1d. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 7, 1994CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Ron
Nutting
MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Jeff Farmakes
' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
' (Nancy Mancino removed herself from the Planning Commission for the first two items on
the agenda due to conflict of interest.)
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
' AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
' Name Address
David Struyk 1941 Crestview Circle
David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd.
Martin Gustafson 6691 Galpin Blvd.
' Lynn Rothberger 6681 Galpin Blvd.
Chuck Plowe 2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
Frank Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior
' Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Charles R. Stinson Architect, Minnetonka
Clarke Nickolson 2051 Crestview Drive
Eric M. Rivkin 1695 Steller Court
Mark Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road
Peter A. Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd.
Debbi & Neal Wunderlick 7011 Galpin Blvd.
Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
• f Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Scott: Questions for staff.
Ledvina: Bob, what led you to change your opinion as it related to the Lake Lucy alignment?
What now makes this an acceptable proposal in terms of the alignment?
Generous: It's the best we can get. Since they're not willing to go along with, the preferred
development pattern would be to outlot that property but you cannot force them to do that
' provided they provide us with a feasible alternative. This way they at least leave in some of
the topography whereas if they go in and have the southern alignment, they're going to ... so
they can put their housing pads in and then we'll either have large retaining walls on that side
' or a steep slope there.
Aanenson: If I could just expand upon that. The intent was always to preserve the natural
' topography as much as possible and our first choice would be to ... property to the north. ...so
this way we felt, at least we're getting preservation of that area by swinging the road to the
south. Whatever you need to maintain the 3:1 slopes, that would give you the preservation
area along the northern boundary...So if they would be willing to wait until that did change,
that would be the best way to do that but we can't force the issue.
' Generous: And we couldn't persuade them.
Ledvina: Okay, thank you.
Scott: I'm just taking a look at some of the preliminary grading plan and my big concern is
we just had sent on a bluff protection ordinance and from visiting the site and from viewing
this, it appears to me that there are some steep grades that fall within our bluff ordinance here
and that's, I didn't go out and measure them but I'm going to need somebody to tell me that
they have been measured and they don't, the bluff ordinance does not apply to the northerly
' section of this property.
Generous: I did a cursory review. I did not measure all of it and at least the places where
I ... it didn't meet the ... It has the elevation change but not the slopes.
' Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Would the applicant or their representative wish to
make some comments? If yes, please identify yourself and give us your name and your
address.
Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and I'm the owner- developer of the property. And my wife
Mary. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. I had an accident on my property which I'm
' recovering from now and that's why I missed the last meeting so I apologize for that. Mary
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 '•
history of that feasibility study. I'm sure Bill did a fine job but he did not have a '
'
and I have taken
great care in developing our property. I mean we've been in Chanhassen for
many years. We
appreciate our property very much. And in working with staff and
suggestions fro
our neighbors, during this whole process we've been focusing on a number '
of issues when
we put our plans together, which have been revised many times. Tree
preservation has
from the original
always been a concern of our's, especially up along the north line. We have,
proposal that we had a few weeks ago, we have dropped the road significant '
to the south to accommodate
those grades and the sloping of the road. We've also in our
proposal have tried
natural wetland
to preserve the wetlands to the south. That whole wetland in there is a
and by having the road to the north we don't do any disturbing of that
roadway during
the building process or the grading process so we felt that was important.
We have large 1
t sizes and we tried to preserve the rolling topography of our property. It's
a beautiful piece.
Mr. Chair, I think you've seen it. It's very pretty, rolling type farm
,
acreage. It has
significant trees to the north and it has trees, significant concentration of trees
in front of our I
roperty which we have preserved. We've also tried to take into account how
Lake Lucy curr
'
nt is. This is going to be an extension of Lake Lucy and if you drive Lake
Lucy from Pow
rs to Galpin, you'll notice how that road curves and winds sort of gently and
it rolls with the
topography. It's not flat It's not straight. That kind of roadway would be I '
think a disturbance
to the neighborhood so I think this plan accommodates that. As the staff
has outlined, they
would recommend approval of our plat, which would include the northern
alignment if we
would agree to all their recommendations. Chuck, our engineer, will be ,
addressing so m
of those issues after I speak and we have met those or in the process of
meeting all of t
iose conditions. Still though we find that there is I think some general
confusion regarding
this whole city original feasibility study. And I think through the process
that we've gont
through, we feel that the original feasibility study that was addressed, it takes ,
on a different light.
The study was prepared by Bill Engelhardt, as you know, and he's an
independent consultant.
An engineer that was asked to design a roadway from TH 41 to the '
touchdown spot
where Lake Lucy is now. That's what he was asked to do. Now Bill was
not charged with
developing a developable plan for the western property or for our property.
He wasn't asked
to do that. He was asked to find a way to connect these two. And he did ,
so, and he did 4L
fine job. However, as the western plat developed, this alignment changed
and the reason it
changed is because ownership changed with that western section. And so
the road had to
be configured. Had to be changed. There were some modifications there. '
The original feasibility
study was reviewed by the City Council on June 13th. And at that
meeting the sol
northern alignment.
southern alignment proposed for the property was changed to include the
This was called the supplemental feasibility study. That's what was ,
approved by the
City Council. At the Council meeting the city approved the study. Not the
original feasibility
study which showed a northern route and a southern route. And it
outlotted the a
stern section of the western development so that, in their words, this will give
maximum flexibility
to the Ryans when 'their property would come to be platted. This is the
history of that feasibility study. I'm sure Bill did a fine job but he did not have a '
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
development in mind. He couldn't have. And we have. And with that development we've
taken input from staff and our neighbors and other input to try to accommodate and make it a
pleaseable plat and a nice development. Chuck, our engineer will share with you why the
northern alignment is preferred. We feel it's preferred. And let me turn the podium over to
' him.
Scott: Okay, thank you.
Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, fellow members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Plowe and
I'm the project engineer for Shamrock here representing Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Do you want
this just out front?
Scott: I think you put that right in front of the podium or over to the side.
Chuck Plowe: Allow me to hand out something that I jotted down in writing in regards to
the reasons for the alignment that we prefer. Anyone else that wants copies, you're welcome
' to grab one. I think most of this has been covered in some fashion or another in this report
but let me just reiterate a little bit, and basically I've put down something in writing that I
believe I've stated ... That southerly alignment we feel is not the appropriate location for the
following reasons... Filling of the wetland will occur. The trees along the north, on the north
property line will not be preserved. The final lot configuration, as you see these red lines on
this particular plan here, which show Lake Lucy Road to the south, is less pleasing for the
residential development within the community of Chanhassen. The residents would not enjoy
the view of their backyards abutting the ... wetlands, and I think that's important. For the
community I think it's important. The proposed northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road,
which is underlined here, will preserve the trees along the north and also will not impact the
wetland in any way. And we've met all the staff conditions for their approval of the
' northerly route with the exception of a couple things Bob has mentioned that we need to look
at a couple items as he has indicated tonight. But let me further go into this item with Lake
Lucy Road to the south. I've drawn a line, you can see here. I call it Section DD. What
I've done is along that line I'm showing on another drawing the existing ground line and the
final ground line after development with the elevation of Lake Lucy Road being
approximately like what staff had indicated in their report that it would be if it were along the
' southerly route. Existing ground line is the blue line. And proposed ground line is the, I call
it the orange line. The bottom of the hill, being wetland area down here. Top of the hill
being the treed area up here. Generally what happens here is we do encroach into the
wetland with the roadway. But to construct a roadway with Lake Lucy Road being there,
there's definitely going to be some fill into the wetland. In fact I shorten the boulevard up to
10 feet and there's still fill into the wetland. With 3:1 slope, which is... At the other end
where we come up the hill with the lots, I've tried to show you, again to kind of give you a
1
Planning
physical feel f
be about here
of the house p
into the trees
haven't really
So this is, I'm
about it, how i
ion Meeting - September 7, 1994
where things are. This is the center of the cul -de -sac street. The curb would
i then the right -of -way, front yard lot line and then the approximate location
And then the back yard with the 3:1 slope. As you can see, it extends up
I it probably would be much worse than what I've even shown because I
yen that ... back yards at all. It just immediately starts going up to the trees.
ying to demonstrate to you in a more physical view, other than us just talking
> fits.
Scott: Can I as you a question? On the, you see where the tree line is. And the existing, it
appears to me that you're planning on grading into the trees on the north side of the property.
Is that, or am I reading that incorrectly?
Chuck Plowe:
Scott: Yeah.
Chuck Plowe: at would be correct. In order to avoid that we would have to raise this
street up, fill into the wetland further. Some things would have to give someplace. Because
we're using our maximum slopes at both ' ends. This is going to probably require retaining
walls to even do this. So I'm looking at a combination of retaining walls and going into the
trees with the grading because we're probably going across the property lines into the
property, although I haven't shown the property line on here. It's approximately right there.
I guess that's about it. This is the tree line that I'm trying to show you there. The property
line's not going to...and it continues to rise. Any more questions on this?
Scott: No.
Chuck Plowe:
just before the
better with the
curved a little
flexibility to d
together but w
where we can
through the cu
lines and prop
able to extend
actually from 1
pretty nice lot
don't impact U
Ibis is the northerly alignment which is the plan that I changed or resubmitted
ast week. And we did do some curvature of the street to try and align it
uture road that would connect it down here. As Bob indicated, it needs to be
lore than what we've shown it and I've discussed it with Dave. There is
that. We didn't do a detailed study of exactly how everything hooked
did start curving it where before it was straight. This lot is large enough
o this. When I compare it to the one we just looked at, I've drawn a line
de -sac again. Generally falling the same location. Showing existing ground
;ed. Again the wetland is at the bottom of the hill. Trees up here. We are
. cul -de -sac here. Lake Lucy Road up on the hill. We are able to maintain
.e curb ... to where we begin our 3:1 slope, we're 110 feet so we do have a
nd we do not encroach into the wetland with the bottom of the slope. We
wetland with any fill. And again on this end we're not encroaching into the
5
r�
n
.1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
trees as well. Now as Bob indicated, there was a problem with this that didn't quite fit. As I
understand you were saying there was still some problems here. Can I ask what those are? I
guess what maybe you're getting at was that the boulevard wasn't the full 20 feet or 21 feet
here. Okay. And that's true. I have about a 12 foot boulevard which allows ... a trail if it
has to be on that side. But this street will meet State Aid standards. I did discuss with Dave
the possibility of having the trail on the other side and that was a possibility and I think it
would, appropriate decisions do that because when we're dealing with this kind of terrain and
this kind of design, why not put it where there's less resistance. Why not go with the flow
but in trying to put it up here would certainly be more difficult than putting it on the other
side. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when we compared the two, the north to the
south, this is the environmentally favorable plan. I guess I can say it all I want but I was
hoping I could show you. I don't know whether there's any real need to go into the items
that Bob mentioned but we do have two pipes discharging into this pond here as we indicated
and staff, we can combine those into one discharge pipe. That's not a problem. A 4 :1 slope
getting from the cul -de -sac down to the access there, would simply be a matter of adjusting a
couple ... here so there's plenty of lining up from top to bottom to achieve a 4:1 slope and
that's not a problem either. We've had, as you can see, gone along with a private drive in
lieu of the lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that ...and the lots are not going to be
impacted doing it that way. As a matter of fact, Lot 14 is better than it was before as far as
the grading's concerned. We eliminated some retaining walls which were difficult to fit a
pad on that lot ..because it was a driveway coming off of Lake Lucy Road in the back
yard ... and difficult to work with. We've now eliminated the retaining wall so it's much better
in that respect so Lot 14 actually became a more viable lot. That was my comments unless
someone else had a question.
Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chair. Under staff recommendations related to eliminating
driveways onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess how were we going to do that for Lots 4, 5 and 6
that you relabeled on, what block is that? Oh, just that area that you were talking about.
Where does the private drive come from?
Chuck Plowe: We are now extending, rather than having a cul -de -sac in here, we've been
asked to extend the street for the future extension to the north. So we've done that and that
actually made it a little easier for us to do what staff is asking us to look at. And so what we
are proposing is to weave the driveway through the 130 feet of lots. Whatever that is.
Ledvina: Oh, that didn't show up very well on my plan.
Chuck Plowe: It is hard to see.
2
I.
Planning CommIission Meeting - September 7, 1994 i•
Ledvina: Yes.
1
Chuck Plowe:
i
That, in most cases, is not fixed by any means. It would be ... minimum
amount of trees ...
That's what would happen there. This is only a concept.
Ledvina: But that
represents about the only alternative for accessing those 3 lots then, is that ,
right?
Chuck Plowe: In
lieu of going onto Lake Lucy Road. That was felt that that was a better '
option...
Scott: Good. Any
other questions or comments? Excuse me sir, are you a member of the r
applicant team?
Frank Kelly: Y
s. Good evening. My name is Frank Kelly. I'm the attorney for the ,
developer. Firs
of all I wish to thank the members of your planning staff for working with
us in trying to find
solutions for the problems with this development. This is very complex
and there's m
f
'
problems connected with it and we appreciate the efforts that they have
the and
given us. We
el that we are ready to accept, and will accept all suggestions
recommendatior
s as set out by the Planning Department as shown on page 4 as well as the '
additional ones
hat were called to our attention, at our last meeting. And by accepting those
recommendations,
the planner indicates that ... conditions would make the applicant's proposal
acceptable. Nov
we're not asking for any variances or changes or special privileges in
platting the property
... of the city ordinance and in so doing, the plat, as far as the planner is
concerned, woui
d be acceptable to the plat. And if there are any required changes which the
Planning Depar
ment deems necessary during the course of development of the plat, we ,
certainly will
working with them ... to meet those and will meet those, whatever...
However, we do
ask that you consider this plat and make your recommendation on the plat to
the Council fav�
rably. There's nothing more that we can do than meet the requirements as '
recommended by
the Planning Department, and we have done that. We only ask that you
approve it subject
to those recommendations. Without any reservation whatsoever. Thank
'
you very much
Scott: Thank
ou. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? This is a
public hearing.
Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved,
Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
'
The public hearing was opened.
1
•' Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Scott: Can I see a show of hands for eo le wh
p p o have come to speak at this particular public
hearing? Okay, great. Step up. Identify yourself. Name and address and we'd like to hear
your comments.
' Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We are the neighbors immediately to the
north. I'd like to make a couple of comments... whichever way the plan is finally
recommended. The first point has to do with the fact that with the grading here there are
' only a very few number of trees being preserved the way it's presently situation. There is a
recommendation for a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the north property line. I
want to just clarify that that is to be a 30 foot from the northern property line extending south
for the full width, east to west, on that property line. The request that we would have is that
any private drive that is intended to service the other lots, does not encroach on that ... whether
that is ... right -of -way for that private drive. Second point I'd like to raise is that we've been
' advised by a consulting engineer that a utility hook -up will be necessary to service our
property if we ever choose to develop it, which we don't at this particular time. The easterly
portion that will be shown as a right -of -way and utility hook -up will serve the eastern portion
of our property as well but our western edge there is a requirement for another utility hook -up
to avoid trenching the center of the ravine that goes through our property. We're told there
are other ways to be able to do that but we haven't had a formal ... survey but we're requesting
that. Perhaps Dave, you could help clarify whether that would be feasible.
Hempel: The plan before you this evening show a street and utility extension over the
' eastern portion of the Mancino parcel with the extension of Jennifer Way. The Mancino
parcel does have a high point at right about Lot 6 there's a high mound. Then it starts to
gradually break off there... westerly boundary of the development. The existing ravine takes
storm water drainage across the north, right to the west of this development.
Actually... development and that area there is the low point of the neighborhood. And we
envision seeing extension of storm sewer along the ravine area and possibly sanitary sewer to
service the adjacent parcel to the north. The Mancino parcel also will be serviced from the
future sewer and water line provided in the subdivision before you here tonight called
' Brendon Ponds, which is the westerly portion of this site. We're providing at this time 2 out
of the 3, what we believe are utility service connection points.
Ledvina: Dave, with this development then, are we providing that western utility stub?
don't see it here.
Hempel: No we are not. We're providing an easterly connection. At this point we believe
the appropriate time and place would be with the future development of the outlot that you'll
see on the next subdivision called Brendon Ponds. At that time that parcel develops, that
would be extended northerly.
1 8
Ll
I
Planning Comm) ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994 ,.
Ledvina: So when that develops, that should provide adequate utility service that's needed '
here for this poition of the Mancino property?
Hempel: That's, correct. '
Sam Mancino: f The issue, again we're not engineers but whether you trench through the ,
middle of a wedand...or whether you take it off of another area that wouldn't violate that
ravine quite so badly ... The third technical point that we'd like to question is that the future
potential for road connection, which will also serve to be our utility hook -up, which I believe ,
comes in through Jennifer Way, will term, nate at the edge of their private drive and will not
be paved completely up to the edge ... is that correct at this point?
Hempel: That' our intent as long as we extend the street service from the edge of that 30 '
P g g
foot easement at this point and leave the option open. Whether to extend that street in the
future ... or connict a street to service that ... lot and private driveway. Provide both options. ,
Sam Mancino:
was originally '
A couple of other points, One, moving the road 60 feet south from where it '
tended. 60 feet from the 30 foot tree easement. We understand but don't
believe it will h
ld 3:1 slopes and be able to do what was originally intended, which is to
provide the road
bed, the right -of -way and a trail system. And I guess the question of the
trail system is
'
at as this area develops, [more kids are there. Their natural route would be to
the north to the
school and to put that roadway to the south would probably require to cross a
mayor collector
oad. So that's a point that we would like to have considered because it bears
and
on the grading
the setbacks... There was a request by staff for some planting of sumac and ,
seeding of the graded
property. I guess in addition to that we would request, because I'm not
sure how effec
ve this seeding would be or how quickly that will take root. The sumac will
be a very good
idea but we'd like to request some spruce and other conifers near the top of
the slope to holi
the soil. Also to be able to, there's a sound and visual buffer ... Those are
really the technical
points I think that we'd like to mention at this time. I think there are
some broader questions
that we have. The thing that seems to be driving this development is
the density. The
need to get as many lots as possible and more density seems to get more
grading and we
don't believe that, the intent of the comprehensive plan probably took into '
account averag
situations. Didn't particularly take into account this topographical situation.
I don't believe
that this has the creativity applied to it to develop it to the sensitivity of the
rest of the land
Another global, broader point is that we'd like to see Planning Commission '
recommend to
City Council, in light of the development that we're going to see in this area,
particularly wi
this development, with the Gestach- Paulson, a noise and construction activity
limitation that limits
it to weekdays so that there would be no noise generated weekends. t
That could either
the form of an ordinance or as a development contract because that would
be good for all
of the neighbors. I think that I'd like to invite our architect to help us do
9
.� Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' some thinking about this. Charles Stinson to address some of the things that we've seen at
this presentation by their engineer.
' Charles Stinson: Hello. M name is Charles Stinson. I'm the architect working with Y g the
Mancino's. I specialize in custom homes on unique property and I get involved with some
' land planning on certain properties that, in which we're trying to save the trees and respond
to the topography. I wonder if I could use the, your demonstration board for a minute. Just
' to clarify. I think Sam commented, covered everything about technically pretty well as far as
the trying to keep the 30 foot preservation zone from the top and in doing so, and whatever
we have on private drives here skate off of that zone because right now as private drives, if
they went over it, would wipe out all the trees in that area, which would mean that this
property would have to come down this last lot. I guess Lot 1. I guess the other thing, just
trying to clarify, and this is aside from that project. This being a guy that tries to save the
' natural topography whenever I can. Just to clarify the study that was shown as the bad
alternative here I think the, what the city was actually recommending or the staff was that I
think the southerly drive came up just a little bit higher so it wouldn't be quite as steep as
' this. And I think in showing this process here, I think if the road was a little bit over here, as
they proposed, the grading wouldn't be quite so steep going down to the wetlands. There
would be some fill here but I think this whole cut is just based on if there's a cul -de -sac
going up there. If you're trying to put a road out there, then you're digging out the whole
site but I think there's perhaps a whole nother option there that if we could save all that, save
that and do some filling where the roadwork is here, then I'm just curious if the owners,
developers and the engineer considered the fact that the possibility, if a road went on the
southern area and you left all the wetlands the way we have and then at that point we perhaps
this cul -de -sac came over this way to service the homes around here and then the private
' drives just went to the remainder of the out parcel and then leaving the natural topography
and the views without getting into anything, was that one of the studies?
' Ed Ryan( ?): Not that I'm aware of.
Chuck Plowe: Let me, I couldn't see exactly what you were just.
Charles Stinson: Okay. Well , and maybe I'll go to the some of the concern on the plan
that's proposed right now, there is a cut here which is substantial and pretty substantial going
up to the trees. Does this show your property line or is this the property line?
Chuck Plowe: This is the property line here.
Charles Stinson: Okay. So you're saving the first 30 feet and then dropping down from
' there?
10
Chuck Plowe: Yes.
Charles Stinson11 So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's ,
proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The
fill that we're talking about is perhaps 8 feet higher than the ceiling. About 20 feet of fill '
that would occur here?
Chuck Plowe: At the maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the
wetland ... 1 l feel which is about where the road grade is when you... I
Charles Stinson# So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about '
20 feet... I guess the thought I had was, and I'm not speaking for the Mancino's but I'm just
on my own here. Thinking about the environment. If the road went to the south, kind of
curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, would it be possible to '
take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of
fill at this point but just taking this cul -de -sac over, feeding the lots here, here, here and here
and then just have a private drive go in to more homes over here. Wouldn't that give you ,
pretty close to your density or if this perhaps makes a few more valuable because they such
views?
Chuck Plowe: ell I think we avoid private drives as much as possible that's a totally ,
P P
different cone t than what we're looking at. If we did go along with private drives and '
eliminate the frpntage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a
matter of fact, we went through them with staff. We showed how they wouldn't work.
Taking the roac up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up ,
getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just
didn't work ou
Charles Stinson: Okay that, again I guess most of the developments I get I end up doing '
private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many
communities ar� getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography. '
More of the na al grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low,
there would be very little grading going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and
the cul -de -sac coming here and private drives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private
drives and I'm not sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite successfully and if
anybody's in ested, I guess ... there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetonka that I did with
Streeter and Associates and it has worked out quite well. And that's it. Thank you. '
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
11 1
,J
Planning Commission
Meeting - September 7, 1994 ,
Chuck Plowe: Yes.
Charles Stinson11 So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's ,
proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The
fill that we're talking about is perhaps 8 feet higher than the ceiling. About 20 feet of fill '
that would occur here?
Chuck Plowe: At the maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the
wetland ... 1 l feel which is about where the road grade is when you... I
Charles Stinson# So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about '
20 feet... I guess the thought I had was, and I'm not speaking for the Mancino's but I'm just
on my own here. Thinking about the environment. If the road went to the south, kind of
curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, would it be possible to '
take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of
fill at this point but just taking this cul -de -sac over, feeding the lots here, here, here and here
and then just have a private drive go in to more homes over here. Wouldn't that give you ,
pretty close to your density or if this perhaps makes a few more valuable because they such
views?
Chuck Plowe: ell I think we avoid private drives as much as possible that's a totally ,
P P
different cone t than what we're looking at. If we did go along with private drives and '
eliminate the frpntage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a
matter of fact, we went through them with staff. We showed how they wouldn't work.
Taking the roac up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up ,
getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just
didn't work ou
Charles Stinson: Okay that, again I guess most of the developments I get I end up doing '
private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many
communities ar� getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography. '
More of the na al grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low,
there would be very little grading going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and
the cul -de -sac coming here and private drives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private
drives and I'm not sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite successfully and if
anybody's in ested, I guess ... there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetonka that I did with
Streeter and Associates and it has worked out quite well. And that's it. Thank you. '
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing?
11 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Eric Rivkin: Hi. My name is Eric Rivkin, 6095 Steller Court. I'm about, I don't know,
1,000 yards east of the property and I look out onto it into the sunset. Beautiful sunset. It
' sets over the hills that they want to take down 80 feet or whatever. And I also am not
opposed to the development but I think that it could, the Ryans could have maybe hired this
wonderful architect here as an adjunct to their team, this planning team because I don't think
it has enough regard for the natural landforms and I'm opposed to the massive earth moving.
I like you to favor the alignment for the road to the south. I think it should, I agree with
them completely that the road could meander up a little ways so it isn't so straight but I don't
think the plan has got, I don't think the plan's compatible with the surrounding developments.
Lake Lucy Commons and these other large estates which have gone to great lengths in the
community to maintain natural landforms and preserve forested areas, open spaces and
' wetlands. I think this is a butchering of the land, just plain and simple and I think much
more sensitivity needs to be applied here. If they have to go back to the drawing board, I
think maybe they should employ on their team an environmental designer because we have
city codes that in my opinion, and I think maybe your opinion, would require them to meet
these philosophies and I was one of the people that helped develop the comprehensive plan 5
years ago to try and get laws that would preserve, prevent this kind of thing from happening.
The area between TH 41 and Galpin is a recognized natural resource corridor for wildlife
who regularly travel in all seasons of the year between two great naturally preserved areas.
' Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. And we all enjoy that in this northern part
of Chanhassen and we want to see that preserved. I represent, as a Co -Chair of the Lake
Lucy Homeowners Association and we enjoy wildlife. We have osprey. We have bald
' eagles. We have great blue herons. All kinds of wildlife. Fox and even an occasional, the
DNR said a cougar. But anyway there's no natural corridor between these planned in this
development and it will be too greatly disturbed and devastating. I don't think any
authorization should be given to this development that destroys the natural features of land,
be it corridor, wetlands, wildlife habitat or vegetation lowland form. I think the developer
should be required to propose and concept to a plan which meets the city codes and
protection of environmental features and relates to the site's natural resources. And above all
gets respect as to the existing development pattern set in the community. I favor those ... lot
sizes. I think that their, the access alternative from the north or this long private drive, I
' think it's a good alternative to consider to preserve that hillside, the top. I don't think it
needs to be destroyed... I was at the top of that hill last night. I walked the site with the
Mancino's and I don't think that there is any economical hardship in doing that. I would
result in a lot less grading problems and if you look at Fox Hollow, there's plenty of
examples of tuck under houses on top of hills that sell for a half a million dollars that have
spectacular views of the Lotus Lake area. Here you can see 2 miles from the top of that hill.
' It's one of the highest points in Chanhassen... and it's absolutely magnificent and I don't think
they'll have any problem with maybe even cutting down the lot density up there just to
preserve that and get their money of the property. The trail system. I paid $660.00 for a trail
12
Planning
Meeting - September 7, 1994
system which I don't have and I expected with the Lake Lucy extension to have a really nice
trail, a real trail. Not a sidewalk on a street and not a sidewalk, but a real trail through
natural area like they have in Minnetonka'. Anderson Lakes and in Jonathan where people
will walk in pea a and harmony with nature. Enjoy the wildlife and everything. It's much
more an amenity to the community and will increase the lot values I think considerably if
they do that approach rather than just blow it off as an afterthought. I think that by aligning
the Lake Lucy Road to winding around the southern portion gives it more opportunity to
connect with the property to the west. Also for this corridor to, the trail system connect up
with Lake Minn washta would be perfect. So you could have spots to enjoy the wildlife
areas which would be given to the public as conservation easements and sell this thing with
the natural corridors and sell this thing with the trail system that people want and I think it
would satisfy the community and needs and wants and desires for this that we've been having
for years ... at this podium many tunes complaining about. Let's see. Trees. I don't know
what kind of tree planting program they have but I think it's pretty clear in the code that we
should have a reestoration that should have native species only that is native to this area. I
don't mean Douglas fir or Colorado spruce and things that are not suitable for the soil
and... conditions. If there are, and I don't mean like army landscaping where you've got just
rows and rows f sumac but take the groves of trees and replant them and restore these
corridors so they're intact and that the disturbance is at a minimum, both to the wetlands and
to the tree cover. One question that I have for the developer, and the engineer. Is there any
drainage intended to go east of Lake Lucy Road from there? Either under the road or over
the road. Or ex, use me, Galpin.
Chuck Plowe: Yes, to the Lake Lucy watershed...
Eric Rivkin: Is I there the surface area of water area, is there estimates of how much surface
water there is... {o the Lake Lucy watershed? Is it existing? Plans for existing or go beyond
that.
Hempel: Mr. (
is in the proces
wide comprehe
comprehensive
year that we're
quality basins t
County Road 1
water will incr4
underneath Gal
down to Lake ]
hairman, maybe I can address that. The applicant's original design ... the city
of adopting the Surface Water Management Program which will provide city
isive storm drainage which has water quality ... to preserve wetland areas as a
)Ian. We're trying to implement that plan with this ponding. This is the first
implementing this program and this development is providing storm water
treat storm water runoff and will better discharge the water underneath
.7 to Galpin Blvd to drain towards Lake Lucy basin area. The volume of
ase the velocity of water but will not restrict the impact to the culvert
do Blvd. Potentially there will be a trunk storm sewer system from Galpin
,ucy with the remaining part...
13
t
�J
�I
I�
fl
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'd like to propose, I have a map that shows the watershed to Lake
Lucy, okay. Can I put that up?
Scott: Sure, go ahead.
' Eric Rivkin: ...I want to show the engineer first. This shows the Lake Lucy watershed area.
This is Galpin Road right here, CR 117. This is all the...
Aanenson: I really think the questions are best directed to our engineer.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, this is Lake Harrison. There's Galpin Blvd here. You could pass this
map around while I'm talking. The point I'm trying to make here is that, the western part of
Lake Lucy Highlands development runs into wetlands which are on my property and Prince's
' property and Class A wetlands and they're very sensitive. They've got rare plants in there.
There's already a sedimentation problem now where the culvert is overflowing with sediments
from the existing driveways and streets, whatever, sand you know from salting and stuff, and
I want, as a representative of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, we would like to have
a condition that prevents any additional water runoff from this development into the Lake
Lucy watershed. You have plenty of mitigation area planned for this development and I think
' every bit of this water is going to carry pollutants from fertilizers from lawns and the nutrient
runoff from development which is going to pollute the wetlands like you wouldn't believe.
It's already over loaded. The culvert every spring, which is always full and has not been
' cleaned out by the city as it should have been and ... storm water management program and the
conditions of the development, the Steller Court development which was passed in 1986.
There's not supposed to be an increase more than 2 tons of sediment coming out of that
culvert and I'm going to make sure that that is upheld. I don't think that engineering wise
it's going to work by having any additional runoff, other than what is naturally occurring
right now. And what is going off right now, even though there's fertilizers from the farms
that are farming now, it is filtered by dirt and plants and vegetative material. If you're
adding street runoff and we all know that that stuff is highly polluting and I do not want to
see any more water coming from this development into the Lake Lucy Watershed. We've
' already got enough stress as it is. The Walker Ponds over at Willow Ridge do not work
because you do not have natural vegetative areas surrounding the wetlands. The storm water
just ran through the holding pond and then overflowed right into that big pond by Lake Lucy
Road. And then into the Lake Lucy through an outlet through a massive 10 acre wetland and
still caused algae growth. That's how much pollution there was from the development and
' it's still going on today. So I think it needs to be taken from a preventive stance and I
recommend that no water or all the water in that development stay there and be dealt with
and conclusively. Another thing about the wetlands, the material ... man made wetlands must
be sure to make up for the ones that you're replacing. I noticed the mitigation areas with this
14
Planning
plan. Is that c
are completely
Scott: Thank
Jerome Carlson:
depending upon
over and over a;
As I look aroun
purchased the S
achieved on tha,
commission, wa
which the new 1
parcel. And in
of preserving th
going to sell N
final analysis. '
but it's the sam,
and Paulson, wl
now the north s
at 21 single fan
about 1.1 house
that exists some
and to this corn
view at all. I tl
leaves the natur
property enorm
therefore I wou
and what is trai
topography and
you'll find that
topography. Ai
you that the Lu
process with th,
money and the
which is substa
adjacent field b
particular area.
question at stale
for that natural
Meeting - September 7, 1994 �-
'? Okay. I think whatever standards there are to help make sure that the y ,
-al in development of.-thank you. '
Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
My name is Jerome Carlson. I live at 6950 Galpin Blvd or Road,
,
which post office you talk to. In following the proposal to date, I'm struck
ain by the feeling that there is nature and the development are not in sync.
Jl at development that's going around that area, Lundgren Bros as you know
'
)ng property and this is 100 plus acres ... and I believe the density that they
very interesting piece of property, which I think is fairly well known to this
about 1.1 houses per acre. We have 25 acres bordering TH 41, part of
,
ake Lucy Road would come through, which is the old Westside Baptist
reviewing that with a few different developers we have again arrived in terms
'
naturalness of the land, which is one of the perquisites frankly before I'm
t property to anybody. You end up with about 1.1 houses per acre in the
r ou look at the Gestach and Paulson, all this terrain is the same. It's different
�. It's very hilly and it's very interesting and it's very beautiful. The Gestach
'
'ch is right on the north side, so I've talked about the south, the west and
de of where we live. They have 25.85 acres with 3 outlots. They're looking
,
'ly lots. So you throw in the 3 outlots and maybe that will bring it up to
s per acre in the final analysis. It feels like there is almost some agreement
,where that dictates x number of lots and on and on and I submit to the Ryans
,
mission that there does not need to be an economic hardship concern in my
link that the property, if developed in a manner which fights nature less and
al beauty present, for a potential homeowner in fact increases the value of that
)usly for someone who desires that kind of a setting for a family home. And
Id really suggest that this, commission take a look at what has been transpiring
ispiring, if you will, right around that area as far as the type of land, the
'
how that has ended up equating to actual lots in the final analysis and I think
1.1 is probably a fairly accurate number and the reason is because of the
id I submit that these other folks have worked hard at protecting it. I can tell
'
ndgren Bros have to the south of us because I've been a big part of that
Song's. I don't really want to live right next door to, having spent the
time and the effort to protect the environment with our home site area there,
'
atial. We've protected it I think as well as anyone can. And then have the
;veled off and fill with houses is destroying the flow and the rthym of that
I just, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think there's an economic hardship
'
e at all. That there are buyers out there who will enjoy and will pay the price
beauty. And there are other areas that simply don't have that kind of terrain ,
15 '
.� Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' to that extent. Severity that exists in that area. So I would ask that the commission g ive that
some thought and consider the ratio that has been working for other people in the immediate
' area as a maximum. And I don't know that that property even, I don't know what the ratio
should be on this particular piece. 1.1 there may not be absolutely accurate. I haven't sat
down and figured it out because it's not ... Relative to the views from our property looking
' north. Until there is more of a plan that exists and this commission and others perhaps are
seriously interested in approving, I don't think I need to spend your time talking about
whether or not some sort of tree barrier or some sort of screening is necessary or not from
my point of view. But I don't know that that's been discussed at all up to this point and I
would simply like to be on record as saying that may or may not be an issue ... spills down
' into something specific. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to reiterate
several of the points that have been raised by Sam Mancino and some of the others who
spoke here tonight. I'm representing myself as well as several neighbors who weren't able to
make it to the hearing tonight who all have a deep concern over the original concept or
design of this proposed subdivision. No one has an interest in standing in the way of the
development because we all know it's coming. But it seems like in the case of some of the
sections of the City Code, particularly when I call out Section 1860, which specifically says,
it talks about the lots should be placed ... to protect natural amenities such as vegetation,
' wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. I believe the intent of that, and I
really kind of look at the intent as being lots should be placed. Not we'll take some land and
we'll put as many lots on it. And I wanted to reiterate a deep concern that this seems to be
' driven from the standpoint of trying to increase the density for the number of homes rather
than really trying to preserve that land and all of the other constituencies that represent an
ecosystem or the wildlife as well as the aesthetics of the area that this... represents. That was
really the extent of my comment. Was to reiterate the one section of the code as it related to
sort of are lots and topography and coming in which order... subdivision.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Yes sir.
Marty Gustafson: Good evening. My name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691 Galpin,
which is right on the northeast corner of Lake Lucy and Galpin Blvd. I'd just like to restate
what the previous speakers have said. That the beauty of the land that the Ryan's own is in
' the rolling topography. And to go in and bulldoze that and just kind of level it all off, to me
is just like raping the land. If you look at the development south. I can't recall the name of
it but south of Prince's property, that land was pretty much flat to begin with and it just, it's
not unpleasant but it's just boring. You know you've got a difference in elevation of 20 or
' 16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
30 feet probably in the whole development and everybody can look out their front window
into their neighbor's front window and right on down the street. And it just, to me is boring.
And most every night I can watch the deer walk through the Ryan's property and it's just the
roll is just beautiful to watch the sunset through the trees and I would hate to see that get
leveled. My other concern is drainage. If the wetlands are filled in, where's that water going
to go? I imagin it's either going to go through my property or through Mezzenga's. Both
of us abut Lake Lucy Road. Is there going to be massive trenching or digging? And if it is,
it's all going down into Lake Lucy. You know that swamp is filling up fast. The lake is
filling up fast ju t because of all the vegetation. You can watch it from year to year. And
pretty soon that's, there isn't going to be any water showing at all. So I would like to see
whatever draina ye is required stays on the property and not get drained off and create
problems for someone else. Thank you very much.
Scott: Would a%ybody else like to make any comments? Yes sir.
Lynn Rothberg�: Lynn Rotherberger. I'm at 6681 Galpin and really only had just one
comment tom e. I've heard a lot of the speakers tonight speak of the surrounding
properties. Lak-, Lucy Highlands, etc and matching the topography that is there. It seems to
me that there is minimum acreage requirement on that land of something about 2 1/2 acres
and the plans tb at I've seen, I don't see any attempts at all to be a match of that in the
proposed development and I just would have a concern about the density or the amount of
density and population of housing that's going to come into that property. I too very much
enjoy the wildlife and the sunsets and the topography itself and I guess I have to agree with
all the rest of a speakers that you're going to have to pretty well flatten that out to put
housing in thero and that concerns me.
Scott: And your comment, part of the matter in front of us is the rezoning of the property
from RR to RS , which means Rural Residential which is big lots. RSF is 15,000 square
foot minimums so that's part of the process. Good, thank you. Any other comments?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina
motion i
Conrad: I thin
here. Staff has
can be tweakec
guess I'm not 1
quite a while.
natural asset it
Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
The public hearing was closed.
it's, I don't want to get into details tonight. I think there are a lot of details
covered them. The applicant has covered them. There are a lot of things that
with lots. A lot of things that can be tweaked based on staff report and I
ping to spend my time going through item by item because that would take
[ think when you note what the property looks like, you know what a real
is out there, and I don't see this plan really taking advantage of the natural
I
U 7
17 1
L!
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
assets so you know really bottom line, I have to turn it down. I'm not getting into the details
in terms of the individual plan tonight. They preserve very few trees. There's massive
grading. They did not fit with the surrounding neighbors. And you know, those three things
just all by itself Mr. Chairman make this, I don't think this is an appropriate subdivision at
this time. The other thing that I'm concerned with, and I want to make it a natural amenity.
The area is just so beautiful. I want to make sure that when it does develop, that our trail
system is taken advantage of that throughout. That's real important so I think we not only
have, the developer has an opportunity to not only make the money and not only do it well
fitting with the natural environment, but also to give the community something in the process.
And again, a lot of us have been out there. It is just a terrific area. It is one of those unique
spots in Chanhassen and I don't think we, this plan meets any of our base criteria for a
subdivision fitting with the natural surroundings so Mr. Chairman I'm going to be as brief as
I can and say this subdivision should be turned down.
Scott: Matt.
' Ledvina: Thank you. I have some questions for staff. Last time we met we discussed the
feasibility study and I heard the applicant talk about a supplement feasibility study and
preferred northerly route. Dave, could you give us a little more background and what was the
actual feasibility recommendation. I don't want to get into it in real detail but I just want to
understand exactly what was the preferred alternative.
0
Hempel: The feasibility study looked at two alternatives for extending Lake Lucy Road from
Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard through what was called the Westside Baptist Church
site which is on the far west side immediately adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. That was the
particular parcel that was, the two alignments were discussed. The southerly alignment and
northerly alignment. The southerly alignment was closer to Mr. Carlson's property and had a
base and a slope and significant trees to the south of it. There was also a graded wetland that
was... The northerly alignment through that parcel with the existing driveway access on the
site, it tended to meander the road a little bit more. The only alignment that I'm aware of
through the Ryan parcel is a southerly alignment but potential for the northerly alignment was
also given through this outlot of this Gestach- Paulson development, Brendon Pond to leave
the flexibility for Lake Lucy Road to be extended through the Ryan parcel somewhere in this
area. It wasn't officially mapped but the consulting engineer reviewed it and the proposal for
the feasibility study showed the southerly alignment for the Ryan parcel. The two alignments
that were reviewed by the City Council was the northerly and southerly alignment across and
into the Westside Baptist site and the Gestach - Paulson site. It's leaving the opportunity open
as you continue to the east.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: So there really wasn't two alignments that were mapped out for this property, is
that correct? There was only this southerly alignment?
Hempel: As far as I'm aware...
Ledvina: Okay. And then as it relates to the alignment, the applicant has suggested that that ,
would amount to a wetland filling. Was that also identified in the feasibility study?
Hempel: My understanding, based on the conversations with Bill Engelhardt that there was '
no intention of f illing the wetland with the southerly.
Ledvina: Okay. So in other words, it would be relatively easy to realign that roadway ,
slightly to the n rth, whatever it takes, 10 or 15 feet or 20 feet, to avoid that wetland filling.
So we're really of talking about trading off wetland filling in choosing that alignment, is that '
correct?
Hempel: That's correct. I
Ledvina: Okay.
Now I want to understand the conservation easement. You've got quite a
long description
here Bob and does it cover, does it indeed describe the northerly 30 feet of
the plan?
Generous: Yes.
'
Ledvina: It doe
, okay. That's really all I need to know. Okay. Because it talks about a lot
of different chmiks
here and that's the legalese of describing which lot that covers I'm sure. '
Your recommendation
number 16, it says plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an outlot.
Are you talking
about, now I know this relates to the western portion of Outlot 6 as they've
hand drawn it h
re. Now you're saying put a property line and make that long narrow chunk ,
an outlot, is th a
correct?
Generous: Correct.
'
Ledvina: Okay.
I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. I think overall, I'm
leaning towards
some of the core issue as it relates to the development of the site as ,
proposed. I wo
ld agree with the commentors from the public. Also Ladd's comments. I
feel that as we
discussed and recommended the applicant pursue last time, we all agreed that
the Lake Lucy I
Wad alignment provide the most sensitive course for this road through this
parcel of this si
e. We suggested that the applicant go ahead and look at alternative ways of
preserving that ull in that western portion of the property. And I do like the idea of going in ,
19 '
.! Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' with a street off of Jennifer Way with potentially some private drives. That way I think that
could provide access to that area and again preserve that. I don't know procedurally how I
would propose to do this. If we would add conditions and send it along or that in such a
condition that we'd want to see it tabled or I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit on
procedurally how this might be handled. But I think overall we need to have some work
' done on this plat before it can really be viewed as an acceptable environmentally sensitive
proposal.
Scott: What would you like to see? What would you suggest for the applicant?
' Ledvina: Well I don't, I'm suggesting that we table this and see a rework of the design for
this western portion and we've made that suggestion previously and I don't know where the
applicant is at with that but I'd be willing to look at it one more time.
' Scott: Ron.
1
C
Nutting: Some of Matt's questions answered some of mine. I think there are a lot of details.
I think the plan we're looking at is, I think counsel for the applicant has indicated that you
know we're being asked to approve what staff has recommended and I don't think staff has
recommended this as their first choice. They've done a second choice because there was not
a willingness to look at the preferred southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Having been
to the site and looking at it and from our recommendations last meeting, the southerly
alignment seems to make the most sense to me. With that in mind, and I guess I echo Ladd's
comments and I think that of a lot of the citizens here. I don't think this development does
the best job of dealing with the existing topography or the surrounding developments so
whether it's a tabling issue or a chance to rework or that we deny it, I think that's maybe a
procedural question that I'd put to my other members but I'm not ready to go forward with
this plan. I am open to seeing a rework of the plan.
Scott: And what sort of direction would you give?
Nutting: Well, I can't develop it for them. I'm not a developer but what I see is not
consistent with surrounding developments and topography. There have been some
suggestions put forth but that's really for the developer and their advisors to look at. If it's
an extension of James Court into the westerly portion of the land, I can't say for sure and I
can't sit here and try to visualize it and say do this and all will be well. So I guess the main
concern is just that it doesn't make sense with the land and the surrounding development.
Scott: So you're thinking primarily make better use of the existing topography? Is that one
that you're getting?
20
Planning
Nutting: Absolu
Scott: Okay.
Meeting - September 7, 1994
Nutting: Which will impact density. There's a lot of issues there.
Scott: Okay. R st a question. Kate, when was this preliminary plat and rezoning, when was
that presented to staff because I know we've got a, we have two different timeframes that we
deal with.
Aanenson: The ordinance states that you'have 45 days to make a recommendation to the City
Council—and I believe that date was August 17th. So accordingly... you have one more
chance to revie,% which is September 21st...
Scott: Okay. I'm not going to echo any comments. I'd like to have a motion please.
Unless you want to discuss. Obviously tabling we'd get it back. We may see the same thing
all over again. Denying it automatically sends it to the City Council with our comments on
why we're denying it so.
Nutting: I woulo be open to tabling it. I think the property is going to be developed. I
mean it's not an issue of developing it or not. It's a question of getting something that makes
sense so.
Scott: Okay. Y u're thinking tabling?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, why don't you ask the developer what his choice is.
Ed Ryan: Do you want me to step up to the podium?
Scott: No, that *on't be necessary.
Ed Ryan: I guess I would prefer you approve it obviously but if you're not willing to
approve it, I guess I'd prefer you deny and then we have the opportunity to go forward and
that's what we want.
Scott: Okay. C I have a motion please?
Conrad: We do have a rezoning. I'll make the motion to deny the preliminary plat but do
we need to discuss the rezoning issue?
21
.1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
IAanenson: Yeah.
Scott: Yeah, we could not, this preliminary plat would not fit RR zoning so.
' Aanenson: If you don't approve the plat, then the Council wouldn't have. If the Council
chooses to approve it, you haven't recommended on the rezoning...
Conrad: Why should I recommend approval on the rezoning if I don't like what's going to
go on it?
1
Aanenson: You can make a different motion to—whether you choose to approve or deny the
Council's still going to make their own decision so in principal, if you want to go on record
and make some recommendations ... but not to make any recommendation.
Conrad: I'm not sure what signal I'm sending when. I not saying that this shouldn't be
rezoned. It's just that this particular plat is not what I want to see so that's always been
confusing to me. You know it's like what signal am I sending.
Scott: Usually it's more consistent if both are acted upon the same way.
Ledvina: Well if you look at as a package, I guess. Is that how you would prefer it?
Aanenson: Yes. If you don't ... no matter what motion you state, whether you approve or
deny the rezoning, Council still has the right to...
Conrad: Well we'll just administratively go through this. I make a motion that we deny the
rezoning of Case #94 -3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single
Family Residential.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the rezoning. Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Rezoning #94 -3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR to RSF. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Can I have another please?
Planning
Meeting - September 7, 1994
I
Conrad: Yes, I make a recommendation the Planning Commission denies approval of
Preliminary Plat #94 -7 based on our previous comments in terms of the plat's lack of
sensitivity to the surrounding, which includes the mass grading. It's lack of sensitivity to the
neighboring community and it's non, and the fact that it didn't incorporate our primary
location for Lake Lucy Road.
Scott: Okay. I� there a second?
Nutting: S
Conrad moved Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council deny Preliminary Plat #94 -7 based on the previous comments regarding the
plat's lack of sensitivity to the surrounding area, mass grading and the location of Lake
Lucy Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Councilr.
Generous: Thee
Scott: Don't us
Ledvina: I moN
Section 20 -407.
Scott: Okay, is
Nutting: Secon
Ledvina mover
City Council d,
carried.
Scott: Editorial
did not believe
basically dumpi
to follow the is,,
and I'd like to t
Mason, thank you for taking notes. Just a.
's a WAP, wetland alteration permit.
that acronym in that way again.
that we deny, or we recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit
a second?
Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the
iv Wetland Alternation Permit #94 -3. All voted in favor and the motion
comment. The reason why we're denying this and passing this on is that we
hat we're going to get anything better back from the applicant so we're
kg it on our colleagues in the City Council and I would encourage any of you
ue because the final decision is not made here. It's made at the Council level
lank you all for coming for this issue.
a
23 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
IREZONING OF
SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS
LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3. T 116, R 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5
AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDON POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON
CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Conrad: Maybe I have one of Dave. I've got to talk about Lake Lucy. It's deemed a
collector street. Did we do a traffic count? When it was reviewed, do we know what it has
to, what the future traffic's going to be on it Dave?
Hempel: A few years back there was a Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
predicting the traffic flows and counts eventually throughout the city providing east/west
connections. North/south streets and designating... arterial kind of collector street. This area
has been designated as a collector type of road. I don't know off the top of my head what
the traffic projections are.
Conrad: There's no traffic to the west that is really going to search this out. I can't, there's
just no traffic that's going to seek this road out so it really is servicing only this area that we
are now looking for development. The Carlson's may be another development but really this
is a roadway that's just going to serve the neighborhood basically.
Hempel: Well it does provide for the eas t west continuity between Galpin to Powers Blvd
versus going all the way up to Highway 7 or going to Chaska Road. This is actually a vital
24
L�
Lee Paulson
St. Bonifacius
Dennis Clark
6651 Hazeltine Blvd.
David Stockdale
David Gestach
7210 Galpin Blvd.
Brian Khngelhutz
Sam Mancino
Peter Davis
6620 Galpin Blvd.
6640 Galpin Blvd.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Conrad: Maybe I have one of Dave. I've got to talk about Lake Lucy. It's deemed a
collector street. Did we do a traffic count? When it was reviewed, do we know what it has
to, what the future traffic's going to be on it Dave?
Hempel: A few years back there was a Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
predicting the traffic flows and counts eventually throughout the city providing east/west
connections. North/south streets and designating... arterial kind of collector street. This area
has been designated as a collector type of road. I don't know off the top of my head what
the traffic projections are.
Conrad: There's no traffic to the west that is really going to search this out. I can't, there's
just no traffic that's going to seek this road out so it really is servicing only this area that we
are now looking for development. The Carlson's may be another development but really this
is a roadway that's just going to serve the neighborhood basically.
Hempel: Well it does provide for the eas t west continuity between Galpin to Powers Blvd
versus going all the way up to Highway 7 or going to Chaska Road. This is actually a vital
24
L�
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
i
connection, eas (west connection. Another east/west connection through is being provided to
the south through the Carlson/Song/Lundgren development where it was part of the...
approximately 2 miles south of this location. ,
Conrad: Okay, fit's an east/west connection. So when you say that to me does that mean
you're saying it's serving more than the neighborhoods? With that 40 houses, this street will
service 100 houses in this developing valley.
Hempel: That's correct. And additional city wide traffic.
Conrad: Going where? I
Hempel: Going to another connection from the northwest part of town to get to the
downtown versus going down Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin to Trunk Highway 5. It's not
making any shoiqtcut I wouldn't think but it does provide a viable east/west travel route.
Conrad: Have we made any compromises by terming this a collector? Have we, are we
forcing a major r oad in when a major road is not necessary?
Hempel: The roadway section that we're proposing to build here is not much larger than the
standard street right -of -way. Our standard street for a residential neighborhood is 31 feet
wide. This street is proposed to be built at 32 feet wide. There is additional right -of -way
though that's being required with this to provide when the trail/sidewalk, the 8 foot wide
trail/sidewalk will give us larger boulevard areas for planting...
Conrad: Okay. That's all.
Scott: Any oth er comments? If the applicant would like to make a presentation, please do
so. It's not a requirement. If you'd like to, please go ahead.
Dave Gestach: Dave Gestach, 8001 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen. I guess basically we just ... and
we hope that yo4 do approve it so we can go to Council.
Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Just a show of hands. How many people
are here to spew at the public hearing for this particular project. Okay. Can I have a motion
to open the pub,'c hearing please.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the ,
motion carried The public hearing was opened.
t
25 1
.1
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Dennis Clark: My name is Dennis Clark. I live at 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard. I was
wondering, Sharmin could we use that overhead again and possibly enlarge that. Enlarge it a
little bit.
Al -Jaffa I don't think we can do that.
Dennis Clark: Okay. Actually I'm kind of Johnny come lately on this project. For some
reason I was not served notice on this development. I received my first notice last Friday.
I've been out of town since Friday. Came back in town Sunday. Had Tuesday to even
prepare for this. Staff has been giving me a crash course on this and I definitely have some
concerns just because probably I have gone over staff notes and gone through everything but
I kind of made a wish list here of what are some of the concerns I have. I think I'm just
going to mark on there where my house lies on the 8 acres that I have.
Scott: Yeah, that would help. None of us see our home from that vantage point very often
SO.
Dennis Clark: You only see my house in the winter time. I've been pretty much aware that
this has been tabled before or presented before but frankly I was a little shocked that this was
going through this fast. From August 17th up until today so obviously there's been quite a
bit of preparation by staff on this and maybe this thing is a done deal. But I guess a couple
of the specific issues that I have which concern my lot are the northwest development of the
property that we're talking about which seems to be somewhat ignored in the notes that I've
seen. I see very little addressing to the northwest lots in regards to the trees. I had an
opportunity to talk with a few people and what type of homes are going in here. I'm hearing
anywhere from $250,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes. I question, I'm not a realtor but I have
been here for 2 1/2 years. I was in the market. I question who's going to spend that kind of
money on Lot 13 and 14 next to probably a 100 feet from a Minnetonka basketball court. So
there's some issues that I'm questioning, plus the fact that according to the way the plat is
here and the way the foliage is or the way the excavating is, it can't be done without taking a
lot more trees that don't even show up on this plat. A lot more trees. Very mature trees and
I'm specifically talking about Lot 12. I'm concerned about Lot 11, which if you look at the
contour line of Lot 11, and maybe you've never had a chance to be back there. Lot 11,
where the house is, is a gravel pit. It's probably 20 to 30 foot drop so when I look at the
notes and see where you're talking about significant grading, I think that's a pretty lame
word. We're talking about very significant grading and I guess I don't understand how it's
going to lay in the contour of the land the way it is unless that's being filled or I don't know.
I haven't had enough time to get these questions answered. The tree inventory. I think that
even as of today, I don't know what the tree inventory is. I don't have the updated notes, if
there is some. I don't know if it's been presented but I think there's considerable more trees
26
I.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
1
they're going to go in and if you can't even talk to the people that you're getting up against. ,
27 '
than what are shown
on the map and I guess from where my standpoint is, the front and back
of my house. Now
when I come to my driveway, from what I understand, I'm going to be
looking at, there's
quite a bit of elevation. I'm going to be looking at the backs, or the
backyards of 3 bornes.
These people will be kind of hovering over me. So be it but am I
also going to be
looking at 3 Menards pole sheds coming into my yard? Is it going to look
like Milacs Lake
or what, I don't know. I'm very concerned about that. I think for the
acreage that I have,
just specifically in getting to some of the points, I'm going to be looking
for some concessions
and some buffer trees and I think this should be definitely an issue
before we continue
with this. Not well we'll take care of you. I want to know that I'm
looking for some
year round buffer trees that are bordering my property if this is a done deal.
I think I deserveI
that and I'm thinking evergreen type trees, 10 to 12 feet tall. This is going '
lot. This devaluate
to give me some
of the privacy that I deserve with that size of a will my
lot if this does
ppen. I cannot develop `this lot that I have. This acreage is, it's a done
deal. You can
it's kind of laid out a little goofy there and it is a nice lot. I've kind of
,
been in this movie
before. I just came from probably one of Shorewood's most embarrassing
developments. I
lived adjacent to one that took 7 years, 4 townhomes. Christmas Lake
Woods. And th
re was a lot of promises on trees and trees that weren't going to be removed
and in the final,
it didn't happen. And the saws were going until 10:00 at night, on Saturdays
and Sundays an
the townhomes were $170,000.00. Way over priced 10 years when they
started the thing
The market fell 14% and the project sat. So again I'm not a financial
wizard on this sluff
but I question, to me, this looks like a trailer park layout and from
Highway 41, the
way these homes are going to get stacked across here, again I need to know
a little bit more
pbout the project. Maybe I'm coming in here late and I don't even know
what my legal
ghts are as far as getting my notices and what have you. I would recommend
to the city that tese
things be sent certified. Jerome Carlson, who just recently purchased
this plat over here,
his name is on the plat but the person I purchased the plat from 2 1/2
years ago, still 1.
is name is on this plat. So I don't know where things are slipping through
the cracks there.
was a
The trees in question on the south side, in Lots 1. Or I'm sorry, 13, 12, 11
el I'm talking about 100 trees that are fairly mature.
again gra
pit. probably
Anywhere from
12 to 30 feet tall. Evergreens again. In other words, they hold quite a bit of
cover. I've don
some measuring today. Took the day off and went out and measured this
stuff. Working
with the contours and that. A lot of trees got to be taken out. The next thing
that I'd like to I
I
oint out is, there's already quite a bit of forestation on this property this
25 have
summer. This thing
was clear cut in a day. The whole acres of popals that grown
up over the yeaj
s. So you can see right away where I have some question about, I don't
know if I'm go"
g to use the word trust but I think we would have been further off and
maybe what we
had here for foliage. These were anywhere from 7 to 12 foot, even taller
popal trees. M .Jybe
they're worthless, I don't know but didn't like it. Just put it that way.
There's been nq
communication from the developers on this project. I think that's rude when
they're going to go in and if you can't even talk to the people that you're getting up against. ,
27 '
' Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Maybe from a developer's standpoint, don't talk to the neighbors. I don't know. Just my
P P g y
opinion. I'm kind of on a lowland. I'm below this, you can see all this drainage here where
' it does go back out on the lake again but I'm kind of what I would consider a lowland.
When you start taking this square footage on house roofs here, right next to my property line
' is my drywall system. I had an opinion done on that today. When you've got water coming
down these hills and you've got natural vegetation, I've got a sump pump in my house that
runs continuously when it rains. You know what's going on there. I've always wondered
how my drywall was doing. Now I'm even going to have more concerns about the drywell
' when you start taking this type of square footage and even sending that much more water
down, particularly on my lot. A couple other questions that I've got is, I'm trying to get the
Minnetonka School system to quite using fertilizer on their lawns up there. They've got the
most beautiful lawns in the world. No dandelions, nothing. All that water comes right down
that drainage ditch into that pond. That pond is getting worse and worse every year and I
think we've got, we're making some headway there and this pond is turning in to be a green
slime ball. It does hold fish. I do feed it minnows. I spend about $300.00 a year throwing
spawn... minnows in there for crappies and what have you. And when I look at this buffer
' around the lake, this 10 foot buffer. I mean I don't know what the regulations are and where
we're headed on this stuff but this pond's going to be ruined. Just plain and simple. When
you start putting lawns in there, you've got a problem. 10 foot buffer means nothing. We've
' got problems coming from Minnetonka so again this is just another point that I have concerns
about. I don't know if it's been addressed or what the situation is. Is there going to be
docks on this pond? How is this pond going to be preserved? Can—put a dock on this thing?
Can he fish off it? What's this going to look like from the road? You actually do have a
public access from the road. You can fish from shore. From the highway side so I don't
know what this is going to bring. This feeder road. My kids get on the school bus on this
road and we've had near accidents with a stopping red flashing light. When cars come over
that hill going north, trucks, 70 mph easy. 80 coming over. When this road goes in here,
you're going to have some problems. I'll go on record on that. You're going to have
problems with that road. The road's in, that's great but unless there's going to be some lights
there, people coming in and out of there, there's going to be accidents there. Just they can't
help it. It's a blind spot. So when you're coming over that road and...70 mph is not even,
they go faster than that coming over. I would like to see that whole thing, with the park in
there and with the school. When you get down by Chaska and that school system and that's
all 40 mph. This is still 55. And so I think you should look at slowing that traffic down on
' TH 41. I don't know what powers you've got in that. So I guess my main concern is,
getting back to my own personal problem, is I am definitely looking for something that is
' going to assist my view of what once was fairly ... woods and nice woods and a meadow to
buffer that all and I'll leave it at that for now. And I again, like I said, I'm kind of looking
to see an update on this tree survey because this isn't close. It's not even close. And I
twould say you're more than welcome to walk some of the—lot. It's not on there so I've got
' 28
I.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
1
a problem with staff saying we're ready to approve. All you've got to do is work a few
things out. I'm �ot ready and I've had 24 hours to do it. Basically a bad night's sleep also '
because I think this is going pretty fast. Maybe someone has some other comments. Thanks.
Scott: Good, thank
you. Just a couple of comments. One question I think since we're
talking about preservation...
I think it's entirely appropriate to consider a 30 foot preservation
area along the
esterly sides of Lots 11, 12 and 13. If there's significant vegetation there,
there's no reason
why that can't be continued around. Dave, drainage. My understanding is
'
that the drainage
from this development will be conveyed down a storm sewer running down
whatever street 1hat
is into the holding ponds down below so conceivably there could be some
drainage going off
the back but that'd bej through lawns or something like that so you don't
have a concern
about Mr. Clark's property as to drainage. Okay. And 10 foot buffer around
the pond, that s
ms not to be in keeping with our wetland plan. Is it actually 10 feet? Is it
more than that?
Or is it because of the nature of the wetland.
1
Aanenson: No, it's the buffer setback into the wetland. Building setback. What you're
talking about is—minimum landscaping. '
Scott: Yeah. S from the actual property we could be looking at 60 -70 feet. 50 feet. Okay.
And then speed limits on state highways. The State, that says it all I guess. State of '
Minnesota. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Any other comments on this particular
issue? Yes sir. '
Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard. Part of the, this
Brendon Pond development includes a recommendation of some park dedication land that
would tie the s Beet to provide an access into the Minnetonka school. I was hoping to get '
more recognitioi made to the fact that when the Lake Lucy extension goes in, that this is
going to be a fa irly active path and I was hoping to see more recognition to the trail system
as part of the olitlots that would be placed on the north side which would provide for a very '
natural path fora lot of people extending east all the way to the other trail systems because
you can go out �hrough the top of the school where there's already an extension into other ,
parts further noi th of Chanhassen. I was hoping to see more language in the recommendation
that would prov ide from where that road' alignment of the trail system... pedestrian standpoint,
make more of a route. ,
Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not following you.
Peter Davis: ht now what's going to happen is there's only language that talks about an
Right g
access point up in here to the school. In terms of when Lake Lucy gets developed in this
direction to the Ryan property, I was hoping to see more language built that would pull the '
29 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
trail system to the north so you'll have more of a natural...
Aanenson: That's the plan. That's the plan for Lake Lucy that there's a trail system along
the northern side. That's what the Ryan's engineer was saying, they would prefer to have it
on the south side but it was always planned to have it on the north side because that's
where...
' Peter Davis: Okay, I didn't see that.
Aanenson: That's where we believe most of the traffic will be going. To get up to the
junior high.
Peter Davis: Right. Okay.
Hempel: There's also a sidewalk being proposed along the west side of the street to connect
from the trail from Lake Lucy Road north.
' Peter Davis: That was my question. It really wasn't clear how that was going to tie back in.
Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments?
Sam Mancino: Yes, Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. Over the course of the last few
months we have been pleased to be able to work out most of the issues between ourselves
and Gestach- Paulson people with the help of staff on this and I think that we've got the right
contingencies for future potential development if we ever chose to do that. The one issue that
I'd like to raise here, you are considering platting, as it is properly laid out here. There's a
portion called Outlot B which will be considered at a later date. The reason for Outlot B is
to allow future alignment pending determination of the way that Lake Lucy Road extends to
the east, which is the Ryan property. If in the course of that decision the road takes the
northerly route, what will probably happen is that it will have to cross that forger of wetland
and trees which can do a fair amount of damage there. The question before us I guess is,
would that lot by itself allow enough room for mitigating the damage done there or would
that have to be taken into account now. A question.
Aanenson: Are you talking about wetland mitigation?
' Sam Mancino: Yes. Because you will be going through, if the road takes the northerly
alignment, would it require some wetland mitigation that this lot would not be large enough
' to accommodate or wouldn't be appropriate to accommodate here? And does that then argue
30
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
for the southerly) alignment of that road to avoid that problem?
Hempel: I gues� first of all it'd have to be classified as a wetland. From our guidelines from
our Water Resource Coordinator, the wetland—would have to review the site to determine if it
qualifies for a wFi tland status. It would be, if we're impacting it with ... assume that we would
have to mitigate )for our impact.
Sam Mancino: I guess this was an issue that if the road takes a southerly alignment, it's
probably a minir�nal concern.
Aanenson: ...it �;vould have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act but that doesn't mean it
has to be done... think your point's well taken and that goes back to our ... trying to preserve
wetlands on the site.
Sam Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Good, think you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Sir.
Brian Klingelhu My name is Brian Klingelhutz and I was involved with Dave and Lee.
We bought the property about 10 years ago. We've been working on developing it since
then. You know off and on. Not constantly but when we bought the property it was all, Mr.
Brendon made his living off of farming all that land so it was just all fields and there were
trees around the borders but where they have the 30 foot section there protecting those trees,
that is protecting all the trees that are mature. So there is a lot more trees there but there's
just little scrub gees that you can't even walk through so. I want to point out that we've
worked with * Carlson. We've worked with Mancino's. Maybe we didn't address Mr.
Clark enough. He wanted to buy some property from us. We never made that deal. I don't
know if he's up ;et about that or you know, but you can't please everybody you know. I
pulled in his driveway this afternoon to talk to him. I was in his driveway looking over
towards our pro 3erty. The property that's going to be developed ' and you couldn't even see
that property from his house. You know there's so many trees between his house and the
property right now so, I mean it wouldn't do any good to plant any more trees there because
you'd wipe out some of the trees that are really there. So I'm just saying that we've done
everything we could. I hope you, you know we have nothing against Ryan's development but
we've been wo�j�king on our's for a couple years and so I just don't want you to tie our two
together. We'vlr. put a lot of planning into our's. Just because you tabled their's, because
we're right next to each other but we've been working. As you can see that it's 25 acres and
we only have 19 lots in there which ... so'I just hope you pass it.
Scott: Good,
you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing
31
C
L
iPlanning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' none, can I have a motion to close the ublic hearing lease?
P gP
' Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
iScott: Ron.
' Nutting: Well I guess I was pleased to see that the property owners and the Mancino's and
staff were able to address the issue of the outlot and the private drive and to get that resolved.
I'm not tying this project together with the Ryan project. They are connected by the Lake
Lucy Road but I think what we, the consensus from staff and the people up here is that the
southerly alignment made more sense and that's the alignment that we're talking about with
this plan. Short of some new concerns or issues that were raised tonight, I think I am in a
' position to go forward but I guess I have a little bit of confusion on the tree inventory and
exactly what's there. We've taken great pains to address that issue on the easterly side
bordering the Mancino's property. I don't know if staff has any input to this but I'd like to
' just understand a little bit more about the impact that we're going to have on the property
owner to the west because we've been careful in this development to address the needs of
everybody and I just need to, I'm not saying I'm not ready to go forward with it but I just
' don't know enough.
Al -Jaff: We can work with the applicant to make sure that all the trees that are on the site
' right now be reflected on a tree survey and then we will ... would have to be replaced
according to our ordinance at a rate of 1.2. But I think that this is an issue that we can work
out.
Nutting: Okay. That you, with the developer and the property owner to the west, okay.
Okay. I have no further comments.
' Scott: Matt.
' Ledvina: In regard to the tree inventory. Is that accurate and I guess what is the level of
accuracy in terms of the size of tree and have you reviewed that?
' Sharmin Al- Jaff's answer was not picked up on the tape.
' Ledvina: Based on the comments that have been made here, you said you've been out to the
site to look at that? Okay.
Al -Jaffa There were some trees, spruces located to the west of the site that are not shown on
32
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
this and we will ..that the be shown between now and the Council meeting. An trees that '
Y g Y
will be removed would have to be replaced at...
Ledvina: Are those spruce trees within the grading limits, do you believe or are they outside?
Al -Jaffa Some of them are. Two of them are within the grading limits because... '
Ledvina: Okay. The adjacent homeowner had a comment about pole sheds or whatever and '
I just would want him to know that of course the city has ordinances as it relates to a
construction of buildings and out buildings are, you know have to be done by permit and size
limitations, etc so, and in a residential, high quality residential neighborhood you will not see
that scenario, I lon't believe. I think the request for additional buffer trees, if they're
necessary, woul seem to make sense. Have you had an opportunity to assess that need at
this time? '
Al -Jaff: There' going to be over 100 trees that will need to be planted on the subdivision.
So I'm sure that there will be some trees that we could add there if there is need for it. '
Ledvina: Okay. Maybe we could add a recommendation to that effect directing the applicant
to intensify year round plantings in that area. I think that might be appropriate. I don't want ,
to be real specific but again, I want to make sure that that screening does occur if needed.
And just a follow up on drainage. Again, the adjacent homeowner is correct. There will be
increase impervious area there, and it seems to me that if I look at the plat and the '
topography for Lots 10 -13, Block 1, it would appear that a drainage swale along the back of
those lots would be very easily done. You know within the grading limits there and provide
or prevent I sho�ld say run on onto his parcel and potential problems that may occur. Dave, '
did you have any thoughts on that? Do you think that's a reasonable thing or do you see any
concerns with gat.
Hempel: I actually believe that the amount of runoff going to the west of this development
will actually be lower than the natural conditions that are out there today. The front yard
area, the front lia f of the house will be directed towards the street which will be conveyed '
then through stogy sewers to a sediment basin. It will only be the back yard grass . areas
essentially that will continue to drain to the west. The westerly edge of the cul -de -sac
appears to be about the high point of the natural terrain out there right now. It's probably ,
actually reducini the amount of runoff running west.
Ledvina: Okay. Even with the construction of the houses in that area? ,
Hempel: That's correct.
33 '
I�
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Ledvina: Okay. Well maybe perhaps we can direct the applicant to evaluate that condition to
make sure that we're not causing a run on type of situation to the neighboring property. I
wouldn't want to see that occur. The issue as it relates to buffer around the wetland area or
the pond area. Now how do we classify this pond? Is this like an ag urban?
Al -Jaff: It is an ag urban ... buffer that wraps around the wetland.
Ledvina: Okay. Is that by definition or is there some leeway in establishing that buffer zone?
Aanenson: They're at 20. The average.
Ledvina: Okay, but it can range 0 to 20, is that what you're saying? Okay. Would there be
any down side in increasing that buffer area to 20 feet in that area? It appears to me that
that's a conservation, much of that area is a conservation zone.
Scott: Tree preservation.
Ledvina: Or tree preservation and also there doesn't appear to be grading in that area so it
appears that that buffer strip could be increased to 20 feet.
Aanenson: ...in the conservation easement, you can't...
Ledvina: Well from what I, you know there is the entire area here and I don't know if that
conservation, tree conservation easement encompasses the entire shore area of that pond so.
Aanenson: That's what we would look to evaluate ... go back and evaluate that...
Ledvina: Is it reasonable at this time to recommend 20 foot buffer or are you saying you
need a little more time to evaluate that?
Hempel: The only areas that I see a concern with that would be on Lots, for instance Lots 1,
5 and 6 where the grading essentially was within 10 feet of a...
Ledvina: Right. Yeah, I can see that.
Hempel: Potentially that area would be left to grow natural after the grade is in.
Aanenson: And we establish vegetation.
Ledvina: I guess I don't want to see any, and I agree with the homeowner here, is people
34
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
mowing all the �ay to within 10 feet of the wetland area and if we can bump that back, that
would seem to make sense.
Aanenson: I think you can make... conservation easement from the wetland buffer. I think if
you ... just add on as far as screening ... the trees closer to the home so I think we'd like maybe
some time to evaluate that more closely and get your concerns.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Overall I feel that the developer has been fairly responsive to our
comments and Wieve that the adjustments that have been made have benefitted the plat. I
think with a few more conditions, I think the concerns of the neighboring homeowners can be
addressed and it can be a good situation for both the developer and adjacent lot owners I
should say. On question I did have and I forgot to bring this up. For Outlot B, is there a
conservation easpment along the north boundary of that lot?
Al -Jaffa At thisIpoint we did not...
Ledvina: Okay. 1 Do we want to do anything there at this time or do we have to see this lot
back again if it' : developed so we don't necessarily need that at this time?
Aanenson: I think you'd like to wait and see how Lake Lucy aligns.
Ledvina: Okay. That seems reasonable to me. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Thank vdu, Ladd.
Conrad: I have Nothing new to add. I agree with most of Matt's comments.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: We'v( got two things here. We've got a rezoning. Okay, start with the rezoning.
I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning #94 -5 for property
zoned RR to RS for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994. Do we
need to modify 1 hat? No, that's it. August 30th, 1994 subject to the following conditions as
outlined in the staff report.
Conrad: I
Scott: It's been Imoved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina
Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
35
t
n
n
i
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' of Rezoning #94 -5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the
plans dated August 30, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of
approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The
development contract shall be recorded against the property.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94 -10.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: Can I have another motion please.
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary
Plat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlots with a
variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received
August 30, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modifications
and additions. Number 2 to add, this plan shall include a list of trees and their size. The
plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Does that get what we need there?
Okay. And that relates to the tree replacement and reforestation plan. I guess with that I
would also like to add that the applicant shall review the need for screening along Lots 10 -12,
Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west.
Conrad: Can you change that to have staff review that? Versus the applicant.
Scott: Also perhaps in addition to the extend the tree preservation area which would take into
consideration 10, 11 and 12 to preserve... I don't want to make it too ... If we see that there's
something there that we need to preserve and then we might not have to spend a lot of time
on it.
Ledvina: Yes. I would, that condition I would have staff review the need for that screening.
Aanenson: ...from the wetland.
' Ledvina: Yes. Yes. Let's see. Condition number, add to condition number 18. That any
wetland alteration be mitigated according to city ordinance and state laws. And that as it
relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road, however that ends up, and if there are wetlands
' encroached in that area. Adding condition 25. That the applicant evaluate, applicant and
staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential run on for the adjacent property
owner from Lots 10 -13, Block 1. I guess that's essentially it.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Good. Ise there a second?
Nutting:
Scott: It's been Imoved and seconded that we approve staff recommendation with additional
conditions as so stated. Can I have a second please?
Nutting: It was.
Scott: Is that what that was. Not that we don't pay attention to everything you say. Let's
vote on it.
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary Flat for Subdivision #94 -10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots
and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown
on the plans re�eived August 30, 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 (BMP ) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or
greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket.
2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be
protected by a conservation easement.: Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment
#1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. 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 an� the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185
trees will be required for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial
guarantees acceptable to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This plan shall
include a list of all trees and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval. Staff shall review the need for screening
along Lots 10 -12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west.
3. A snow
grading.
4. Building
shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to
conditions:
f
J
r
37 1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance
of any building permits.
' S. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
with final plat conditions of approval.
[l
1
1-1
n
1-1
6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their
conditions of approval.
7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall
be a minimum of three feet above the 100 -year high water level. All storm water ponds
shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more
than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes.
8. 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.
9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake
Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1.
10. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1.
b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
c. Radius of cul -de -sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet.
d. Fire hydrants shall be located a maximum of 300 feet apart.
38
f
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
11. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to '
the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond.
The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required '
by its alinment to the city.
b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition '
and/or trail l construction.
12. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $35,501
assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or
may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project
assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the ,
developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water
quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If
there are an y modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
13. The exist
i ing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be
abandonei
in accordance with City and/or State codes.
14. Upon completion,
the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements
within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent
ownership.
15. The applicant
will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the
ity's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Managen
ent Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
,
the City
for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review.
16. All utility
and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest '
edition o
f the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans
and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council '
approval.
17. Wetland )uffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins ar d will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be
mitigated� to city and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road. '
39 1
J
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
18. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post - developed storm water
calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins /wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch
basins are being utilized.
19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access
for maintenance of the ponding areas.
I 20. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering
Improvement Project No. 92 -12 and awarding a bid for the contract.
21. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private
street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's
private street ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4
single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended
to the east line of Outlot A.
' 22. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right -of -way for Lake
Lucy Road through Outlot B.
1
7
IJ
23. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or
substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing
requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property."
24. That the applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential
run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10 -13, Block 1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
o
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Public Present:
David L. Wass
David & Donna
Betsey Jenkins
A. M. Stene
Ronald Ziebell
Philip Jensen
Tom Rasmussei
Mona & Doug
Mary Beth & Ji
Bruce & Shirle,
Craig & Janet
Jeff Zahn
Terry Bolen
Gary & Sharon
Lolita Tolliver.
Wendy Nelson
Ronda Pierre
Todd & Marian
Leslie Jensen
John Williams
Pat Victorian
Sharmin
Scott: Quest
comments at
0-1-M 7
in
8789 Flamingo Drive
Clough
1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1561 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8531 Merganser Court
acobson
8551 Merganser Court
come R. Reutzel
1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Bowman
1541 Lake Susan Hills Drive
ariveau
1501 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8461 Pelican Court
8451 Pelican Court
-ondit
8440 Pelican Court
.ogers
1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8411 Egret
1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive
to Loader
1584 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8530 Merganser Court
f presented the staff
report on this item.
or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some
time?
41
L
I
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Phil Youngbuth: My name is Phil Youngbuth. I'm with Greatland Homes and I'd like to
introduce myself in this way because we are in a joint venture with Jasper Development on
this particular property. They are the developers of records. We will be building the units,
both in terms of the design and construction. We are formerly from Joe Miller Homes.
Working with Joe for several years. I've been here before. I would like to make a couple of
points that hopefully will help to clarify some of the issues. As to the actual size of units, the
units are 67 feet wide and 65 feet wide fitting on 71 foot lots and 73 foot lots. And the
reason I bring this up is so you don't get confused. It shows on the plat the lot size, okay.
And the reason the units are narrower is because you have to have a minimum of 3 feet from
the lot lines to the windows. So that's why we're narrower than the actual lot size. We have
tried to do our homework in designing this particular housing unit. I did meet with Sharmin
a couple months ago and from our initial meeting I did take the original plan that you see
here and we've designed a few more architectural elements into the plan to make them more
interesting. Work a little bit better with the neighborhood. They are a rambler sized and
what we call 1 1/2 stories. This keeps a lower profile if you will so that from the street
you're not seeing 3 decker townhomes or something similar. And for the folks on the hill,
they're not going to be staring at 2 and 3 story homes. These are nice low sillohuettes.
We've added things like gables, dormers, decks, patios. There's optional 4 season porches to
the plan.
Scott: Yeah, you might want to tip it one way or the other because I think it's glaring on the
camera. Yeah. That will work for the folks at home.
Phil Youngbuth: I can hold them up too.
Scott: That's fine.
Phil Youngbuth: As you can see by the porch, which is an option, the deck is standard. And
it's not just your typical cedar 2 x 2's...2 x 6's, etc. It will be a smooth cedar with some
turret posts ... things like that so that they're a little more interesting. A little more fitting with
the kind of traditional flavor to them. Not just your slap them up kind of porch. That alone
makes for a more interesting back view if you will. Several of the units back up to Powers
Boulevard. They are walkout style so from the back, this is a rambler with a walkout. This
is the front elevation and you can see some of the things that we've done to make them more
inviting. Friendly. On the back you can see that we've changed the roofscape. We've added
gables to extend the gables as to bring out a porch over the deck. There are many windows
so that in other words we're talking about something that's more interesting and pleasing to
look at versus ... or something like that. More interesting side elevations, etc. Additionally the
product itself is probably, you know the final prices aren't in yet but we're looking at
$110,000.00 to $120,000.00 base price. I know that, in the early stages of conversations
42
Planning Co mm}ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994
these were talk about being $80,000.00 townhomes. Now I know that affordable housing is
a necessity. It gets to be more and more difficult to do that and please everybody. So
they're intended I for single, single professionals. Perhaps not retired but a little older people.
Easy to live type of homes. Again, the density that we're talking about is an important factor
to be bringing u) like we did. When we're talking about, what was it, 9.3 units per acre.
The reality is, there is a way to get to that with 30% or 35% coverage. And it happens just
down the street ind that's when you start building up. So I think that this is a reasonable and
well presented a swer to a unique site and I'm hoping that together we can move forward and
get this job com leted. That's my report. I think it looks good and we'll help with you. Do
you have any questions?
Mancino: Yes,
the Voyageur.
are on the easte
That's all one s
Phil Youngbuth:
Mancino: Okay
traveling.
Phil Youngbuth:
townhomes is th
they're not like
Mancino: And
do. Thank you. I see that you have two type style houses. The Itasca and
in you tell me, as I look on your preliminary plat, I mean the houses that
side of this development, they'll line themselves to Powers Boulevard?
le house?
Correct.
So we're going to see a row of, the rear elevation from Powers as we're
Correct. I'm glad you bring that up. What's nice about these particular
at although they're identical, they'll be in several different colors. Okay, but
X11 pink or you know.
are those colors?
Phil Youngbuth: Well, there's only about a half dozen colors that are even earth tone.
Reasonable light earth tone colors.
Mancino: Do
Phil Youngbuth:
It's a very smoo�
should say white
like from the otl
homes you see I
other is typically;
Multi-level and
what I'm saying
have samples? Do you have samples of those here?
I don't have those here. They're vinyl. It's vinyl siding, called Greenbriar.
h, high quality premium' siding. And we're looking at white windows. Or I
windows with white grids on all of the units. As far as what one may look
er, the reality is that they're no closer together than any of the single family
ere. Between the units is 15 feet. Single family homes, from one to the
15 feet. And if they were all split entries or multi- family, or I'm sorry.
plit entries, they're very;similar in design. Especially from the back. So
is that this is not much of a variance from that. In fact it might be more
u
43 1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
pleasing because it will be constantly maintained. This is a maintenance free exterior with a
homeowners association.
Mancino: Staff, did you ask for samples to be brought so that we could see the siding and
Y P g g
' that we would know exactly which ones of these lots have what colors because I know that
we've brought up several times, especially when they're in rows, we want to see a variation
of tone and color and not dust. Do you know what I'm.
' Al -Jaff: I recall asking for the rendering. I really can't remember if I asked for samples.
' Mancino: Do you also talk a little bit about landscaping or is that someone else on your?
Phil Youngbuth: Well, we can talk about it.
' Mancino: Can you tell me a little bit about the, those are walkouts on the back?
' Phil Youngbuth: On the Powers side.
Mancino: On the Powers side. And you have balconies there that will put some of these up
high. How are you going to screen the back of those walkouts from such a big street and the
noise and the traffic and the lights?
Phil Youngbuth: Well my understanding is that there will be berming all along Powers Blvd,
at least from some kind of a meandering berm that's to be worked out with the staff and
whatever trees that they are recommending that go in. At a minimum that's what's
' happening. Additionally we'll be doing extensive landscaping around all the units.
Mancino: And that's something I think that you have in your conditions? Sharmin, to work
with the developer on that. Okay. Those are my questions right now.
Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Do you have someone
else on your development team that would like to make a presentation? It's not a
requirement but if you would like to do that, that's quite alright.
' Al Rader: Thank you. I'm Al Rader with Rader and Associates and we're working on the
civil engineering and the land surveying portion of the plat. And I guess I can answer any
questions you might have directed related to that, you know those questions but basically as
far as the roadway system goes, being that this site is up higher on this end than actually
Powers Boulevard, would bring the grades up on the main entrance here. Bring the grades
up ... this cul -de -sac. Running them back down at a slight grade to turning down on that
Planning
Meeting - September 7, 1994
northern cul- de4ac. And that water will actually, the drainage pattern will run the same way
so the water will come down, be picked up by an intermediate ... down to a pond at this corner
here which will have an overflow... storm sewer system. The units along Powers have their
garages directly ntering onto the internal private drive here. These units here, here, these
two clusters have their own private little driveway ... and the southerly most cluster of the 8
units of 4 buildi igs, they'll just be one short cul -de -sac. Basically that pretty much defines
with the water p ttem will be. There will be retaining walls needed along the back side of
some of the unit here and those will be engineered walls. They'll be handled by an
engineer ... and p7obably be a terrace type thing.
Scott: What's the, one of our big concerns with any sort of development is the impact on the
neighbors and I'm familiar with that area. Basically what is the difference in grade
inbetween let's $ay the top of one of those units and perhaps, I know there's a number of
homes along the,, side. Just roughly. Are we talking 20 feet?
Al Rader: I guess I can't, I really can't relate to the top of it.
Scott: How about just grade to grade.
Al Rader: Grade to grade difference being about a 9 and should reach ... as far as we've
shown with the �54 and we have 939 for a garage so about 15 feet. Over on this side it
looks like it coulld be 20 feet.
Scott: Any que�tions or comments? Okay, anything else?
Al Rader: The other thing I had was, any of the wetlands, the ponding, we'll address it with
the city staff... arid those are all pretty much issues that they'll do and tell us...
Conrad: Talk to me a little bit about the retaining wall. It's hard for me to visualize what
you're doing th re. I guess I wish I saw a profile of this project versus, it's really hard to
understand wha� you're doing with the retaining wall.
Al Rader: Basi
line of the proje
difference betwi
a percentage gn
we've got to su
two will be take
areas there will
type pattern.
lly we've got to take up the difference in grade along, this is the property
here. It's kind of a random pattern here. We've got to take up the grade
i the property up here and the maximum you can get these up to so there's
we can share. We've got it down to the property line to a point where
away from the building a certain distance so the difference between those
up by the retaining wall. Some of the walls will be shorter but in other
: higher walls. But it won't be in one wall. It will be a stepped, terraced
45
17
L
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
' Conrad: Is this a wood? Is this concrete? What is this made out of?
' Al Rader: I guess that would be up to the design engineer. What they recommend and what
the developer wants. I'm assuming it would be a pre -fab concrete... field stone retaining wall.
Something, but it's going to be done well so that it's going to be fairly, it will be
maintenance free. They're not going to have to repair it.
' Conrad: And it's set into, at the top of that retaining wall, is that where the grade takes off
again?
1 Al Rader: It will take off at the top and go on up to the common property line with the
adjacent neighbors.
Conrad: So given you're backed up to a neighborhood, how do you prevent, you know again.
It's hard for me to visualize this. Are we, we've got an 8 foot berm or a 10 foot drop?
Al Rader: 10 foot.
Scott: Per step? I'm envisioning. If I lived there, I would be falling in there.
Mancino: Are these planted? Are they going to be planted terraces so that kids can't, I mean
kids come to the edge of the property.
' Al Rader: I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. If they should
be planted or be left wild, native grasses. Native plantings.
' Conrad: But how do you prevent, and again. Maybe this is not a big deal but how do you,
as you abut a neighborhood, how do you keep people from actually being injured? Is it just
that obvious. You can see it. You know that there's a wall there. A retaining wall and
you're going to be careful or is it a hazard? I guess that's something that I'm not convinced
of yet. Nothing's been presented to show me we solved a drop of 10 feet or whatever.
Al Rader: Walls are used on a lot of subdivisions. If you look on a lot of subdivisions
they'll have the same type situation. They're stepped but they'll have the building pad
elevation will drop down 5 feet to another building pad and drop another 5 and that's
basically the same thing we're doing here except for you're not going to, you probably won't
' have that 90 foot spread building pad. You'll have a landing terrace. I'm sure the city staff
will have some recommendations on it because they're going to be reviewing this. They're
going to have to look at what we design. And work with the construction...
46
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Do we have any indication as to the position of adjacent homes relative to this? I '
mean that's something that we're sorely lacking in basically every package we've received in
the year and a half I've been here. We do not have a clue as to whether this is encroaching '
on neighborhood's property lines. We don't have a clue where the houses are. We have no
idea, and I mea I I look at that as a potential hazard depending on how it's handled. And you
know once again, if we can't, if we don't, see it, we can't do anything with it. '
Aanenson: We you can't encroach on the neighboring property line. That is the plat line.
' have lue s to where the homes are located in the whatever '
Scott: Yeah, bu we don't a e a c a
addition of Lake Susan Hills that is. It'd be nice if it were just sitting there with nothing
around it but there's no clue. I don't have a clue anyway.
Aanenson: You have to have at least a 30 foot setback. I
Al Rader: I assume that those lots would be 140 feet deep. You take 30 foot from the
setback and take about a 40 foot house so you've got 70 off of there. 40 feet and probably
have a 50 to 70 �oot range back yard on those adjacent properties. I
Mancino: What if somebody built their house back a ways? I
Scott: So are there, the entrance, I don't know what the street is but the entrance. Is it, you
have your two entrances and then there's another entrance into I think it's the 4th Addition or I
Lake Susan Hills West. I'm just trying to get a picture of where the houses.
Aanenson: Lak
Scott: Lake Sus
closest? I'm jusi
Mancino: The I
Scott: Okay, sol
Al -Jaffa This is
Scott: Okay, be
get, okay.
Al -Jaff: No thei
Susan Hills Drive.
i Hills Drive and I know there's a home kind of set up on a hill. Is that the
trying to get a clue as to. Okay, you've got to do it so north is west.
is back.
there are houses back in that entire, okay.
the concept PUD.
I don't think there are homes built on the north side. I'm just trying to
aren't.
47
n
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Scott: Okay. Where do the homes actually start? Is it about maybe a third of the way from
Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Al -Jaffa I can try putting these side by side.
Scott: Well those are platted lots but I don't know if they're built on.
Al -Jaffa There's Lake Susan Hills Drive and again this is Lake Susan Hills Drive. The lots,
the first lot is right here.
Scott: Those all have homes on it.
Al -Jaff: And then it goes all the way down and around. Which is fairly similar to this.
Al Rader: Basically I guess just you know, on a preliminary plat I was showing where the
lawns are actually located. I'm not showing houses but you can see how many houses are
lined up along the edge of this subdivision. Any other questions?
Scott: None?
Al Rader: Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else from the development team like to make any
comments? Good. This is a public hearing and I would like to have a motion to open.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Bruce Bowman: My name is Bruce Bowman. I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. I'm the 7th
one of that. Coming up from the south side. South side of...7th lot.
Al -Jaff: Lot 10?
Bruce Bowman: Yeah, right there. I have several questions regarding this but I notice the
time and I notice that at 11:00 you just stop.
Scott: That's unusual when we stop at 11:00 but we'd appreciate concise comments.
Bruce Bowman: Well I just didn't want to get us all involved here and going and so forth
and then find out that we had to stop in the midst of it. So that was my main reason for
48
t
Planning Comm ssion Meeting - September 7, 1994 1
getting up right away it you wanted to. Thank you.
Tom Rasmussen
My name's Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and we've '
done a lot of the
homework already on this. I had a meeting in my house approximately a
week and a half
ago in which I had most of the residents along that side there and also some ,
adjacent properties
come over to my house and we discussed amongst ourselves the issues
relating to this d
velopment and what we've got here is kind of a summary presentation, if
that's alright. Instead
of everybody speaking, we'd like to tell you what our issues are and at '
this point I can't
believe staff is making a recommendation for approval of this at this stage
and we would 4e
to go over and make a presentation. Helping me here do this will be Phil
Jensen and also
Ron Ziebell. What I'm first going to do is talk a little bit about our
association. We
passed around a petition, addressing our concerns and we've got 50
residences. Not
individuals but 50 homeowners. Everyone along the strip, and some others
beyond it, that are
concerned about this development. Have signed up and agreed upon what
we're discussing
here tonight. So it's not just me. It's 50 residences. Why are we here?
Well first of all
when we heard $80,000.00 townhomes we all had a heart attack for that. We
were the ones that
were concerned our property values might decrease. We are the ones who ,
have children living
there right now that could potentially be injured by this development off
the retaining w
s. We are the ones that are putting up with safety and noise issues along
County Road 17.
Right now. Today. We are the ones that have to live with the decisions of ,
your commission
and of the City Council. And why are we here? Actually because we care
about improving
the quality of life, not only for ourselves along the sides there but we do
have a concern.
We know what the neighborhood's like for the people that will be moving in ,
here and we do
look out for their interest too. Not just for ourselves. For them. What we're
going to talk about
are safety issues first. Environmental issues second. Development issues
third and we have
come up with a list of recommendations. We didn't want to leave anybody
hanging for that
and I'll conclude with that at the end here.
Phil Jensen: Thanks Tom. I'm Phil Jensen. I live at 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd ,
like to make one comment. I feel a lot better ...so it's nice to see Phil. I've known him for
years. The first thing, our concern on safety happens to be that we're a young community of '
course and of c urse a picture's worth a thousand words and Phil is familiar with Joe Miller
Homes and he t uilt a community for us and he had all the block parties that he celebrated
with us for. This is the ... I'd like to pass around. Just in one short block, the first very short
block there, the a are 28 adults and 26 children. Just in the first block. Not to mention the
rest of that stre�t that backs up to the property and our first concern primarily is to how we
will be able to handle our children and our perspective was no different than your's quite '
frankly. That we didn't know if these retaining walls were going to be 20 foot drops or what
they would be. We were very concerned about that. We'd like to see that addressed in some
fashion. Whether it's a profile of it or something so we feel a little bit more comfortable
49 '
i
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
there. Then in addition to the block wall as I scan from m outline here. In addition to
y the
concerns we have about the retaining wall, is that we have all experienced structural damage.
Most of us have experienced structural damage in our community, whether it's by sod or
wash away from our own soil or water drainage into our home and so on because of our
community. We've got those bruises that have happened. We don't want that new
community to have those same bruises. We want your building, that you're building, to go
through the same experiences that we went through so our concern is in this engineering
design of these retaining walls. That if they're not done correctly, of course it takes the
pressure away from the hill that we're all living up and around, if it takes away the pressure
that's holding the land in place, we may see some pressure coming away at our foundations
and the hill above it starting to show some stress problems. Some seal problems and so on.
In addition to that, our watershed and I would just utilize a couple more pictures in this that I
would hand to you and these are just a couple illustrations of local yards of what we
experienced from watershed from above when we were laying sod. We'd have a stake
cutting party quite frankly where as soon as somebody laid their sod, dog gone it, we just got
out there the next morning and we'd take our bucket and we'd cut out a bunch of stakes and
put in the bucket and we'd go to our neighbor and help restake his new yard and that's
because that watershed will just pull all these thousand rolls of sod right off his yard and go
right down the hill. I personally used my kids toboggan to pull back over 1,000 rolls of sod
back up the street. I don't want my new neighbors to have that same problem so I'm very
concerned as to how this retaining wall will affect that. In addition to the retaining walls and
drawing children to that, we have the traffic concerns as far as our safety. And if I could get
that one graphic back up first on the. Actually that one will work just fine. Let me walk
over here and I'll point out exactly what we're referring to. And that is that CR 17 is
becoming an expressway and one thing that our community is aware of is we know it's going
' to go to 4 lanes. And that's to be to get everybody to Target and Byerly's. Well that's great.
It's going to go to 4 lanes and help with the traffic flow and all this other jazz but what we're
concerned about is the driveways here in these different spots that have access to it. If it
doesn't turn to a 4 lane highway, these driveways will be a one way turn only. They're not
going to be able to cross 2 lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn across on a 4 way as we
envision it and street lights we don't feel are an answer to place that's 50 mph speed limit
' now that people are traveling. There's already people that wait at Lake Susan Hills Drive,
right here at this corner as much as 10 minutes in the mornings trying to get on CR 17. Just
trying to get onto it. And that's because there is no stop sign. We're not advocates of street
lights. We don't want them. We'd just like to see the speed limits come down and stop
signs. I'm already consulting Larry MacKenzie at the Department of Transportation for
Minnesota. He informs me that we merely need to request to the County an audit be done.
They in turn will ask the State to audit it and they will tell us as to the date what the traffic
flow what should be designed for that, for 4 lanes and whether stop lights exist or not. So in
this area of outlet to this Lake Susan, they're going to have to only make right hand turns and
50
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
f
�j
then they're goii
g to get down to a sign where they're all going to make U turns. So we're a
little concerned
developed by
iow that traffic flow goes and we'd like to see how that is going to be
the County whoever is involved in that. The next thing is that...
ot
r city or or
We really hope
hat there's nothing but families that join our community because we're
really, really sup;PPortnve
kids here,
of that. We want a whole pile of kids to be here. Well if all these
own Well if is 4 lane highway and the i
are th�y're
going to want their park. this a
park is supposed
to be here, how are they going to get there? Well, I'm not going to bore
you with the photos
but I've got all kinds of photos and one of the first things we heard back
was they can use
the tunnel. Have you seen the tunnel? Do you know where it is? We had
to fund it ourselves.
It's, I'm guessing but it may have been a tunnel that was used for cows
back when there
were farms here. It is not passable and I have the photos to prove it that
just, they were taken
last week. So the tunnel's not an idea to get people across to this park
and I certainly a�
not going to send my kids across CR 17 to get to that park and I sure
wouldn't want my
new neighbors to do that. That's not a good idea. So we're here to
recommend, as
Tom gets into the second part or the third part of this, what our
recommendation
are to gain access to the park. The other side is we're going to be crawling
the retaining w
is we don't know about yet and trying to get through our yards to get to the
other parks. So
we want it to be a safe environment, not only by the traffic flow but also by
some type of a profile
of those walls. The last thing I would have to say is, in my
commentary is,
school bus loading area is also right down in the bottom of that hill where I
point out first is
the very bottom portion of that graph. That's where the school bus stops
and this is also
Where that traffic blocks up today because there is no stop sign on CR 17 and
that speed limit
is 50 mph. I don't want to get too emotional but dog gone it, it's my town '
and this is our town.
It's our community and people are just passing through it. We live
there and we would
strongly ask you to make recommendations to the county for them to
have that section
of highway audited for it's traffic flow with our new neighbors joining us
and the new neiYhbors
across the street coming, we want to make sure the speed limits come
down and we have
community and
the proper stop signs there so they have access in and out of their
that makes it safer for our kids as well as their's. I guess from the safety i
standpoint, I thifik
I've addressed mine and I would pass it back to Tom.
Tom Rasmussen: The next thing on our outline here that we'd like to talk about would be '
the environmental issues and our first thing, as you've heard a million tunes already tonight
are the issues of trees. We don't have much but we do have a beautiful little cluster right in
the middle of this development and although they have made some efforts to retain those, if
you look at thei grading plans and their landscaping plans, they have homes that are
encroaching into the trees on both sides and if you also look closely at it, they're planning on '
removing most of the under shrubs and only keep a few of the larger portion trees there of
that. Our reco endation is they just leave the whole thing as it is with brush and
everything along in there and we have pictures showing the trees and how they sit right there.
i
51 1
1
J
1
i1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Our recommendation is that they don't encroach into the trees and they don't go in there and
start thinning them out either. The next issue that we have is on the grading plan they're
showing a wet pond, retention pond. Whatever you want to call it. I've got a problem just
reading the grading plan. I see, what is the elevation the pond's supposed to be at. There's
no invert elevation shown on the 12 inch outlet pipe. We don't know what the normal, the
100 year flood elevations are. We don't know what the emergency overflow elevation of that
is. They have got some serious problems already along Egret Court along there with drainage
problems already and this pond is making those residents extremely nervous, as it is right
there like that. Right now the other issue that we have is that there is poor soils in the
vicinity of Egret Court. As Phil had mentioned, they've led already to drainage and structural
problems. All you need to do is drive in there, in that Court and see for yourself. But they
want assurances that they're not going to get any worst. We don't feel comfortable right now
at all like that. Those residents recommended... were their concerns. Other concerns with this
pond were raised about stagnant water. Odor problems. Mosquito breeding grounds. All of
those things. The residents along there feel that the city and developer need to address these
issues and get answers back. The next thing here is something I haven't heard mentioned yet,
although I can't see why it wasn't. There is wetlands present down there where this pond is
supposed to go in. That is a wetland in my mind although I have not seen a wetland
delineation and assessment report yet to document that. I realize we need to have the
vegetation. We need to have the soils. You need to have the hydrology to classify it as a
wetland. I have not seen a report that does that. However, we did go out there. We
surveyed the vegetation there. There's foxtail, reed canary grass, aster, cattails, marsh golden
rod. All of those types of vegetation that indicate it is a wetland. There is standing water
there all along the line. I have not seen any delineation report yet. I think it needs to be done
for that. I think the hydrogology must be there or else this wouldn't be existing. The
question then comes along the lines of soil. The next thing is that there is approximately
about a 1/5 acre of wetland located in the middle of the project. Fairly small but however
under the wetland conservation act, anything less than 400 square feet area can be filled in. I
believe this exceeds that. And again that should be part of the wetland assessment report
which has not been done. Thirdly we get into the area of, we mentioned this already on the
safety. However under the areas of erosion control ... This tells you the type of soils we're
dealing with and these are moderate slopes. Not even close to the slopes they're proposing
for the development. These are the type of issues that we have come across already. Like
that. Slope failures are inherent to the neighborhood and I don't want that happening below
my house like that. Next, if this is determined to be a wetland where they're proposing this
pond, we need to see some on site sedimentation basins to protect that wetland as is required
under the wetland preservation act. With that, the other thing that we want to see is some
type of implementation schedule that after they go and do the grading, how long do we have
to stand around and wait until they start ... seeding, putting the hay on the ground and
protecting along those measures there. I know Joe Miller's development across the street had
52
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
We want to regjire more green space. We want to preserve the wetland. We want to I
53 '
1
that stuff but I watched
it every single day and I thought that was fairly poor erosion control
measures across
impervious and all
the street there. From my eyes. Lastly we do, we talked about percent ,
the density and stuff like that. In our minds, when we look at the plat, we
think it's being crammed
in there. That's from our eyes. That's what everybody along here
has ... so although
the developer threatened in my mind, about how they could build more and
build the units like
going up next to Byerly's here, we still think that there's an opportunity
to provide more
green space and less dense units in here. Next we'll get into the
development issues.
I'll turn it over to Ron.
Ron Ziebell: Rqn
Ziebell, 1561 Lake Susan. Lot 13 on the southern end. I really like to
shorten this. We
maintenance free
of them's already been addressed. We're concerned, first of all with the
type of environment, both from the building and the landscaping. My
reading of the proposed
plan of the back of my lot, which now has a slope. Incidentally, the
slope runs from
my lot down to CR 17 ... extensive excavation to put the development in there.
And I don't have
a real problem with that except from my lot down to the steepen and down
there will be soi
ie retaining walls and ... 14 feet down to 8 feet. And this will be—others will
be close to it an
I I'm concerned with the safety issue with the children of the neighborhood.
Some sort of a i,
afety measure, whether it be fencing or whatever. Natural vegetation—to help
terracing is a bil
-, relief to me. I think that would help and anything along those lines. With
respect to maintenance
free, with the retaining walls and the steep slopes, I'm concerned with
the maintenance
of the property itself. The retaining and... development area. We're
concerned also
with the property becoming rental units. We would like to maintain them as
an owner occupied
with some assurances t along those lines. We would suggest items like ,
building sprinkler
systems to enhance the maintenance free aspect of the property but also to
give some assur
ces that the rapid development for ground cover and retention of the soil
for the develop
ent...excavation and slope that you're going to have to build into it. And ,
we're concerned
with the planning. It may not be the maximum density permitted. We feel
that they are a little
see a little bit of
bit crammed in and the cookie cutter approach to the units. We'd like to
variance on that. Across Highway 17 and Powers Blvd, there are some '
townhomes in
ere... In fact there would be no reason why similar units couldn't be
integrated into tlds
particular rental unit here. I guess ... the proposal part of it and...
Tom Rasmussenc
One of the things we thought of is we don't want to leave you hanging
here thinking what
is on our mind. What do we want to see for that. So therefore we have
come up with some
recommendations to kind of put up along there. This is something that
we decided and
talked about. We would 'like to see, personally we want to see the
elimination of all
retaining walls and steep' slopes and we want to retain the existing slope
coming down fr
m our units as much as possible. Like that. We want to decrease the
number of unitsito
prevent intensification and traffic congestion issues that are along CR 17.
We want to regjire more green space. We want to preserve the wetland. We want to I
53 '
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
preserve the woods and we want to preserve any type of green space, especially along the
slope as much as possible. Like. that. What do you do with water from the site? We're
recommending that you put a pipe in across from the development over to CR 17 to the
existing ponding system with the Joe Miller Homes development. There is ample storage in
there and we believe that that would help solve all those issues. That helps ... before it goes
into Lake Susan. We would like to request that a closer look be taken at County Road 17's
traffic and safety issues. We would like to see the speed decreased. We want to limit the
number of access points coming out from this development. We want to install 4 way stop
signs at both Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17 intersection. And what we would like to see
is we would like to see a pedestrian foot bridge coming from this development across to the
park over there. We see this as the only alternative to get over there safely. Right now there
is no green space. The children can't play in here. We don't want them coming through our
yards... There's a nice park proposed across there and we think that that's the only natural safe
spot ... Again our recommendation is that they continue on with the maintenance free exterior
and trim and I was part of a townhome before I came out here to Chanhassen and believe me,
the underground sprinklers are an excellent idea ahead of time. The time to do it is before
you do any grading out there and think about that. When we first started off we hired some
children, or some kids that were off during the summertime and you get such an erratic
pattern of the way the development looks. It's just a nice, lot cleaner, better looking
development to just go ahead and work those in from the beginning. Right now we're under
some maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills on the west side
there. We'd like to see at a minimum those type of guidelines be applied to this
development. We would also like to see along the edge here, where we've got in here, is we
do want to see some type of a buffer. We want a year round screen. That is not proposed
right now on the landscaping plan in any manner whatsoever. We feel that that's a must.
We addressed the issue already about no recreational space within the development for the
children and we also want to recommend that you impose stringent townhome association
guidelines so we can be assured that they will have the capital necessary to take as much
pride in maintaining their buildings and their yards as we currently do in our's for that. Right
now in conclusion we're asking you to table this. Right now none of the plans we have seen,
they don't have any of this tiered retaining wall system. They haven't done anything like
that. No berm is shown along CR 17, although I heard a lot of stuff being mentioned from
the developer. I don't see it on the plans. Sorry. But right now you can't give approval to
anything that's not on the plan and has a chance for us to review it. We've had a lot of
patient people here tonight. Waiting. We've had two meetings in ourselves to try and
eliminate the time that we're here talking to you. Along those lines, we've come up with a
design we think is feasible with one access point. One common driveway that has a berm
between there. Then you just go ahead and rotate the units in. This way you preserve the
slopes as much as possible and the units could face each other where these arrows are would
be a common driveway. Thank you for your time.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Mancino: Excuge me. How many units are you proposing?
Tom Rasmussen: Well, right now it's just a schematic but I just thought that, if you look at
the pictures, them 's the slope coming down and there's a flat area. All their recommendation
is is that they sit there and try to work within the flat area as much as possible. That way
you don't need t do the retaining walls and if you sit there and you rotate the units in a little
bit, you can may )e like the larger blocks might be units, maybe 3 or 4. Instead of twin
homes they could be maybe units of 3 or 4 townhomes and the smaller ones might be the
twin homes and iave them served by a common driveway there. That way we get a little bit
more... What it s, I'm just throwing it out as a schematic but to me this type of a design
would address a lot of our concerns. And that's why we wanted to throw something back
that they could possible work with. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes
ma'am.
Wendy Nelson: My name is Wendy Nelson and I live at 8411 Egret Court, which is the first
lot. Up at the top in the northern part. And my husband and I really have concern about the
retention pond. 'm not too familiar with retention ponds except that I know that there's
water which gen rates mosquitoes and da, da, da, da. But I'd like to know, and I don't know
if the engineer c n tell me this, how close this is to my property line. Because from where I
sit, there's not at much room from my property line and CR 17. So if someone could kind
of tell me. I
Scott: We have the scalemeister is calculating it as we speak. The only problem is with
something like tat, it could either be 100 miles, 100 feet, 100 yards so but being the
competent individual that he is.
Hempel: Scalir,
approximately '�
to back up a ste
terms of storm
wetland delinea
graded wetland
years ago. It's
Court down to
pond ... through
it off the plan, it appears to be the normal water level of the pond would be
feet from the property line at this point. On the proposed plan but I have
and maybe address a couple of the issues that have been thrown out in
finage and wetlands and so forth. The staff report does take into account
in and storm water ponding issues on the site. We've made some
very similar to what the association had concerns with and some of their
..at our's. That is classified as a wetland area. It's a very significant
ea. There's been a sanitary sewer line run through it approximately 3 to 4
;en regraded and filled in to maintain the drainage from upstream in Egret
county road. It has taken back on it's wetland characteristics as a
tt area. That area is designated as a surface water management pond as part
t
�1
J
F,
� I
t
55 1
h
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
of our city wide comprehensive storm water management plan. The applicant would be
required to—banking the city or another developer. We're looking at some banking area
would be Powers Boulevard... involved in that project. There's also another storm water pond
potentially in the center of the site which we are considering buying the—to limit the number
of ponds on the site to one. That area may be a wetland. It's something that we've
required... have a professional biologist and wetland ... and research the site and come back to
us with a survey of that. Storm water pond will be tied back into the Joe Miller's 9th
Addition which is on the east side of the street. We made provisions for that development to
take the storm water runoff from this side of the street. It pretreated the water quality
treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands there before into Lake Susan. So we
have a step up on that.
Wendy Nelson: Well David, the retention pond, you said that's 20 feet from my property.
Hempel: Property.
Wendy Nelson: Property line.
Hempel: That's correct.
Tom Rasmussen: Is that normal?
Hempel: That's the normal water elevation.
Tom Rasmussen: How high would it be with a 100 year storm then? What's the emergency
' overflow? Obviously you got better plans than what was given to us.
Hempel: It appears to be about 5 feet away. 5 to 10 feet away from the property line. The
100 year flood elevation of the pond before it would overflow and go out to Powers
Boulevard.
Scott: And then as part of our surface water management plan, all of the retention ponds
have got minimum slopes. Or maximum slopes. 1 to 4.
Mancino: 4 to 1.
Scott: Yeah, 4 to 1. It starts to taper and my guess is, as far as mosquito control, because
that's obviously important to everybody. From what I understand, and I'm not a mosquito
expert but I believe that these ponds are designed so that it doesn't allow for the shallow
calm water the mosquitoes to breed in. But I think usually because of the size of the ponds,
56
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 1
it's really not a good environment because it's usually exposed to wind and wave action
which is not the lbest place for mosquito breeding but you know, there's our expert over there.
I think that has something to do with it. '
Hempel: There' a couple different design parameters that we can employ. We do employ a '
safety aspect of t ... where we have a 10 to 1 slope for the first 1 foot of water to provide a
bench around the pond. That area does occasionally grow vegetation, cattails and so forth in '
the shallow wate . The other type of ponding design, they've come out with a 4:1 slope. A
more gradual sloe that doesn't provide that shallow water shelf. It's a gradual slope. So if
someone was to all in, it would keep ... 3:1 slope. Those are some of the things that we...
Wendy Nelson: Is it normal for retention ponds to be that close to the property line? If that
is normal, could you give me an example somewhere in Chanhassen so I can have some idea.
Aanenson: Lake Susan has plenty of them.
Scott: Yeah, it' real common.
Hempel: All the storm water ponds in your neighborhood. Directly across the street. The
water treatment ponds that are in the back yards... Not the property but it's in the back door.
Wendy Nelson: One other thing. I know Tom mentioned the problems in our cul -de -sac. I
don't know if many people are aware but there are lots, I don't know how many houses are
in that cul-de-sac... ... Yeah, and out of those seven, how many have had problems? Five. So
that's another co cern about the building in that area. Because we are shifting of land. If
anything were t happen, I mean who would be responsible for the houses that are still
standing there ar aren't having any problems? Where will we go if there's a problem?
Scott: Good qu�stion. I don't have an answer for you but I think that.
Wendy Nelson: Major problems in that cul -de -sac.
Hempel: We're familiar with the problems. You've been having soil corrections way back
apparently to th y oversized the house pad on the lot type situation, is my understanding...
Mancino: So th4t we're sure when this is built, that that will be investigated to make sure
that it certainly on't repeat itself.
Hempel: Well
if the soil corrections that went in, it's difficult to determine the
57
1
1
iPlanning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
ramifications from this development alone to this existing neighborhood.
Scott: Is this something where soil borings be one avenue of determining that or?
Hempel: Right. We do require some soil borings from the applicant. Any kind of soil
correction measures...prior to issuance of building permit.
Scott: What about, is there a permitting process for retaining walls?
Hempel: That's correct. I believe the ordinance is for any kind of retaining wall that
exceeds... obtain a building permit prior to construction. Depending on that height, if it does
exceed 5 feet, I believe it needs to be engineered by a professional engineer, structural
engineer. For safety measures.
Scott: Okay. Well thank you. Would anybody else like to comment?
�\ Loleta Tolliver Rogers: Hi. My name is Loleta Tolliver Rogers. I live on the south side,
fourth house off the corner. I know we said we wanted to keep our comments short and
sweet ... or whatever but this is a burning issue and we as a neighborhood have not been
presented with all the facts. As we came in today we were told that townhomes were going
to be $80,000.00. The developer says $100 - 110,000.00. As we were told we were going to
have retaining walls, we don't know what they look like. We don't have a perspective of
them. I personally have two children. One 5, one 3. Very curious. I can see them playing
in the back yard saying, I race you to the top of the wall. And what's going to happen when
they fall over? Once again, where is the liability? Who's going to assure me that my
children are going to be okay? I think when it back to their representative today, a flyer from
what we need as an association have been given are not the same. We have not seen the...
paths and before this can be taken any further, I feel that we as a development need to see
what's really going to happen. He describes this, the back of these homes are going to be
against Powers Blvd. Multiple colors. I was born in a large city. That sounds like row
houses to me. I did not move out here to live in row houses. I did not move out here to live
in a section divided. To live with a different class of people. There are too many
unanswered questions I think that need to be resolved before this can go any further. Thanks.
Scott: Good. Thanks for your comments and that's the reason why we have public hearings.
So your comments are appreciated and we do pay very close attention to what people say.
Yes sir.
Jeff Zahn: My name is Jeff Zahn. I live at 8461 Pelican Court which borders the property.
58
t
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
59 1
I just had a couple
quick things. — approve this project when retaining walls haven't even
conceptually been
thought of by the developer. Not materials. Not whether it's tiered or
what so I'm a li
e amazed at that. A lot of talk about water drainage but I haven't heard
much about the
ipper lots. How that water can flow down into this development. My back
yard, when it rai
ns, it pours in just like a river back there flowing down that hill. The
retaining walls t
iere, I don't know where' that water's going. I pose that question. Just one
last thing. This
1developer, and I'm not even sure who they really are. They talk about a
joint venture. My
concern is they're going to be doing major excavation right next to my lot. '
I want to know
who they are. Who their contractors are doing this excavation and whether
the city requires
liability insurance ... to protect us in the construction process. Thank you. I
guess that's all I
have.
Scott: Good, thank
you. Would anybody else? Yes sir.
Gary Condit: My
name is Gary Condit and I'll just point up here where I am. I'm Lot 24
here. It goes from
this corner to this corner. Just very briefly, I think the issue of the
retaining walls has
become a major issue. You can see how the land juts out. If you've got a
map there with
elevations on it. I have maintained the mode that the whole top of that hill
around, I plan
trees on it and I see from our lot line, the back of these homes, 25 feet.
Now if you take
a peak at the elevations, it's 20 feet down and 25 feet this way, what's that?
...it looks like a
45 degree slope. Now if you go out 25 feet and down 20, that gives you an
idea of what the
kind of steepness in this retaining wall is going to be. And I think at this
point it's a major
design error and I would strongly recommend, like our recommendation
before is to mo -e
them out more into the flat land area and go with more of an idea like that.
Scott: Thank you.
Yes sir.
Bruce Bowman:
I guess we're on a first name basis by now. Bruce Bowman. I have a
house that backs
up to what is going to be continued woods, or woodland area. That's one
question. The retaining
walls are something I cannot get through my head. It's going to be a
lasting thing, first
of all. And secondly, how in the world it's going to be safe when they
don't even kno
if they're going to have any fencing, trees or anything else. I think that at
best it's a very
remature thing. My personal opinion, looking at that rendering, they didn't
take into consideration
the topography of the land. They're taking dirt out of there and as
someone already
said, if you're going down 20 feet or 14 feet or something like that, and
then just a short
distance to the back of the house, I don't know how that would work. I
have another concern.
I like to work in my yard. Everyone else along that street likes to
work in their yard.
'
At least keep it up. Have pride in ownership. What's going to happen to
these woods?
hat they're going to leave there. Are they just going to forget about it? Is
there a homeowlers
association that's going to take care of this? What's going to happen?
59 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Chanhassen is a nice community. I moved here in 1978. I lived in another area. When I
moved away in 1989, the area I live in now wasn't even there. But I think that there needs
to be some more planning. Personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more planning
on this situation before they just blindly go in there, start digging dirt out. Making walls and
making no apparent safeguards and no apparent way of making it into a part of Chanhassen
as we know, a valuable area and a nice community. I thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Ron Ziebell: I'd like to expand a little bit about what I said before for the record here... The
wooded area, if you draw a circle around that, is an area that slopes from Bruce's back yard
in pretty much a uniformed grade down to Powers Boulevard. The retention of the wooded
area is going to cause some problems that should be addressed in the plans. First of all that
the woodland is going to be retained, that means they're not going to be graded. The land
right next to it is going to be graded rather severely and... retaining walls and the ... and the
woods. The consideration should be for overall landscaping. How do the woods blend into
the retaining landscaping, particularly along the top of the or along the border between the
existing housing and the proposed development. There should be some sort of a planned
landscaping scheme that considers the retention of the trees and blending of that particular
area in with the surrounding neighborhood.
Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Ron.
Nutting: Where do you begin? I can't personally pass this along. I need to see it back. I
need to see stuff on the retaining walls. I'm still new at this game Kate but I see, there's a
lot of stuff in this report I don't think most of the residents have seen in your
recommendations are there to address the issues regarding wetland and landscaping and
everything else. But I guess there's enough issues and enough concerns I'd rather see it back
with some of those issues visualized for us so that we can better respond to the concerns of
the residents. Rather than to move it on and not have a chance to see it back.
' Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I guess I have quite a few questions. Thank you for all your remarks and
questions. Dave, can you talk a little bit to all of us about Powers Blvd and the 50 mph
60
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
speed limit. It seems to me that in Chanhassen we have a lot of big wide roads that just
encourage us all to go faster and we have them through our neighborhoods. I have a huge
concern about that. We're building bigger, wider roads. People are going faster and they're
right in the middle of our neighborhoods. And this is one that I think a lot of citizens here
tonight have brought ght up and what can be done about it.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, there have been steps taking already in fact to address the
speed limit issues on most of our major highways within this city. This past spring or
summer the City Council, in a joint effort with the Carver County public highway department
petitioned the State to perform speed studies on all of our county roadway systems in the city.
Galpin Blvd, Po ers Blvd. To review these. They haven't been reviewed in a while. Plus
all this development we've had over the last few years. Have a lot more traffic. Lot more
residential neighborhoods abutting these streets so it is being addressed. Will be looked at by
MnDot here and we hope to have something back shortly. Powers Blvd is in the process of
being widened d upgraded. The construction plans are being drawn as we speak. Carver
County is the led agency... participation. The consultant engineer that the County has hired, I
did speak with them on this issue with regards to access. They are undecided at this point
where they'll be limiting the access points to a right -in to a right -out or one of the access,
maybe the ... will have the full turning movement. That's something that we're looking at
taking the sight distances and distances between access points. Carver County did supply us
with a memo based on the access issues. The storm drainage issues so these will be
addressed here in the upcoming month here. Their construction plans and the developer. I
think one of the conditions that we put in the staff report was the applicant meet with the
County and the City to review the access issues and storm drainage issues and so forth.
Powers Blvd de initely will include pedestrian trails /sidewalks on each side of the roadway.
There's been some talk tonight about accessing the parcel on the east side of Powers Blvd.
It's my understanding that they're looking at a pedestrian crossing with a tunnel. There's an
existing cattle p ssage if you will, on the north end that's been used. It needs some work.
There's some eri)sion that's occurred ... bad shape. There's a similar proposal I believe to
occur on the southerly portion of Powers to access and provide a pedestrian access across
Powers Blvd without having to cross. The pedestrian bridge, great idea. The cost of
something like at unfortunately I think, we're well aware of what's taking place in the
downtown with the price tag of that one so I don't know if that's reality. There is another
park system that's essentially larger and it's probably going to draw these neighborhood
children as well and that's in the Lake Susan Hills development... hill. That's already been
developed and the Lake Susan Hills residents are enjoying already. I'm sure they can all use
little parks...
Mancino: And
it goes into Pov
's being addressed. Will the stop sign issue on Lake Susan Hills Drive as
Blvd be addressed?
61
1
1
t
t
1
1
i
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Hempel: I did ask the consultant and they're looking into that. There was no immediate talk.
They didn't feel that the warrants were there to justify a signal intersection. They will be
looking at that though. They will be providing the mechanisms in the construction of the
upgrade of Powers for future signalization so I don't... warrants are met. But at this point we
don't consider any traffic controls at this intersection.
Mancino: Okay. Do you have any time line when you think MnDot will get to act on the
speed limits on Powers and Galpin and our major roads.
Hempel: I'd have to check further into that. See where they're at.
Mancino: Retaining walls. Sharmin, did the developer and staff, I mean how does staff feel
about and do we have it in other places in Chanhassen where we have 14 foot retaining walls
abutting?
Al -Jaff: We ... with the applicant and we expressed our concern over the height of the
retaining walls.
Mancino: What was the applicant?
Aanenson: That's why we want to terrace them...
Mancino: Okay, to go with the terrace.
Al -Jaff: We also ... put fencing in.
Mancino: So fencing at the top of the highest point of the terrace and besides fencing,
because we also know what fencing looks like. Some sort of arborvitae or some sort of
conifers.
Al -Jaffa ...approval. Landscaping plan.
Mancino: Okay. Did the applicant look at all about doing a sloping down a little bit and
then terracing? Come down a little bit more gradually, and I know that that would probably
lose some land for developing but was there any creative look at that? Developing it that
way.
Al -Jaff: When we met with the applicant, which was Tuesday of last week, we recommended
that they revise the plan. That they show us a terraced retaining wall and we left the design
issue with them. That they would have to come back to us with a design that was
62
Planning
satisfactory.
Mancino: And
Hempel: Mayb
throw out some
there. Possibly
to Powers Blvd
then between Pi
few units there.
approximately t
to Powers Boul
some of the im
Aanenson: Can
that this was dre
applicant almost
piece to try to di
value in that pro
tough issues thei
Meeting - September 7, 1994
don't see it, right?
if I could expand on that a little bit. Nancy, I'm sorry to interrupt ... we did
uggestions to try to break up the row of houses. Meander a street through
roviding all the units onto the west side of the street. Move the street closer
nd act more like a frontage road if you will and provide sufficient buffering
vers Blvd and that frontage road if you will. That resulted in losing quite a
They felt it was going to they thought the grading was going to be
same. They still have the units on the west side but, bring that road closer
,ard. If you bring the units down the hill somewhat and I think reduces
.ct. But it does knock off quite a few of the units being proposed.
just comment on what Dave is saying too. I think there's an appearance
ped in our lap and we just reviewed it. We've been working with this
year. This thing has gone through many evolutions. It's a very difficult
,elop. There's an inherent density in there and he feels there's an inherent
,rty. Okay, so we're trying to come up with ... resolve but it is, there's some
We're trying to...
Hempel: I'll touch on that a little bit more. The applicant was given the opportunity to
revise his drawings-he'd like to bring it out onto the table and see what issues are actually
out there so if they do go back, they can take into consideration all of the issues and go from
there.
Mancino: That' � helpful information.
Aanenson: This is an opportunity to get public input. Go back and respond to it. It goes
back to that thing, should we put it on or wait until everything's finalized and then come
back and you get them in a different order or bring it out in the public hearing and get some
direction from everybody and go from there.
Mancino: I just have a couple more questions. Sharm in, on the tree plan here. Are we
suggesting that there be custom grading in some of the areas where it abuts the existing trees?
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Mancino: On
would lose some trees...
side. And quite a few, on the north.
F
H
63 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Al -Jaff: Well it will robabl be more than that.
P Y
' Mancino: So you're going to take off about a quarter of the trees that are there.
Al -Jaffa Correct. However, all of this will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 as required by
ordinance. We are also requesting additional trees being placed on this site. One thing that
might help is, by realigning those units, it could potentially minimize grading with those units
' and it could also minimize impacts on the stand of trees.
Mancino: Trees. Okay. And when I see this tree plan, it has 10 trees that look like this.
What's that telling me? I mean they're going to take all of this but what does it mean? Are
those the specimen trees?
' Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Going back to the canopy coverage.
' Mancino: So these are the trees that are larger than 12 caliper inch that they have designated
they've shown. But the rest of the underbrush, the saplings and everything else will be saved
and they may not go in and clear cut the underbrush?
n
C
C
Aanenson: If that's how we define the conservation easement outside of our grading limits.
We've indicated that some will be taken out that are shown on the plan.
Mancino: Okay. But then the rest en masse will stay. Excuse me, I wrote down notes as
everyone talked. I think that's the end of my questions.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: As far as retaining walls are concerned, another aspect that I'm interested in comes
from what I'll call the Oak Pond effect and after seeing those townhomes go up, I'm just
wondering what really happened there. But the retaining walls are going to be a major visual
feature if they're built and I want to know exactly how they look when they go up because
those will be viewed all along Powers Blvd, if indeed this gets constructed like this. So I
think that's going to be extremely important. This is a PUD and I think it's important that
that be very well defined and we understand how that's going to look. Comments regarding
the landscaping. Staff has indicated the deficiencies. I guess I would like to, when this
comes back I would like to see a very detailed landscaping plan which resolves those
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 1
Scott: Good, Ladd.
deficiencies. I t
link the plan is quite difficult to follow and I think it could use a lot of
improvement there.
The idea of the retaining walls going into the treed area. To put in those
retaining walls
ere's going to be all kinds of grading beyond those areas. Equipment and '
essentially many
many of those trees would be lost in that area so you know I would not
support those re
'ning walls within that treed area. I think that probably defeats the purpose.
Let's see. I guess
'
overall I think the residents had a lot of good comments and I'm not going
to try to respond
to each of those other than I think many of them have quite a bit of merit
and I'm sure we're
going to go over those in detail. They've put their thoughts down on
paper which I th
'
is great. They're very well organized and have a good handle as to what
they feel is important
for their neighborhood and I certainly appreciate that. The one thing
that was, or another
thing that was brought out was the runoff from the upland area. The
other neighborhood
and I would, we really haven't addressed that anywhere in the staff report
that I've seen �d
I know it's a matter of course to consider the watershed regardless of
where the prope
y lines are but I just want to make sure, in this case I think it's extremely '
important because
there is a tremendous amount of water that will come off from the upland
area that I want
to make sure that gets addressed. I'm sure it will but just to emphasize the
importance of th
it in terms of incorporating surface water control features into whatever
retaining walls a
re built or whatever and that would be kind of tricky. But that would have to
be done in this i
stance. I can't imagine for stability sake water cascading over those
retaining walls s),
that's the extent of my comments. ,
Scott: Good, Ladd.
'
Conrad: You know
when you look at the footprint that we got, it wasn't bad. When you
think that this has
really been negotiated to have 9.3 units on it, it wasn't bad. It's coming in
at 5.1 and unfortunately
it's probably not meeting the real need for, the real reason for having
medium density
and that becomes affordable housing. And if we're at $110,000.00 which, as
a minimum, I'm
sure the neighbors appreciate that more than the $80,000.00 unit but really
when we put in
a PUD and we put in medium density, the reason was to make affordable '
housing and we
lanned that for years and years and years. That's why we do our plans so
that people knoN
r. It's there. It's been there for years. I said that and then I look at the
retaining wall ar
d I look at some issues when you start playing around with landforms, that if
you were here when
we talked about other parcels and that starts to bother me. When we
start playing wi
the landforms again and putting in a retaining wall. That's when, what I
thought to begin
with kind of breaks down. It's to the point though where I want to see if it
works. It looks
like it could but I'm not totally convinced of it, and that's why the applicant
has got to bring back some better. We have to visualize what this looks like. We have to, as
planning commi sioners and as neighbors, have to understand what we're doing with this
retaining wall. ,We have to see how the landscape plan affects that and how it moves from
this medium der sity to the neighboring low density. So it may not be acceptable but on the
65 '
1
LJ
J
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
other hand it just may but given what we've been given tonight, I don't have a clue. And
given that fact, we have to table this. We have to. There's just no doubt. We have no other
choice. My only other issue, I think a lot of the issues from the neighborhood, I think they're
resolved or they're close to being resolved. If you saw the staff report, we've dealt with, you
know the staff is dealing with speed limits. Staff is dealing with tree preservation. Staff is
dealing with wetlands. I think we're concerned with construction and I'm concerned with
construction and what it could potentially do to the neighbor's houses and liability there. I
think we have to let the neighbors know what it is. Who's accountable and we'll do that.
My only other issue though is the variety of designs that abut the street. You know I really
don't, I really don't want a row. It's not what we need there. I think generally I didn't have
a real problem with the house designs. I think they're, but I don't want a row of houses
abutting that street. There's got to be some kind of variety and I don't think it's just color
and I think the developers have tried to put some gables in and some different variations but
still they've got a great potential of a lot of units sitting exactly the same distance back from
the street and it is, it's a wall. That bothers me a little bit. So we need to see it back and
see what the developers can do but the big deal is, we have to visualize what your perspective
is of that retaining wall. We have to see it because you're changing a landform that we
really don't like to, or at least I don't like to play around with the land that much. I kind of
like to leave it as it is and if you're to change it, then we've got to see how you're doing it
so we can all say, yeah. That makes sense. So anyway, because again I started out, the
reason I started out with density, they contractually can put that kind of density in here and
you have, there's some other alternatives. It may not be economic for them to do it right
now. There may not be a market for the higher density right now but they have some,
contractually we're liable for putting in some units so when they come down to 5.1, that's not
bad. So we just want to make sure they're the right 5.1 units that are going there so again, I
say that to the neighbors. There's some other options that aren't as good but again, we have
to make sure that this works. In a transition to your area and that's why I want to see it
back.
Mancino: I'd second that.
Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any
discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am
Mancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff ...some direction about
and that's impervious surface. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impervious surface is over
what the PUD states.
Scott: Is it 30 on the PUD?
..
Planning
Mancino: It's
Conrad: We
Aanenson: We
Meeting - September 7, 1994
on the PUD and they're at 34 %.
enforce that. Yet on the other hand, we could enforce that.
over on the other one...
Ledvina: I thinly I'm willing, personally I'm willing to be flexible on that given the type of
design that I see If we were looking at another design, maybe 30% would be more
appropriate. So I think the staff recommendation as it relates to that is appropriate for, in my
opinion, for this articular development.
Conrad: Yeah, 1i agree with Matt.
Mancino: Well 't's probably one of the reasons why you get the row of houses also. I relate
the impervious s irface percentage to that and lining up the roads.
Ledvina: It's very, I would agree with that and I think something needs to be done to break
up the wall. An if that means losing a unit and staying ... or losing more units or however
it's done and also in relation to the severity of the slope differentials. In the final analysis,
retaining walls may not be the appropriate way to develop and the density would come down.
I don't know but I think more sensitivity and analysis there will provide some answers.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table action on the preliminary plat to subdivide
9.7 acres into 0 lots twin home multifamily development for Jasper Development
Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: We'd 14 to see this back as soon as the applicant can do what we've suggested but
just in summaryl I believe it would be very helpful for us to see a perspective view, a
westerly view of the, not necessarily the whole development but at least significant sections
of the development where the difference in grade is very severe. Number two, if it is at all
possible and we all have to understand that this piece of property is pretty much a basketcase
to try to develop and I think that this initial pass that we've seen is a good effort towards it
but if there's an way that we can get the street to meander a little bit so we have more of a
wave effect instead of just the row house, that'd be important. We'd like to see building
materials at the next meeting and.
Mancino:
Scott: Yeah,
much. We a
landscaping.
the other comments I think are on it. Okay, good. Thank you all very
;fate your. The public hearing is closed sir. I'm sorry.
1
67 1
Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994
Resident: I understand that but I need to ask one question. Can we get the information that
we're asking too? Can we as homeowners?
' Aanenson: Yes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes were available due to a copying machine
problem.
' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
1 Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on what occurred at the City Council
meeting of August 22, 1994 and the Commission had some questions regarding the
Entertainment Complex presentation.
Mancino: My only concern, publically, is that they reviewed it much like we did. Remember
we reviewed it. It was very long. We started at 5:30 and we went until 11:30 one night or
12:00.
Aanenson: But this is just a concept. This is just to say, we should spend some money to do
some drawings.
Mancino: Exactly but I also want to say that it was too bad that I think that they did it like
1 at 1:00, 12:30 at night too. So I mean there's nothing to be done. I'm just saying that it's
too bad that.
' Ledvina: Was it really that late?
Mancino: Yes...
Aanenson: A 2 hour snowmobile issue...
Kate Aanenson also reviewed the legal issues involved pertaining to gifts presented to public
officials with the Planning Commission.
' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
fSubmitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
68
Planning Commi Sion Meeting - September 7, 1994
Prepared by Nanp Opheim