3. Hobens Wild Wood Farms First AdditionI
i
CITY OF
y�;� CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 10/19/94
CC DATE: 11/14/94
CASE #: 94 -15 SUB
y r
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and Final Plat to Subdivide 1.87 Acres into 3 single family
lots, Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
H
Z
U
�a
LOCATION: Southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and Sommer
Gate
APPLICANT: Hoben Corporation C. Halgren
18285 Minnetonka Boulevard 6320 Murray Hill Road
Deephaven, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
473 -2700
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
ACREAGE: 1.87 acres
DENSITY: 1.6 Units per Acre
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
W - RSF, Residential Single Family
W
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
Dale 5! ` :irteG to Council
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. The site contains a single family home and a detached garage.
One of the most significant features on the site is a 50 inch diameter cottonwood tree. The
entire site is bordered by mature trees of different species.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
•
IOU
.�� _...�. j . � �� � ,� �► 'iii —� :. ■ si�� �� 1_" ■
_ \1��11. ....
/1111 111��"
t
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 2
This application appeared before the Planning Commission on October 19, 1994. The
PP PP g
Planning Commission and neighboring property owners had some concerns regarding
the number of units proposed on the site. The applicant revised the plans by reducing ,
the number of units from 4 to 3 and eliminated the private driveway that was proposed
to serve the homes. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on '
November 2, 1994. This staff report has been revised accordingly.
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
,
This is a straight forward subdivision. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.875 acres
into 3 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
'
The average lot size is 27,211 square feet with a resulting net density of 1.6 units per acre.
The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Murray Hill Road and
Sommer Gate. Access to the subdivision will be provided via Sommer Gate and Murray Hill
Road. There is a home with a detached garage on the existing parcel.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
,
Ordinance.
'
The site has a dense concentration of mature trees along its parameters. A 50 inch diameter
cottonwood tree is located at the center of the site. Staff believes this tree can be saved since
cottonwoods are relatively tolerant of compaction and root severance. A 20 inch maple tree
,
is located south of the existing residence. This tree is dying and will be removed. The
applicant must submit a landscaping/reforestation plan prior to final plat approval. A 40 foot
preservation easement over the wooded areas along the north property line will be required.
,
This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving
the trees. Additionally, the two black walnut trees located in the northwest quarter of Lot 3,
Block 1 shall be preserved.
'
A letter was received from the McFarlands, who live across the street. They are opposed to
the subdivision (see attached letter).
'
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. Minor revisions
will be required. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the
staff report.
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
,
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.87 acre site into three single - family lots. The
density of the proposed subdivision is 1.6 units per acre net. All the lots meet or exceed the
minimum 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 27,211 square feet. All of
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 3
the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
' A single-family residence currently occupies proposed Lot 2, and a detached garage occupies
g Y Y P P P g g P
proposed Lot 1. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits the building of accessory structures prior
to a primary structure. In this case, the subdivision of the parcel will create a nonconforming
situation. Staff discussed this with the applicant, Mr. Hoben, and informed him that the
garage must be removed prior to final plat approval. Mr. Hoben will not own the property
until after the final plat has been approved, consequently, he will not be able to remove the
garage until he closes on the property. We suggested that he escrows funds with the City to
' guarantee the removal of the structure no later than December 1, 1994. If he fails to remove
the structure, the City would contract to have the structure removed. This solution was
acceptable to the applicant.
' Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
There does not appear to be any wetlands present on -site, however, staff recommends that the
site be assessed by a wetland delineator to verify the City's planning maps.
' SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The city has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is in the final stages
' of formal adoption. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and
quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its
' impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a
100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm
sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate
conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to
determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
' Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for
treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land
and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land
t
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 4
use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the city of Chanhassen plus
a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for
this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding '
needed for the site. A credit for the one existing house/lot has been applied. The proposed
SWMP quality charge has been calculated at $791 /acre for single - family residential
developments. This proposed development of 1.4 acres would then be responsible for a water
quality connection charge of $1,107.00.
Storm Water Quantity Fees I
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an
average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land '
acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of
$1,980 per developable acre. This proposed single - family residential development of 1.4 acres ,
would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $2,772.00.
DRAINAGE
Most of Lots 1, 2, and 3 drain naturally toward Sommer Gate Road. The runoff will be
collected and discharged into the water quality pond north of Sommer Gate Road. The runoff
is then conveyed via storm sewers off site. The applicant has provided the necessary storm
drainage calculations for the predeveloped and post developed drainage areas, along with
runoff calculations for the predeveloped and post developed conditions for a 100 year 24 hour '
storm event. The additional runoff generated by this site development is minimal. Staff is
comfortable that this development will not adversely impact the downstream storm drainage '
infrastructures.
GRADING I
A grading and development plan has been provided to the City for review. The plan shows
the proposed house pad locations, type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor
elevations. Proposed grading elevations are shown on the plan as well . The plans also
delineate which trees are to be saved or removed as a part of construction. The appropriate
tree preservation easements may be useful here in attempt to preserve some of the significant
trees.
There are two existing buildings located on Lots 1 and 2. It appears these buildings are to be ,
razed. The appropriate demolition permits from the City will be necessary prior to removal.
The new house pad locations from Lots 1 and 2 should be relocated to the same proximity of
the existing house or building sites. This is in an effort to reduce grading and save trees on
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
' Page 5
the site. Also by utilizing or expanding the existing driveways, site impacts will be reduced
' to a minimum.
EROSION CONTROL
' An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and
submitted to the city for review and approval. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction,
' shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
Additional erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances may be required by
staff in conjunction with building permit issuance.
UTILITIES
Lot 2 contains an existing dwelling that is connected to city sewer and water. There are two
additional sanitary sewer and water services stubbed to this proposed development. One to
Lot 1 and the other to Lot 3. The city's Building Department will be responsible for
' inspection of the sewer and water service extension to each dwelling. The appropriate
permits will be necessary as part of the building permit process. The parcel has been
previously assessed for two sanitary sewer and water hook -up and connection charges. Since
the applicant has paid for two previous hook -up and connection charges, it is appropriate to
charge one additional hook -up charge for the new lot (Lot 3). The hook -up charge is $2,425
(1994 value) for the new lot. These fees are payable at time of building permit issuance.
These fees may also be assessed.
The sewer and water lines shall be disconnected from the existing home pursuant to city
' policy. The applicant shall coordinate with the City's Building Department for appropriate
disconnection procedures.
' STREETS
The site is proposed to be serviced from Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate with individual
' driveways. There currently exists two driveway accesses which loop through parcels 1 and
2. Staff recommends that the existing driveway access points be utilized and no new
driveway curb cuts be allowed on Sommer Gate. Therefore, Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access
via the existing curb cuts off of Murray Hill Road. The access points on Lots 1 and 2 may
be widened to accommodate desired driveway width. The maximum driveway width at the
' street shall be 20 feet. Access to Lot 3 shall be from Sommer Gate. The proposed driveway
slope is 10% which is the city's maximum percent allowed. As a result of the steep slopes, a
retaining wall may be necessary to minimize grading and disruption. The sewer and water
service to Lot 3 is located in the northwest corner of the site. Extension of this service to the
dwelling will impact the site and remove trees. Therefore, the retaining walls may only be
necessary on the easterly portion of the driveway to save trees.
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 6
MISCELLANEOUS
Staff recommends that an escrow account be provided by the applicant to the city in the
amount of $500 for review and filing of the final plat documents. After the final plat
documents are recorded and the city receives the invoices from the City Attorney's Office,
the city will refund the remaining balance.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city
ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
It should also be noted that Lot 2 is considered a corner lot and have 30 foot setbacks from
Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate. The remaining sides are 10 foot setbacks.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Near the center of the parcel, a very large (50" dbh) Eastern cottonwood which will be saved.
The tree is not within the building area of any of the houses. From the development plans, it
appears possible to avoid additional damage to the tree's root system. There are no large
visible pockets of decay in the trunk or branches and very little dead wood throughout the
crown of the tree. It appears to be a healthy, mature tree worth preserving.
I would also recommend the preservation of the sloped area along the north side of the
development with the exception of a curb cut to allow for a driveway access onto Sommer
Gate to serve Lot 3. This area includes a number of significant trees as well as an abundance
Lot
Lot
Lot
Home
Area
Width
Depth
Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
24,818'
134.5'
188.32'
30710'
10'
Lot 2
24,474
134.49'
185.87'
30'/10'
10'
Lot 3
32,343
125.04'
256.11
30'/10'
10'
It should also be noted that Lot 2 is considered a corner lot and have 30 foot setbacks from
Murray Hill Road and Sommer Gate. The remaining sides are 10 foot setbacks.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Near the center of the parcel, a very large (50" dbh) Eastern cottonwood which will be saved.
The tree is not within the building area of any of the houses. From the development plans, it
appears possible to avoid additional damage to the tree's root system. There are no large
visible pockets of decay in the trunk or branches and very little dead wood throughout the
crown of the tree. It appears to be a healthy, mature tree worth preserving.
I would also recommend the preservation of the sloped area along the north side of the
development with the exception of a curb cut to allow for a driveway access onto Sommer
Gate to serve Lot 3. This area includes a number of significant trees as well as an abundance
i
1
F1
U
fl
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 7
of diverse species and ages. It will provide a beautiful backdrop to the future homes and
allow for privacy from Sommer Gate road. A forty (40) foot preservation area would still
allow for a large building site while retaining the natural beauty and screening for the
development.
The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees:
1. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 3 and 2, Block 1.
2. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2,
Block 1.
In addition, the two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1, shall also be protected
and saved as part of the development of the site.
The baseline canopy coverage is 38,444 or 47 percent of the site. City Code requires a post -
development canopy coverage of 35 percent or 28,563 square feet. The applicant has
estimated a canopy coverage removal of 6,512 square feet (not including the cottonwood)
which would provide a canopy coverage of 31,932 square feet or 39 percent of the site.
However, since there are large open areas on the site that could be developed, staff is
recommending that additional tree canopy be preserved. Specifically, three 10 inch elms in the
northwest corner of Lot 3 will be included within the tree conservation easement. Based on
the conditions of approval, the proposed canopy coverage being maintained shall be increased
to over 40 percent of the site without impacting the developability of the site.
I FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
17,
t
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 8
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report. The site is fairly level and will require minimal
alteration for development. '
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this '
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. ,
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; '
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage
subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate '
open areas to accommodate house pads. Only minimal tree removal shall be
required.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. ,
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the I
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
,
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
'
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
'
This application appeared before the Planning Commission on October 19, 1994. The
PP PP g
Planning Commission and neighboring property owners had some concerns regarding the
number of units proposed on the site. The applicant revised the plans by reducing the number
of units from 4 to 3 and eliminated a private driveway that was proposed to serve the homes.
On November 2, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed the application for the second time
and was appreciative of the revisions that had taken place. The plat was approved
unanimously with conditions outlined in the staff report.
i
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
"The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #94 -15 for Hobens
' Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated October
24, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
' 2. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their
size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning,
removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6"
caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan
which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description.
3. Building Department conditions:
' a. Applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed
before their removal.
4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
' S. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial
guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
' 6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of
trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the norther 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot
2, Block 1.
F1
g:VIan\sa\hobens.cc
Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition
October 12, 1994
Page
10
7.
The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1, shall be preserved. A tree
protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any
construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until
the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
8.
The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1
shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An
exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree protection
,
fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree protection fence
shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 1.
9.
The applicant shall provide the city with a $500 escrow prior to the city signing the
final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents.
'
10.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
PP P
agencies for demolition of the of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility
lines for Lots 1 and 2.
,
11.
No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right -of -way or
utility and drainage easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall
,
enter into an encroachment agreement.
12.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City
Engineer.
,
13.
Lot 3 will be charged a hook -up charge in the amount of $2,425 at time of building
permit issuance.
'
14.
Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to Murray Hill Road and located in a
fashion that least impacts the existing vegetation. The driveways may be expanded to a
,
maximum width of 24 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 1 shall be from
Sommer Gate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimize grading.
fee in
r
15.
The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity the amount
of $3,879.00 in lieu of on -site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the
city signing the final plat."
'
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Letter from Richard D. McFarland dated October 11, 1994.
2.
Application.
3.
Memo from Steve Kirchman dated October 4, 1994.
,
4.
Public hearing and property owners list.
5.
Planning Commission minutes dated October 19, and November 2, 1994.
6.
Preliminary plat dated October 24, 1994..
g:VIan\sa\hobens.cc
L INC
Chanhassen Planning Department
' City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box, 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
RICHARD D. McFARLAND
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
October 11, 1994
I would like to register a strong objection to the Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Edition
proposed for 6330 Murray Hill Road. My wife and I have lived at 6330 Murray Hill Road for 24
years, and my wife's family originally bought the property in 1938. For those of you who have
been through the neighborhood it is a delightful area with many small and large homes on
wonderful pieces of property. The possibility of putting four homes on the property across the
street from us at 6330 Murray Hill Road would definitely change the spirit and environment of
the neighborhood. Two homes would be appropriate -- certainly not four.
' Thank you for hearing my complaint and our son David McFarland will be representing us on
Wednesday, October 19, 1994.
Si ely,
l ard) cFa land
' RDM:rrh
r DA1N BOSWORTH INCORPORATED / RAUSCHER PIERCE REFSNES, INC / INSIGHT INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT / REGIONAL OPERATIONS GROUP, INC
DAIN BOSWORTH PLAZA / 60 SOUTH SIXTH STREET / P.O. BOX 1160 / MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440 -1160
612- 371 -7750 / FAX: 612- 371 -7755
CITY OF CHANNAeSEIti
RED.. . : �_ 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN *160 ONINNVId N35,SVHN,'VH
. 690 COULTER DRIVE
c .) CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 c ; j
"f ` ' (612) 937 -1900
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEM EVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1 1 9 :��'� ,
/ N3SSVHNVHO 30 A113
APPLICANT: OWNER: ee
ADDRESS: I e ;FL yZ ADDRESS: A-do
u
TELEPHONE (Daytime) TELEPHONE:
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12.
Variance
3.
Grading /Excavation Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Interim Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
8.
Sign Plan Review
Not'rfication Signs f '
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$1 UP /SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP
O QMinor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10.
V Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8 X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
C
i PROJECTNAME o L� L D � ,��/V S / i ?Pl�1'IS � /i2 S — T — �i �d
LOCATION a 3'D — 6 3.3 o �
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I
PRESENT ZONING _� cb N� /� L -
REQUESTED ZONING '�Fe S
' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 7
This application must be completed in ull and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
' Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records.
Si ture of Applicant D afe
I
J
Signature of Fee Owner Date
Application Received on 2 Fee Paid &) /C' , Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Hobens Wild Wood Farms
1st Addition
Developer: Hoben Corporation
Location: 6330 Murray Hill Road
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your ,
area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on
property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens
Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. '
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will g ive an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
'
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the m e e ting , p lease stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of.this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994.
�i
I
Robert & Delores Aman
Steven & Denise Artley
Harry & Lynn Baert
&250 Melody Hill Road
2098 Melody Hill Road
6300 Hummingbird Road
xcelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
L omas
Baurle
Claude & Kaye Benson
Philip & Susan Bonthius
2231 Sommergate
2211 Sommergate
2300 Melody Hill Road
xcelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
I[ary Brunsvold
David Brush and Erin Kerans
Paul & Agnes Burkholder
6287 Chaska Road
6257 Chaska Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
xcelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
hirley Butcher &
Lorraine Clark
Robert & Margaret Cristofono
osemary Fruehling
2161 Melody Hill Road
2210 Sommergate
2240 Sommergate
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
xcelsior, MN 55331
Lea Foli & Marilyn Zupnik
Wayne & Barbara Fransdal
Terry & Vicki Franzen
J6200 Hummingbird
6200 Murray Hill Road
6260 Hummingbird Rd.
xcelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Tomas
& Kimberly Gallo 1 y
g
Gre g Golmen
Steven & Carol Good
230 Sommergate
Junie Hoff- Golmen
6245 Chaska Road
xcelsior, MN 55331
2220 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
C ohn & June Hamsher
Perry Harrison
Ind. School Dist. 276
2081 Melody Hill
2221 Sommergate
261 School Ave.
xcelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
James & Michele Infanger
David & Christine Johns
Craig & Catherine Johnson
2080 Melody Hill Road
2220 Sommergate
2071 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Harlan & Eleanor Johnson
x 6340 Hummingbird Road
Lennart & Deadra Johnson
7605 Hyde
Glenn, Jr. & Sherry Johnston
6263 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Excelsior, MN 55331
Randy & Jennifer Merry Koski
Frank & Lynda Kuzma
Robert E. Lee
l 6231 Murray Hill Road
2241 Sommergate
6261 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
t
John & Diane Lenertz
6269 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard & Joyce McFarland
6341 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas H. Parker
6235 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Wayne & Joyce Slater Poppe
2090 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Thomas & Virginia Rode
6275 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
John & Nancy Liberg
2091 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Kenneth & Nancy Meyer
6251 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Arthur & Jane Partridge
6280 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Ward Allen & Sandra Putnam
6285 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Todd Rowe
6270 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Evelyn Lohr Trust
c/o Evelyn Hohr & C. J. Hasse
6240 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Richard & Linda Nicoli
2280 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Karen Signe Peterson
2240 Melody Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Frank & Greta Reese
6200 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Robert F. Sommer
6239 Chaska Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
5
Peter & Lisa Staudohar
2204 Sommergate
Excelsior, MN 55331
Jon & Laura Williamschen
6230 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Robert J. Stone III &
Joan M. Stone
6201 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Clifford & Patricia Woida
6398 Murray Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
William Swearengen
P. O. Box 756
Excelsior, MN 55331
r1
�J
f]
J
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Oh okay. Where their sin is a logo. That's 100 %. Okay. An other comments?
y g g y y If
not, then I'd like to have a motion please.
Conrad: I move to table the sign ordinance.
Scott: Okay, is there a second?
' Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the sign ordinance. Is there any
discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment
to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Scott: And if you could add Randy Herman, Moore Sign, would you like that delivered to
your office?
Randy Herman: That'd be great. And I'll get it distributed to the others.
Scott: Okay. That will go out with our, we usually get the Planning Commission packets on
Saturday? Friday?
Generous: They come out on Thursday.
Scott: Thursday or Friday, something like that so you'll be getting your's just after
Halloween.
Rask: ...same time you received it so if possible we will try to get it to him earlier this time.
Scott: Good. Thank you all very much for coming for that item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMELY AND LOCATED AT
6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION,
HOBEN CORPORATION.
I Public Present:
14
Li
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a
grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road
will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things.
Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there
won't be a lot of grading because it is so flat. The roadways... proposed 30 foot easement.
There is a location of the housepad that could be—the setbacks and conservation easement
along the north property line ... I think the applicant has...
Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was '
not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will
probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you
like to make a presentation.
Jim Hoben: Sure. This is the...
Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can
put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a
piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there. I
15 1
Name
Address
James Hoben
Hoben Corporation
Perry & Pat Harrison
2221 Sommergate
Charles Spevacek
6474 Murray Hill Road
David McFarland
6341 Murray Hill Road
Paul & Betty Burkholder
6370 Murray Hill Road
Kaye Benson
2211 Sommergate
'
Peter & Lisa Staudohar
2204 Sommergate
Robert & margaret Cristofono
2210 Sommergate
Lynda Kuzma
2241 Sommergate
Richard Herrboldt
6464 Murray Hill Road
Keith Boudrie
6482 Murray Hill Road
'
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions.
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a
grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road
will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things.
Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there
won't be a lot of grading because it is so flat. The roadways... proposed 30 foot easement.
There is a location of the housepad that could be—the setbacks and conservation easement
along the north property line ... I think the applicant has...
Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was '
not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will
probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you
like to make a presentation.
Jim Hoben: Sure. This is the...
Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can
put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a
piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there. I
15 1
I
n
�J
F1
�1
1
r�
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Harberts: Or just hold it in front of the stand.
Jim Hoben: Very quickly I probably should mention first, because I was asked by several
people, my name is Jim Hoben. Hoben Corporation. I've been a developer for 35 years.
Commercial, office buildings and warehouses and stuff like that. The Wayzata First National
Bank in Wayzata. The Citizens State Bank. I've been building and developing residential
since the mid 1970's. I'll pick that up in just a second. Since the mid 1970's. We built in
the Deephaven ... property. I've developed the Hollybrook Townhouse they call it up in
Wayzata which is 60 some units over there and we've built homes in Orono, Plymouth,
Wayzata, Deephaven and then in Minnetonka and areas such as that. In looking for land in
which to do an neat little development, this came to me, which we're always on the lookout
for. We came upon this nice wooded property up there. I've been working with the staff as
to what the requirements are and we have put together... approximately half acre lots. I don't
know if anybody's familiar but basically something like the Villages which Fazenden did over
in the north part of Plymouth...but that's generally what we're doing. Putting in this with we
established a private road with the 4 residents that facing in on it. I'm using setbacks greater
than the required. The 40 feet which Mr. Generous spoke of is shown on there and it's being
used. We also used a more than 30 feet, which is I think is the requirement. We've gone to
about 40 feet as this property backs up to the Burkholders which are on the other side...
We've met and exceeded I think the requirements as to the lot size. As we pointed out the
utilities are all there. The grading plan as I understood it would be there before the final plat
which... There isn't that much grading on this road to be done as he said with this plat. We
acquired the outlot or the means to acquire the Outlot B which abuts Sommergate Road and
having, in doing that, that 40 foot setback allowed him which we also were able then to move
the intersection, private road over so that the trees that you spoke of is not getting touched.
We talked about that large cottonwood tree. That's off to the left hand side now and we've
got a problem. I'm ready to answer any questions that you might have.
Scott: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? None. Do you have anything else, any
other comments you'd like to make?
Jim Hoben: No. I think none that I'm aware of. I've tried to work with the staff to meet
the requirements and I think we've done so.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and if I could have a
motion please to open the public hearing.
Harberts: Can I ask some staff questions first?
Scott: Sure.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Harberts: This might be a Dave question. With this private driveway agreement, I'm
guessing that's that blue. Is that actual.
Jim Hoben: You turn it sideways. This is Murray Hill Road. This is the private road.
Harberts: Okay. Is it a road or driveway?
Hempel: It'd be a 20 foot wide private driveway. I
Harberts: And so it would be a private driveway to at least 3 parcels, if not 4, is that correct?
Hempel: No, that's not correct. We currently serve up to 3 homes. There's one home that ,
would maintain existing driveway access off of Murray Hill. I believe it's Lot 4. They right
now have a horseshoe type of driveway.
Jim Hoben: That was not stated... all entrances would be off this road.
Harberts: Well it goes back to my original question. Are we talking a road? You know in
reality here, or is it in a sense just a driveway?
Hempel: It is just a driveway.
Harberts: Are we going to be, if it's the only access' point to the homes that are proposed, '
am I correct on that so far? Is the 20 foot going to allow for 2 way traffic? You know if
someone's coming in and someone wants to come out, is 20 feet big enough for that? i
Hempel: It would be, es.
P Y
Harberts: Okay. And did public safety, in terms of the fire department and all those people
take a look to concur that 20 feet was okay?
Hempel: That's correct. That's your normal, standard driveway width.
Harberts: And how does the, at least the public safety vehicles go in there and turn around?
Hempel: That was asked by Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal, and he tells us the length of this
road is not long enough to warrant a turn around for the fire truck vehicles.
Harberts: Even if they turn in there by mistake? I don't know, I'm just asking.
17 1
H
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Hempel: That question I guess has not been answered or addressed by Mark Littffn. Mark's
comments were that he didn't feel that it was appropriate to require a turn around for this
length of driveway.
Harberts: Okay. And it seems to me based on some other proposals that had come forward
in terms of, we didn't call them private driveways. They were like shared driveways. I think
that's what it was. And I always, it's my feeling that that was one of those things that
Chanhassen didn't feel very comfortable with unless there was some unique situation so I
guess I'd be interested to, do you recall any of that conversation that took place at the
commission level here Dave?
1
it
Hempel: No, I don't think I do but the ordinance does state that if we are saving vegetation
or reducing grading and so forth by doing a private drive, then it would be warranted. I think
in this case, as Bob Generous indicated earlier, there are some significant trees on this site.
Some maples and walnuts and also the 50 some inch cottonwood that are going to be saved
as a result of the narrower pavement width.
Harberts: Right. I just wanted to just kind of remind people on that I guess the only other
question I have with regard to, there was a couple of letters or one letter in here with regard
to the local residents raising concern about the, that perhaps the integrity or that there would
be a change within the environment. If I'm correct, I think I read in here in one of the
findings that this is within the zoning allowed for the area in terms of having 4 homes there.
Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirements.
Harberts: So they're meeting the code or the zoning requirement?
Generous: Yes.
Harberts: Okay. That's it.
Scott: Good.
Jim Hoben: Dave when you say driveway, I've got a townhouse development where the
blacktop is 20 feet for 220 or 225 feet width and there's plenty of room to...
Harberts: Just one more, and maybe this is a Bob question. I know it said somewhere in the
staff report about some kind of cross use agreement would be.
Generous: That's required under the...
1V
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
I
Harberts: And if I recall, that includes maintenance understanding, all of this.
Generous: Exactly. Maintenance, snow clearing... I
Scott: Okay, good. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing. I
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Public hearing is now open and we invite members of the general public to step
forward and let us know who you are. Let us know your address and go from there. Yes sir.
Paul Burkholder: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Paul
Burkholder and I live directly to the south of this property, 6370 Murray Hill Road. I moved
to Chanhassen about 6 years ago after living in Deephaven for about 10 1/2 years. One of
the reasons I moved to Chanhassen, and in this particular area, was because of the large lots
and the mature trees and the fact that—and it was just a very nice... Our neighbors next door
was the Grautmans. An older couple who loved their yard and planted lots of things and...
environment for wildlife and birds and their garden and it was a very nice place. They've
passed on and a few years ago the property was sold. On my lot and on their lot there were
things like woodchucks, raccoons, well there's raccoons all over, but all kinds of squirrels. In
my yard there's black walnut trees. I think in the yard in the subject property there is
perhaps 6 or 8 black walnut trees. There is this magnificent cottonwood tree right in the
middle of the yard. And fruit trees, there are wild flowers. What Mr. Hoben is proposing is
totally out of context and out of character with the neighborhood. It is basically a cluster
home concept. One driveway and I agree with Commissioner Harberts that it's a driveway. A
shared driveway by 4 houses. I say to myself, after looking at Mr. Hoben's plan, if this
property were allowed to be developed, what would happen on Thanksgiving and Easter,
Christmas time when all 4 of these homes decided to have a gathering and all of them had 6
'
or 7 cars and a fire started in one of these homes? Again, I didn't hear any clear answer
whether this proposal has been run past the Fire Chief and how he feels about getting a fire
truck or emergency vehicle here in a situation such as that. I'd like to know about that.
Secondly, we have a problem with the topography is rather flat. The southern end of Murray
Hill Road is higher than the rest of it so the water flows northward in heavy rains. When we
first moved into our property and the heavy rain, the water would come down our driveway
and make almost a small lake. We had the city, when they were out doing some blacktop
repairing, we asked them to put a little tiny, 3 or 4 inch curbing to direct the water a little
further down. Now Murray Hill Road, for those that live there, every time it rains there's a
torrential amount of rain that goes down that hill and they're constantly trying to fix it up
down there. It's a terrible little winding country road. Now we're talking about in this
19 1
t
1
1
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
particular situation, of bringing in another 8 to 10 cars with 4 homes. There's another site to
the south of me with 2 1/2 acres which I believe will probably, someone will be appearing to
try to develop that one too. Using this property, this particular situation as precedent to
squeeze as many possible homes on this site as they can. Mr. Scott, the Chair at the meeting
here, he mentioned Lake Wobegon where everything is perfect and that Chanhassen is
growing and I know that and you're going through these sorts of problems and I realize that
the people next door to me are attempting to maximize as much money out of their property
as they can and perhaps this is a way to do it. Try to cut it up into 4 small homesites. I
know that they meet the requirements but I am very much against it. Again I'm going to be
redundant and say it will change the total character of our neighborhood. If one looks at the
plat map, you can see the lots are much larger than what is being developed in some of the
PUD developments currently in Chanhassen. And nobody is making a lot of moves. I know
over, just recently over on Hummingbird Road. A lot of property was sold by the Rainey
family. They did not go in there and try to maximize that property and cut it up into as
many small lots as they can. They sold them in big, large, over an acre piece of property
maintaining the integrity of the trees and everything that's in that area. Again the 4 homes on
this particular property I think would create a real water problem. We're going to have a lot
more water runoff from these properties. The soil will no longer be able to absorb the rains
up there and it is flat. I get water in my basement even though I'm on top of the hill. I
mentioned that I lived in Deephaven for 10 1/2 years. I don't mean to compare Deephaven
with Chanhassen but Deephaven back in 1973, facing somewhat, I think problems somewhat
similar to what Chanhassen is facing now, changed their zoning requirements in some of the
older areas... requirement at 20,000 square feet. And out in Northome, they raised it to
60,000 square feet and in the area where I lived in the 10 1/2 years, I built two homes there,
the lots were 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hoben I'm aware ... during that time and he did build
them in a 40,000 square foot area but I'm not saying that 40,000 square feet is the ideal site
but it does make for lovely home sites and the kind of homes that come in the price range of
the homes are certainly at an addition to the community in general. I guess I don't have
much else to say about it except I'm here to object to this cutting up of this property into 4
sites. I would have no objection to it being 2 sites. I know when the Grautman's, when Mrs.
Grautman passed away and I thought that the property was going to be offered for sale in the
open market, I checked with the city here and found out there were two sewer stubs put into
this property when they installed the sewer and water back in the late 70's, or early 70's
rather. So I thought possibly at that time probably the thinking was that that site at some
time would be developed into two sites and that seemed reasonable to me. Four sites to me
seem unreasonable. It's a cluster home type situation. I'm concerned about the private road.
I'm concerned that these houses will be facing out on Murray Hill Road or onto Sommergate
like the rest of the homes are and I guess thank you very much.
T
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
P,
Scott: Well thank you. Dave, if you could just address the public safety issue and then Bob,
if you could talk about the zoning of the adjacent property lot size and so forth.
Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman. Again I did look through the staff report. There is a sentence
or two in there that says something about there should be a turn around acceptable to the Fire
Marshal and I think that that got put in by mistake, to be honest with you because I did have
conversations with the Fire Marshal in regards to hydrant placement as well as the turn
around. He felt that the driveway length of approximately 180 feet long which did not
warrant taking a turn around on behalf of the fire truck scenario so. Then I'll just touch on
one other point that Mr. Burkholder had concern with on the drainage in the neighborhood
there. Certainly it's always a concern. With developers and such increasing impervious
surface for the private driveway which is a narrower street from a city street, the adding of
the two home sites would not dramatically increase the amount of runoff on this parcel of
land. The runoff from this development does flow north to Sommergate where it is picked up
with storm sewer system and conveyed to a storm water pond on the north side of
Sommergate ... the runoff along Murray Hill Road is a maintenance problem with the city...
Generous: This area is zoned residential single family which permits lot sizes down to
15,000 square feet. The development has an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of
the lots are over 20,000 square feet. The development immediately west of this, Eight Acre
Woods is 16 lots. Their average lot size is 20,744 square feet. From that standpoint it is
very consistent with the area.
Mancino: Well it is for those west but for those across the street that are east of it and the
old parcels are much bigger that really abut this property also. And that are south of it. That
is one part of that whole area, which I live very close to, has a very open, old mature tree,
very narrow street, old neighborhood feel. And it is something for us to be considerate of it
and I think you have been too. Staff has been too.
Scott: Okay. Sir.
Keith Boudrie: I just have a question.
Scott: Oh, please step up to them microphone and identify yourself. I don't like to do that
either.
Keith Boudrie: I may have more questions but my name is Keith Boudrie and I live at 6482
Murray Hill Road. We've been there for a little over 10 years. We were the first residents
of the new homes that have gone in in that area. My question is, you keep referring to a
subdivision and I'm not sure I know which one that is.
21
1
u
I
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: It's the one off of Sommergate Road.
Keith Boudrie: The one off of Sommergate Road?
Generous: Yeah. Now that's the access for it.
Resident: At the end of the cul -de -sac.
Keith Boudrie: Oh, okay. So it's the Sommergate development?
Keith Boudrie: Thank you.
Mancino: Yeah.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Dick Herrboldt: My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road, which is
directly south of this, right close to the Boudrie's and the cul-de -sac that's south of this
proposed development. I'd like to address a little bit the concept of the trees that are in that
area and what provides for the neighborhood. These are all mature trees and one of the
things that drew myself and my wife to the neighborhood. We've lived now in the area for 7
years. We love it up there. We love the peace and the quiet, but most of all we like the
trees. And as I looked around my cul -de -sac, or the , cul -de -sac that I live on and my lot, after
the construction process in the development, you're going to lose trees. I, myself have lost
about 5, even though we spent a substantial amount of money treating the existing maple
trees. When I look around the cul -de -sac, all of the houses have lost magnificent trees that
have resulted from the construction. If you start driving earth moving equipment, trucks, etc,
over surfaces of land where there's mature trees, you're going to lose them and I would
suspect, I haven't looked at the plat that closely but I would suspect that if you do
construction in this area where this cottonwood tree is, after a couple years, you're going to
see that cottonwood tree go. That's one of my major concerns because we're looking at an
area in Chanhassen that's a mature residential neighborhood with magnificent trees and you're
going to substantially change that environment by allowing a high density development to go
in. The other concern I have is Murray Hill Road, which is a very narrow road. Maybe
many of you have not been on that road but again times of family gatherings, I don't see that
these houses are going to have adequate parking. What you're going to wind up having is
traffic flowing over on Murray Hill Road. Parking. Blocking other vehicles and again in the
case of an emergency, which was brought up, I don't know how a large fire truck or other
safety equipment would be able to navigate up Murray Hill Road. So I'm concerned about
the overall environment and what a project of this type would do to that area. Again there's
22
f
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
a lot of wildlife. There's a lot of birds up there. You're going to lose, you're going to
change the entire environment so those are my comments.
Scott: Okay. I think I can respond to a couple of those. And I don't know when your home
was constructed. My guess 5 years, 10 years ago.
Dick Herrboldt: Probably about 7.
Scott: 7 years ago. One of the things that we've recently done as a Planning Commission
and as a City Council is have a very restrictive and very detailed tree preservation ordinance.
The old way of doing things is you'd wrap the trunk of the tree with snow fence and then
,
hope that if somebody ran into it, it would be okay. And at that time that was state of the
art. What we've done now is we've, because we have a forester on staff now, we're
concerned about not allowing any compaction around the drip line. So now we have snow
fence going around the drip line of the tree. In the case of a cottonwood, from my
understanding, that is one of the species of trees that is the most tolerant to compaction and
also to severance. That's obviously, the staff report had a paragraph on that particular tree
and what we're trying, we're not trying to manage on a tree by tree basis. We're looking at
it as the overall canopy coverage. But I think the commissioners would agree with us, we've
gotten a lot better at tree protection and understanding the needs of various species and so
forth. So I think from the tree standpoint, that's a major issue in the project. I guess from
what staff has told us and from what I've seen of the property, I think that's obviously going
to be an amenity that is going to allow this development to be a lot more profitable for the
'
developer. So that works both ways. From what I'm looking at where the house pads are to
be positioned and from a, I'm concerned about public safety. One of the things I think that,
the way it looks here is that there are going to be driveways extending off of this common
drive which usually in houses, these are probably going to be 2,500 square foot houses. In
that roughly, 2 to 3 car garages. My guess is, at least at my house, we can get 4 cars in our
just parking area so my guess is, you'd probably have to have 4 simultaneous, pretty huge
parties before you'd even back out onto that private drive. That's my sense but hopefully
those comments will assist you. If anybody on city staff, if you've got some other comments
to make, that might help. I think the way this is laid out, it is, the lots are 30% larger than
what is required by the ordinance and it appears that the public safety and the vegetation
concerns have been dealt with. I personally feel fairly well. So I mean if there are any other
comments from staff on there or commissioners on that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank
you sir. Yes sir.
Chuck Spevacek: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is
Chuck Spevacek and I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road. I'm Mr. Herrboldt's neighbor and Mr.
Bourdrie's neighbor and pardon my voice. I'm fighting a cold that my children have had for I
23 1
I
1
[l
1
u
[7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
months that they've just gotten over and I've picked up. I echo the sentiments of the other
residents in the neighborhood that have spoken, which I understand will continue to speak
tonight. I do believe that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of
the neighborhood. What we have now is a blend of large and small homes in an open,
natural setting and what we're proposing is a parcel of property with 4 homes, sitting 2 deep
with the front or facing houses having their sides facing towards the street serviced by a
common drive. And while the lot sizes themselves might have enough square feet to meet or
exceed the zoning codes, there is nothing in the vicinity remotely like this development. And
I know that the reference has been made to the houses on Sommergate. That if you just want
to compare square foot to square foot, then we're talking apples and apples. But if you want
to talk the way the homes are situated on the site and how they present themselves to the
neighborhood and the community, what's going on in Sommergate is really totally different
than what's being proposed for this development. Despite the size of the lots in this
development, the property itself is very narrow and the lot size comes from the property's
depth. Thus the proposed development is one that gets it's lot size by stacking the houses 2
deep off of the street. Servicing them with a common drive and again having the front facing
houses not presenting themselves to the street but presenting their side yards in the side of the
house to the street. And while the lot sizes are large, this type of arrangement is inconsistent
with the character of the neighborhood and is more attune to the type of cluster type homes
you see in an urban setting where land is at a premium. Now in addition, and as I've
indicated, this proposed development is inconsistent with the type of development that has
recently taken place in this neighborhood. Both the Sommergate Addition, while lot sizes are
similar, they present themselves to the neighborhood-much differently and much more
consistently with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. That's particularly true with the
Melody Hill development or the cul -de -sac at the end of Murray Hill on the south side where
my house is. There are some extremely large lots. There are some more modest lots but
again, in that situation we don't have a situation like you'd expect to see ... where you have 4
home sitting 2 deep off of the street serviced by a narrow cul -de -sac. I'm convinced that
anyone driving through the neighborhood will reach the same conclusion that the proposed
development is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the way ... now. I understand, and can
trust me I have done my own independent check on this where the proposed development is
not inconsistent with the present zoning ordinances. And therein lies the fundamental
problem I think for myself and the remainder of the people who live in this neighborhood.
Because what this is telling us is that the zoning code doesn't reflect the character of how our
neighborhood. It may be a zoning code that has applicability to the vast majority of the city
of Chanhassen. But the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen isn't our neighborhood and
our neighborhood is a neighborhood of mature, developed foliage, trees, homes. Again, that
gives one the flavor of a mixture of modest and substantial homes in an open, natural setting
and one where a subdivision where you're stacking homes 2 deep off the street is inconsistent
even if the lot sizes meet the technical requirements of the zoning code. Two homes on this
24
1
t
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
parcel would be consistent with the precedent set by recent development. Sommergate came
in by the development on Murray Hill. I truly think 4 homes on this parcel of property,
despite it's ability to accommodate large lots because it's a deep, still shadows that precedent
because of the way that they present themselves. Finally, while I understand this issue is not
directly before this commission, I trust that the commission bases it's decision not just one
any particular parcel it's dealing with but also what the effect might be on other potential
development in the neighborhood. There is another parcel of property just on the other side
of the Burkholder property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, the Woida property, which has been on
the market for sale and as I understand, although this is pure hearsay, that the Hoben
Corporation has an option to purchase and develop this property contingent upon the success
of the present development. And that might not be true. But regardless of whether that's
true or not, this is a 2 1/2 acre site. It sits at the corner of Murray Hill and Melody Hill.
Right at the entrance to the Melody Hill subdivision that Mr. Boudrie and Mr. Herrboldt and
I live in. No more than 50 yards from the subject property, and if the approval of this
development is in any way deemed to be precedent for what must be allowed on the Woida
property, or the property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, we're talking about someone coming in
and saying I want to stack 6 homes in this property and telling this committee that in terms of
pure square footage, it meets the zoning regulations. And those of us who live here will
think more than ever that the zoning regulations don't reflect what the nature of our
community and what our neighborhood is for putting 6 parcels of property on that piece
would truly destroy the ambience of the homes that are at the south end cul -de -sac on Murray
Hill. And I know that the county or the city or whoever is in charge of this must think
highly of the ambience of the homes on the south cul -de -sac of Murray Hill because in the 2
years that I've lived there without making substantial additions to it, my assessed valuation
has gone up over $60,000.00 and that would truly reverse if you toss the 6 homes on the
Woida property. To conclude my remarks, I understand that technically there's enough lot
size to sustain this development. But technically that exists only because you have a property
that's narrow and deep. You can look around this neighborhood and you will not see
anything at all remotely resembling what's being proposed for this property, and in this case
the zoning ordinances do not reflect the character and nature of the neighborhood we live in
and we believe our neighborhood will be diminished by allowing more than 2 homes on this
parcel. Where we live now is an above average section of this community and this proposed
subdivision is truly average and it will not help bring us up any. It will do nothing but bring
our subdivision down to a level where it hadn't been before. Two homes is consistent with
what we've established and what other developers have tried to do here ... thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else, yes sir. I
Peter Staudohar: Good evening. My name is Peter Staudohar and my wife Lisa and I live at
2204 Sommergate. As David referred to, the drainage area there happens to be my front yard
25 1
i Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
T so I'd rather refer to it as my front yard rather than the drainage area. I'm right here. I'm
sorry, right here if I'm understanding this correct. I have a couple of questions and then I
have a couple of comments. The outlot is a concern of mine. I live directly across from the
outlot and I'd like you to address the issue of what will happen to that if it's acquired by the
corporation.
Generous: It will be designated as a tree conservation easement.
I Peter Staudohar: Which means what?
Generous: The trees that are there will stay there.
Peter Staudohar: In it's present form?
Generous: Yes. Should maintain...
Peter Staudohar: Okay. If I am assured of that, that helps some of my concerns a little bit
but my wife and I moved into this area in March of 1994 and one of the express purposes of
moving into this neighborhood was, as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the aesthetics. The
way it presents itself and the development that you're suggesting presents itself completely
different to the surrounding area. I can say without any hesitation, because we looked at an
awful lot of houses. An awful lot of new developments. We wouldn't have moved into this
neighborhood in March of 1994 if the proposed development were in place at that time.
Without question. And I think if you went around the room to the other people that live on
Sommergate, their comments would be the same. If they would have known 5 years ago, 4
years ago, 3 years, 2 years ago when they built their house, they would not have built a house
in a neighborhood that was going to have a development across the street that has a cluster of
homes. I'm not very excited about getting up in the morning and walking out my front door
with the dog and going for a walk and looking at the back of 2 houses where there now is
woods. Or in the winter, at the very least, there's a little red, attractive farmhouse that my
wife and I happen to fall in love with when we moved into the neighborhood and would have
probably gladly purchased it and updated it if it would have been for sale at that point in
time. I'm confused about one other item. We keep referring to the development west of the
proposed development and you suggest that's the houses on Sommergate, on the south side of
Sommergate?
Generous: It's that whole development. It's called Eight Acre Woods.
Peter Staudohar: Okay. Because that area was referred to as north of the development
earlier. Sommergate being north of the development. David, I do have another question for
1
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
L�_J
you. I'm a little bit concerned about the drainage. If you would have been at my house
during a few of these rains, you'd been a little bit nervous as to the level of the water. It's
crept up dramatically as the summer's gone on and that concerns me. If we put 4 lots in
there, we're taking away some locations for the water to settle into the soil. What's going to
happen to my front yard or my drainage area based on your guesstimates? I
Hempel: The drainage area in your front yard has been sized to take on the neighborhood
drainage from this area. The increase of 2 additional homes ... common driveway. If you have
4 separate driveways, there's more impervious surface. Therefore a common driveway makes
more sense from an impervious surface standpoint. Those calculations for the storm water
are going to be supplied to us with the final plat just to verify that we will not exceed the
capacity of that ponding area for the storm sewer system down the street. We don't
anticipate any problems with the additional 2 lots which are being created with this proposal.
Peter Staudohar: One last issue that may or may not be appropriate to bring up at this time
but the gentlemen before you mentioned the appreciation on his property based on
assessments. Based on the tax bill. I've had the same benefits as I moved in in March. I'm
very happy to see that for a lot of reasons. My question and concern is, what is this cluster
of homes going to do to my home value and I'd like to briefly have the gentlemen proposing .
the development speak to the size of the homes. He said 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and
values of the home, which is extremely important to a lot of people concerned. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate it.
Scott: Would you like to answer that question Mr. Hoben?
Jim Hoben: I'd be glad to have an opportunity to answer that. One of the main reasons we
chose this site to go ahead and do this, I can't imagine that anybody's houses will be
depreciated from that standpoint because I'm looking at an entrance coming in here where
we'll call this Woods. There will be a little brick thing on the inside and it is. You call it
cluster homes. Well cluster homes sometimes is a phrase used to demean a development and
that's not the case here. These homes will be in the neighborhood of $300,000.00.
$310,000.00 - $315,000.00. That's the idea. It's not, I don't build and have not been and I
think even Mr. Burkholder knows that. Go in and build low end housing. If I didn't think
that we could go in here and build homes in the neighborhood of $300,000.00, which is... the
studies that we've made of the homes both on the cul -de -sac where Curt Osterman built and
where the other gentlemen built up on the other cul -de -sac and also with the Eight Acre
Woods, I wouldn't be interested in the site. So again, we would go in the trees that were
attractive to the area. We'd work with the staff. It's not my intention to go in and knock
down trees indiscriminately. We will save all the trees that are possible and I think planning
27 1
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
showed most
st o the trees being saved there, except for the ... pad where the house will sit
because that's what will add value to the ... to the homes so in no way will we be demeaning,
setting down the value of the homes for surrounding.
Harberts: Mr. Hoben, I have a question for you. Will you, your firm be acting as both the
developer and the builder?
Jim Hoben: Pardon? Will I be the builder as well as the developer, yes.
Harberts: And I'm ignorant in this area. So if someone comes in and they choose a lot.
Will they be able to choose the type of home they want to put on or will you already have
that established. Is it like a package deal? Is it like a package deal? You get this lot and
you get this house or do you buy the lot separately and then decide separately on what house
you put on there? And I'm really ignorant in this area, sorry. I apologize.
Jim Hoben: We will have 2 or 3 home plans that will fit on these sites. I mean is your
question that you have to take this house?
Harberts: Well is it a package deal when they go in there? Do they buy the lot separately
and then they buy the house separately or do they, if they're interested in purchasing, do they
buy the house and the lot at a given price?
Jim Hoben: Yes, because that's what we'll be doing but they will have a choice of a couple
of different plans to put on that.
Harberts: Alright. Well you know based on my experience when I was looking, we were
looking around for a home, you'd go out and buy your lot for x thousand and then you'd go
and find a house and then they'd have a builder. Or you bring your builder in so I was just
wondering if that was the case.
Jim Hoben: No, you won't bring your builder in here. I will have 2 or 3 plans ... would look
at and this has been done in Plymouth and so forth. Again, I go back to the word cluster.
Cluster homes and doing this intently with the idea of pointing them into themselves so that
they have their own identity.
Harberts: So is it, so am I understanding that these probably will not be custom homes?
You know an individual's choice.
Jim Hoben: Yes, they will be custom homes. Absolutely.
28
a
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
F-,
Harberts: But I'm understanding you to tell me that you're going to have 2 or 3 different
designs and they can pick from one of those to put on there. When I'm speaking of a custom
home, they bring in their plan or their idea in terms of their dream house. This is what I'm
asking.
Jim Hoben: If you brought me, for example, if you brought me in a plan that would fit on
that lot and the square footage of it was such that after I constructed it, it would be in that
price range, compatible with what I'm talking about, yes. You could do that. I'm not going
to... somebody you've got to take this plan, if that's your question.
Harberts: Well it's more the question. I
Jim Hoben: You would have to conform to the.
Harberts: I understand that. It's more the question is, is it a package deal or do you buy
your lot separate and then the house is another separate transaction in a sense, or whatever.
Jim Hoben: No, it's all one transaction. The lot and the house would all be.
Harberts: No, that's fine thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir.
Perry Harrison: I'm Perry Harrison. My wife Pat and I live at 2221 Sommergate. Just down
the road from Peter. And some of my fears have been allayed here through this discussion
but I guess I still have two primary ones and I guess they both focus around what this
gentlemen so eloquently said about the integrity and nature and the ambience of the
neighborhood. As he so well pointed out, this is "cluster" or whatever you want to talk about
the layout of these homes is totally different than our area. Having 4 homes positioned there
that have most, all but 1 home facing the two major roads of that intersection, which is
Sommergate and Murray. And I can envision and I assume other people on Sommergate
would be acceptable to having 2 homes where they be both sitting at the west end of the
property facing Murray Hill. Therefore having minimum exposure to the sides or the backs
of their houses to either Sommergate or Murray Hill. Otherwise right now, the way it's laid
out, you're going to have 3 homes with their backs or sides of both facing the road. Every
home in that whole area, 5 or 6 lots in a mile or two circumference around that area, has their
homes facing the main road. There isn't a single house that has a side of their house facing
one of those roads and it just establishes the integrity of the neighborhood and the naturalness
of the neighborhood. We're now looking at the back of somebody's house or deck or an
undeveloped barren back yard. Now the other part of that I think is you can't help but tear
29 1
f
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
down a whole lot more trees with 4 houses than 2. I mean you just can't fit for the 2 and
there's some big, beautiful trees on that lot and I can't envisioned where you'd keep this
many trees as the 4 would do, so that was...
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak for the first time, and if we're clear there. Sir, if
you've got another comment you'd like to make.
Keith Boudrie: Well I just want to come up. Keith Boudrie again, 6482 Murray Hill Road.
I really only had one question earlier. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Again, I
don't think there's an objection at all by any of us to having change on that lot. It is a cute
little red farmhouse but I think we all realized coming in there that, even 10 years ago when
we built there, that someday that would probably change. The indication and what we were
told by Mr. Curt Osterman at the time, was that lot was set up with 2 stubs and would
eventually be 2 homes in the future. And apparently we relied on that explanation as opposed
to looking into it further. I think that you're hearing objections here and I think technically
we have nothing to object to. I think emotionally and I think that there certainly are more
taxpayers sitting here that are concerned about it than potentially taxpayers that are coming in
on these 4 lots. We're here because we love it here. We like it here. We've invested in the
neighborhood. The developer's coming in strictly for profit and he's coming into the area on
the basis that our homes are there. Our homes are going to help attract potential buyers that
he's looking for. I think the price range of the homes that he's building are fine. I think the
square foot of the home that he's building is fine. My major objection is the stacking.
Cluster was used. It's an obvious...to be able to get 4 homes in place of where 2 should go.
That's my objection. We've lost 5 large trees on our front yard. Maples about this big
around and we did everything possible to try to protect them and not lose them and 2 -3 years
after the home was built, the damage shows up. So I think in every effort that he makes to
save these trees, I would be willing to guess that 80% of them will probably be lost. I think
that's been the experience of the neighborhood. I think Dick Herrboldt can speak to that. I
can speak to that. Jeff can speak to that. We all made every effort possible to save the trees
and even with our efforts, we lost them. The comment was made before hand, two homes
probably fit more logically on that lot. That's all I have to say.
Scott: Okay, good. Is there anybody else who would like to speak?
Y �
Kaye Benson: I'm Kaye Benson again from 2211 Sommergate. My neighbors and people in
the neighborhood have spoken very eloquently of all the issues associated. My husband and I
live in the property that is directly adjacent to this development and I just thought I should at
least stand up in front of you and say that our feelings are certainly echoed by everybody that
has been in front of you tonight. I think in a little bit broader perspective, the next agenda
item is going to be another huge development that's just south of us. Just off of Galpin
30
f
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Boulevard and that too is going to change the whole nature of that particular area, which is
really country. So I guess if this is only 4 houses, and the next one's only 37 and then the
next one's only 37 but it all adds up and impacts people that are there and they impact our
future.
Scott: Good, thank you. We'll have one final comment from this gentlemen then we'll close
the public hearing.
Chuck Spevacek: I had a final comment and then 1 had a question. The comment I think
after you were having to hear a lot of the people in the neighborhood criticizing what's been
proposed, and in particular of the planners, I guess I want to say something positive. We do
appreciate the work that the city has done to preserve the trees. To see that the outlot that
was along Sommergate would be set off as a nature area and not be developed. I think this
shows a true sensitivity on the part of the city and it's planners to a lot of concerns of what is
there. The fact is, that doesn't change that we still think there are 2 more houses that are
going to go on this lot than there should be—central character of our neighborhood doesn't
change but I wanted to express, at least from my standpoint, our appreciation of the steps that
were taken to address some of these concerns. The last concern however wasn't addressed
and that is that 4 homes stacked 2 deep is really inconsistent. I also know that the planner
who was responsible for this isn't here today but I spoke with Sharmin on the phone about
this and I was very impressed by her dedication to her work and the effort that she put in on
this so I don't think any of us here want to let you think that we're unappreciative of the
efforts that you took. And I think that you understand, as well as we do the purpose of
something like this is for us to express areas where we still have concern and this is a very
serious area of concern. That's my comment. My question is now for the developer.
Whether there are going to be restrictive covenants on this property that will specify the
minimum square footage for the house size or is the idea of the 2,500 to 2,000 square foot
house the initial hope that would economic factors or perhaps the... Is there going to be a
square foot minimum restrictive covenant put on the property?
Jim Hoben: ...restricted in the way that I build them, yes... I
Chuck Spevacek: But if there are.
Jim Hoben: The restrictive covenants will be as required by the city and obviously even
from my part ... to the road. The maintenance and up to the road which would be... Other than
that, the individual homes can do their own watering of the grass and cutting of the grass and
all that sort of thing. In fact it's a little bit different than a townhouse development where
they don't ... and that's in, a townhouse development. This is a single family. But it's the
t
31 1
n
t
I
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
same type of concept that I'm proposing here and actually I think this is in character in my
opinion...
Chuck Spevacek: I guess my question was whether there's going to be some sort of
guarantee with the development by the developer that there be a restrictive covenant on the
property that would require homes of a minimal square footage or whether this is just a
developer's hope that if there are no takers of that size ... And I guess what I'm hearing is the
guarantee that we have now of larger homes, which obviously if I'd rather be for, I'd rather
much have them be four $300,000.00 homes on this property than three $150,000.00 homes
on this property. It's dictated by economics. If they can sell four $300,000.00 homes, then
we have our guarantee. If not, then I guess we don't know what ... Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: Well I have, I did not receive the grading plan and apparently one was not
available so that, and that's one of the things that I like to see when I'm evaluating a plat. I
feel fairly strongly that even though we're looking at somewhat of a flat parcel, I think it still
in every case it warrants knowing where the dirt is being moved so from my perspective I
feel that I haven't evaluated it entirely without that plan. Listening to the neighbors, I can
certainly understand their concerns and in general I agree that a development with this density
is not in character with the neighborhood. I think, I can't argue that point whatsoever. I
think that if this plat would go through as it's laid out with the 4 homes, or the 4 lots, I think
potentially what could be done would be to provide some more screening or buffering along
the property boundaries here to maybe isolate it somewhat and typically we see landscaping
plans with our subdivision plans. But saying that, I don't know if that would actually work
in this instance. That that can work in many times in terms of providing the buffering but
when we're talking about relatively smaller lots and relatively larger homes, there's not much
area to do the buffering and still space physical distances does become important. So I feel
that can be used as a factor to help mitigate some of the concerns as it relates to the
surrounding property owners. The proposed driveway, I guess I would agree that that makes
sense from a grading perspective and impervious surface. I don't know, I guess I'm still a
little bit concerned about the safety issue and Dave, did you mention that the Fire Marshal
has looked at this in terms of specifically from a safety perspective and in terms of getting
emergency vehicles in there?
32
t
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Mr. Chairman and commissioners standpoint Access the site to o
Hempel: p g
into that driveway with a fire truck. The other thing is that-sheriff s or paramedics or the
fire chief himself who responds to the site as well ... as far as access goes.
Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Unfortunately I didn't go out and tour the site. This does meet all the specs that the
city requires and I've been sitting up here trying to understand or trying to determine is
there's some good rationale, good logic to change it from 4 to 2. And I'm struggling with
that. I've heard what the neighbors said. I empathize with what they say. I've gone through
that many, many, many times in my neighborhood. I think the staff report is good. I think
the staff is preserving what we're trying to preserve. It's hard to fault what they presented.
The one issue though is, what I haven't done and that was to visit the site and if I thought
that this was really out of character with the neighborhood, then I think I'd have a reason to
change the density. At this point I don't because I haven't been there. So if this gets tabled,
I will make a point of going out there. But at this point in time, not looking at the site,
knowing the area however. I'm not unfamiliar with the area. I just haven't looked at this, I
think the plat as presented is acceptable.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ladd a question?
Scott: Sure. I
Mancino: I think you raise a very good point and should we table and go out and look at it.
But my question is, I mean I hate to see it. However, this is going to come up again in that
neighborhood. It may come up in other people who own larger lots. Acre, 2 acres or 3
acres. I don't have an answer to this. I'd like to say to the neighbors, be mindful of who
else is selling and go and get your money together and buy the lots and keep it that way. But
it will keep coming up and I think it probably will in this neighborhood. We've seen it for
the last, I mean even thought of us who lived in a neighborhood when Sommergate came up.
That was a big deal.
Conrad: Major deal.
Mancino: A major deal so, and it will keep coming up.
Conrad: And everybody that's here tonight has that opportunity to subdivide their lots. If
they're bigger, they can do that. When we've gone out to ask the public for input on lot size
33
t
s
1
I
1
w
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
and we've tried to zone larger, we've never had enough public support to zone larger. We've
tried to do that. So it's not that we haven't looked at those issues. We haven't seen a
demand of people beating the development to the pass, so to speak. Where you come in and
say our area, we want a different zoning. You haven't done that so on the one hand we've
looked at zoning. We've paid attention. We've suggested some 40,000 square foot zoning
blocks but I don't think the public's ever come in and said yeah, we endorse that. What we
have today is 15,000, which is still decent. This is 20,000 which is 30% more than decent
and it's always an issue. It's always an issue when it's in your neighborhood and you're
looking at it. I don't particularly care for smaller lots but that's really a very practical thing
and every one of you has that opportunity and unfortunately you say no, I won't do it but we,
those of us who have been around for a while, the people who said no, we won't do it. They
come back. They want that right to do it so. Hard to restrict development. But in this case
it's hard for me to hook onto something. I think what we try to do is preserve what we've
got. Can't preserve density very much, other than using our standards that we have but we
can preserve the natural surroundings. We can preserve some of the slopes. This one doesn't
have any. We do have ordinances in place to preserve the natural assets of Chanhassen. I'm
real comfortable with that. I think the staff has prepared a report that looks like we're
preserving. Tree coverage of about 6,000 square feet of trees or canopy coverage is taken out
but I think some of that is put back in. It's a better proposal than a lot of things that we've
seen. That doesn't satisfy you but there's some good elements in it and partly that's because
staff I think has done a pretty good job on this one. That still doesn't say that I agree with
the 4 however. I haven't seen the site. I haven't seen how it fits into the neighborhood and
that's the only key thing that I think the neighbors have said to me that I guess I just need to
take a look at. Now if everybody else has taken a look at the site and feels comfortable that
it's out of character, then I think we have something to hang our hat on and to change
density. However boy what, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Ledvina: Can you say it's out of character and say oh, then there should be 3 lots? I mean
is that a basis for...
Conrad: In my mind it is. In my mind we're trying to fit things into a neighborhood and not
destroy, the people who live there really, I think we cater to as much as we can. They are
there. We want this to fit in their surroundings as much as we can. I think we have that
control. But there's a lot of definitional things. What fits? You put a 20,000 next to a
30,000 square foot, does that fit? Or is it 20 to 40? So defuiitionally it's just real tough.
And usually when you look at it you can really tell what fits. I think we're going to have
another, well we'll have some other exercises in what fits tonight after this warm -up. So
anyway.
Scott: So your thought is to.
34
f
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
Conrad: I don't know. I'm interested in what everybody else. If you've seen the site, I
think you should respond to what the neighbors are saying. Doesn't fit. Out of character.
But I don't think you can use square footage as the factor here. It's does it really, has it
changed the neighborhood. Has it changed the character? Not square footage wise but in
what that neighborhood is now. Is it changing? You've got to tell me. r
Scott: Okay. Diane, tell Ladd.
Harberts: I would certainly support a recommendation to table it. And my feeling is one, I
guess the other commissioners noted they didn't feel that they've had a complete package and
it certainly is our responsibility and our task to look at the package completely and then pass
it up to the Council. If we pass it up without doing our job. Well if we pass it up to the
Council in this form, I don't believe we are doing our job. Second, I would be interested in
looking at where the proposed house pad locations would be. Also with regard to the, I
don't know where the potential drawings are for the particular homes that would be available i
for this site. Just to publically share then what type of houses are being considered for this.
So if that's available, I'd certainly like to see that in terms of the sketches or whatever. I'm
still uncomfortable, from a safety perspective, with the private driveway. I certainly support
the ordinance. The intent in terms of saving or hearing the integrity of the vegetation and
things like that around there so I can support, I'll support the public driveway in that sense.
One question Dave. Is there a stop sign? When you have a public driveway, can you put in
traffic control signs like that on that type of location? Is that to be determined?
Hempel: It's really no different than a single driveway access I guess. Some certain ... we
have added stop signs.
Harberts: So it can be added?
Hempel: They can be added. I
Harberts: Traffic control or safety things can be added. Well and I guess if this gets tabled,
see again going back to design. Are we talking 3 car garages? Are we talking 4 car garages?
I mean what's the average, I'm a single person at my house and I have 2 vehicles. That's
what I'm saying.
Scott: $100,000.00 a garage. T
Harberts: Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. I guess I'd like to see what we're dealing with
and with regards to that private driveway, and should we extend the concern or the covenants
or the restrictions or whatever within the city that they have for private driveway agreements
35
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
that erha s we restrict to some or no parking of an vehicles on that driveway simply
P P P g Y Y PY
because of the limitation and size. Because I'm guessing, because of the limitation in size,
that any parking that's going to be on the vegetation and isn't that what we're trying to be
considerate of? So I guess if this is tabled, I'd like to extend a potential restriction or
whatever. A condition of the agreement that there is no parking on there unless it's public
safety or the city vehicles or whatever purposes. I don't know if we can do that but again
also with regard to traffic or public safety signs or whatever is needed. I'm not too familiar
with the amount of traffic on Murray Hill Road so that's where I raise the concern about stop
signs. And is it going to, depending on how dense it is, with the turning traffic, from what
I'm hearing from the residents and from what I've seen it is a narrow road, are we causing a
lot of traffic problems perhaps with turning in and out? I don't know that. So again that's
part of my justification to table this until I get a little bit more information on that. Is that
clear Dave?
I Mancino: Want me to go ahead?
Scott: I was just waiting. Are you finished ma'am?
Harberts: Oh yeah.
Mancino: Okay, a few points that I'd like to make. First of all I think that staff has done,
Sharmin has done a very good job of looking at the site. Of asking for a 40 foot
conservation easement on the northern side of the property. It is the whole north boundary
line of Lot 1 and 2 and I hope that the neighbors know that. That that steep slope that goes
into Sommergate will all be kept natural. That that means that nothing can be taken out of it.
Now there is Bob, in the conditions, it does say under condition 2 that all healthy trees over 6
inch caliper, 4 feet height shall not be permitted to be removed. I would like that line taken
out and just no removal of any vegetation so that some of our second and third generation
saplings can grow and mature and become healthy big trees. So that we're looking ahead to
the future. But Sharmin isn't here tonight but I would say that, and she also worked with the
applicant on another conservation easement bordering the Lot 2 and Lot 1, 55 feet to preserve
that area too. And I would say that I have a little different view than some of the other
commissioners about the private drive, and I think the private drive is also used to, and has
been stated to preserve as much of the environment as possible. That there won't be any
driveways coming up to Sommergate that will go and will obliterate and damage that steep
slope. That you will have the visual screening there and it will be there all year round. Now
one of the things that we may want to add is year round coniferous trees to that screening
from Sommergate. But I think that her efforts, keeping it somewhat narrow. The 30 foot
right -of -way and having 4 houses come off of it, was a very good plan. And I think it will
keep the integrity of the neighborhood much, much better. I do have the same concerns Ladd
36
t
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 1
does about how compatible it is for the rest of the neighborhood. I would favor tabling it so
that everyone gets out there and looks at it and comes back and talks about it next time. And
I also favor tabling it because I really, as I said earlier, would like to receive completed
packages and that is with grading, with house pads so I can see exactly which trees will be
removed and which ones won't. So I would like to see it again and take into account all of
what the neighbors have said.
Scott: Good, Ron.
Nutting: I can keep my comments brief because I think most everything has been covered. I
guess to get to the issue of density, I need to understand where the house pads are going to
be. How things are situated and then to look and say, okay here's what it's going to be here.
Dealing with the issues of being compatible with the surrounding development. I haven't
been around here that long but I do know that we have given that issue serious consideration
with other developments here and for me it's a struggle. You've got the density of the
residents who spoke here tonight and then you've got the 2.1 per acre to the west and where
do you bridge the gap when those developments come together. And does that mean that one
wins and one loses or is there some compromise to bring it together so it flows a little bit
better. There's no way for everybody to be a winner on the density issue. Someone has to
give somewhat but I am hearing positive comments to the, if the development does fall in the
$300,000.00 plus area, that that in and of itself is not so much the concern. It's just the
number of units per acre and how that visually impacts the amenities of the area. So I'd like
to see it back with the details that Nancy spoke of and Matt spoke of and then assuming we
get our package next Thursday, or Thursday -Friday before the next meeting, have a chance to
then go out and lay out the map and say okay, here's how it's going to be so I would move
to table and go forward on that.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
!
Farmakes: I don't have much to add. You can table this but it's still going to be 1.8 acres.
It's still going to be a square. And it's still going to be smack dab in the middle of a bunch
of large lots. There is no solution for this. As Ladd said, earlier in the 80's Chanhassen
toyed with the issue of having a second single family zone for large lots. I think it was 2
acres or higher or something like that is what they were throwing around. There are
pressures on the opposite end of this, and I don't know if our citizenry knows that because
they have large lots and they're not perhaps watching as closely but there are a lot of
pressures on municipalities to reduce the size of lots, both from the funds that they get from
the Met Council, from County and the State, which pays for your utilities and so on. Their
pressures are to make as many people as possible fit in the least amount of land as possible
because these things are such enormously expensive. And developers come in here constantly
37
i
i Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
and say that 15,000 square feet is ... developers come by and buy small acreage that may crop
up in the middle but also some of your neighbors may sell the property. I think the average
piece of property in Minnesota is owned 7 years. So what may happen is that your neighbor
may sell and the person who comes by to purchase that property, if you don't, may finance
that property by looking at subdividing it. And over a period of time, that's going to happen.
You don't see a lot of 5 acre lots in Edina and that area developed after World War II. You
don't see a lot of big lots even in Eden Prairie anymore. There's a reason for that. Because
eventually they get divided up to the minimum requirement and I'd like to see the hobby
farms, because I'd like to see those open spaces. I've lived in Chanhassen a long time and
I'd like to see that kept but the only way that's ever going to happen is for the city to look at
a larger lot, and as Ladd said, there's been very little support for that. In fact there's been a
considerable amount of support in the opposite direction to not only allow I think developers
who would like to see always the maximum allowed of housing on a piece of property as
possible, but also there's a move afoot now to lower the price of housing. To have cheaper
housing in Chanhassen. And land and the cost of housing are, you can't separate it. So
especially in Chanhassen. The price of our housing's going up and the comments that you
asked, we can't sit here and ask the developer what's the price of the house. That's not legal.
That's not something that we should be doing. We can't say well, there's a $300,000.00
house here and therefore we're going to legislate that you're going to have to have an
equivalent cost house next to it. We deal with minimums. Whether that's fair or not that's,
the ordinances deal with the minimum requirement. And then it's up to the developer and the
economics of the marketplace to decide what's going to go in there. And I don't know if
that's going to be solvable by making that 3 houses on a square lot. I'm not sure that that's
going to solve anything other than to say making a compromise. I would like to see 2 houses
on there but I have nothing to grab onto and say that that's what it should be. Again, if it
was a larger scaled development I could say, well let's see more of a buffer here like we
have in some other developments. But it's so small that it's difficult to hang your hat on
these days. As to the driveway, 20 feet isn't that much. Are we putting parking restrictions
on that driveway at all? Are we going to get parking on both sides of the road if there's a
party or construction?
Hempel: I believe the ordinance does cover parking lots and...
■ Farmakes: Okay. The developments that I've seen like this, the square I'm thinking of is the
one on Lake Lucy Road and CR 17. I don't, there are 4 houses and there's a driveway
splitting it in the middle and you see delivery trucks or something and it blocks the whole
road going in there. Whether that's temporary or not, it doesn't look very nice. These are
somewhat bigger lots but the road's about the same size. So as I said before, I don't know if
there's a solution to this is going to solve the problems for the neighborhood but I empathize
with the fact that if I had a 4 acre hobby farm, I wouldn't want to see ... city density in the
middle of our hobby farm area. And I'm not opposed to the city to look at trying to maintain
1
38
t
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
s
that. It seems to me that some of that may be spitting in the fact of the other direction that
it's going but on the other hand, looking at the comprehensive plans, that does maintain
somewhat the character the people profess here that they want to see so I'll leave it at that.
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that we table Case #94 -15, which is the Hobens Wild Wood Farms
1 st Addition. A; .,
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the development. Is there any discussion?
Mancino: No, the only comment I was going to make was, I don't know if there was a
neighborhood meeting with the neighborhood and the applicant. That might be a good idea
too between now and then.
Scott: Another comment too is that if there's one of the neighbors could identify themselves
so that when the next package that the Planning Commissioners get be sent to one of you
folks. You can just speak with Bob Generous and get the address and then you'll have it the
same time we have it and then we can run the process at the same time.
Resident: When is the next meeting?
Scott: It will be I think the 2nd of November.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -15, Hobens Wild Woods Farms 1st Addition. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: The motion is tabled and the reasons behind it has to do with needing more
information. Grading, drainage and also tree inventory and house pads and so forth. Thank
you all for coming. Landscaping. And one of the things that I wanted to mention just briefly
is that before a development gets to the point of public hearing, there's a tremendous amount
of work that goes on so the form in which a development comes to the city sometimes does
not resemble what it is at this point in time and sometimes it does not even resemble what
our friends at the City Council will see. The final decisions are not made here. We make the
recommendation to the City Council so please follow, continue to follow your issue and I
have a feeling you will. Thank you all for coming.
39
October 15, 1994
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
CI TY OF CHANH/ ' WE IN!
r
Re: Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1 st Addition
6330 Murray Hill Road
To Planning Commission Members:
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting scheduled on 10/19/94 to review
the proposed development referred to as Hobens Wild Wood Farms 1 st Addition. I would
like you to review this letter in lieu of my testimony at the meeting as I have genuine
concerns about the project.
It is also my understanding that the Developer has an option to purchase another piece of
property at 6398 Murray Hill Road (one address south of 6330 Murray Hill Road and
directly north of my property) that is subject to his success at getting approval for the
6330 project.
The biggest single issue is that the proposed development is completely inconsistent with
the density configuration on Murray Hill Road. It is replacing one house on the lot with
four. If you extrapolate that proposal to the other "Optioned" property (6398 Murray Hill
Road) the equivalent proposal would replace one house with five or six homes. That
would mean within less than 500 feet you would be putting in 9 or 10 homes were 2
currently exist.
The result of approving this project as it is currently proposed would result in the
following problems:
1. A substantial increase in auto traffic. Approximately 4 cars will be replaced by 20.
2. Increased risk to the children in the neighborhood.
3. Loss of a substantial number of mature trees and other foliage.
4. The irony would be that after living through all the mess, noise and nuisance of the
construction process the result to the current neighbors would be a decline in
property values (particularly Pleasant Hill) and a markedly less attractive
neighborhood than currently exists.
I recognize that both properties are large enough to support more than one home and still
maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. I would not oppose a reasonable proposal,
consistent with the neighborhood ( i.e. 2 homes on the 6330 property and 3 home on the
6398 property). The currently proposed development would detract significantly from the
area, be unsafe and Unfair to those who currently own property in the neighborhood.
f
I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read this letter and to take my concerns into —'
account when you review this project. I am very disappointed that I could not change a
long standing commitment inoder to be at the meeting. If it were possible I definitely
would be at the meeting.
Thank you for your sensitivity to my concerns.
Sincerely, ,
i ert H. Kreidberg
6444 Murray Hill Road
474 -9129
t
r
t
L
I assume that as a matter of standard operating procedure, either the Planning Commission
or the City Council, prepare a credit review of any developer who proposes a project in
the City of Chanhassen. If by chance you do not do so, it would be prudent to incorporate
a financial check into the process. I have concerns generated by the nature of how Hoben
Corporation is trying to acquire these two properties. All they have are options to
purchase to both pieces of property and consequently limited financial exposure if you
reject the proposed development. It seems obvious that the only way Hoben Corporation
can afford to pay the current property owners their asking price is if a project is approved
that is completely inconsistent to the neighborhood. I have learned over the years that
when there is little or no monetary risk to the beneficiary of a project (as is the case here)
it usually merits very close investigation.
lit
I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read this letter and to take my concerns into —'
account when you review this project. I am very disappointed that I could not change a
long standing commitment inoder to be at the meeting. If it were possible I definitely
would be at the meeting.
Thank you for your sensitivity to my concerns.
Sincerely, ,
i ert H. Kreidberg
6444 Murray Hill Road
474 -9129
t
r
t
L
l�
1
r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, OCTOBER 19, 1994
at 7:30 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Hobens Wild Wood Farms
1 st Addition
Developer: Hoben Corporation
Location: 6330 Murray Hill Road
8
cr-
0
N
Notice You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat of 1.87 acres into 4 single family lots on
property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located at 6330 Murray Hill Road, Hobens
Wild Wood Farms 1st Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext. 120. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance
of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 1994. 0
1
it
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order and then asked each of the Planning
Commissioners to introduce themselves and their backgrounds and why they chose to serve
on the Planning Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Jeff
Farmakes. Diane Harberts arrived after item 1.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting I
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Bob Generous, Planner II I
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6330 MURRAY
HILL ROAD, HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN
CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chuck Spevacek 6474 Murray Hill Road
Keith J. Boudrie 6482 Murray Hill Road
Gilbert Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Paul Burkholder 6370 Murray Hill Road
Peter Staudohar 2204 Sommergate
Kaye Benson 2211 Sommergate
Sharmin Al -,Taff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments from Commissioners?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Just to clarify what you said regarding condition 15. Are you
suggesting that we make changes to that or that is it?
Al -Jaff: The change I've...
Ledvina: Alright, thank you.
n
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Scott: Yes, I was going to ask for Mr. Hoben to make some comments. Do you have any
questions for staff?
Mancino: No.
Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Is Mr.
Hoben here? Oh, sir.
Jim Hoben: Good evening. I am Jim Hoben and am reappearing. After listening to the
concerns of the people at the last meeting I spent the next morning driving around, back and
forth, up and down in order to do myself a favor as well as them. I decided to go with 3 lots
on this particular parcel of ground, as was just explained by Sharmin so that the two
entrances would be directly off of Murray Hill Road and the other off of Sommergate. I
think we ... next to the house that's already on the Sommergate. Lot sizes are more than ample.
I've got a color rendering to give some indication of how they tend to sit on that property.
The one that's marked out here in orange is the house that I intend to specifically put on that
corner. There's always I know concern, not only about the number of units but all these
things and I know from staff and everybody else and having been in there for 6 years myself
along with... On the other hand, if we're going to come into it and again, one of the reasons I
wanted this specific parcel now was because of the trees and the ambience and the whole
atmosphere which I thought was a very nice piece of property... And so we are going to
maintain all the trees as possible on there. We will have to have a few clearing spots in order
to set a house down but other than that I think I discussed this with Mr. Hempel and also
with Sharmin and I don't think that we have any problem between ourselves as to how we're
going to set those houses on there. ...the engineers have shown a 60 x 60 box and long
driveway and that's kind of where they go but not exactly. This is a little bit more specific
and the one large lot is 256 feet deep I think or something like that by 125 feet wide. The
actual house, because again Sharmin ... it's going to be somewhat forward than that. Actually
almost where the property line separates Lots 1 and 2, which is you go forward of that up in
here. The house will sit more or less in the middle of the lot. And in doing that ... and other
than that I think it lays out quite well. As a matter of fact, doing that, making this change
and again this was ... a favor. I think these homes, what I'm going to put on there will be
worth a little bit more money than what I had planned to be on it before. If there are any
specific questions which you wish to ask me, I'll be very happy to answer them.
Scott: Good, questions.
Mancino: Yes, I just have one and that is, I just wanted to make sure that I'm clear in the
staff report Mr. Hoben on condition number 7. It says that on the big lot, on Lot 3, and you
J ust stated this but I just wanted to make very clear that it specifically says that you will not
2
t
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
take down the two black walnut trees, and I just wanted to make sure that that was okay with
you.
Jim Hoben: Yes. It's fine with me. I have to work out the grading.
Mancino: Because there won't be any flexibility. I
Jim Hoben: ...all kinds of things to work with, yeah I want to keep the walnut trees. We
have to work out the grading. As we come up, this is a slight incline we come up to this
10% grade. I think what I worked out the other day, I was at 10.3% or something like that.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you sir. This is old business and we
gathered quite a bit of citizen comment last time and I guess what I'd like to do now is to get
comments from commissioners regarding which way we should go on this item. So Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing to comment on. I think it's a good proposal. I think it's more sensitive
than the last one we looked at and I don't have any further comments.
Scott: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: Is this is a public hearing?
Scott: No.
Ledvina: Okay. Well I just would like to say that I think the developer has been sensitive to
the wishes of the residents and he noted some deficiencies in terms of what we wanted to see
in the last report such as the grading plan and we do have that in front of us and I'm fairly
comfortable with that. I guess I would support the staff recommendations on this proposal.
Scott: Nancy. I
Mancino: I also support the staff recommendation and I do applaud the applicant for making
the changes and listening to neighbors and Planning Commission and staff so I do support it.
Scott: Good. Jeff.
Farmakes: I have nothing more to add to the comments that have already been made ... if there
are any individuals here from that development, the surrounding properties on that
development, some of the comments from reading the notes from the last meeting that I did
make is that there are large lots throughout Chanhassen, particularly in the south. People that
i
i Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
want to keep these hobby farms. If you're interested in doing that, the process here is not to
wait for development to come into these large lots. If you're interested in doing that, you
need to talk to the elected officials of the city to look at perhaps a secondary single family
zone for larger lots to preserve them. There simply is no other mechanism in place to
preserve those lots. If your neighbor chooses to subdivide and it's within the minimum single
family zone, and he's got these 15,000 square, they can do that. This is a problem that's
going to keep on reoccurring. This is a small lot surrounded by a lot of large ones. This isn't
going to go away. This one I think was solvable because of the developer and size of the
overall development but I'm not sure that the intent to try and preserve those large lots of
homes, I'm not sure we have a mechanism in place to do that.
Scott: Good, thank you. I'd like to thank the developer for working with us. Just for those
of you who didn't follow this particular issue. The first revision of this plan that we saw on
this particular property already exceeded our minimum requirements and a number of
neighbors voiced their concern relative to how this particular development with 4 lots was not
in character with what they thought the neighborhood was when they moved in and Mr.
Hoben was under no obligation to change his development so this is a classic example of
what we like to see and what I like to see personally as a commissioner where a developer
pays very close attention to what the neighbors think. Makes some modifications purely on
his own and thank you very much. May I have a motion please?
Conrad: I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision 494 -15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3
single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the conditions in
the staff report with the modification handed us to item number 15 tonight.
I Scott: Good, can I have a second please?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff recommendations. Is there any
discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94 -15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3
single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the following
conditions:
4
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 1
4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial
guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of
trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot
2, Block 1.
7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree
protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any
construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until
the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1
shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree.
An exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree
protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree
5
t
s
t
1. 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 Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
2. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan
on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their
size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit
pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees
over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a
plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall
provide the legal description.
3. Building Department condition that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits for
any buildings to be removed before their removal.
4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial
guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of
trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot
2, Block 1.
7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree
protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any
construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until
the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1
shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree.
An exception to this placement shall be to the north of the tree where the tree
protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree
5
t
s
t
i
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3 and 4,
Block 1.
9. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the
final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents.
e
1
10. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies for demolition of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines
for Lots 1 and 2.
H. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right -of -way or
utility and drainage easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall
enter into an encroachment agreement.
12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
13. Lot 3 will be charged a hook -up charge in the amount of $2,425.00 at the time of
building permit issuance.
14. The applicant and /or contractor shall receive the necessary construction in right -of -way
permit from the city and provide a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for
extension of utility service to Lot 3.
15. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on
Murray Hill. The driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the
street. Driveway access to Lot 1 shall be from Sommergate. The use of retaining
walls shall be employed to minimize grading.
16. The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount
of $3,879.00 in lieu of on -site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the
city signing the final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carved.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
.:1
�I