin to TH 41 that we need to fill the wetland?
38
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Aanenson: A study was done as to look at where would be the least impact. There's a lot of
poor soils in that area. It's very marshy and we believe that that location, in order to meet,
and Dave you can correct me if I'm wrong. In order to meet State Aid design standards. The
curvature on the design of the road, that is the area of least impact in order to meet the design
standards of the road.
Mancino: But when Opus comes in, to continue the road all the way to TH 41, are they
going to also have to do some wetland mitigation in their area?
Aanenson: Through their portion?
Mancino: Yeah. Through their portion.
g p
t Aanenson: Yes. If you look on that map, they may need to. They also have fingers of poor
soil that run through that beyond this point so more than likely when they come in for
development, we'll probably be looking at some wetland alteration.
I
Mancino: Okay. To continue that.
Aanenson: Right.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? May I have a move to open this
for, oh. The applicant's already done that. May I have a motion to open this for a public
hearing please?
Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
Planning Commission at this time on this issue? Seeing one, may I have a motion to close
' the public hearing.
Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mancino: Thank you. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have no comments on this.
I Mancino: Bob.
1 39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Skubic: No comments.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: No comments.
Peterson: No comments.
Conrad: It's okay.
Mancino: My only comment would be that, and I will certainly vote to go ahead but I would
just ask, and make sure that City Council looks at the whole roadway. That frontage road
and make sure that they want it and they want it to connect and they want to fill the wetland
because there is more to fill for that roadway and I don't know who's expense that will be but
if it's the city's expense, I just think that they would want to look at that and make sure they
want to do that. May I have a motion please?
Farmakes: I make a motion that the staff recommend that Wetland Alteration Permit #95 -4...
be approved and that staff pursue the possibilities for wetland enhancement to the large DNR
wetland under the following conditions, 1 thru 6. And do you want to add a proviso to the
City Council?
Mancino: No. They have our Minutes. Thank you. Second please.
Meyer: Second.
Farmakes moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit 995 -4 and direct staff to pursue the possibilities
for wetland enhancement to the large DNR wetland under the following conditions:
1. Wetland Conservation Act conditions are met.
2. General Permit 17 under the Army Corps of Engineers is applicable and should be
completed by the City.
3. The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fencing
will be required around the wetlands. Additional erosion control may be necessary
around the DNR wetland.
40
I Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
1
4. Verification of permit exemption shall be received from the DNR.
5. Wetland bank necessary for the project is completed in accordance with the WCA.
6. A feasibility study and design is included to enhance the DNR wetland if the plan
proves to be efficient and acceptable.
All voted in favor and the motion carded.
NEW BUSINESS:
Aanenson: I can P
you g i the Director's Report under New Business if you'd like.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: The City Council tabled the Perkins site plan review on their July 10th meeting
i based on the fact that the applicant wasn't there and they didn't have the visuals or the
material samples and they felt uncomfortable and wanted some changes made to the plan. So
that has been scheduled for this coming Monday, which is July 24th. The preliminary and
final plat for Tim Erhart was approved. The three lot subdivision for Brendon Pond 2nd
Addition was also approved. And they also reviewed the first reading of the glitch ordinance
so that will be on the second reading on the 24th so hopefully we'll have some of those
changes made. Also I included in your packet the recently adopted legislation and I also
included a letter from the City Attorney as how they impacts the city. Just for your
knowledge, the one 60 day requirement which is effective July 1st. It's the City Attorney's
opinion that it doesn't have to be mutually acceptable. The applicant can put the applicant on
notice that they need more time and so we've accomplished that by changing our application
to say that most subdivision applications take longer than 60 days, or rezoning, so that will
put them on notice that the 60 days may be exceeded. Also as far as the amendments to the
land planning Act which requires the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the zoning
' ordinance. As you know, we do have some areas of inconsistency. Met Council still is
possibly reviewing this because there will be a big cost as far as a lot of cities that haven't
updated their plans, or need to, so they're going to be evaluating that. If they can accomplish
reviewing all of the cities within that short timeframe. But as you're aware with the Highway
5, we rezone an area of the city. Looked at the 1995 study area, which we will be zoning but
then our next step would be to bring it in so we're kind of going through mini Comp Plan
amendments all the time anyways but we wanted to make sure that if we do something, we're
consistent with what the new regulations are going to be and they haven't really formulated
that, the Met Council, so we're kind of following what that all means to the city of
Chanhassen. If there's questions on some of the other, I highlighted those from the League of
1 41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Cities. Just kind of brief summary of some of the things that affect municipalities and the
city of Chanhassen.
Mancino: Thank you. When is the buffer yard ordinance going to the City Council?
Generous: Monday.
Aanenson: Yes. Bob and I had a very interesting meeting with the Builders Association.
Would you say there was 12 members probably, approximately. It was a very fruitful
discussion. We found some very interesting things. There was a lot said about the fact that
people buy next, people develop next to industrial sites knowing the fact that the lots are
discounted they shouldn't have to be buffered because that's the reason why those people
moved there. Because they're getting a cheaper lot and they shouldn't be obligated to buffer
because they got a cheaper lot, and we were kind of dumbfounded by that statement but they
were very adamant against adopting the ordinance. We felt strongly, we reiterated the point
that we feel like, at least on the collector streets, we need some more quantitative data to
make sure we're getting that where we need it to be. And then the industrial buffering area.
Whether or not, as we know, we struggle between low density and low density, whether or
not that needed to be accomplished but there was some interesting statements made about the
fact that we shouldn't have to buffer and so they will be at the City Council meeting on
Monday night. Was there anything else you wanted to add about that discussion, Bob?
Generous: No. Their point was the cost impacts that the ordinance would have on the
developments and the practicality of fitting some of our buffer requirements on sites, more
intensive sites. Especially the office warehouse over the multi - family.
Aanenson: Then Lundgren also asked too, if you're doing a PUD, you know you try to do
things more creative so if we're making all these requirements, how can you be more
creative? But that's kind of the point why we said, well then why are you doing a PUD
because we already require you to do that anyway. That goes back to the same argument we
have and I think there are other fears that if we adopt something like that, well then all the
other cities kind of follow suit to what we do and that's a big thing too.
Farmakes: I think also, usually the losers in that situation are the ones who are in the
existing structure.
Aanenson: Right. Well, that's what we kept saying is, it goes back to the same argument we
heard just tonight. The developer says, well that person bought a discounted lot. They
wouldn't have been in that neighborhood except that the lot was cheaper because there was
less buffering and it was next to industrial. But then we said, but the city's stuck with the
Lyl
n
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
problem when the neighbors say, then they start complaining about the noise and so we're
saying, it's our job to protect them so that was kind of, you know going back and forth and
that sort of issue but they obviously didn't want the cost added on to their development and
they got into the discussion how do you really... through buffering and lights and is it really
health, safety and welfare so.
Meyer: Did they give any numbers about how much is actually...
Aanenson: Yeah, they were saying like $1,500.00- $2,000.00 a lot.
Generous: They were using some of the numbers, the same numbers that I did. There was
that one matrix where I had the cost with $200.00 for an overstory tree.
Meyer: So they're saying $1,000.00?
Aanenson: I think it was a little more than that.
Generous: Yeah, it was. They did one proposal and they were looking at landscaping costs
of $24,000.00, or $35,000.00 for a low development with the fencing and everything. I
haven't been able to evaluate all their costs exactly so I'm not sure.
Farmakes: I think that's interesting because usually when we see that, the adjacent zonement
is still agricultural. It's still farm land and it's still, where do they come off discounting.
Aanenson: Well no, if people adjacent to a road let's say. Well they bought that lot cheaper
because it's adjacent to a road or, they bought that lot cheaper because there's industrial in the
back and then why should we have to even go beyond that because that's lowering the price.
' So it was kind of a, it was good to hear those comments but it kind of, it kind of flies in the
face of what we heard tonight too so.
Mancino: Exactly.
Aanenson: But the other issue we brought up too is, well we're struggling with now when we
have single family that comes in next to single family and wants to be buffered from each
other. I mean whether it's detached of same value, then they still want to be buffered, which
we've seen recently too and how do we struggle with that? We've seen that in our recent
subdivisions.
Farmakes: It's unfortunate but perception is reality. It's hard to quantify.
i
1 43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
Aanenson: So it was a good meeting. I think that was positive.
Mancino: Good comments.
Aanenson: They were very good comments from them.
Generous: And they'll probably be there Monday night. So we encouraged that. And they
brought up the three issues that you all specifically addressed those. We believe they'll
probably table it...
Aanenson: Maybe make some modifications to the ordinance.
Mancino: That's a good idea. Well yes. After hearing tonight, especially when you have the
residential comes in first. Boy is that hard.
Farmakes: I think you should get some of the polystyrene cows that they have out ... and place
them in various places throughout the city.
Mancino: Any other things?
Aanenson: We'll have a full agenda again on the next, on the August 2nd. Probably as many
items as we had this time and then the next one in August appears a little bit lighter.
Mancino: Were you able, one of the, when I went to the last, I don't know if it was this last
one but the time before, to the City Council meeting. They did not pass the Michael Byrne
plat, Lake Lucy. The turned that down, so I wanted to say that. Mike, do you have anything
to report from the HRA? You are the HRA person and I wanted to find out what was going
on at the last HRA meeting.
Meyer: I got there about a half hour late so I missed most of it. Oh man, I'll take better
notes next time.
Mancino: Okay, if you could.
Meyer: I didn't see that there was anything that they really needed to pass onto us but.
Mancino: Otherwise just give us kind of a general feel of what's going on. I went to the
park referendum meeting. I did miss one and they're going ahead. It's a good committee of a
lot of citizens and the last meeting that they had was with Roger Knutson and with the
President of the Land Trust for Minnesota asking some questions about that. And what's
44
1
1
1
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - July 19, 1995
next? I think that we meet next Thursday night on the park referendum and then after that
meeting, I'll tell you more about it. We're just kind of getting into it and they have identified
some land that they would like considered for the referendum and I haven't told you very
much because I've only been to one meeting. But I will continue with that. Would anyone
like to so note the Minutes from the last Planning Commission meeting?
Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated June 21, 1995 as presented.
Conrad moved, Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
45