CC Packet 2013 08 12AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
Discuss Resolution of Support for SouthWest Transit, Len Simich
a -1 sw transit.pdf
Discuss 2014 Budget and Preliminary Levy
2014 budget.pdf
REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and
will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the
council packet for each staff report.
Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 22, 2013
Work Session
Summary
Verbatim
07 -22 -13 -cc -ws.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc -sum.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc.pdf
Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 16, 2013
Summary
Verbatim
07 -16 -13 -pc -sum.pdf, 07 -16 -13 -pc.pdf
Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Rezoning of the
Chanhassen Apartments Site from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit
Development -Residential (PUD -R).
chan apts summary ordinance.pdf
Approve Certificate of County Board, Classification of Tax Forfeited Lands
e1 -d tax forfeited parcels.pdf
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
960 Carver Beach Road, Applicant: David D. Moore, Inc.,/Owner: Anita Benson:
Request for a Variance from Section 20 -615 of the Chanhassen City Code to
Construct a Single -Family Home.
g -1 variance 960 carver beach road.pdf
Bluff Creek Cottages, North of Pioneer Trail and West of Bluff Creek Boulevard,
Applicant: Chestnut Group, LLC/Owner: John Klingelhutz:
Request to Rezone 8.9 Acres from Agricultural Estate District (A -2) to Mixed Medium
Density Residential (R -8); Site Plan Review with Variances for the Construction of a Senior
Housing Facility; Conditional Use Permit to Allow Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District; and a Resolution Approving Removal of the Site from the Rural Service Area.
g -2 bluff creek cottages.pdf
Preserve at Rice Lake; South of West 86th Street, North of TH 212 and East of TH
101; Applicant: J & S Ventures 1, Inc:
Request for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low
and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single -Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density
Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22
Acres into 16 Lots and 2 Outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration
Permits.
g -3 preserve at rice lake.pdf
Rice Marsh Lake Trail Improvements: Consider Award of Bid.
g -4 award of bid rice marsh lake trail.pdf
Pioneer Pass Park Improvements: Consider Award of Bid
g -5 pioneer pass park award of bid.pdf
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE PACKET
correspondence packet.pdf
ADJOURNMENT
GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the
Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.
That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations .
1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the
Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is
not a member of the City Council.
2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a
spokesperson that can summarize the issue.
3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.
If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council.
4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in
discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a
thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request.
5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an
individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed
to the City Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th
Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the
public are welcome.
A.5:30 P.M.
1.
Documents:
2.
Documents:
B.7:00 P.M.
C.
D.
E.
1.
Documents:
2.
Documents:
3.
Documents:
4.
Documents:
F.
G.
1.
Documents:
2.
Documents:
3.
Documents:
4.
Documents:
5.
Documents:
H.
I.
J.
Documents:
K.
AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.Discuss Resolution of Support for SouthWest Transit, Len Simich a -1 sw transit.pdf Discuss 2014 Budget and Preliminary Levy 2014 budget.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 22, 2013 Work Session Summary Verbatim 07 -22 -13 -cc -ws.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc -sum.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc.pdf Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 16, 2013 Summary Verbatim 07 -16 -13 -pc -sum.pdf, 07 -16 -13 -pc.pdf Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Rezoning of the Chanhassen Apartments Site from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R).chan apts summary ordinance.pdf Approve Certificate of County Board, Classification of Tax Forfeited Lands
e1 -d tax forfeited parcels.pdf
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
960 Carver Beach Road, Applicant: David D. Moore, Inc.,/Owner: Anita Benson:
Request for a Variance from Section 20 -615 of the Chanhassen City Code to
Construct a Single -Family Home.
g -1 variance 960 carver beach road.pdf
Bluff Creek Cottages, North of Pioneer Trail and West of Bluff Creek Boulevard,
Applicant: Chestnut Group, LLC/Owner: John Klingelhutz:
Request to Rezone 8.9 Acres from Agricultural Estate District (A -2) to Mixed Medium
Density Residential (R -8); Site Plan Review with Variances for the Construction of a Senior
Housing Facility; Conditional Use Permit to Allow Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District; and a Resolution Approving Removal of the Site from the Rural Service Area.
g -2 bluff creek cottages.pdf
Preserve at Rice Lake; South of West 86th Street, North of TH 212 and East of TH
101; Applicant: J & S Ventures 1, Inc:
Request for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low
and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single -Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density
Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22
Acres into 16 Lots and 2 Outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration
Permits.
g -3 preserve at rice lake.pdf
Rice Marsh Lake Trail Improvements: Consider Award of Bid.
g -4 award of bid rice marsh lake trail.pdf
Pioneer Pass Park Improvements: Consider Award of Bid
g -5 pioneer pass park award of bid.pdf
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE PACKET
correspondence packet.pdf
ADJOURNMENT
GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the
Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.
That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations .
1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the
Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be
addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is
not a member of the City Council.
2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a
spokesperson that can summarize the issue.
3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.
If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council.
4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in
discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a
thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request.
5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an
individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed
to the City Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th
Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the
public are welcome.
A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:2.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.
Documents:
F.
G.
1.
Documents:
2.
Documents:
3.
Documents:
4.
Documents:
5.
Documents:
H.
I.
J.
Documents:
K.
AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 2013 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.Discuss Resolution of Support for SouthWest Transit, Len Simich a -1 sw transit.pdf Discuss 2014 Budget and Preliminary Levy 2014 budget.pdf REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE)PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be considered under one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City Council action is based on staff's recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report.Approval of City Council Minutes dated July 22, 2013 Work Session Summary Verbatim 07 -22 -13 -cc -ws.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc -sum.pdf, 07 -22 -13 -cc.pdf Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 16, 2013 Summary Verbatim 07 -16 -13 -pc -sum.pdf, 07 -16 -13 -pc.pdf Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Rezoning of the Chanhassen Apartments Site from Agricultural Estate (A -2) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R).chan apts summary ordinance.pdf Approve Certificate of County Board, Classification of Tax Forfeited Lands e1 -d tax forfeited parcels.pdf VISITOR PRESENTATIONS See guidelines for Visitor Presentations at the end of the agenda.NEW BUSINESS 960 Carver Beach Road, Applicant: David D. Moore, Inc.,/Owner: Anita Benson: Request for a Variance from Section 20 -615 of the Chanhassen City Code to Construct a Single -Family Home.g -1 variance 960 carver beach road.pdf Bluff Creek Cottages, North of Pioneer Trail and West of Bluff Creek Boulevard, Applicant: Chestnut Group, LLC/Owner: John Klingelhutz:Request to Rezone 8.9 Acres from Agricultural Estate District (A -2) to Mixed Medium Density Residential (R -8); Site Plan Review with Variances for the Construction of a Senior Housing Facility; Conditional Use Permit to Allow Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District; and a Resolution Approving Removal of the Site from the Rural Service Area.g -2 bluff creek cottages.pdf Preserve at Rice Lake; South of West 86th Street, North of TH 212 and East of TH 101; Applicant: J & S Ventures 1, Inc: Request for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single -Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 Acres into 16 Lots and 2 Outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permits.g -3 preserve at rice lake.pdf Rice Marsh Lake Trail Improvements: Consider Award of Bid.g -4 award of bid rice marsh lake trail.pdf Pioneer Pass Park Improvements: Consider Award of Bid g -5 pioneer pass park award of bid.pdf COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS CORRESPONDENCE PACKET correspondence packet.pdf ADJOURNMENT GUIDE FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations .1.Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council.
2.If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a
spokesperson that can summarize the issue.
3.Limit your comments to 5 minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor.
If you have written comments, provide a copy to the council.
4.During Visitor Presentations, the council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in
discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a
thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion, or request.
5.Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an
individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed
to the City Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Brindisi's Pub, 501 West 78th
Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. Members of the
public are welcome.
A.5:30 P.M.1.Documents:2.Documents:B.7:00 P.M.C.D.E.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:F.G.1.Documents:2.Documents:3.Documents:4.Documents:5.Documents:H.I.J.Documents:K.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JULY 22, 2013
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, and Councilwoman Ernst . Councilman Laufenburger arrived during discussion of item A 3.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehm e, Todd Hoffman,
Greg Sticha , and Lt. Jeff Enevold
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
1. SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT UPDATE.
Greg Sticha provided an update on the year to date budget expenditures which are similar to previous
years and revenues are 70% of budget. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on the expenditures
being at about 46% and the likelih ood of coming in under budget and clarification of revenue projections.
Councilwoman Ernst asked about citation revenues being under budget. Mayor Furlong asked about
delinquent tax collections. Jennifer Curtis with Wells Fargo provided an update on the City ’s investment
portfolio noting it is balanced and stable . Mayor Furlong asked about risk associated with higher market
yields and duration of portfolio.
2. REVIEW CITY ’S SNOW PLOWING BENCHMARKS, INCLUDING TRAILS AND ICE
RINKS.
Paul Oehme presented snow plowing statistics for last year ’s winter, including streets and public parking
lots . Mayor Furlong asked about costs with the use of salt and sand and pre-icing products.
Councilwoman Ernst asked about feedback from the effects of changes made by council last year . Todd
Hoffman discussed snow removal on trails and ice rinks. Mayor Furlong asked about costs associated
with increased trails. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about plans for snow removal of the stairway on
Highway 41 and feedback from residents regarding trail snow removal . Councilwoman Ernst asked for
clarification of the overtime hours associated with street snow removal.
3. RECEIVE INFORMATION ON THE OTHER “NEW NORMAL ”, UNDERSTAND HOW
HEALTHCARE, FEDERAL TAX CHANGES, ETC IMPACT THE CITY.
Laurie Hokkanen discussed the work she ’s been doing with Gallagher Benefit Services and explained
what ’s being done to prepare for the changes in hea lthcare and federal tax changes. Mayor Furlong asked
about different types of insurance coverage. Councilwoman Ernst asked about deductibles versus rates.
4. DISCUSS RICE MARSH LAKE TRAIL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
Todd Hoffman distributed a handout of a map showing the trail around Rice Marsh Lake with
Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Todd Gerhardt explained that due to the late spring, crews are well behind
schedule and won ’t be able to complete their portion of the trail this summer and asked for direction from
council on a proposed construction method (in-house versus competitive bids ). Council members
discussed the proposed budget number of $200,000 and engineer ’s estimate of $272,000.
City Council Work Session – July 22, 2013
2
5. IMPLEMENT A COMMUNITY SURVEY TO HELP DETERMINE THE CITY ’S
STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, AND COMMUNITY NEEDS.
Laurie Hokkanen discussed the process used with using National Citizen Survey t o conduct the
community survey which is done every 3 years. Council discussed the use of electronic versus mailed
surveys in getting a scientific sampling. Laurie Hokkanen asked for feedback from the three closed
ended policy questions being provided by staff. Councilman Laufenburger suggested adding Twitter to
the first question. Councilwoman Tjornhom suggested asking about what types of businesses people
want to see in the downtown area. In discussing the open ended question, Mayor Furlong aske d about
using compound questions i.e. single biggest issue facing Chanhassen over next several years and how
would you propose to address it. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked how the results of the survey has
he lped with policies in the past and feedback from residents on street reconstruction and assessment
policy. Mayor Furlong suggested putting something on the City ’s website about the survey being sent out.
6. DISCUSS MASSAGE THERAPY LICENSING.
Todd Gerhardt discussed the growing number of complaints regarding massage par lors located within
Chanhassen, the difficulty of enforcement and the option of licensing requirements. Lt. Jeff Enevold
stated he would strongly encourage and support the licensing of these types of businesses. Laurie
Hokkanen explained that the next step would be going out and talking with businesses to get their
feedback. Councilman McDonald had additional questions about this item and asked to continue this
discussion after the council meeting.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m. The work session was r econvene at 9:35
p.m.
Council continued discussion of the massage therapy licensing. Councilman McDonald questioned
whether the background check amount of $250 was enough, and what other cities have in place.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if business already in place would be grandfathered in. Staff explained
that they would require everyone to be licensed except for those associated with Chiropractic offices.
Consensus of council members was to direct staff to meet with business owners and other cities to discuss
which types of businesses would be subject to this ordinance . Councilman Laufenburger brought up the
issue of the city getting involved in issuing business licenses.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 22, 2013
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman,
Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
David Walstad 10071 Great Plains Boulevard
John Chadwick 4477 Manitou Boulevard, Excelsior
Steve Ach Lennar
Jeff Fox Excelsior
Nick Polta Pioneer Engineering
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO CHANHASSEN DAY AT THE ARBORETUM,
AUGUST 2.
Mayor Furlong invited all Chanhassen and Carver County residents to Chanhassen Day at the Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum on August 2 nd .
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Tjornho m moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager ’s recommendations:
1.Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 10, 2013.
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 10, 2013.
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 24, 2013
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 18, 2013
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 25, 2013
4.Resolution #2013-36: TH 101 GAP Project (Pioneer Trail to CR 61): Approve Resolution of
Support and Priority Designation.
5.The Preserve 5 th Addition, Chanhassen Residential Development Partners as amended:
a.Final Plat Approval.
b.Approval of Plans and Specifications and Development Contract.
c.Approve Addendum to Development Contract.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
2
6.St. Hubert Catholic Community, 8201 Main Street: Approve Requests for Temporary On-Sale
Liquor Licenses, August 17 & 18, September 28, and October 11.
7.Verizon Wireless: Approve Lease Agreement for Downtown Water Tower, 500 West 76 th Street.
8.Resolution #2013-37: Resolution Approving Decertification of Tax Increment District #8.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Laurie Susla asked for clarification o n allocation of the road
reconstruction project being under budget. David Walstad asked for clarification of routing, funding and
timing of the Highway 101 project be tween Pioneer Trail and CSAH 61.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Lt. Jeff Enevold reviewed comparisons
from 2011 to 2012 from the BCA Uniform Crime Report with the key financial strategy cities, and
showed examples of community involvement. Councilman Laufenburger asked for an update on what the
School Resources Officer, Bob Zydowsky does to prepare for the upcoming school year at next month ’s
presentation. Chief John Wolff provided year to date statistics and updates on calls for service and fire
department activities i.e. 4 th of July, National Night Out, Miracles of Mitch, and a new activity this year,
the Mud Run at Lake Minnewashta Regional Park.
JEURISSEN FIRST ADDITION/CAMDEN RIDGE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL:
A.JEURISSEN FIRST ADDITION, APPLICANT/OWNER: BRUCE JEURISSEN:
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
B.CAMDEN RIDGE, APPLICANT: LENNAR/OWNER: BRUCE JEURISSEN:
1)REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 36.2 ACRES INTO 32 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 26
TWINHOME LOTS, AND 7 OUTLOTS; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
2)CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR GRADING
PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Councilman
Laufenburger asked for clarification of what land is included in Outlots B and C. Mayor Furlong asked
for clarification on how the 50% open space was calculated. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for
clarification of the Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries and how the City is benefitting for the PUD .
Councilwoman Ernst asked how the interest rate for the assessments were calculated. Mayor Furlong
asked about providing right-of-way second access to the north . Council members discussed the
assessments associated with this parcel. Mayor Furlong invited the applicants to speak. John Chadwick,
representing the owner, Bruce Jeurissen, addressed the issue of language in condition 15 regarding access
to Outlot C and condition 2 0 regarding assessments after passing out a handout. Steve Ach with Lennar
asked for clarification that the action taken on the Jeurissen First Addition is a final plat. Jeff Fox asked
about the location and fencing on top of the 9 foot retaining walls and asked for clarification of the access
point going through the tree preservation area on his property. After comments, discussion and
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
3
clarification of the motion, the following motions were made.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
Jeurissen 1 st Addition plat subject to the following conditions:
1.Dedicated access to Outlot A must be provided prior to recording the Jeurissen 1 st Addition plat.
2.The existing driveway access to TH 212 must be closed except for access for agricultural
purposes only on Outlot C , Jeurissen 1 st Addition. An access easement across Outlot B,
Jeurissen 1 st Addition shall be recorded which shall follow the existing driveway alignment with a
width of approximately 26 feet. Said easement shall be vacated should alternate access to Outlot
C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition become available.
3.Unless the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvement assessment, City Project 06-05 levied against the
property is paid in full before the final plat is recorded, the assessment is reapportioned against
Outlot A. The principal of $601,212.65 was deferred until development and it has been accruing
6% since 2009. As of June 6, 2013 the assessment amount due was $796,302.31.
4.The Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, “Outlot B ” shall be conveyed to the City by
warranty deed free and clear of any encumbrances or a preservation easement acceptable to the
City shall be established over Outlot B before the final plat is recorded.
5.Before any development plans are submitted for Outlot C the property owner shall provide
appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and
fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the City to determine the exact watershed zone
boundary on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. Data for watershed zone delineation shall be
generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed management,
environmental science or other related profession. Development of Outlot C Jeurissen 1 st
Addition would be inconsistent with the adopted Alternate Urban Areawide Review, AUAR.
Any development would need to conduct additional environmental documentation or review or
request an amendment to the 2005 AUAR.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves
rezoning from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R),
preliminary plat of approximately 23 acres into 32 single family lots, 26 twinhome lots and 7
outlots; and a conditional use permit to allow for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District for the Camden Ridge development subject to the following conditions and adoption of the
Planning Commission Findings of Fact:
Building Conditions :
1.Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures.
2.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
3.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
4
4.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
5.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
6.The applicant and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
7.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
Engineering Conditions :
1.The developer must obtain right-of-way for the part of River Rock Road that connects to
Bluff Creek Boulevard.
2.The proposed “Easement Detail ” must be revised to include how the easements around the
perimeter of the twinhome lots will be platted.
3.The developer ’s engineer must adjust the grading on the trail near Outlot F so that it will
meet ADA standards.
4.The contours near the northwest corner of Pond 2, between Lots 6 and 7 must be smoothed
out.
5.Additional information needs to be noted (such as elevation points between the lots) between
lots on the north side of Street B to show the grading will allow water to drain away from the
structures.
6.The final plans must note the survey benchmark on the plan set.
7.The final plans must note the existing and proposed elevations at the corners of each lot.
8.The grading behind all the retaining walls must be modified so that water will not drain down
the face of the wall.
9.Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
10.Retaining Wall B must be moved so that it is outside the drainage and utility easement at the
back of the lots.
11.A Homeowners Association must be created to take ownership of all retaining walls and the
draintile along the face of Retaining Wall B.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
5
12.Local streets must be within a 60-foot wide right-of-way.
13.At final plat, the Engineering Department will review the profile of Street A between stations
2+00 and 4+00 to ensure the profile meets the minimum length requirements for vertical
curves.
14.The proposed centerline grade at the intersection of River Rock Drive and Street A must not
be greater than 3%.
15.The existing driveway access to TH 212 must be closed except for access for agricultural
purposes only on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. An access easement across Outlot B,
Jeurissen 1 st Addition, shall be recorded which shall follow the existing driveway alignment
with a width of approximately 26 feet. Said easement shall be vacated should alternate
access to Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition become available.
16.The developer ’s engineer must design a Street C typical section.
17.The development is adjacent to Bluff Creek Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial
collector fee at the time of final plat for Camden Ridge. The fee shall be $55,030.56 ($2,400
x 22.9294 acres of Outlot A, Jeurissen 1 st Addition).
18.The developer ’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection
system into the watermain plans.
19.The developer ’s engineer will ensure that CBMH-102 does not conflict with the nearby
watermain.
20. Unless the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements assessment, City Project 06-05, levied
against the property described on Exhibit “A ” is paid in full before the plat is recorded the
assessment is reapportioned against Outlot A. As of June 6, 2013, the assessment amount
with accrued interest was $796,302.31.
21.Water and sewer hook-up fees must be paid at the time of final plat.
22. P reserving 60 feet of right-of-way to the property straight north of Camden Ridge.
Fire Conditions :
1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
2.Temporary street signs must be installed prior to home construction.
3.No burning permits will be issued. Any trees removed must either be chipped on site or
removed from site.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
6
4.Water mains shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction.
5.Posts, fences, utility boxes etc. shall not be placed near fire hydrants which would hinder
firefighters to quickly locate and/or operate fire hydrants in a safe manner.
Natural Resources Conditions :
1.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings to meet minimum requirements.
2.The applicant shall plant a minimum of 130 trees in the development.
3.The applicant shall diversify the plant schedule so that no one species comprises more than
one third of the total number of trees.
4.The applicant shall specify vegetation proposed for Outlots A, B and C.
5.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city prior to final approval.
6.The applicant shall preserve trees #1301, 1302, 1303. These trees along with trees #1393-
1398 shall be protected by fencing prior to and during any grading or construction activities.
7.The developer shall install signage at lot lines to demarcate the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
Parks Conditions :
1.Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland
dedication.
2.Construction of Bluff Creek Trail from its current southerly terminus, extending between the
new homes and Bluff Creek to a terminus point at TH 212. The developer shall provide
design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.”
All construction documents, including material costs, shall be delivered to the Park and
Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt and constructed to
meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of the
aggregate base, asphalt surfacing, and storm water systems utilized to construct the trail. This
reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and
receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials noted.
Labor and installation, design, engineering and testing services are not reimbursable
expenses.
Planning Conditions :
1.The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as its portion of the 2005 AUAR prior to recording the
final plat.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
7
2.The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise generated by traffic on Highway 212.
The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for
residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which shall be
implemented by the developer.
3.The Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, Outlot “B ”, shall be conveyed to the City by
warranty deed free and clear of any encumbrances or a preservation easement acceptable to
the City shall be established over Outlot B before the plat is recorded.
4.Before any development plans are submitted for Outlot C, the property owner shall provide
appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora
and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact
watershed zone boundary on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. Data for watershed zone
delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in
watershed management, environmental science or other related profession.
Development of Outlot C Jeurissen 1 st Addition would be inconsistent with the adopted
Alternate Urban Areawide Review, AUAR. Any development would need to conduct
additional environmental documentation or review or request an amendment to the 2005
AUAR.
5.The property owner must advise the city of the intended use of Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st
Addition, and how it shall be accessed. This Outlot may not be developable or accessible in
the future.
6.Final plat approval will be contingent on the developer resolving the access issue. Either an
access easement or right-of-way must be in place prior to any site development.
7.Individual lots may not exceed the maximum hard cover per lot established in the compliance
table.
Water Resources Conditions :
1.Land disturbance within the first twenty feet of the Bluff Creek Overlay District setback shall
not be allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved without
the proposed disturbance.
2.A mitigation/restoration plan must be provided for any disturbance within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District or setback from the BCOR.
3.Trail must be aligned to minimize the encroachment into the BCOR primary zone and
minimize loss of natural vegetation and habitat.
4.Efforts must be made to minimize the number of inlets into each pond.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
8
5.The proposed ponds must be designed with a forebay.
6.The plans must demonstrate how water quality basin #1 and water quality basin #3 will be
accessed. This includes all inlets, outlets and filtration benches as well as sediment removal
from forebay and water quality volume.
7.The stormwater design shall, to the greatest extent practicable, seek to maximize infiltration,
extend detention times and protect Bluff Creek from scour and other erosive conditions.
8.The applicant must evaluate downstream flow conditions as indicated in Section 19-144.
9.A Surface Water Pollution Plan and all required elements must be provided to the city for
review. This plan must be compliant with NPDES requirements as well as the requirements
of Chapter 19 of city code.
10.SWMP trunk fees due at final plat are estimated to be $1 04,930 .25.
11.The development must comply with the MN Rules chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
12.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. Grading activities have been observed within this area
along the south side of Bluff Creek. The applicant should submit a plan for the revegetation
of this area that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City ’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Any such areas that have been disturbed
through the removal or addition of soils material prior to approval shall be addressed prior to
commencement of other grading activities but no later than seven (7) days from approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves
the Development Contract for grading of Camden Ridge subject to the following conditions:
1.If the Preserve at Bluff Creek 5 th Addition final plat is not recorded, the developer for Camden
Ridge must acquire the right-of-way for River Rock Drive South to connect to Bluff Creek
Boulevard.
2.The developer ’s engineer must adjust the grading on the trail near Outlot F.
3.The contours near the northwest corner of Pond 2, between Lots 6 and 7 must be smoothed out.
4.Additional information needs to be noted (such as elevation points between the lots) between lots
on the north side of Street B to show the grading will allow water to drain away from the
structures.
5.An escrow totaling $105,376.87 (110% of the estimated erosion control for this development) is
required before site grading begins.
City Council Summary – July 22, 2013
9
6.The grading behind all the retaining walls must be modified so that water will not drain down the
face of the wall.
7.Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
8.Retaining Wall B must be moved so that it is outside the drainage and utility easement at the back
of the lots.
9.An escrow totaling $66,709.50 (110% of the estimated cost of retaining wall construction) is
required before work on the retaining walls begins.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Speaking as a member of the Southwest Transit Commission,
Councilman McDonald provided an update on plans for extending light rail to Eden Prairie.
Councilwoman Ernst congratulated Paul Oehme on being appointed to the Transportation Advisory
Council position . Councilman Laufenburger invited everybody to attend the Chanhassen Red Birds game
on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. where Mary Jane Klingelhutz will be throwing out the first pitch. Mayor
Furlong thanked everyone involved with the 3 day 4 th of July celebration, invited people to attend
neighborhood meetings for National Night Out, discussed the event at the Senior Center that he, Todd
Gerhardt and Laurie Hokkanen attended, and informed people of the 10 th anniversary celebration for the
Chanhassen Library.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt discussed the great weather for the 4 th of
July celebrations before providing updates on road projects.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting
was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 2013
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Laufenburger
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman,
Greg Sticha, and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
David Walstad 1007 1 Great Plains Boulevard
John Chadwick 4477 Manitou Boulevard, Excelsior
Steve Ach Lennar
Jeff Fox Excelsior
Nick Polt a Pioneer Engineering
Mayor Furlong: Well good evening everyone and thank you for coming to our meeting this evening.
We ’re happy for those of you that are here in the council chambers who chose to join us and for those
watching at home as well. Thank you for being with us this evening. At this time I would ask members
of the council if there are any changes or modifications to the agenda. If not, without objection we ’ll
proceed with the agenda as published.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO CHANHASSEN DAY AT THE ARBORETUM,
AUGUST 2.
Mayor Furlong: I ’d like to start this evening with an invitation to the Chanhassen/Carver County Day at
the Arboretum on Friday, August 2 nd . The Minnesota Landscape Arboretum in partnership with the City
of Chanhassen and Carver County invites all Chanhassen residents to come and enjoy a free day at the
Arboretum. The Arboretum admission will be waived throughout the day from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
with residents with valid ID. I would encourage all residents to go. Use this opportunity to get out and
experience one of Chanhassen ’s natural treasures. At 10:00 a.m. there will be a special welcome from the
Arboretum Director, Ed Schneider, Carver County commissioners, Councilor Tjornhom will represent the
City in the great hall and the visitor ’s center. A variety of activities are planned throughout the day and
they include nature and garden walks. Guided tram tours. The master gardeners will be at the
information desk to respond to questions. There ’ll be children ’s activities and other events so it ’s certain
to be a good day. This year ’s summer exhibit at the Arboretum is Gophers in the Garden and as part of
the summer emotion ’s series out at the Landscape Arboretum. Please visit the City ’s website for more
information on times and activities and I hope you all come out and enjoy this event, and I ’d like to, I ’m
going to be out of the town but I ’d like to thank Councilwoman Tjornhom for agreeing to be there and
welcome everybody on our behalf as well as I ’d like to thank the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum for
again hosting this event and opening it ’s doors for free admission to all of our residents. It really is a nice
event and we ’re very grateful for what they do in this area and our community. Move now to items under
our consent agenda.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
2
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Furlong: I will say too that item number 5 had some, was modified and that has been distributed
to the council members and the effect of that modification was generally to take out irrelevant aspects or
immaterial aspects of those items. Is there anyone that would like any items, items E, 1 through 8 for
separate discussion? Anyone in the chambers? Okay, is there a motion to adopt items E, 1 through 8?
Councilwoman Tjornho m moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager ’s recommendations:
1.Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 10, 2013.
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 10, 2013.
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 24, 2013
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 18, 2013
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated June 25, 2013
4.Resolution #2013-36: TH 101 GAP Project (Pioneer Trail to CR 61): Approve Resolution of
Support and Priority Designation.
5.The Preserve 5 th Addition, Chanhassen Residential Development Partners as amended:
a.Final Plat Approval.
b.Approval of Plans and Specifications and Development Contract.
c.Approve Addendum to Development Contract.
6.St. Hubert Catholic Community, 8201 Main Street: Approve Requests for Temporary On-Sale
Liquor Licenses, August 17 & 18, September 28, and October 11.
7.Verizon Wireless: Approve Lease Agreement for Downtown Water Tower, 500 West 76 th Street.
8.Resolution #2013-37: Resolution Approving Decertification of Tax Increment District #8.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Laurie Susla: Hi. My name is Laurie Susla. I live on Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen and I just had a
quick question for council. I noticed an item in the agenda for the working session this evening about the
road reconstruction funds actually being hundred, I believe it was $171,000 over budget and I was
wondering if that was the City portion that was over budget or the, if the citizens were actually slightly
over charged for the road construction that was going on this summer. Or did I read that wrong?
Todd Gerhardt: Under budget.
Laurie Susla: I ’m sorry, I misspoke. Under budget. So with the excess funds, are those going to be
returned to the folks who paid for the reconstruction? The homeowner part of that.
Todd Gerhardt: The homeowners were charged based on bids received.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
3
Laurie Susla: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: So they saw their proportionate cost reduced as a part of that in the final assessment.
Laurie Susla: Oh perfect. So in other words the money that is, the surplus is strictly a City surplus.
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Laurie Susla: It ’s not coming from the citizens at this point.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. The City ’s portion.
Laurie Susla: Thank you. I just was curious about that. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else for visitor presentations? Good evening sir.
David Walstad: Good evening. My name is David Walstad. I ’m at 10071 Great Plains Boulevard.
That ’s just across from Halla Nursery, if that helps. So just south of Pioneer Trail and I was looking at
the agenda for the working session and it talks about item 4 which is the Highway 101 GAP project that is,
the funding of which is being requested through the legislature next year and I just had some general
questions. I saw part of the documents that were supplied online included a Paul Oehme. I believe it ’s
Oehme.
Mayor Furlong: Yes. He ’s our City Engineer.
David Walstad: Right. The letter to Todd Gerhardt regarding the Pioneer Trail to CSAH 61 and I just
had a couple questions on that. Just regarding the routes that are being developed. I ’m sure everyone
here aware is this has been a long term project and we had maps done in 2007 that included four alternate
routes, one of which went within 30 feet of my property and we ’ve been kind of hanging on waiting to
see what ’s going through this and I understand there ’s a whole development process but my first question
was in regards to, are those prior development plans going to be revamped or all new or how does that
work?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, would you like to respond?
Paul Oehme: Sure, Mayor, City Council members. We will have to go back and re-evaluate that 2007
corridor study. Those alignments that were originally identified in that document will be re-evaluated
plus we ’ll add to them but we have to look at all the alternatives when we go through the environmental
documentation process but typically you know what we ’re finding is the least cost. The best alignment is
typically using the current corridor. The current alignment of the road but straightening out as much as
we can. We kind of use that same process on the same section of 101 north of Pioneer Trail so, we ’d still
have to evaluate all the alignments and look for opportunities to save costs and reduce the amount of
environmental impacts but we ’ll definitely look at the existing corridor alignment very hard so.
David Walstad: Okay. And I saw there was $6.8 million in the proposal as far as land acquisition. I was
just kind of curious if that involved, you know how that was determined. If that was just kind of a
ba llpark or.
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
4
David Walstad: …specific properties that would be designated.
Paul Oehme: Well what we looked at, the current corridor and what would it take to improve that section
of roadway to the four lane design. In looking at what adjacent properties would need for strip takes or t
welve takes and that ’s the estimate that we have currently.
David Walstad: Okay and my last question is regarding the, I call it the yellow brick house. I guess I
don ’t know who bought it or who lives there currently but there ’s a home that was on that road that was,
they were making an attempt to designate it as a historic site and how much of an impact that would have
on your route choice.
Paul Oehme: It definitely plays a factor into the selection of the corridor. At this time I can ’t exactly how
much it will play a factor into where the alignment of the new roadway would go but it will be a factor,
yeah. It ’ll be re-evaluated again.
David Walstad: So my last, I ’m sorry, my last, last. I guess a future update, when would we be looking
at when those kind of decisions would be made?
Paul Oehme: Sure. Well there ’s no funding right now for this section of roadway.
David Walstad: Assuming you got the funding from the State next year.
Paul Oehme: Right, so I mean if we get funding that ’s one of the first things that we ’ll have to do is look
at hiring a consultant first off to start looking at the environmental documentation work. After we get that
contract approved, one of the first things we do is always try to have a kick off meeting with the
neighborhood just to let you know about the project. When it ’s coming. Kind of the steps involved with
it. Timeframe, those type of things so we always try to engage the property owners as much as we can in
this process.
David Walstad: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening? Alright. Thank
you.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening Lieutenant.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Good evening Mr. Mayor and council. Have a short power point presentation for you
here. Last year at this time I presented to you a study that showed the Uniform Crime Report to our key
financial strategy cities and that came out from the BCA again this month so I thought I would bring that
back to you and compare 2012 to 2011 and see where we stand with that. And you can see here our key
financial strategy cities and how we compare. The white numbers are 2012 numbers and then you can see
at the bottom there ’s a comparison there between 2011 and 2012. You can see that we fared under Part I
and Part II crimes of all of the key financial cities and we ’re also under on a number of sworn officers.
We ’re at 15 and the average is 26 in both 2011 and 2012. Any questions on that?
Councilman Laufenburger: How many of these cities are contract with, like we contract with Carver
County?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
5
Lt. Jeff Enevold: There ’s only one and that ’s the City of Andover and that ’s why I don ’t have any
statistics for them. They don ’t give those statistics.
Councilman Laufenburger: But the rest of these are all independent police departments.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Police departments, that ’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: The next one kind of breaks out the Part I crimes and you can see where we stand on
Part I crimes. Again the City of Chanhassen is under for all comparison key financial strategy cities so
again this is a pretty safe community that we live in here and that we have. What I did is I looked at the
three cities that I thought were closest to the city of Chanhassen so I pulled out all the others and did a
comparison and you can see how we compare to the City of Farmington, Lino Lakes and Rosemount.
We ’re actually over a little bit in Part I crimes when we compare to them and under for Part II crimes and
you can see the average sworn officers for those three communities is about 22 and again we ’re at 15. An
d the last few slides are just some of the community involvement that we ’ve been involved in here
recently. Obviously the 4 th of July celebration was a great success. You can see a couple of deputies up
there enjoying some of the great food that we had at the celebration there.
Mayor Furlong: And working hard.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Absolutely, yes. And you can see the sheriff ’s car in the parade. I think that was me
leading the parade there. There ’s my mug shot there too and you ’ve got Bob Zydowsky in the squad car
here and we just had a wrap up here with Jerry and Mitch about how things went with the 4 th of July
celebration and we all came to consensus that this was probably one of the smoothest and best organized
celebrations that we had so it really went off well and it was great teamwork by everybody. Public works,
parks, public safety, everybody. And the last community involvement we had was the public safety camp.
I know the Mayor was there at the end. We had the State Patrol helicopter show up and the kids really
enjoyed that. The pilot gave a great talk about you know what he does for the State Patrol. And this was
Thursday last week, and if you remember that was one of the hottest, muggiest days of the year so far so
the fire department was luckily there and he was hosing down the kids and they had a blast yelling and
screaming and enjoyed that so thanks to the fire department. And the last one here is the bike rodeo. This
was a big success. They really enjoy this. We set up a course where they go through a serpentine course
and they have to stop at stop signs and show us their hand signals and they really enjoy that and all the
kids had a great time, even though it was such a hot day. We really had a great time and Beth Hoiseth, let
me just put in a plug for her. She does such a great job of planning and organizing this event and every
year it ’s a great success so thanks to Beth for all the time she put into making this successful. And that ’s
what I ’ve got for you. Any questions, comments, concerns?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Lieutenant. Questions for Lieutenant Enevold. Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you. Lieutenant, your team does a wonderful job and I marvel at the
efficiency, especially when compared to some of the other key financial cities. I do have a question
maybe I could ask you to prepare for August when you come and meet with us in August. I ’d like to
know a little bit more about what you and the school resource officer, that ’s Bob Zydow s ky right?
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: What you do to prepare for the school year. I ’d just like to know what are the
anticipated issues that you feel that the kids in school participate in or what key elements that Bob needs
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
6
to be prepared for and what kind of support does Bob have? Is there a seminar he goes to or anything like
that but if you could just be prepared to speak to that in August I ’d appreciate that.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Absolutely. I ’ll bring Bob here and he can speak to that.
Councilman Laufenburger: Alright, thanks Jeff.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Terrific. Anything else?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions? Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah, and again I thank you for all the work you do and I think the statistics
kind of prove you out. What my question is, I ’m just wondering if we can get a copy of your
presentation?
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Absolutely. I can send that to Laurie and then she can get it out.
Councilman McDonald: Thank you.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Other things? Thank you.
Lt. Jeff Enevold: Great, thanks Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate the presentation. Appreciate the department ’s involvement in the 4 th of July
as well. Chief Wolff is here this evening, representing the Chanhassen Fire Department. Good evening
Chief.
Chief John Wolff: Good evening Mayor, good evening council. Tonight ’s report, we swore in 4 new fire
fighters on July 8 th at our annual Black Hat Ceremony where the fire fighters go from their yellow
probationary fire helmet to their black helmet. Had a big crowd there. The families were invited and
members and retired members. Also that night we introduced 3 new probationary fire fighters and our
recruiting efforts have been very, very strong. This is the first year we actually have a waiting list. We
have 5 people that also qualified. We just don ’t have space for them. No one ’s retiring. People love
being a fire fighter and, but it ’s nice to have that list too so if we do lose someone that we don ’t expect
that we ’ll be able to tap in. Had a couple promotions. One of my squad leaders, Matt Warden, Lieutenant
Warden was promoted to Captain and he ’ll be taking over our safety program. And to replace Lieutenant
Warden or Captain Warden we promoted Fire Fighter Adam Norc u tt and Adam ’s got 3 years experience
with us but he had 4 years with Woodbury Fire so he was, came kind of with some extra experience and
did really well in the testing process. On calls year to date we ’re 30% above last year but last year was
30% below average and at least at this point it ended up kind of smoothing out so we ’re right on the 5
year average almost to the percentage so kind of where we would expect to be in terms of call volume.
4 th of July for the fire department started early at 3 minutes after midnight on July 4 th we had a house fire.
First substantial house fire of the year. It was very close to our Station 2 and we had a quick response
from Lieutenant K eus man and Engine 21. I ’ve been to a lot of these fires when you don ’t get there
quickly and they end up being kind of a disaster for the family but this fire started in the garage. The car
caught on fire and pretty much was contained to the garage because of the quick response and the
excellent tactics of the fire department. We brought in some mutual aid partners that evening also to
support us there so the fireworks started at 3 minutes after midnight on the 4 th for the fire department.
Otherwise a very quiet day. We also supported the events for the 4 th of July. The events of July 3 rd with
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
7
the kiddie parade and the street dance. We had a safety tent there. Had our trucks in the parade and so
forth so, and then also supported the Lake Minnewashta fireworks too for later on that evening. We ’re
looking forward to assisting the city with the National Night Out on August 6 th which is a big event for us
all and I know we have a lot of neighborhoods on tap and Beth does a wonderful job getting us engaged
with that, as I know a lot of you do too. We ’re also going to be involved with the Miracles for Mitch
Triathlon on August 17 th and a new event called the Tonka Mud Run which is being sponsored by a non-
profit that supports Children for Hunger worldwide and it ’s a group that ’s based in the, kind of the lake
region and they have secured the Lake Minnewashta Park to run this mud run and these mud runs are
these popular events that you see all around the country and so they ’re using that sort of theme to try to
raise some funds for their fundraiser and they ’ve asked for our support and so we ’re going to help them
on the 24 th of August. So take any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Great. Questions for Chief Wolff. Councilman McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I just wanted to say that I appreciate the work you do and everything and we ’ve
made comment before about those feedback cards and I really appreciate you continuing to put those in
because it does show the level of service and everything that we ’ve giving to the community. And yeah,
the fact that you could contain the fire to the garage , whether it was luck or just you know your expertise,
we ’ll go with that but I think that the community owes you a great deal of thanks and really appreciate the
work you ’re doing so thank you. Keep it up.
Chief John Wolff: Thank you. We ’ll take a little bit of luck when we get it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments? Very good, thank you.
Chief John Wolff: Thank you.
JEURISSEN FIRST ADDITION/CAMDEN RIDGE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL:
A.JEURISSEN FIRST ADDITION, APPLICANT/OWNER: BRUCE JEURISSEN:
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
B.CAMDEN RIDGE, APPLICANT: LENNAR/OWNER: BRUCE JEURISSEN:
1)REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF APPROXIMATELY 36.2 ACRES INTO 32 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 26
TWINHOME LOTS, AND 7 OUTLOTS; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
2)CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR GRADING
PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
Mayor Furlong: We have a number of items here but let ’s start with a staff report please, and Ms.
Aanenson maybe you can kind of explain through the different items that will be before the council this
evening.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. While this is one property there is a
couple different motions and through this presentation tonight you ’ll see how they ’re all inner related but
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
8
if it ’s okay with you I think it ’d be nice just to put it in one motion. They ’re all in t ertwined. Inner
dependent on each other. So with that this application, it ’s for a 36 acre parcel located in what we call the
2005 MUSA area located on 1500 Pioneer Trail. The request is for a rezoning from agricultural to a PUD
-R and a subdivision review with a conditional use permit. The subject site is zoned agricultural and it is
guided for medium density which means it has to have the minimum of 4 units an acre. Medium density
goes from 4 to 8 units an acre and this project is right at the 4 units. 4.03 units an acre. The existing
conditions on this property. The site currently gains access via Pio neer Trail, hence the address through
this access. There we go again. Thanks. Let me just go back here for a second. Okay, subject site. 36
acres. And A2 and the medium density. So this is the existing conditions. Again the 36 acres. The 1500
Pioneer Trail address is based on this current driveway access coming up. Going underneath the 212
bridge and currently accesses the farm property this way and there ’s a narrow, also another driveway that
services the property that ’s being farmed in this area. So the creek separates the two so topographically
they ’re different in how we saw them and through the Comprehensive Plan which I ’ll address in a little
bit more detail. There are a lot of moving parts on this property and it tends to be more complex in how
it ’s developed so there was this area did have an alternative urban review on it and assessments were
made on that and I ’ll go through that in a little bit more detail. Access to the property. The Bluff Creek
corridor. The PUD requirements. The shoreland district requirements and then some other issues that we
want to address on that Outlot C which is why there ’s a separate development contract. I think the
biggest difference on this project, which we haven ’t done too much in the city where you have an
underlying property owner that ’s selling a portion of the property for development. Holding the rest in
reserve and then dedicating a part of that to meet the requirements for that project, for the subdivision to
go forward and then preserving a part of that to be determined in the future and I ’ll go into more detail on
that. So the alternative urban a reawide as sessment review for the 2005 area did one thing. We had one
project that came in, Liberty on Bluff Creek where we, that triggered the environmental assessment.
Instead of looking at that one piece in a vacuum, we studied that whole 600-700 acres and decide what
was the best way for that to get serviced. Not only through road access but also provide sewer and water
throughout this entire area so Liberty on Bluff Creek was the first project to go through. Then we did get
some entitlements on this property that we ’re looking at today and that plat went away. The Creekside
plat which you have a copy, a picture in your staff report. That project also had close to 140 units on it .
Then we look at Pioneer Pass. That one is underway. There ’s very few lots left in that subdivision and
then finally the Preserve which you did just approve now. The 5 th Addition on that plat so those
developments are moving along and selling out. The existing conditions, again let me just go back a
second for the assessments. Want to mention a couple things on the assessments and that ’s in detail in
your staff report and that was, there was an assessment for the AUAR that was attributed to each property
so when those properties come in they ’ll pay for that. Their portion based on the acreage. Then there ’s
also assessments in detail regarding the sewer and water that would provide sewer and water, was put in
place that gives this property the ability to develop by putting that in. In addition the road, Bluff Creek
Drive is the access point, the main collector for these properties. So the assessments then would be for, as
they ’re itemized in the staff report, for the MUSA expansion, Trunk 101, the Bluff Creek improvements
and then there ’s a total assessment for the property based on the previous entitlement that was given for
this property, and I know you ’ve had some discussions and there ’s some correspondence in your packet
regarding that specific issue. So again the existing conditions on the site, when we looked at the
alternative areawide review and we looked at the, how this property would be developed. It wasn ’t ever
contemplated that something on that lower bluff would be developed because of the steep slopes that are
identified here. The creek and the like so if we go back to this area here you can see how the Bluff Creek
goes through the entire length here. We ’ve got the city trail that goes down. It will continue down
through that area but that was an area, because of the low lands and the flood plain down in the area
closer to 212 it was not contemplated that that would be developed. So the subdivision that ’s moving
forward is actually on this top piece up in this area here, and then we have the separate outlot which I ’ll
go through in a little bit more detail. So this project when we looked at it, it came in, again to meet the 4
units an acre they had, the applicant had looked at doing an RLM. Similar to what they had done over at
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
9
Reflections but that subdivision required numerous variances and the staff was uncomfortable giving that
many variances on that type of a project so we worked hard, and with their good engineering they put
together the PUD but the PUD also, same with the low density, there ’s an expectation that with that
you ’re providing some additional preservation of open space. Because the developer wanted to use
everything on the northern half of the creek, the preservation then, and to meet the shoreland regulations,
had to move to the south of the creek. So the development standards, intent, lot coverage are all set
forward in the PUD ordinance which is attached as a part of the staff report so we felt this was the best
tool to move forward. Again to meet not only the 4 units an acre but to provide the flexibility on those
lots. The applicant too has provided house sizes that we know can meet those lots on all those so if you
look at the twinhomes that are also on this project, it ’d be similar to what they ’ve done in Vasserman
Ridge where they have twinhomes and single family homes, same developer so we have a history of how
they ’ve worked with that in the city. So the other issue then would be the shoreland district because Bluff
Creek segments the two pieces of property so there ’s a shoreland district line. There ’s a hard cover
requirement. Shoreland district calculations and then the total shoreland area has to be provided for. So
there ’s a lot of engineering and a lot of calculations on this project. So then within the PUD this would be
the property that ’s being developed so that plat shown on the northern part here would be the plat itself.
This Outlot B is required for dedication in order to one, accomplish the PUD ordinance and also to
accomplish the shoreland regulation requirements of that 50% open space so this is a required extraction
for preservation. We ’ve shown the shoreland protection ordinance on line on that so that ’s a requirement
for the lot sizes that have to go within that area. So Outlot C wants to be held by the underlying
developer. Excuse me, underlying property owner to be determined in the future. So as we stated in the
staff report, preservation of that, there is a farm road that gets to that property now. We have put together
in our ordinance what we believe is the right language for that access to get to that Outlot C and saying
that we want to see how that would be determined in the future. Again the original AUAR did not
contemplate this area being developed so we ’re saying if it can be developed, you need to go back and
amend the AUAR and show us how we can get sewer and water and a road to that area. So this would be
the Jeurissen 1 st Addition so this plat needs to happen, and again these need to happen simultaneously so
the development for Camden Ridge would be on Outlot A. Outlot B would then be the preservation area
needed for again the shoreland regs and the open space for the PUD and Outlot C would be still
maintained by the underlying property owner. So this would be the subdivision for Camden Ridge. So
this would actually be the plat. The developer also wants to proceed with grading so we ’ve also included
in here another piece, just to keep it as simple as we can, another piece to keep the developer moving and
that would be a development contract to allow for grading but that development contract is also tied to
another project and that would be the property to the north to get access to this site, and that ’s this piece
right here. With the 5 th Addition this access is being platted. That gives them the ability to get down to
the property that they need to to grade so that also has to be executed because we cannot give them
grading permission until they have, so there ’s actually dedicated right-of-way to get to that property. On
the subdivision itself there ’s a 70 foot change in grade between the northern end and the southern end and
there ’s some pretty substantial retaining walls in the area. The one retaining wall on the north is up to 9
feet in height in one area and it runs the length of 420 feet and that ’s this area right here. And then the
one in the middle.
Mayor Furlong: I ’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: I ’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Which area?
Kate Aanenson: Right here. Sorry, moved too quickly there.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
10
Kate Aanenson: About 420 feet up to 9 feet in height. This would be just south of the Fox parcel where
there ’s a significant tree stand to the north so they actually moved that street down, preserving those
grades and then putting that retaining wall so again doing a lot of engineering. Looking at the best way
for the road configuration. Best layout for the lots. A lot of different designs and this seems to be the
best location for the roads and the configuration of the plat. The next retaining wall is in the middle of the
site here between the backs of these lots and that ’s about up to about 3 feet in height and that ’s about 287
feet long. So it goes back about 3 or 4 homes. And then there is another retaining wall around the
stormwater pond and that ’s about 122 feet along the side here and that will also be fenced. We ’re along
212 here so we ’re anticipating providing additional buffer for noise attenuation along that side of the road
and then the other part of the grading, because this is, the conditional use requires if you ’re grading within
the Bluff Creek area, that does require a conditional use so we want to control that. It appears that some
of the trail might be encroaching on some of that grading would be so that mitigate that but the other
recommendation we had on try and reduce that one recommendation would be change some of the,
whether it ’s a walkout, lookout type home or providing some additional small walls. Again the condition
we have on those retaining walls is those belong to the homeowners association to maintain and not the
City so that would be a condition of that and that would be in the development contract. As I indicated
the conditional use is to cover those grading within the corridor on that map I just showed you and that
kind of follows, this is the primary corridor here. Again some of the city ’s trail might contemplate edging
into that grading itself so that trail that we ’ve got in place that goes up to, terminates right now as you go
underneath Bluff Creek would then come down. We ’ve got a city stormwater pond with a connection of
the plat here on the Degler, the Preserve 5 th then this trail would then continue on down until such time
that we connected to that property going to the south. Sewer and water, again would be coming off of
Bluff Creek Drive. As I indicated that ’s part of the assessments that ’s being paid for the, with this project
to cover those. I did want to comment on a stormwater fee on that. There ’s a note that was brought to
our attention here at the end of the day. I ’m on surface water management fees in your staff report and it
talks about treating the 16.05 and then there ’s an assessable number of 17.05. I think it should maintain
the 16.05. The City Engineer ’s looked at that so the calculations would change on that so the final fees
for the stormwater at final plat would be $104,930.25 so that would be a change in the conditions of
approval and into the development contract on that.
Todd Gerhardt: Which page Kate?
Kate Aanenson: I ’m on page 16. The bottom of 16. Did you want anything else on that Paul?
Mayor Furlong: I ’m sorry, the acreage is changing from 17.05 to?
Kate Aanenson: Well if you look at the top of page 17 it says 16.05 in the beginning of this document on
page 16 it says 16.05. There ’s just one place where they use the math, that ’s calculated at the 17.05 for
the acreages so I think that was.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Did you have anything else to add on that Paul? Tree preservation. The areas that are in
the darker color are those areas to be removed and try obviously saving everything along the creek
corridor and then that as you move towards the property to the north, again trying to save those trees up in
that area. So again a landscaping plan that meets city ordinance. Again trying to continue. This is
MnDOT property along this area here. There ’s a stormwater pond and a wetland up in here. Again try
and provide significant vegetation here where we can provide the buffer. I know that was some of the
challenge for the developer and their engineer to try to, on those lot configurations. They ’re narrow but
they ’re deeper, again to provide for that noise attenuation. A better buffer. Parks and recreation. This
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
11
neighborhood would then use the new Pioneer Pass park in this area here so the parks recommendation
then would be just take park and trail fees based on that number of units and that would be no additional
park with that. They would use the existing neighborhood park. So with that we are recommending the
final plat for Jeurissen 1 st Addition and a development contract, the rezoning of the subdivision, and
conditional use permit for Camden Ridge and then development subject to the conditions of approval of
the staff report. In addition I would also recommend that you approve the A, B. A and B, 1 and 2 with
the only modification then would be the stormwater fees. And I ’d be happy to answer any questions that
you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Laufenburger: I have Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Yes, Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Kate can you go back to an overlay that shows Outlots B and C kind of in a
raw?
Kate Aanenson: Can you see that?
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah that ’s good. Okay. Outlot B, right there. Just a little bit south of
where your arrow is. There, that area. Is that part of what you described as flood plain?
Kate Aanenson: As you get down towards the bottom part it ’s called Zone A. I think it might be helpful
if we look at this, the topography here.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, that ’s fine.
Kate Aanenson: So it ’s just kind of more illustrative to kind of understand. So if you look at where the
development ’s occurring up in this top part here.
Councilman Laufenburger: Right, and that would be north of the creek correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The creek runs right through here.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: So then you ’ve got the shoreland and then this area on the south side where the trees are,
in this area here, would be Outlot B and then the current farming operation would continue then on this
portion here.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: With a continued access through the, through some of that preservation area so one of
our conditions then was to define how that access is being used because again that Outlot B needs to be
dedicated.
Councilman Laufenburger: When you say dedicated, it needs to be specifically dedicated as shoreland.
Kate Aanenson: Preservation.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
12
Councilman Laufenburger: Does it become city. Preservation, right. Not conservation but preservation.
Kate Aanenson: Preservation, right. For the PUD.
Councilman Laufenburger: So where you have, where you have the little finger right now, that land is not
being worked by the property owner, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: And so the determination has been made that that area specifically straight
south of the word creek, as I ’m looking at it. Right, straight south. That would be part of Outlot B but
not Outlot C?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I ’m not sure this, I ’ve got this exactly where they ’re showing all of Outlot C.
If that ’s exact definition there.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. It just seemed to me that there was a large portion of land south of the
creek that you were including as Outlot B versus Outlot C.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Right there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I ’ve got the acreage in the staff report here.
Mayor Furlong: What page is that on for the?
Kate Aanenson: Oh I ’ve got to go back to that drawing, thank you.
Councilman Laufenburger: This portion right here seems like, why is this portion part of that creek area?
There. Yeah, I ’m thinking of specifically you ’re taking a large, Kate you know the topography. You
folks have done this.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: So if, it just looks like that little trapezoid or whatever, parallelogram that ’s
part of Outlot B could just as well be part of Outlot C.
Kate Aanenson: It could be. It could be. Well again if you look at what we contemplated in the, when
we did the original environmental documents for this, we didn ’t contemplate any development below the
creek.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And actually the other uses for this could be, it could be for an enhanced wetland, which
the other project contemplated. Providing better water quantity and quality and enhancing that. The
natural features in that area. I think the developer was reluctant to dedicate that entire amount but we felt
it could be I think in, and so we said that we would at this time hold any opinion on that until they would
go through the demonstrate that it could be buildable. That you could get access to it. If you look at the
area to the, let me go to the map here again. If you look at this overall area, there is significant grades
coming in this way. And then from the south. Significant grades. There is a development, or anticipated
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
13
development potentially a cul-de-sac coming in here.
Councilman Laufenburger: In there? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But whether that can make it all the way up here, we don ’t know.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Again whether or not that still can meet sewer and water availability, we still don ’t know.
So that would have to be an amendment, a decision to be made later. Meanwhile we have a developer
that would like to proceed so we ’re saying well, we ’re not, we never anticipated that. We don ’t believe it
can be but if the developer wants to demonstrate it can be we ’ll listen to that but we don ’t know.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So just for my simple mind, Jeurissen 1 st Addition is the development
of Outlot A?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Well no, it ’s actually three lots. So Jeurissen creates outlot, Jeurissen Addition creates 3
lots.
Councilman Laufenburger: Only one of which is scheduled for development at this time.
Kate Aanenson: Correct but Outlot B must be dedicated too.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, so it ’s not going to be developed. It must be dedicated at this time.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That ’s how they ’re all intertwined , correct.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess going back to that with regard to Outlot B, I think that slide right there says
there ’s a requirement as part of the PUD. Is that part of the PUD ordinance that requires the?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Shoreland and the PUD ordinance requires that preservation. In order to get the
PUD you have to give us, you know the first item is you ’re preserving something. You ’re doing
something different otherwise this would be a standard subdivision. What you ’re preserving is the other
side of the creek, which probably isn ’t buildable anyways but you ’re preserving something.
Mayor Furlong: And so with Outlot B, that ’s not 50% of A so.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: So when you talk about open space, what is it, where do you get 50% open space from
there? Is that from area calculations?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. It actually includes all the other outlots up here too, which would include this
outlot here.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
14
Kate Aanenson: And the stormwater ponds, it includes all these little outlot pieces.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, and so the size of B gets the entire development up to that 50%.
Kate Aanenson: Just makes us to the 50%.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, okay. That explains it. Thanks Kate.
Kate Aanenson: I ’m sorry, I didn ’t understand your question.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the staff report I know there was some discrepancy about borders and
exactly figuring out where the Bluff Creek Overlay started and ended and I think the last council meeting
or two council meetings we had that same discrepancy so can you kind of go through who and how these
lines get determined?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. On the last one, the staff did not make the applicant do a delineation of that which
is, because we thought by taking the other we had accomplished that. In this circumstance we actually
had them provide that, delineate that. Typically we walk those so it ’s kind of prima fascia evidence. You
go out there and you look and see you know where the water, actually the wetland boundary is. Are there
significant slopes. Anything over 30% you can ’t build on so you try to finalized or fine tune that line.
What we say on our official document is that we believe this is the starting place for the overlay district
but certainly there ’s other evidence that can say that you know it ’s been modified or altered or it ’s, we can
move that so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you tell me, does it matter what time of year you ’re looking?
Kate Aanenson: Well I ’ll let the City Engineer but you know as far as the slopes and the trees it ’s not
going to matter. You know the hydrology issue but I think the engineers know how to calculate for that.
Paul Oehme: Typically when we ’re delineating wetlands it ’s during the summer months and there ’s a set
point in the fall where you typically cannot get a good calculation or good determination of wetland
location so there is a time of the year where it ’s most appropriate for determining those wetlands and then
the setbacks and the delineations.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so does staff only determine those boundaries when a development is in
front of you or do you just kind of already have a map of that whole district?
Paul Oehme: Well we ’ve got a general idea of where the wetlands are through our Carver County but to
delineate specifically wetlands, we always work with the developer to determine those delineations
specifically.
Kate Aanenson: Otherwise there ’s other areas that are not wetlands, so I be clear on that, are also in the
Overlay District. Sometimes it can be a steep slope. Heavily wooded area so that ’s something that we
would work then to negotiate with the property owner to say well, you ’re getting more hard cover but in
fact if you preserve these trees you can use that as your green space. So that would go towards your, if
you ’re doing a PUD or something, towards your required hard cover so that ’s a project by project. If you
go back when we originally put this in place, we looked at trying to you know try to purchase all that. We
decided we ’d do it incrementally as we look at each project to say what makes sense under each project.
Is it something we would alter? Something that we maybe not feel as strongly about when it comes in but
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
15
we look at those on a case by case basis so that ’s why we didn ’t do them all at once.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah Kate, can you tell me how the percentage rate was derived at? I mean how.
Kate Aanenson: Percentage rate? For the assessments?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: I ’ll let the City Engineer.
Councilwoman Ernst: The 6%.
Mayor Furlong: The interest rate?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Paul Oehme: The interest rate?
Councilwoman Ernst: Sorry. Sorry, I meant t he interest rate, right.
Paul Oehme: That was determined boy back in 2005-2006 when that project went through. Staff and the
finance department and our bonding agencies looked at what was the appropriate assessment amount and
the payback times and the 6% was the number that was determined. I can ’t remember the specifics of
both but with the interest rates, back in the prime rate was back in that time but that ’s the number that was
originally, or was set on for the interest rate for the assessments.
Councilwoman Ernst: So for the piece of the property that has no access to it, we ’re charging 6% interest
for that property, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: It was an area calculation for the assessments. There was actually 3 assessments for this
parcel. For this area to development back in 2005-2006-2007 so we had to look at it on a systematic
methodology where we looked at how much potential developable square acreage is under these, or is in
each of the parcels that were being looked at for development. We looked at how much preliminary
amount of wetland that we could determine were on each of these parcels. We took that out of the
assessment calculations and then we looked at right-of-way as well for primarily the Bluff Creek
Boulevard right-of-way so if there ’s a parcel that was looked at for development that was being assessed,
we took out the right-of-way for that piece so that ’s generally how the assessments were looked at. You
know this parcel originally was looked at for more higher density and there was you know talk about
density transfers to make those assessments work so in the area calculation so that was the methodology
that we used. Again we try to standardize our methodology and our assessment practice for each of these
parcels and that ’s how assessments were originally calculated.
Councilwoman Ernst: But is that common practice we would charge an interest rate such as this on
property that really has no access?
Paul Oehme: Well I mean.
Councilwoman Ernst: For a parcel like this.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
16
Paul Oehme: You know we ’ve charged 6%, 7% in the past for assessments for developments too so the
interest rate back in 2005 I think was appropriate.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, just for clarification. The 6% interest is an annual interest rate on the
assessment that ’s, the unpaid assessment, correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So it ’s basically an interest charge on the assessed amount that ’s unpaid.
Paul Oehme: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Ernst: And that ’s the 600 and some thousand dollars.
Mayor Furlong: That ’s would be the ass essed amount perhaps with accru ed interest.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. That ’s what.
Mayor Furlong: So that ’s the interest, Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah I think the question is, and it ’s no so much the interest rate but why was
that property even assessed if it ’s not buildable?
Paul Oehme: Well I think it goes back to, again to what the AUAR had talked about the MUSA and what
our original guidance of that property was.
Kate Aanenson: This is what the project was assessed. This is what the assessment went onto this project
so there was entitlement on that project. It did receive preliminary plat approval so this is the project, 146
units. There was a viable project that was in place and that project didn ’t come to fruition but that project
was.
Councilman McDonald: But at that point that ’s not Outlot C.
Kate Aanenson: They did the density transfer so they took what they could and put it up here. Could
they have maximized even more? Yes but they didn ’t at that time so. Again this project is coming under
less than that. They ’ve chosen to go with the 4, the minimum 4 units for the project that they want to do
so that could affect it too depending on the number of units you have so.
Councilman McDonald: So actually the project changed from 2006 to today but our practice is to assess
when you bring the project in.
Paul Oehme: Right. We had to recoup our costs for the infrastructure put in to service and develop these
parcels.
Mayor Furlong: What ’s being described as Outlot C today, was there any expectation of development
occurring on that back when the AUAR was completed? I thought I heard you say that there …
Kate Aanenson: No, it was always intended that if there ’s something that could be built on there because
there was limited access, that it ’d be transferred up to the north side.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
17
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so there would be no expectation of development on Outlot C.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That was always the intention on the environmental.
Mayor Furlong: And that ’s what was included in the AUAR.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: When that was developed.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council if I could add on the interest rates back in 2006 prime was anywhere
from 7 1/2 to 8 percent. So our practice is typically 2 percent above prime now so back then my guess it
was 2% above what we may have issued bonds for.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff at this point?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Just one more.
Mayor Furlong: No, that ’s fine.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: We ’re you know going to be doing a PUD on this property and usually that
means that we get a little something more than we normally would so tell me how we are benefitting, if
that ’s a fair question.
Kate Aanenson: It ’s a very good question. Which is why we thought preserving that southern piece, that
would have for us.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Outlot C.
Kate Aanenson: Outlot C.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And B.
Kate Aanenson: And B, right. That was our original direction. The developer, working with the
underlying property owner didn ’t want to do that. I think we don ’t know again if Outlot C can get access
to it. Can get sewer and water to it so we ’ve just taken the position that maybe at a future date it, it just
continues to be farmed or becomes a wetland or something else, or the underlying property owner can
demonstrate that he can get access to it and can get sewer and water to it, then maybe it could be
developed. But you ’re at the minimum for the requirements for the 50%. It ’s at the minimum.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Sorry. Kate one more question. So can you tell me if there is anything that we,
the City could have done in this situation to have avoided being in this type of a situation?
Kate Aanenson: Well.
Councilwoman Ernst: I know it ’s kind of a loaded question.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
18
Kate Aanenson: Well the developer chose, the person that had the property chose not to go through
forward and sometimes that happens. While you could have come in with a different project on this site
too. Somebody could have come in with townhouses or higher density and then this you know, a lot of
different scenarios could have happened. We don ’t control that part of the market and that happened with
the turn down so.
Councilwoman Ernst: And I ’m thinking of that little parcel.
Kate Aanenson: Oh.
Mayor Furlong: Which one? C or?
Kate Aanenson: The access.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: This?
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I guess I had a question on that too. Is that that, is that what ’s being referred to in,
the primary access is from that road right there that you ’re drawing now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But the staff report talks about this development, the road ’s being longer than what ’s
allowed under current ordinance. And I guess my question is, when the first development came through,
the Creekside, we had a second access there. A full street access up to the property to the north.
Kate Aanenson: I don ’t believe so. That was a lot of discussion. If you remember we had quite a few
discussions with the property owner to the north regarding that.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely but I think, if you go back.
Kate Aanenson: To that drawing?
Mayor Furlong: To that drawing. There. There was a lot of discussion but I think in the end, this was
approved with this access.
Kate Aanenson: I just want to be clear that this is just illustrative. I ’m not sure this is the plat.
Mayor Furlong: Understand.
Kate Aanenson: And if we can go back really quickly, just to make sure that we ’re all on the same page
on this. If we go back to this map here. The complexity here is, you ’re mixing two different zoning
districts. The property to the north, we ’ve looked at it could be regional commercial or an office park.
Either one. Different types of uses. That you don ’t want cut through traffic. But the bigger issue is, this
is owned by MnDOT, this triangle piece and then this is a wetland. It ’s not a stormwater pond so we
were trying to hug the bottom of this property as we go through that as a 30 foot right-of-way in our mind
and then emergency access with you know 7 ton design, 20 foot of pavement width just to get through
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
19
there because we ’d have to work with MnDOT when we ’re adjacent to that wetland. In looking back
through the notes, I did go back and look through what we had for discussion. I know Mr. Fox had
discussions with Mr. Chigelo at that time talking about access to, how would this property be served
coming from the south or to the north and little more problematic trying to go along some of that MnDOT
right-of-way so I think hugging that, which is what we needed for emergency access was what the staff
felt would be sufficient as did the fire marshal. And reduce the number of units too. So if you go back to
the first one, excuse me, 146. Now we ’re down to 50 something so.
Mayor Furlong: Right but I think, so part of this is we really don ’t know what ’s going to happen up to the
north .
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Mayor Furlong: And part of my concern is that they, you know the ordinance is in place to minimize, and
this goes back to I think that ordinance came in after what was Yoberry at the time that was coming
through the development.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: And the issues we had there and then the council after that said, you know let ’s put some
limits on that. To me I think right now there ’s no, there ’s nothing up north. There ’s no way to access this
development from the north anyway until something develops to the north but I think we should at least
preserve the full right-of-way on this and it looks like, if you go back to the site plan for this development.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: And again we can, just any of those is fine. There seems to be plenty of space with those
outlots there with the lot to the east of that to be able to preserve the right-of-way for future access,
depending on what it is so what I ’m saying is reserve it now to a full public street right-of-way that ’s
typical and then evaluate what ’s going to happen.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I would just add on that, I ’d let the engineer address that but it ’s terribly steep
right through here. That ’s why they made this lot so big so whether or not we can make that happen,
because there ’s a substantial retaining wall in that area too so I ’ll let their engineer address that, if that ’s
alright when they come up to speak.
Mayor Furlong: Oh, their engineer?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Just to, yeah just I think …
Mayor Furlong: And that ’s fine and I realize it ’s not …
Kate Aanenson: No, because we went back and forth on this issue and I mean I think Mr. Polta examined
it pretty closely. I just want to make sure we all understand the complexity of that issue so.
Mayor Furlong: And that ’s fine. We ’ll defer to that. I just think there ’s good public value for connecting,
keeping the option open in the future to connect neighborhoods.
Kate Aanenson: Agreed.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
20
Mayor Furlong: So Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate can you go back to the Creekside, just for a
second? The photo you had there. So do I understand correctly that the, I realize this was never
developed but it was, was this the basis for the assessments?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And the basis for these assessments included the transfer of density
from what we are now calling Outlot B and C into current Outlot A, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: I ’ll let Paul answer that question.
Paul Oehme: The density from.
Councilman Laufenburger: The density from B and C was transferred up into the top in order to, and then
that was, the assessment was based essentially on the entire property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Paul Oehme: It was minus, I would just clarify, minus the wetlands that were known at that time so
basically all of B, most of Outlot B has wetlands associated with it so there ’s a substantial amount of
acreage there that was also deducted from the assessment acreage. So mainly C.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So if the assessments which we are asking to be paid when this goes
to development or goes to.
Kate Aanenson: Final plat.
Councilman Laufenburger: Final plat, which is what we ’re going to be voting on tonight, is that correct
Kate?
Kate Aanenson: You ’re working on preliminary plat now.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, but if at some point in the future it ’s determined that Outlot C can
support some development, do we assume correctly that those assessments have already been paid?
Paul Oehme: Yes. Correct. That ’s our recommendation is to have the assessments paid for Outlot A all
at this time.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And that would include, so the benefit, I don ’t want to say this
incorrectly. The benefit would be that if Outlot C ever is developed they would be developed without any
further assessments due to the City, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: For the assessments that were already, Bluff Creek Drive.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Mayor Furlong: The AUAR costs for those.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
21
Councilman Laufenburger: If there was other activities or other things outside of what was covered, then
those would be assessed.
Paul Oehme: Right. The assessments are currently levied against this property owner, or the property
would be all paid off.
Councilman Laufenburger: And those levies, those were identified in the staff report as the MUSA,
Trunk Highway 101/Lyman and the Bluff Creek Boulevard.
Paul Oehme: Correct, those three.
Kate Aanenson: Right because there may be additional trunk charges to hook up somewhere else.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: But maybe if I could, okay you say that he wouldn ’t owe any but by my
calculations he would. You took a density transfer out of Outlot C in order to allow this development to
be made. Now we are releasing Outlot C. He still gets his development based upon lower density at this
point so the area that it was calculated for is still the same. That hasn ’t changed. We ’ve just released
Outlot C. If it ’s ever developed in the future as part of anything else, it should be assessed because at that
point you ’re now allowing development to occur on that particular outlot. So I don ’t see how, granted
with this development it was paid for but now you ’re releasing it so it doesn ’t make any difference. It
was to try to get this development developed.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: And you needed the density transfer. Now you no longer need the density
transfer but you ’re still assessing the same area with lower density in the development so you don ’t need
Outlot C so we ’re releasing it so that in the future if you want to develop it you can but if you do then it
should be assessed because now you ’re going to have to bring sewer and water into Outlot C. Am I
correct in that or?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah and you know, right now staff has deemed Outlot C as undevelopable and the
AUAR that we did in the area called it as undevelopable. We did the calculations for Bluff Creek Drive,
or Boulevard based on an acreage basis and subtracted out wetlands and so how you spread those
assessments can only go to the parcel that ’s developable. You put them on Parcel C, you don ’t know if
it ’s developable so you know down the line if it is, then depending on where sewer and water and access
is going to be gained, that will be the cost beared by that development.
Councilman McDonald: Right because at this point the only way you ’re going to develop that, you ’re
going to have to come in from the south. You can ’t come in from the north. You can ’t come in from the,
well actually it ’s what, the southwest. You can ’t come in underneath the bridge on 212 so you ’re barred
from that. You can ’t come in directly to the west because there ’s lots already there so you ’ve only got
one area of access and that ’s through another piece of property that they wanted to develop that and
include what is now Outlot C, you ’ve still got to get sewer and water up there so there should be an
assessment for that because the original calculation was not made to get water and sewer into Outlot C.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
22
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Mr. McDonald, if the City puts sewer and water in to someplace, we will
assess for that. Obviously these assessments were not related to sewer and water type assessments. It
was for the planning and the construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard and for the other components but
what I heard Mr. Gerhardt say, correct me if I ’m wrong, is that it was based upon developable area. Not
necessarily the density within that area, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that correct? So the fact that there was some density transfer from C, or what today is
we ’re calling C up to A would not have affected, it doesn ’t effect the area because the area is still the
same.
Councilman McDonald: Right, the area is still the same.
Mayor Furlong: So what I ’m hearing is, what was assessed is effectively based upon the area within
Outlot A today, which is what staff is recommending should be the part that gets paid. So there was no.
Councilman McDonald: I think we ’re talking about two different assessments then aren ’t we?
Mayor Furlong: Well the assessment, maybe backing up then. The assessment that was put on the
property back a number of years ago, which has been accruing that 6% interest related to what? It was
the AUAR cost, Ms. Aanenson.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, it ’s on page 7. So it ’s the 2005 MUSA expansion. Trunk 101/Lyman Boulevard.
Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements, which did include the trunk sewer and water and road because you
need that road and that sewer and water to get, to be able to develop this piece.
Mayor Furlong: To service Outlot A.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, correct. So those are the assessments. So then there ’s a total so those
would be the three.
Mayor Furlong: And what I ’m hearing here is all of those assessments relate to what ’s currently being
proposed to be developed. Is that?
Kate Aanenson: That ’s our opinion, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I ’m sure we ’ll hear from the developer as well.
Councilman Laufenburger: So Mr. Mayor, just one more question. So on page 7 Kate, specifically it
shows that the Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements, that assessment of $601,212.65, if those
assessments were made today on Jeurissen 1 st Outlot A as compared to Liberty at Creekside, which was in
2006, would those assessments be identical today that they were back then?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay there. That answers it for me.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
23
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? If not I do want to invite the applicant, or their
representatives to come forward and they may have some comments on these and other aspects.
Kate Aanenson: There ’s kind of co-applicants here. You have the underlying property owner, Mr.
Jeurissen and then you have Lennar representing their plat so, I don ’t know how you.
Mayor Furlong: Great. I ’ll defer to the two parties to who wants to speak first because we ’re interested
in what you both have to say.
John Chadwick: Thank you very much folks. I ’m John Chadwick. I have a little handout here. I ’ll start
that first. My name is John Chadwick. I ’m here on behalf of the landowner, Bruce Jeurissen. I reside at
4477 Manitou Road, Excelsior, Minnesota. It ’s good to be here. I ’ve been here before on behalf of other
landowners and you know seeing the fire folks and the police folks up here reminds me what a great
country we live in and we have the right of freedom of speech and that ’s what I ’m intending to exercise
tonight. The right of dissent. The right of public assembly. All those good things and I also know that
we only know what we know. We only know what people tell us. That ’s the basis here and so with that
in mind there are a couple issues that I ’d like to take up on behalf of Mr. Jeurissen, who ’s with us tonight.
Thank you Lennar folks for letting me go first. I don ’t know if that ’s right or wrong but anyway thank
you. The first one, if you read there in item 15 you have an item 15. I think it ’s probably on page 28 of
your handout. Page 28 and it talks about the language on the, how do you get in there to Outlot C and it
says that it must be closed. I mean that ’s the first line and then it says you have to keep using it and so I
have offered up some revised language and Kate if you could go back to existing conditions. That one
that had kind of the topographic to it and you can kind of see, there ’s a roadway going in and then there ’s
the driveway that ’s owned, Outlo t D and it comes in like this and there ’s a park that goes north to Outlot
A. Yep, close that. Absolutely makes sense. Going back to the west Outlot, if you ’re going to Outlot B
and C ’s, well it says to keep that open but I didn ’t feel that that language was particularly clear as written.
I did offer up this language earlier in the day. It didn ’t I guess meet muster but I ’m offering it up again. I
learned at 4:51 today that it didn ’t meet muster so anyway there it is. We ’re just trying to be real clear.
Yep, knock her out for Outlot A. I get that. Yes, we need to keep it open for Outlots B and C and there is
a driveway easement. Excuse me, a driveway access permit that Mr. Jeurissen has with MnDOT and that
is what allows him to get that equipment in and out and underneath Highway 212 and so together with his
Outlot D that he owns. That driveway that comes in off of Pioneer, and this driveway permit that he has,
that ’s what allows him to get into B. There ’s nothing else to close as regards to B and C.
Mayor Furlong: Can we just take maybe these one at a time.
John Chadwick: Please.
Mayor Furlong: I guess Ms. Aanenson your comments or thoughts on the proposed changes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Before is there a better map that we can see that, those driveways better?
Kate Aanenson: I can blow that up.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you. That helps me a lot.
Kate Aanenson: So when you come under 212, the road splits going to the north. That road will be
vacated because it ’s being platted. Everything going to the north. This is the road we want, this is the
road we want. This road is going over the southern area that ’s being preserved. Outlot B and we just
want to put limitations on that so it ’s, since it ’s a preservation area to meet the intent of the shoreland
district and the PUD that it ’s limited for farm practices and a certain width and that ’s what we put in there.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
24
I think based on the plat being approved, I can check with the City Attorney but with the plat being
approved, the northern access is going away because you ’re approving a plat over that so I don ’t know if
it ’s redundant or if it ’s necessary but.
John Chadwick: Oh that ’s correct, yes.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess I ’m concerned why you want to close the access to A just at this time. You
have the words at this time which implies to me that at a future time you would open that up under your
proposed changes.
John Chadwick: Oh, well it just said it must be closed. Before it didn ’t say when.
Kate Aanenson: Well once you record the plat then I ’m assuming that the property would then transfer to
the Lennar and they would have control over that, and you ’re on this portion of MnDOT ’s right-of-way
on that so I ’m assuming that would go away.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. Maybe if the existing driveway access to Trunk Highway 212 must be
closed with the exception of the, for exception for the use for agricultural purposes only.
Mayor Furlong: To Outlot C.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Since Outlot B ’s going to be dedicated.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, just put the word exception in there for agricultural purposes.
Kate Aanenson: And we did specify with on that too.
Mayor Furlong: I ’m sorry.
Todd Gerhardt: Except for agricultural purposes.
Kate Aanenson: Can I get clarification what number you ’re on, I ’m sorry.
Todd Gerhardt: 28 of 32, 15.
John Chadwick: Item 15.
Mayor Furlong: Page 28.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, I ’m having a hard time following, I ’m sorry. Okay. Yeah, so we did specify too
the width of that, and I ’m not sure if that ’s covered in this one or not. That ’s what I was trying to.
John Chadwick: Yes I think it is.
Mayor Furlong: So I ’m sorry, the suggested language Mr. Gerhardt is modifying the staff ’s proposed
condition and that is how?
Todd Gerhardt: Put in the words, for the exception of agricultural purposes only.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
25
Mayor Furlong: Where are you putting that in?
Todd Gerhardt: Taking out this access may be used for.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Except for agricultural purposes. He needs to go across Outlot B and we ’ve decided 26
feet would be appropriate.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, is that, Mr. Chadwick is that acceptable?
John Chadwick: 26? Agricultural? We ’d be able to get in across …
Mayor Furlong: You had 26 in your proposal.
John Chadwick: Oh, for what purpose. Yeah the question I guess comes up, it ’s agricultural. What ’s
permitted under your code now and why would you change that? Access today is now permitted for in
the code.
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess we were concerned if it would become a grading operation. You could go
sorting of materials on there. Something like that so.
John Chadwick: And that ’s permitted.
Mayor Furlong: What is that, Outlot C is currently zoned what?
Kate Aanenson: Agricultural.
Mayor Furlong: Agricultural so I ’m assuming with this plat, anything allowed under agricultural would
still be allowed and if there are changes there are changes. But that would be to any agricultural zoning in
the city.
John Chadwick: So would it be fair to say that the zoning is agricultural and whatever purposes are
allowed under agricultural would be allowed, or I mean that ’s what I would think. You enforce the same
code on everybody across the whole community as opposed to just singling one guy out and say you can
only do.
Kate Aanenson: Well let me just clarify that for a second because it is being farmed my concern would
be if we operated a mining operation or something, we ’ve got all that traffic going underneath something
that maybe wasn ’t designed. How it ’s being accessed now is for agricultural purposes. I ’m not sure that
easement ’s designed, if it became some other use under the agricultural zoning so I just would like to
check on what the zoning district does permit on that just to be clear on that so.
Mayor Furlong: So that is something that we can look at. The expectation would be for similar purposes
as is currently being used, correct?
John Chadwick: I think as permitted under the law.
Mayor Furlong: Well and I think that ’s what, Ms. Aanenson if I ’m hearing you correctly.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
26
Mayor Furlong: We need to look into that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There might be some other uses that might be conditional uses that would require
certain improvements or the like so, whether or not those could be.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
John Chadwick: I guess part of the reason I ’m pretty insistent on that is we ’ve got a long standing visit
going on with MnDOT and getting somewhere but not very far very fast and so I think it ’s critical that we
keep going with you know what ’s available under the current law and not give up any rights here if we
don ’t have to get that opportunity to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so that can be investigated between now and final plat, is that correct Ms.
Aanenson?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
John Chadwick: Thank you. Great idea take them one at a time. Now, and you folks were just working
on kind of a thorny issue on assessments and I appreciate that and this has been a long, a long and
interesting path that this land has taken and item 20 , discussion same page and there ’s assessments that
you ’d say okay, there ’s about 22 acres of usable north of the creek and there ’s about 8 acres south of the
creek, and that 8 acres came up from a court case that Mr. Jeurissen pressed through the courts here in
Minnesota and but yet the notion is, you know what we ’re just going to kind of collect them all right now.
We also, and not giving any credence to the fact that there are 5 acres that he ’s continuing to retain. And
that, and you ’re kind of saying well you know what, we don ’t think, or some people don ’t think that that ’s
usable . Please demonstrate that to us later that it is usable but in the meantime we want the money
anyway and when I look at that, you know pay for all of it but determine it later you know up or down,
that feels like a little bit of guilty until proven innocent. I think in our country we do it the other way.
We ’re innocent until proven guilty so I would ask that you apportion that. Think about apportioning that.
If you can ’t, if we don ’t know for sure it ’s bad we ’ll call it, we ’ll use that word, why are you making it
bad and taking it out of the equation day one? That ’s the first thing you know. And the second thing is, it
gets a little bit snarly because we ’re saying that ’s not accessible to Bluff Creek but yet this is a Bluff
Creek $601,000 assessment. You know why did he get charged in the first place? You know is it usable
or is it not usable? If it ’s usable, then great. Let it sit on the south side and pay it later. If it ’s not usable,
why did it get charged in the first place? So there ’s been some long, drawn out dilemmas on this. And
then the next part, the interest on the assessments. This piece of ground, 22 acres, 25 acres, however
many you want to say is bearing $847,000 worth of assessments. That ’s something like $40,000 of as sess
ments on the usable acres and then the interest was deferred on that. But however that land was trapped
because that land could never grow a crop in Chanhassen, Minnesota that ’s legal that could pay off
$40,000 an acre so that had to sit there and wait to be paid. It had to wait to be paid until it could be
developed because you couldn ’t sell it for ag land for that price and we knew that as of June 16 th , 2013
there wasn ’t access to this property. This property has only been emancipated this evening on an action
earlier on the Jeurissen, excuse me on the Degler 5 th Addition that allowed access so it was bound up. It
was locked up. It could not have any way to access it. It had no way to pay the freight on that and the
City ’s out collecting 6% interest knowing full well the guy can ’t pay it. Got him locked up. He can ’t get
there. Only tonight is it now available to him so it say gee, we ’d like the $601,000 plus another $195,000
of interest by the way and you know we couldn ’t use it for public infrastructure. That ’s what we ’re
paying for but it was a private matter that had to be solved and that ’s what the June 16 th thing said. So
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
27
that just, and that, my statement on why does a private developer, private person have to do that. That is
on page 17 of 32. June 18 Planning Commission. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, about eighth paragraph down. So,
and I ’ve talked it over with Bruce. He says yeah, you know of course give me assessments once I ’m able
to use it but how can you charge me assessments when I can ’t use it. I can ’t get there. I really was locked
in. I had no way to pay it so I ’d really ask your thoughtful consideration on that matter. And then at the
bottom of the page I put in a revision. There was as written. Unless Bluff Creek Boulevard
improvements are, an assessment and then you can see mine with red. If you ’d consider that as being a
way to be reasonably fair to somebody who ’s been waiting for a long time and didn ’t have access until
this evening. I ’m grateful that he has access this evening. I appreciate that. Thank you. And happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: I guess just one question I h ad just looking at what you handed out tonight. That was a
little bit different than what we had received over the weekend, is that correct? On this issue because,
well it looks like it just looking at what we received versus this one. It ’s a little bit of a different
argument than …
John Chadwick: Yeah you know it really is because over the weekend I said, gee it ’s tough to, I had sent
out something or I gave it to Bruce and I don ’t know who all got it but it said ought to make the interest
rate fair instead of the bank, the City scalping him because the costs are considerably less for interest than
the 6%. He ’s got no way to get there to pay it and you start thinking about no way to pay it whatsoever
with the crop that ’s there. He ’s bound in. I mean he ’s locked in so yes, that is a different way to look at it.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Chadwick? Councilman McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Yeah we get down to the whole thing about assessments and that ’s kind of what
my questions and everything was about but who approached the city to incur these costs? How did that
come about? What do you know what about?
John Chadwick: It ’s my understanding that the City put together the entire project and then they handed
out assessments based on acreage and then each landowner was asked to accept those assessments.
Councilman McDonald: But someone has to initiate that we ’re going to do development of land. Who
was that? Who triggered the assessments? I mean the City doesn ’t just go out and assess land unless
someone asks them I want to do a development and we have to provide certain infrastructure and those
things and so then we go out and do the studies as you heard and that ’s where the assessments come from.
Who started all of this?
John Chadwick: I think it actually started on the old Bernardi parcel, which Town And Country ’s first
deal. Liberty, it ’d be on the west side of this whole study area. And they needed sewer and water to
come in, or more importantly I guess the lift station access on Mr. Degler ’s property and then it ’s kind of
triggered well we have to do this. Then we have to do that. Then we have to put in the entire Bluff Creek
Drive in order to make it happen.
Councilman McDonald: At the time was Town and Country looking out for your, Mr. Jeurissen ’s interest
or were they independent and just grabbing up land and saying that well I think we want to do here City.
Why don ’t you look at this. Who was the underlying. What was the back story in all of this because it
wasn ’t the City going out and deciding to do an assessment and assessing your client. Someone came to
us and said, we want to do this development. What do you as a city, what do you expect from us? Who
were the initial players in all of this?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
28
John Chadwick: Town and Country had two parcels. They had one on the west. The Bernardi parcel and
they had this piece of Mr. Jeurissen ’s.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, so they were acting in Mr. Jeurissen ’s best interest at that point.
John Chadwick: They were acting in their own best interest.
Councilman McDonald: Did they have a contract with Mr. Jeurissen on this land? Did they have some
claim to the land?
John Chadwick: Yes and regardless of whether it was Town and Country owning it or Mr. Jeurissen
owning it, there could be no development until this land was emancipated.
Councilman McDonald: But that doesn ’t necessarily stop anyone from wanting to do development. If
Town and Country, which also owned the parcels to the west were now looking and at one time they were
going to develop most of this southern part of this section down here, they would ask the City to do all
that because that was their plans. At that point they had perfect access because they had all the land
contracts.
John Chadwick: Sir I would disagree.
Councilman McDonald: Okay well that ’s what I ’m trying to find out.
John Chadwick: The River Rock Drive was not there so they did not have perfect access. They could not
get to, back to Bluff Creek Drive any better than I could before your action this evening. Without
trespassing.
Councilman McDonald: Then why did they come to us? Why did they ask us to perform work that cost
the City money and, I don ’t understand that part of it.
John Chadwick: Well, we ’re into it. Here we go. You approved a project for Mr. Degler in 2006. Part
of those conditions were to provide access, River Rock Drive. That access, that easement rather was not
collected at that time so, I mean Town and Country was right there wanting to get going and the market
changed on them. I get that but there was a plat approved, and I don ’t think that plat was approved that
said guess what Town and Country you are on your own to find your access. It was, it didn ’t, I don ’t
think it said that. I ’m happy to be corrected if it said that but I think it might have been silent on that but
the easement was never collected so nothing could happen.
Councilman McDonald: But all this was done in anticipation of Town and Country doing a development
on this property, is that right?
John Chadwick: Absolutely.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the City did what was asked of them. I guess I ’m having a hard time
understanding why you think the City should eat the cost of doing this when we were asked to perform
and we did perform.
John Chadwick: Okay, if we had kept that preliminary plat going. Let ’s say the one that was Town and
Country. Kept it going, kept it going through 2012 and you said okay, I want to build it. And then we ’d
all be looking at ourselves and say you know what, you don ’t have access. Can ’t build it. So sorry.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
29
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, council. That ’s an untrue statement. At any time that the Preserve
development would have come in we would have taken that right-of-way with whatever addition but we
didn ’t take it for the first addition because Town and Country didn ’t ask for it. It wasn ’t until six months
ago when Lennar came in and asked for access so we waited until the Fifth Addition, which is before you
tonight is when we ’re taking the right-of-way and if we took the right-of-way right away in the beginning,
we would have never required Mr. Degler to build the road. We would have just taken the right-of-way.
John Chadwick: Oh, totally agree but we wouldn ’t be waiting and waiting and waiting for a closing. The
cost of who ’s building that road is maybe not fully in the public view here but the fact is it could have got
going had we had that easement. True or false? Easement was there in 2009. Could we have gone in
2009?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if you would have been there and asked for it but nobody was asking for it.
John Chadwick: But why would you ask for it when you ’re approving a plat already in 2006 that says go
ahead and go, wouldn ’t that be kind of an automatic that you?
Todd Gerhardt: It wasn ’t until 6 months ago when Lennar came in and said we need access.
John Chadwick: But the guys in 2006 also needed access.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and we have it in the development contract that we would provide access. Didn ’t
say when but it said we would provide it.
John Chadwick: Granted.
Todd Gerhardt: Right?
John Chadwick: So as soon as you provide it Bruce will pay. Got it. That ’s all I ’m saying.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Anything else?
John Chadwick: No I ’m good, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Representatives from Lennar are here. Good evening.
Steve Ach : Good evening Mr. Mayor, council members. My name is Steve Ach with Lennar. I think
Kate stated out the evening saying it is a pretty complicated issue. A lot of moving parts here and I think
our part is a little more static than everything else so, we ’ve worked through quite a few of the issues with
staff and I think coming here this evening I knew the biggest issue would be with the Jeurissen plat and
the assessments and some of the history there so, we ’re pretty comfortable with our application.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Steve Ach : I guess ju s t one clarification I had Kate though with the plat for Jeurissen. The action tonight,
is that for a final plat or does it have to come back again? I thought the Outlot plat was a final plat tonight.
Mayor Furlong: This says preliminary and final but is that for all?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
30
Kate Aanenson: It might be for the Jeurissen. Yeah, just for the Jeurissen First Addition for the, there ’s
two plats. Jeurissen First Addition and then the second one is for Camden Ridge is the second plat and
that ’s only preliminary.
Steve Ach : Yep.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Can you clarify on a picture which is which?
Kate Aanenson: Yep, so this is Outlot A. So that ’s only getting preliminary. They ’re just going to get
what their desire tonight is to get a grading permit.
Mayor Furlong: And that ’s, Outlot A is Camden Ridge are the same?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Then Outlot B is a requirement for, that has to be recorded with a preservation
easement with the preliminary, with the final plat. But if they ’re doing preliminary and final, I have a
question for the City Attorney then on the.
Steve Ach : For the Jeurissen First Addition?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Do you too?
Steve Ach : Well I don ’t. I thought it was final plat this evening.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Steve Ach : And the only reason I bring it up is I heard conversation earlier about uses in agricultural
district but it ’s going to come back at final.
Kate Aanenson: Well, well I have a concern about that too because I just looked up the uses there
because they ’re crossing over what will then be the city property. The preservation easement. I just want
to be clear on that, what ’s permitted in that zoning district. I just need the City Attorney ’s opinion on this
so, because they ’re crossing over Outlot B on that preservation area. The reason why we put in there
agricultural purposes, if you look at what ’s permitted in the A2 district, and if we have buyers on the
north end, if Mr. Jeurissen chose to sell it to somebody. If he chose not to farm it a number of years or to
try to develop it, here ’s what ’s permitted in the A2 district. Private stables. Arboretum. Daycare.
Group home. Single family dwellings. Of course they can be on septic and well so that would be coming
off a private road going through our ’s so our intention was not to have cross through but again in good
faith saying Mr. Jeurissen can continue to farm, we said we will let you continue to farm so if we ’re going
to open it up to anything permitted in that A2 district across the property, again going to say I don ’t, I ’m
not sure if that ’s what we want and I would ask the council for some consideration on that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that ’s where we tried to narrow that definition.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we just jumped back to the access but if I can, I want to clarify, for the council
and for anybody else that maybe is confused, there ’s a Jeurissen First Addition and there ’s a Camden
Ridge and most of the night we ’ve been talking about Outlots A, B and C. So can you tell me what is
included with Jeurissen First? Okay, I just heard a, I want to make sure we have some clarification
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
31
because when we, if it ’s preliminary and final, that ’s different than just preliminary.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Jeurissen First Addition is Outlots A, B, C and D.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so it does include the farm access road as a requirement with this addition.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And Camden Ridge.
Roger Knutson: That is just a preliminary. Not just. Only.
Mayor Furlong: Okay but that covers Outlot A only.
Roger Knutson: They ’re going to replat it into Outlot A.
Steve Ach : We ’ll replat Outlot A into those lots.
Roger Knutson: Yes, yes.
Mayor Furlong: So the first step with the Jeurissen First Addition is to take the entire property and create
Outlots A, B, C and D?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And then Camden Ridge is a site plan Outlot A.
Roger Knutson: It ’s preliminary plat for Outlot A.
Mayor Furlong: The preliminary plat for.
Roger Knutson: To replat Outlot A into lots and blocks.
Kate Aanenson: Right, preliminary and a development contract to allow them to grade.
Mayor Furlong: Prior to final.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So again because we are final platting that, that ’s why the issue of the driveway came up
and they certainly want to understand what that means to them as the developer, what could happen on
that property to their buyers to the north.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, that helps me so hopefully it helps other people. Does that help you ?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
32
Steve Ach : Yes it does and I just wanted to make sure that if it is final tonight because the primary
purpose for the outlot plat, as Kate started out this evening, it ’s one large parcel and we ’re really creating
the outlots for conveyance purposes. Lennar is buying Outlot A. Mr. Jeurissen is retaining B, C and D.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Steve Ach : So we ’re going to come back and replat Outlot A but it kind of affects our closing too so
that ’s why I want to make sure it was final this evening.
Mayor Furlong: So you wanted to confirm that the Jeurissen, the creation of the four outlots was the final.
Steve Ach : Right.
Mayor Furlong: And that is correct before us tonight.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: And then your ’s is preliminary. The replatting of A is preliminary.
Steve Ach : Absolutely. And again we ’re fine with the conditions that are set forth in our report. We
worked forward and backwards on this for quite a while.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Alright. Before you sit down sir, any questions? Or maybe
you can sit if there aren ’t any questions. Okay. Are you comfortable with what ’s been discussed here
tonight then as far as the.
Steve Ach : Yes.
Mayor Furlong: The discussion. Okay. And just to clarify, we did, we did talk about preserving the
entire width right-of-way on that north connection and I just, I think that ’s something that we ’d like to do
so if you have some questions about that.
Steve Ach : Yeah, I was just talking with Nick, the engineer. We can probably do it but as Kate pointed
out, this doesn ’t really do a ny justice to what ’s out there. There ’s a lot of steep slopes.
Mayor Furlong: Understand.
Steve Ach : I think providing the right-of-way, we can certainly do that.
Mayor Furlong: And I think the key is, to put it in an area where, with the slopes you have the best
chance of putting in an access road.
Steve Ach : I think Kate had a map up there earlier that showed the wetland off to the edge so there ’s
some other things we have to navigate through but it sounds like we can do that. We ’ll take a closer look
at it between now and the final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Our challenge as a council has been connecting neighborhoods over time and this gives
us the flexibility to look for options in the future. To have those options.
Steve Ach : Certainly.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
33
Mayor Furlong: Of connections so thank you for that. And that can be, the location of that and
everything can be clarified prior to final plat. Working with staff.
Steve Ach : I think to me that is a condition that we could look at that and just see the actual width and
the exact location.
Mayor Furlong: Figure out the best spot, okay. Alright. Thank you. Okay let ’s, there was a public
hearing at the Planning Commission for this. I don ’t know if there are any public comments. Aside from
that, Mr. Fox.
Jeff Fox: Good evening Mr. Mayor and council members.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Jeff Fox: Question regarding the wall. The 9 foot wall. Is there a fence planned for the top of that wall?
Kate Aanenson: Is there? 9 feet, it has to be doesn ’t it?
Jeff Fox: Yeah, I think Paul said anything over 4 had. And how far is the wall off the lot line?
Kate Aanenson: Could I ask Mr. Polta , the engineer for the project to come forward and maybe he could
address the more specifics on that and I can go to that slide.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Nick Polta : Mayor, council members. My name ’s Nick Polta . I ’m with Pioneer Engineering. The wall a
t it ’s closest point I believe is 20 feet from your property line. There should be enough room for a geogrid
and the construction of the wall.
Jeff Fox: The other concern I have is with the, I think it was the previous Town and Country project had
the access point going into the right-of-way area. Now it looks like it ’s going into what ’s called the tree
preservation area so I presume the tree preservation area is going to be altered and there ’s some steep
slope in that area where we ’re going through this tree preservation area. And who ’s absorbing the cost of
that because originally it was going to be coming to our develop, buildable area. At this present time the
tree preservation area as far as I know is not part of the buildable area so who ’s paying the cost to get it to
that area that ’s usable for us and is it going to be within the tree preservation area and altered for that
reason?
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess, Ms. Aanenson.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess going back to what we talked about before, depending on what those end
uses are and how that looks, you know we ’ve walked your property a couple of times looking at the tree
line. We kind of agreed that some of the steeper part along the bottom, some of that area might come
away. We ’d have to look at that but we look at that when your project comes forward. Whatever shape
that takes.
Jeff Fox: Who ’s paying for that cost? Because originally it was going, it was not going to be on our
property. It was going to be in the right-of-way and there ’s a cost for us to take care of it from the
property line to the buildable area. Now it becomes to the Jeurissen, or to the property to the south of us
through the tree preservation area.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
34
Kate Aanenson: Our typical ordinance is that we provide access to the edge of the property and the other
property owner would pick it up on the other side.
Jeff Fox: So we ’ll be responsible for the tree removal? The retaining walls along with the road to build
through there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah again our goal is to put that road in such a place that we minimize that and that ’s I
think the challenge that we ’re looking at tonight. We don ’t have enough information but we can certainly
look at that.
Jeff Fox: I just wanted to go on record so.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And we ’ll look at that with you.
Jeff Fox: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Well and you know I think working together. If there ’s a preferred.
Jeff Fox: Well I didn ’t know any bit of this was going on. I had no notice of this until I pulled it up
online and looked at it myself. I didn ’t get notified of any of this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, thank you Mr. Fox. Any other public comments tonight? Let ’s bring it to
council then for discussion. Number of items in front of us but I ’ll start the discussion by saying it ’s nice
to see another plat in front of us. See development occurring so thoughts and comments.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question for Kate.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilman Laufenburger: I think I got the answer from you earlier that no assessments were made
against Outlot C back in 2006.
Kate Aanenson: No, I think what the City Manager said is there was an area wide assessment across all
the property, minus the wetlands.
Councilman Laufenburger: Is that right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Outlot C still doesn ’t exist until you take action tonight.
Mayor Furlong: But that area was not considered as part of the area that was included in the assessment
calculation?
Paul Oehme: Well yeah, minus the wetland. The wetland was removed from the area wide.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
35
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, let ’s not talk about Outlot C. The area south of Bluff Creek on the
Jeurissen property, was any of that, with exception of the wetland, was any of that considered in the
assessments? Were the assessments based on any property south of Bluff Creek?
Paul Oehme: South of Bluff Creek, I mean if it wasn ’t.
Councilman Laufenburger: If it wasn ’t wetland.
Paul Oehme: If it wasn ’t wetland.
Councilman Laufenburger: That acreage was considered.
Paul Oehme: That would be considered as assessable, correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Then I also heard a comment that if it ’s determined that Outlot C,
after Outlot C is made later tonight, if Outlot C is determined to be buildable, there could be assessments
for sewer, water and road, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: Under the scenario of building an Outlot C, that would be completely development driven.
They would have to provide a place to hook up to city sewer and water. The City would not get involved
typically with those type of projects and would not assess back to them. That would have to be
development driven so we ’re just trying to recoup the costs for our infrastructure that was put in back in
2005-2006 and we went with the best information we had at the time.
Councilman Laufenburger: And the best information we had at that time was Liberty at Creekside, Town
and Country.
Paul Oehme: Correct, and that was forthcoming.
Todd Gerhardt: And Mayor and council, we ’ve been through enough assessment hearings to know that
the time to contest an assessment is prior to the close of the public hearing. Town and Country was the
property owner at that time and so that kind of dictated the final chapter of how assessments were going
to be allocated against this property. Not to say that Mr. Jeurissen can ’t ask you to reallocate those at this
time, which he ’s doing this evening.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments. Councilman McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Well I guess I have a question and I ’m not quite sure how to put it together. I
mean you, this land is very troubled. There was an owner that was going to do something so we did what
we were supposed to do and the assessments are part of that. Have we had any other properties that
change and we ’ve had to do things, you know recalculate assessments or redo things years later because
market changed or something?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, on the Preserve. The Ryland development. We reallocated the assessments on
Sever Peterson ’s piece back to those developable parcels in the area after they came in with their
subdivision. They were reallocated.
Councilman McDonald: Okay what, the original allocation fees and everything, what happened to those?
Did we give money back? What was the, what did we do?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
36
Todd Gerhardt: No, they were divided amongst the existing property there. The land to the west of
Outlot C has a future access. There ’s some assessments against that down the line so green acred right at
this point.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. Anytime there ’s an assessment imposed and
subsequent to the assessment the property is subdivided, you have to apportion that assessment that was
against the big parcel into smaller parcels or one of the parcels or some of the parcels and that ’s not an
uncommon occurrence. What you want to be careful of, and I ’ve seen this happen in some places where
cities haven ’t been careful. If you apportion it wrong against a parcel that ’s not likely or will not develop,
then it ’s going to go tax forfeit so you want to make sure you apportion it appropriately to take it, with
that concern in mind.
Councilman McDonald: Well see that ’s part of my confusion in all of this because I know that what Mr.
Jeurissen is asking for is what 20% either go into an escrow or something and what I ’m trying to
understand then is at some point if Outlot C can be developed by either land to the south or to the west or
somebody such as that, things would be reallocated at that point?
Roger Knutson: No.
Councilman McDonald: No, okay. Then is that where the comment comes in that we wouldn ’t assess the
Outlot C because it ’s already been assessed? I ’m just confused about where all this money and what it
kind of goes it. That ’s the problem I ’m having trying to sort through this.
Todd Gerhardt: Today you have the opportunity to put all the assessments on Outlot A or 80% on Outlot
A, 20% on Outlot C. Staff recommended not to put anything on Outlot C because we deem it as
undevelopable but have allowed the developer, or the property owner Mr. Jeurissen to do research.
Figure out how it might be developable but we weren ’t willing to take the risk of putting any assessments
on Outlot C, and that ’s what we ’re talking about. We ’re measuring risk here.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: And putting the public at risk of losing those dollars down the line.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, I can understand that part of it and I agree with that logic. That makes
sense. What I ’m having trouble with is this 20%, where does, I mean that ’s almost like asking us to
reduce the assessment on Outlot A by 20% when in effect you ’re getting your money ’s worth for the
work we did for Outlot A so you should pay the full amount. Outlot C, again it gets tangled up because it
was part of the Town and Country. I understand they needed it but they weren ’t going to develop it either
but because of the product it all got wrapped in together and they asked for all of this assessment so they
had a legal right to do so. They commit people because they had a legal right. And you know you can
contest it, you ’re right at that time and now your past it. Now you ’re coming back after the fact, almost 6
years. You just can ’t do that. So my question about C is that at some point, at some point if it ’s
developable it ’s going to be part of an assessment. Someone ’s going to come in and say I want to put
roads. I want to do all this and we ’re going to assess it based upon what, no. We ’re not going to assess
it?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Councilman McDonald: See, that ’s where I ’m having trouble.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
37
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: The developer will put in those improvements.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. The City isn ’t going to initiate a road project to serve Outlot C.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: Just like Lennar is here. Somebody ’s going to potentially come through Sever
Peterson ’s property and put a cul-de-sac in and somehow utilize or access this outlot, if they can.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, then explain to me what does the assessment buy? What do I get for
paying those fees?
Paul Oehme: The current assessment?
Councilman McDonald: Any assessment.
Paul Oehme: Well the $600,000 is for the road improvements for Bluff Creek Boulevard, the collector
roadway.
Mayor Furlong: Which is north of the property.
Paul Oehme: North of the property. It buys you the water to service the property. Potable water. It buys
you sewer to extend to this property to hook up to city sewer services and then stormwater management
as well for the collector roadway so it ’s the infrastructure necessary to service the parcel itself.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, and that ’s what I thought it was for and you keep confusing me with all
this stuff. And that ’s why we would charge them in the future on Outlot C because now you ’re going to
provide. Okay see, you ’re going to provide this stuff. You ’re telling me we already paid for it so he
doesn ’t have to pay for it again but he ’s, that ’s where I ’m confused. You need to help me get through this
on Outlot C.
Mayor Furlong: On page 7 of the staff report. If I ’m correct here Ms. Aanenson.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: These are the items that were included, that were included on the existing assessments,
correct?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And they include the 2005 MUSA expansion project, the 101/Lyman Boulevard, all
these components.
Kate Aanenson: If I may Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Kate Aanenson: We met with all the property owners, Paul and I and Kimley-Horn over a year.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
38
Paul Oehme: Over a year.
Mayor Furlong: In what timeframe did you have those?
Kate Aanenson: 2005 because there ’s no way any one of these property owners could make their
development happen unless we all worked together. We needed a collector road to go through that was
identified in the AUAR , which is Bluff Creek Boulevard. That road needed to go through for them to get
access between Audubon and Powers Boulevard so we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to
make that road happen. With that we brought in the trunk utilities. Had that not happened we would not
be sitting here today because we wouldn ’t have projects going on in that area so that was the trunk project.
As the City Manager stated, lots of times developers can just tie onto their own project without a city
project but we were the engine that provided the mechanism for this, all these properties in the 2005 to go
forward and if I pull up the aerials, so this is the road that we looked at. Bluff Creek Drive coming in and
we worked, we tried to, that road but tweaked so many times trying to make sure that we didn ’t do it to
any one property owner ’s detriment. Not all of it ended up in that, and a lot of the, working through
elevations of the sewer line. The water line. Making sure that all the properties could be served off that.
This piece of property up at the top is topographically gets serviced off of this road. That ’s the only way
they can develop is coming off that road which the City built and assessed including the trunk sewer and
water. If, in the future someone gets, if MnDOT vacates this right-of-way and if someone, and Mr.
Jeurissen can make the sewer and water line work and comes in, he would have to pay to hook on, with
all the assessments pay to hook on for using the City ’s sewer and water. And maybe pay for the cost of
the road. Depending on how that development works.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. That makes some sense, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments and thoughts regarding the items before us. I guess
maybe try to lead through, with regard to the Jeurissen First Addition which is the creation of Outlots A,
B, C and D. One of the issues there was the driveway access. Ms. Aanenson mentioned that as part of
this, as part of this Outlot B would be dedicated to the City. Become City property, is that correct Ms.
Aanenson?
Kate Aanenson: That ’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Or have a preservation easement. If Mr. Jeurissen wants to hold that we ’d put a
preservation easement over it limiting it ’s use.
Mayor Furlong: Until such time, but.
Kate Aanenson: In perpetuity because that will always be required for the shoreland district regs and for
the PUD ordinance, and it ’s at the minimum for the area.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And is that dedication or preservation occur at the time of the Jeurissen First
Addition?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or, not at the Camden Ridge?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
39
Kate Aanenson: Correct, because it ’s under Mr. Jeurissen ’s control so we ’d have to get it at the time of
final plat with Mr. Jeurissen.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So what you were raising with the item is that because the access to be across the
city property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: On Outlot B, that it was your recommendation to limit that use to agricultural purposes.
Kate Aanenson: Agricultural, yeah for farming purposes and again you go look at what the city ordinance
says it ’s much broader and I just want to make sure it ’s clear that there ’s not unintended consequences
there for when you have a subdivision to the north, if there ’s other uses that you may or may not deem
necessary going across a preservation area.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess Mr. Knutson, is the, as the staff report currently recommends it says the
words, and I ’m reading on page 28 of 32, item 15. It says agricultural purposes. Does that meet with
what staff is recommending?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: It ’s not necessarily to everything that might be included in A-2?
Roger Knutson: That ’s my understanding what staff ’s recommending.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: I have some suggested, just tweaking on the language.
Mayor Furlong: For this item?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: The existing driveway access to Trunk Highway 212 must be closed except for access
for agricultural purposes only on Outlot C and then continue on with the rest of that paragraph.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the council comfortable with that item? Any objections to that suggested
change? Then I guess the next item was with regard to the assessments that are being requested to be
allocated, a portion of which to A and to C. We ’ve had a lot of discussion. Staff is recommending that
all of the assessments be included on A. Thoughts and comments on that? Is there support for that, for
staff ’s recommendation or support for the applicant ’s?
Councilman McDonald: Well now that I understand this a little bit better, I can see the logic of what the
City is doing and I can understand why Mr. Jeurissen is asking us to do this now but again it ’s the risk to
the City because I don ’t know if Outlot C can be developed and at that point I don ’t know that we can
ever recover any of those costs so I ’m not sure that I would be in favor of taking that kind of risk for the
City. I think that yeah, it ’s fair what we ’re asking to put it all on the Outlot A so I would support that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
40
Councilman Laufenburger: I would too Mr. Mayor. The action that was taken, I believe Kate you
described in ’06, is that when the assessments were issued? Is that right? It seems to me that that
decision was made based on the best information available at that time and there isn ’t anything that
substantially changes that information according to our best data right now. Outlot C is not developable
and if the, if Mr. Jeurissen can prove that it is developable then he gets the, I mean he can develop it if he
chooses to so I would support that as well. I would support staff ’s recommendation on that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Mr. Mayor I think I would too but part of the thing that I find
complexing to me is the fact that I asked Kate earlier about what we were getting for having a PUD and I
believe her answer was we were going to have Outlot C and B remain the way they are.
Kate Aanenson: I ’m sorry.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Or maybe I didn ’t hear you correctly.
Mayor Furlong: Just B.
Kate Aanenson: Just B, yep. Just B.
Mayor Furlong: Which B preserves an extension of Bluff Creek corridor.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: It was a similar type of corridor that was preserved with the property to the north when
that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So Outlot C had nothing to do with that rationale then for the PUD?
Kate Aanenson: Well, the staff ’s opinion that it should but you know we met the minimum for the
shoreland district and for the PUD as far as requirement for the 50% so we met the minimum. Again in
good faith we said we ’ll decide that later. We ’ll pay the assessments now. We ’ll decide that later if it can
be developed and there ’s a way to get to it, that decision can be made at a later date.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Would they have received a PUD if in your opinion Outlot C was
developable?
Kate Aanenson: Well, there ’s no access to it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right, but if there was would they still be getting a PUD?
Kate Aanenson: Well they still would have to preserve 50% open space so they would, you know they ’d
have to dedicate more open space so it ’d reduce the amount of potential buildable correct. Or buildable
area, correct.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
41
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So there ’s support then for staff ’s recommendation with regard to the allocation
of the assessment in it ’s entirety to Outlot A I ’m hearing as well. And then with the other question with
regard to the interest component, thoughts and comments there. Is there support?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, my same argument. Mr. Oehme made it clear that even at that time in ’06 policy
would have made it possible for us to be charging in excess of 8% interest, is that correct? Is that right?
So 6% seemed, again I ’m supporting the decision that was made by the council in ’06 and I ’ve got
nothing to suggest that that was a bad decision so I would support that same interest rate.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: I guess the thing that gets me, I understand what Mr. Laufenburger is saying and
you know I support it. The problem is, if you go back in 2006 the plans were to build it so this wouldn ’t
have been that big of a problem. I mean everybody wanted to do this so the fact that they didn ’t, they had
already made the commitment to do something. They backed out later. We did what we do as a city. We
assess so.
Mayor Furlong: Well and charge interest on assessments that are made until they are paid.
Councilman McDonald: Right, and that ’s normal. I mean 6% back then would have been within what
the policy limits that we ’ve kind of codified since then so we ’re doing the, we ’re treating him the same
way we treated every other citizen in this community when it deals with assessments.
Mayor Furlong: And there are still other outstanding assessments on other properties that were assessed
at the same time as a part of this and all of those are paying 6% interest I assume, or being.
Councilman Laufenburger: Being charged.
Mayor Furlong: Those unpaid assessments are being charged at 6% so. Okay. Okay, I think I
understand then where the council is on those items. With regard to the development itself, and now I ’m
moving to the Camden. Is there any other issue with regard to the Jeurissen First Addition that council
had questions on or concern? Then let ’s move to the Camden Ridge. Thoughts and comments. Concerns
about that. Again it appears to me to be a nice development and good balance between types of properties.
Meets the ordinance. I do think and I appreciate the representative from Lennar agreeing with trying to
locate that right-of-way access to the north and that ’s something that can be, we have to make sure that
that ’s in there. Maybe the comments or the minutes or however we need to do that but that will be
incorporated and worked out with property owners prior to the final.
Kate Aanenson: Then the only other thing I had on that Mayor if I may is, Mayor and council is the
clarification on the fee. Get that new number for the stormwater fees.
Mayor Furlong: And the stormwater fees and which condition number was that? That ’s on the Camden,
right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Page 16 and 17.
Mayor Furlong: Of the same staff report?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
42
Kate Aanenson: And it ’s on, conditions of approval it ’s on page 30 but on 16 and 17 is where I went
through and showed you what the, so if you go to page 30.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have the condition number Ms. Aanenson?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Number 10 on page 30. Under Water Resources.
Mayor Furlong: The number should be how much?
Kate Aanenson: It should be $104,930.25.
Mayor Furlong: $104,930.25 and that ’s on 16.05 acres.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so that would be the trunk fees paid at the time of final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments on the development? Again, there ’s a lot of
issues that we have to deal with and that ’s fair and fine but it ’s nice to see development coming in and
people wanting to continue to build homes in Chanhassen and it seems to be a nice development. Mr.
Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah I was just going to say that it seems to me that this topography is going
to present some challenges to the builder and I expect that they ’ll continue to cooperate with the City in
trying to address some of those challenges and just speaking personally I, looks like this might be a
property that if it were available right now I might be moving into it instead of moving north of Highway
5.
Mayor Furlong: We can keep that off the record if you ’d like.
Councilman Laufenburger: No, I ’ve been very strong. I think south of Highway 5 has great quality of
life and I ’m pleased that a family with a young boy is going to be moving into our property but I ’m
excited for Lennar. It looks like this will be a great addition to that area. And also for Mr. Jeurissen. I
think this is going to be a good property development for his property as well.
Mayor Furlong: Point of clarification Mr. Hoffman. The trail that will extend south from the existing
trail. Will that be put in as part of the development as well or is that something the City will be
subsequently?
Todd Hoffman: It will be put in as part of the development and then.
Mayor Furlong: A credit?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, the cost for the bituminous and the rock and the storm sewer structure will be paid
back to Lennar.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Credited against their park dedication fees or paid back.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that ’s consistent with what we ’ve done with other developments?
Todd Hoffman: Yes it is.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
43
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or comments? Let ’s go ahead with a motion then. We can go, is a
single motion okay Mr. Knutson?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to say.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I ’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: I was just going to point out that the motion I have in here is just for the Camden Ridge
so you may want to just read the one that ’s in your, apologize for that, for the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: So the one that ’s in the staff report you ’re saying is it complete?
Kate Aanenson: For the first, for Jeurissen First Addition. Yes, that would be correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then we also need.
Kate Aanenson: I do have the one for the second.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So if I ’m correct, we have the Jeurissen First Addition and we have to amend the
language on condition 15 as recommended by Mr. Knutson, correct? And then on Camden Ridge.
Kate Aanenson: Stormwater fees.
Mayor Furlong: Stormwater fees which is condition 10. We have to correct that number. And then also
the language for the right-of-way dedication. How does that incorporate into the motion for the
preliminary?
Kate Aanenson: That ’s actually part of the development contract for the First Addition.
Mayor Furlong: For the?
Kate Aanenson: Oh, actually.
Mayor Furlong: No, this would be part of the Camden Ridge I believe, wouldn ’t it?
Kate Aanenson: Actually I apologize. My recommendation on here is for all the motions that are in front
of you tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we can go off the screen.
Kate Aanenson: Yes you can.
Mayor Furlong: But with regard to that right-of-way dedication.
Kate Aanenson: We ’ll use the City Attorney ’s language that was stated earlier.
Roger Knutson: That ’s the closing …
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
44
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: No, that was, we ’re talking about two different things I think.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Condition 15 dealt with the existing access, driveway access underneath Highway 212.
Access to allow.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I understand what you ’re talking about now an access in the Camden Addition.
Mayor Furlong: In the Camden Addition, making sure that that northern access, that right-of-way is the
full right-of-way for a public street.
Roger Knutson: We ’ll add that as a condition to preliminary plat approval for Camden.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so what number would that be?
Kate Aanenson: Number, on page 28, number 15.
Mayor Furlong: This is page 28 of the Camden Ridge?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It says existing driveway access to 212 must be closed.
Mayor Furlong: No, that ’s not it.
Councilman McDonald: No, Mayor ’s talking about the other access.
Mayor Furlong: Northern access.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. It ’s not in here. The only place it was placed in was in the Preserve because
that ’s the part of the plat that it would go with, if I ’m correct.
Mayor Furlong: How about engineering conditions, would be a good place Mr. Oehme?
Kate Aanenson: That ’s where I ’m looking.
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Engineering condition 22. Is that reasonable?
Roger Knutson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Any other components before we get into a motion here? Mr. Laufenburger, would you
like to make a motion?
Councilman Laufenburger: Sure. Mr. Mayor I move that the Chanhassen City Council approves the final
plat for Jeurissen First Addition and a development contract with legal counsel recommendation on
wording changes to item 15. And the stormwater fees, Kate the stormwater fees are also part of the
Jeurissen One, right?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
45
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, alright. So that ’s the final plat for Jeurissen First Addition and a
development contract using the City Attorney ’s language for item number 15 on access from 212. And
recommend that City Council approve the rezoning, subdivision and conditional use permit for the
Camden Ridge development subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of
Fact and approve the development contract to permit the grading of the site prior to final plat approval
with modified stormwater fees, as outlined under condition 10 in the amount of $104,930.25 and
engineering condition number 22, preserving a northern right-of-way or preserving a right-of-way to the
north, to the property straight north of Camden Ridge.
Paul Oehme: 60 feet wide.
Councilman Laufenburger: 60 feet wide.
Kate Aanenson: No, 26 feet.
Councilman McDonald: No, no. We ’re talking two different accesses.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, I ’m sorry. Okay. I keep …I ’m sorry. You ’re right. You ’re right.
Mayor Furlong: I ’m glad I ’m not the only one. Yes, Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: If you ’d rather say rezoning, subdivision and conditional use permit etc, say the rezoning,
preliminary plat and conditional use permit to just make it clear what we ’re approving.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So the language would read, move to approve the rezoning,
preliminary plat.
Kate Aanenson: Sorry. I ’m sorry. I was going to edit it on the fly.
Councilman Laufenburger: And conditional use permit for Camden Ridge development citing both the
stormwater fees and the engineering condition number 22 for the northern right-of-way of 60 feet.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second that.
Mayor Furlong: You ’re brave. Thank you. Any questions, especially clarification on the motions before
us. I want to make sure it ’s clear for everyone so. I think it is. Thank you for everybody for working
through those. Again, a lot of minutia here but overall a good development and benefit for all and will be
a nice addition. Nice new number of homes for families to move into the area so with that is there any
other discussion? Hearing none, we ’ve had a motion that ’s been made and seconded.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
Jeurissen 1 st Addition plat subject to the following conditions:
1.Dedicated access to Outlot A must be provided prior to recording the Jeurissen 1 st Addition plat.
2.The existing driveway access to TH 212 must be closed except for access for agricultural
purposes only on Outlot C , Jeurissen 1 st Addition. An access easement across Outlot B,
Jeurissen 1 st Addition shall be recorded which shall follow the existing driveway alignment with a
width of approximately 26 feet. Said easement shall be vacated should alternate access to Outlot
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
46
C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition become available.
3.Unless the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvement assessment, City Project 06-05 levied against the
property is paid in full before the final plat is recorded, the assessment is reapportioned against
Outlot A. The principal of $601,212.65 was deferred until development and it has been accruing
6% since 2009. As of June 6, 2013 the assessment amount due was $796,302.31.
4.The Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, “Outlot B ” shall be conveyed to the City by
warranty deed free and clear of any encumbrances or a preservation easement acceptable to the
City shall be established over Outlot B before the final plat is recorded.
5.Before any development plans are submitted for Outlot C the property owner shall provide
appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and
fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the City to determine the exact watershed zone
boundary on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. Data for watershed zone delineation shall be
generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed management,
environmental science or other related profession. Development of Outlot C Jeurissen 1 st
Addition would be inconsistent with the adopted Alternate Urban Areawide Review, AUAR.
Any development would need to conduct additional environmental documentation or review or
request an amendment to the 2005 AUAR.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves
rezoning from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R),
preliminary plat of approximately 23 acres into 32 single family lots, 26 twinhome lots and 7
outlots; and a conditional use permit to allow for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District for the Camden Ridge development subject to the following conditions and adoption of the
Planning Commission Findings of Fact:
Building Conditions :
1.Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures.
2.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
3.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
4.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
5.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
6.The applicant and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
47
7.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
Engineering Conditions :
1.The developer must obtain right-of-way for the part of River Rock Road that connects to
Bluff Creek Boulevard.
2.The proposed “Easement Detail ” must be revised to include how the easements around the
perimeter of the twinhome lots will be platted.
3.The developer ’s engineer must adjust the grading on the trail near Outlot F so that it will
meet ADA standards.
4.The contours near the northwest corner of Pond 2, between Lots 6 and 7 must be smoothed
out.
5.Additional information needs to be noted (such as elevation points between the lots) between
lots on the north side of Street B to show the grading will allow water to drain away from the
structures.
6.The final plans must note the survey benchmark on the plan set.
7.The final plans must note the existing and proposed elevations at the corners of each lot.
8.The grading behind all the retaining walls must be modified so that water will not drain down
the face of the wall.
9.Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
10.Retaining Wall B must be moved so that it is outside the drainage and utility easement at the
back of the lots.
11.A Homeowners Association must be created to take ownership of all retaining walls and the
draintile along the face of Retaining Wall B.
12.Local streets must be within a 60-foot wide right-of-way.
13.At final plat, the Engineering Department will review the profile of Street A between stations
2+00 and 4+00 to ensure the profile meets the minimum length requirements for vertical
curves.
14.The proposed centerline grade at the intersection of River Rock Drive and Street A must not
be greater than 3%.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
48
15.The existing driveway access to TH 212 must be closed except for access for agricultural
purposes only on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. An access easement across Outlot B,
Jeurissen 1 st Addition, shall be recorded which shall follow the existing driveway alignment
with a width of approximately 26 feet. Said easement shall be vacated should alternate
access to Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition become available.
16.The developer ’s engineer must design a Street C typical section.
17.The development is adjacent to Bluff Creek Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial
collector fee at the time of final plat for Camden Ridge. The fee shall be $55,030.56 ($2,400
x 22.9294 acres of Outlot A, Jeurissen 1 st Addition).
18.The developer ’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection
system into the watermain plans.
19.The developer ’s engineer will ensure that CBMH-102 does not conflict with the nearby
watermain.
20. Unless the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements assessment, City Project 06-05, levied
against the property described on Exhibit “A ” is paid in full before the plat is recorded the
assessment is reapportioned against Outlot A. As of June 6, 2013, the assessment amount
with accrued interest was $796,302.31.
21.Water and sewer hook-up fees must be paid at the time of final plat.
22. P reserving 60 feet of right-of-way to the property straight north of Camden Ridge.
Fire Conditions :
1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
2.Temporary street signs must be installed prior to home construction.
3.No burning permits will be issued. Any trees removed must either be chipped on site or
removed from site.
4.Water mains shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction.
5.Posts, fences, utility boxes etc. shall not be placed near fire hydrants which would hinder
firefighters to quickly locate and/or operate fire hydrants in a safe manner.
Natural Resources Conditions :
1.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings to meet minimum requirements.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
49
2.The applicant shall plant a minimum of 130 trees in the development.
3.The applicant shall diversify the plant schedule so that no one species comprises more than
one third of the total number of trees.
4.The applicant shall specify vegetation proposed for Outlots A, B and C.
5.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city prior to final approval.
6.The applicant shall preserve trees #1301, 1302, 1303. These trees along with trees #1393-
1398 shall be protected by fencing prior to and during any grading or construction activities.
7.The developer shall install signage at lot lines to demarcate the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
Parks Conditions :
1.Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland
dedication.
2.Construction of Bluff Creek Trail from its current southerly terminus, extending between the
new homes and Bluff Creek to a terminus point at TH 212. The developer shall provide
design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.”
All construction documents, including material costs, shall be delivered to the Park and
Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt and constructed to
meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of the
aggregate base, asphalt surfacing, and storm water systems utilized to construct the trail. This
reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and
receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials noted.
Labor and installation, design, engineering and testing services are not reimbursable
expenses.
Planning Conditions :
1.The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as its portion of the 2005 AUAR prior to recording the
final plat.
2.The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise generated by traffic on Highway 212.
The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for
residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which shall be
implemented by the developer.
3.The Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, Outlot “B ”, shall be conveyed to the City by
warranty deed free and clear of any encumbrances or a preservation easement acceptable to
the City shall be established over Outlot B before the plat is recorded.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
50
4.Before any development plans are submitted for Outlot C, the property owner shall provide
appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora
and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact
watershed zone boundary on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st Addition. Data for watershed zone
delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in
watershed management, environmental science or other related profession.
Development of Outlot C Jeurissen 1 st Addition would be inconsistent with the adopted
Alternate Urban Areawide Review, AUAR. Any development would need to conduct
additional environmental documentation or review or request an amendment to the 2005
AUAR.
5.The property owner must advise the city of the intended use of Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 st
Addition, and how it shall be accessed. This Outlot may not be developable or accessible in
the future.
6.Final plat approval will be contingent on the developer resolving the access issue. Either an
access easement or right-of-way must be in place prior to any site development.
7.Individual lots may not exceed the maximum hard cover per lot established in the compliance
table.
Water Resources Conditions :
1.Land disturbance within the first twenty feet of the Bluff Creek Overlay District setback shall
not be allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved without
the proposed disturbance.
2.A mitigation/restoration plan must be provided for any disturbance within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District or setback from the BCOR.
3.Trail must be aligned to minimize the encroachment into the BCOR primary zone and
minimize loss of natural vegetation and habitat.
4.Efforts must be made to minimize the number of inlets into each pond.
5.The proposed ponds must be designed with a forebay.
6.The plans must demonstrate how water quality basin #1 and water quality basin #3 will be
accessed. This includes all inlets, outlets and filtration benches as well as sediment removal
from forebay and water quality volume.
7.The stormwater design shall, to the greatest extent practicable, seek to maximize infiltration,
extend detention times and protect Bluff Creek from scour and other erosive conditions.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
51
8.The applicant must evaluate downstream flow conditions as indicated in Section 19-144.
9.A Surface Water Pollution Plan and all required elements must be provided to the city for
review. This plan must be compliant with NPDES requirements as well as the requirements
of Chapter 19 of city code.
10.SWMP trunk fees due at final plat are estimated to be $1 04,930 .25.
11.The development must comply with the MN Rules chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
12.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. Grading activities have been observed within this area
along the south side of Bluff Creek. The applicant should submit a plan for the revegetation
of this area that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City ’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Any such areas that have been disturbed
through the removal or addition of soils material prior to approval shall be addressed prior to
commencement of other grading activities but no later than seven (7) days from approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves
the Development Contract for grading of Camden Ridge subject to the following conditions:
1.If the Preserve at Bluff Creek 5 th Addition final plat is not recorded, the developer for Camden
Ridge must acquire the right-of-way for River Rock Drive South to connect to Bluff Creek
Boulevard.
2.The developer ’s engineer must adjust the grading on the trail near Outlot F.
3.The contours near the northwest corner of Pond 2, between Lots 6 and 7 must be smoothed out.
4.Additional information needs to be noted (such as elevation points between the lots) between lots
on the north side of Street B to show the grading will allow water to drain away from the
structures.
5.An escrow totaling $105,376.87 (110% of the estimated erosion control for this development) is
required before site grading begins.
6.The grading behind all the retaining walls must be modified so that water will not drain down the
face of the wall.
7.Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
8.Retaining Wall B must be moved so that it is outside the drainage and utility easement at the back
of the lots.
9.An escrow totaling $66,709.50 (110% of the estimated cost of retaining wall construction) is
required before work on the retaining walls begins.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
52
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everybody. Appreciate all your help. That completes our items of new
business this evening. Let ’s move onto Council Presentations.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman McDonald: Yes, as everyone on the council knows I ’m part of Southwest Transit and we ’ve
started going through a number of things dealing with light rail as it comes down to Eden Prairie and so
there was a meeting last week with the Mayor and Mr. Gerhardt, kind of preliminary to just kind of look a
t you know the effect upon the cities. What ’s going to happen is, is that Southwest is going to put
together kind of their position paper on all of this as to what ’s going to happen to Southwest Station, the
light rail and all of those things. That will be sent down to the City so we will be getting a paper from
Southwest Transit that we ’re going to ask that the cities review, edit and then approve and then with that
we will be able to talk with kind of one voice and give direction back to staff at Southwest Transit as to
how the cities feel that Southwest Transit should proceed in the future so I just wanted to bring everyone
up to date on that. And you should see it probably before, about the end of July you should get, I don ’t
know if it will be in time for our first meeting in August or not but that is the plan is to try to get it you
know down to City Councils by then.
Todd Gerhardt: I have Len Simich already scheduled for our work session first meeting in August.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And I think he plans on presenting that paper to the council.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other council presentations? Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yes I would, thank you. So I just wanted to really congratulate Paul. We had, I sit
on the Metro Cities Board of Directors and we had a vacancy for a TAC position. The Transportation
Advisory Council position and there were approximately 8 candidates that submitted their resume for this
position and obviously it was a no brainer that there was a consensus that Paul was the best candidate for
the position. With his leadership skills, his project management skills and all the road construction
projects that you ’ve had and the successes with those, as well as having the resources and the network for
obtaining funding for these projects so congratulations Paul. Well deserved and I ’m excited that you ’re
going to be the best candidate for the position. Excited to see what you ’re going to do with that so.
Paul Oehme: Thank you council member. Yeah, looking forward to my service on the committee so.
Councilwoman Ernst: Great.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other council presentations? Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Oh Mr. Mayor I try to reserve my comments about the Red Birds because.
Mayor Furlong: When?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
53
Councilman Laufenburger: Anyway, on June 9 th the City dedicated Lake Ann Park pavilion in the name
of Al Klingelhutz and it was a beautiful day up until about 1:00 at which time it rained and rained out the
game that was scheduled for that day against the St. Peter Saints, Mr. Hoffman. Now the St. Peter Saints
are going to return to Chanhassen ’s Storm Red Birds stadium this Thursday night and well take up
exactly where we left off on June 9 th and Mary Jane Klingelhutz will be throwing out the first pitch and
she ’ll be surrounded hopefully by kids and grandkids and we ’ll have just a festive night. It ’s also the last
home game of the regular season for the Red Birds who are currently in second place in the Central
Division of the River Valley League vying for a number one seed perhaps in the State tournament so
everybody is welcome. Come on out. Enjoy some Red Birds fever. It ’s hot. Catch it.
Mayor Furlong: And that ’s this coming Thursday?
Councilman Laufenburger: This coming Thursday.
Mayor Furlong: At what time?
Councilman Laufenburger: 7:30 p.m. at Storm Red Birds Stadium.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Other council presentations? This is our first meeting since the
July 4 th celebration and I know all of us were there at some part. I just want to make special mention and
thank the city staff, Mitch, Jerry, Todd. Everybody in the park department but it goes way beyond that. I
know the streets department and the sheriff ’s office with their involvement. The fire department. The
Rotary Club. There just are so many people that Southwest Chamber of Commerce with the Business
Fair. Beyond the Yellow group was involved. The Senior Commission did bingo. We had Taste of
Chanhassen. Really was a fantastic city wide celebration over 3 days and the weather couldn ’t have been
better and I think because of that the crowds were larger than ever and that ’s wonderful because it just
meant that that many more people were having a great time and enjoying what we have here in
Chanhassen so thank you to everybody involved. If I haven ’t mentioned your name, it ’s not on purpose
but I ’m sure I ’ll be criticized for it but don ’t let that stop everybody from really, really appreciating all the
good things we have here and being grateful for them and at the same time looking forward to next year
and doing it even better. We do have some other things coming up tonight soon. First of all National
Night Out will be on August 6 th , if I have my date correct there. I was talking to Beth Hoiseth. She is
coordinating that again this year. Our Crime Prevention Specialist. She said we ’re approaching 50
neighborhoods to have parties that evening. Will be just a great time. If there ’s a party in your
neighborhood, please go. If there isn ’t one in your neighborhood and you ’d like to host one, please call
Beth and get in touch with her and I ’m sure she ’d be happy to help you. Also I want to thank the Senior
Center for hosting myself and Mr. Gerhardt and Ms. Hokkanen the other evening, last Thursday evening
to give a presentation update on the going on ’s. It was a great event and good time and we have a couple
things to work on, as usual. Some questions were raised but we can get to that. You did?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, Todd solve that one.
Mayor Furlong: Good, good, good. And then upcoming, which hasn ’t been mentioned much, the library.
The Chanhassen Library will be celebrating it ’s 10 th anniversary already this coming month so August
17 th they ’ll be having some events. Take a look for those and I encourage people to stop up for that. Lots
going on in the area so no excuse for not getting out and having fun.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
54
Councilman Laufenburger: Is the Tour de Tonka this weekend? August 3 rd ? Oh, August 3 rd . Not this
weekend. Two weekends away, okay.
Mayor Furlong: Two weekends away. Another opportunity to get out and have fun so. If there ’s nothing
else for council presentations, is there administrative presentations? Mr. Gerhardt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Todd Gerhardt: I just want to thank the Mayor for such wonderful weather on the 4 th , the 3 rd and the 2 nd .
He did a great job. Unfortunately I dropped the ball when it came to the senior picnic. It was a little
humid and hot but you know, but thank you for such a beautiful day. And the, I got to throw the first
pitch out against the Storm and the Cubs and they 10 run the Cubs so that ’s always good. We didn ’t fare
so well with the Vics but still beautiful night.
Councilman Laufenburger: But who threw that pitch?
Todd Gerhardt: The mayor from Victoria. But road projects, moving along fairly nice. We just got the
first lift down in Greenwood Shores and Chaska Road area. Starting to work in the Melody Hill area now
and access the Bandimere is open and paved so now they ’re working on the next segment from
Bandimere down to Pioneer and so that project ’s moving along. Getting out and moving dirt. That ’s
about it.
Mayor Furlong: Pleasant View and 101? How ’s that project coming along?
Paul Oehme: Mayor, it ’s coming along. Xcel ’s scheduled to be on site this week to move some power
poles on the east side of the road, then we can pave the turn lane and the through lane and shift all the
work to the west so we ’re hopeful Xcel will be out there this week and so we can start making some good
progress on the west side.
Mayor Furlong: Is it still on schedule? When is it scheduled to be completed?
Paul Oehme: The completion is the end of August so it ’s going to be tight but we ’re still pushing for that
as long as we get some good weather I think we ’ll be fine yet.
Mayor Furlong: And what ’s the timing on the pedestrian crosswalk over on 41 by Chaska Road?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we ’re still working through some issues there with MnDOT. There was some
permitting hurdles that we ’ve been working through but we ’re anticipating getting approval this week so
that ’s, not as much infrastructure has to go in there. We hopefully that once we get the permit, it goes
fairly quickly. The contractor ’s ready to go on that one.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the other street projects up on Chaska Road there, that neighborhood.
Melody Hills.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, Melody Hills, all the roads have been milled now. Most of the utilities have been
installed so now we ’re working on grading the road out and paving in about a week. Week and a half
maybe.
Mayor Furlong: And the other neighborhoods those are on track?
Chanhassen City Council – July 22, 2013
55
Paul Oehme: Yep. Yeah we ’re still tracking there. Sandy Hook, we ’re replacing hydrants and some
storm sewer im provements so we ’re making some good progress there.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Gerhardt or his staff?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Mayor Furlong: We will continue our last item under the work session immediately following the
meeting here but if there ’s nothing else to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to
adjourn?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting
was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 16, 2013
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Lisa Hokkanen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior
Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Dave Moore 3811 Williston Road
Chris Hammer 9688 Washington Boulevard
Troy Kakacek 380 West 86 th Street
Jim & Susan Keeler 1817 Freedom Lane
Deb Chenoweth 1829 Freedom Lane
LuAnn Markgraf 401 Rice Court
Dick Roe 6771 Penamint Lane
Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road
Keith & Julie Peterson 921 Hiawatha Drive
Jeff Kerfeld 2702 Shadow Wood Court
Karen Blenker 405 Rice Court
Joe Dorn 1833 Freedom Lane
John C. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane
Colleen Kroll 2694 Shadow Wood Court
Emily Owen 2706 Shadow Wood Court
Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court
PUBLIC HEARING:
960 CARVER BEACH ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON
PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 960
CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INC. OWNER: ANITA
BENSON. PLANNING CASE 2013-15.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Aller clarified background information
before asking the applicant, David Moore to explain the variance request. Chairman Aller opened the
public hearing. Keith Peterson, 921 Hiawatha Drive provided background information regarding when
the lot was for sale in 1999 and the City told the neighbors the lot was not buildable and how adjoining
n eighbors were going to buy the property to add onto their lots but a city employee bought the lot before
they could finish the deal. Wally Schwab, 950 Carver Beach Road spoke to the fact that when Ms.
Benson was granted a variance it was because to deny it would be considered a taking and his concern
with a building of any size being crammed into this sub-standard sized lot. Dick Roe, 6771 Penamint
stated he could support a single story house that meets the setbacks but could not support a two story
house. Katie E ckhoff, 920 Hiawatha Drive expressed concern that cramming a house on this tiny, little
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
2
lot will bring the value of their house down. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approves a 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single-family
home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
1.The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall
try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property.
2.The building shall be limited to the split level house design.
3.The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES: REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS
LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING
CASE 2013-08.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Withrow asked for clarification
on the amount of land donated to the City, and results from soil borings. The applicant, Dave Pokorney
with Community Asset Development Group, 1403 Valley View Road, Chaska stated they were excited
about this use for the property and did not have any issues with the conditions in the staff report.
Chairman Aller asked the applicant to explain further the use associated with the senior housing facility .
Commissioner Withrow asked about patios or decks. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Chris
Hammer, 9688 Washington Boulevard stated his concern over potential future impact to the wooded area
of Bluff Creek and the effect on their home values. Colleen Kroll, 2694 Shadow Wood Court asked if the
donated property from Mr. Klingelhutz would become parks and trails, the effects of the easement for
Pioneer Trail expansion in the future, sewer hook-up into the city of Chaska, and the impact of the
location of the houses to their home. Jeff Kerfeld, 2702 Shadow Wood Court asked for clarification of
the sewer hook-up to their neighborhood in Chaska, grading impact affecting wildlife habitat, and
concerns with lighting and runoff. Emily Owen, 2706 Shadow Wood Court shared her neighbor ’s
concerns as well as a concern with increased traffic. Keith Wyman, 2674 Shadow Wood Court expressed
concern with the height of the roof and the sewer connection. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing.
After comments from commission members, the following motion s were made .
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Planning Case #2013-08 to rezone 8.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential Bluff Creek Cottages contingent
upon site plan approval, as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and adoption of
the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
3
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve t he conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek
Cottages as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 , and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation , subject to the following conditions:
1.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per
1987 Corps Manual.”
2.The 894 ’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer
and setbacks.
3.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage
2 wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
4.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
5.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth
-disturbing activity.
6.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
7.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
8.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the
bioretention basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
9.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet
protection shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after
installation until final stabilization is met.
10.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
11.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0 ’).
12.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
13.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no
greater than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the
applicant is strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
4
14.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and
approval and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
15.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894 ’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
16.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention ”.
17.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments,
underdrain (if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review
and approval.
18.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration
rates. The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
19.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
20.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall
be a grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip
pre-treatment sizing ”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
21.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff
condition into Pioneer Trail and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the
proposed catch basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer
to capture this event.
22.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 13,700 square-foot continuing care retirement
facility , Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek Cottages as shown in plans dated received
June 13, 2013 , and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation , subject
to the following conditions:
Building Official Conditions :
1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
5
3.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and signed
by a structural engineer.
4.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place
when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted.
5.Structures and site must meet Minnesota Accessibility Code.
6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal Conditions :
1.Add one hydrant at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and the entrance road.
2.In addition to 12-inch address numbers on the building, address numbers will be required at
driveway entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements.
3.A PIV, Post indicator valve will be required.
4.Yellow painted curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane ” signs are required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for details.
5.City Engineer shall verify that the purposed fire apparatus turnaround is sufficient.
6.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant(s).
Planning Conditions :
1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2.Approval of the site plan application is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and
conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08.
3.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The
sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line.
4.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. If illuminated, the letters shall be
backlit and use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials
shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit.
5.The trash enclosure for the building has not been shown on the plans. The structure must be
screened from views and constructed of the same materials as the building. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the
trash.
6.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project
perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Light fixtures shall be
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
6
downcast and the light shall be cut off at a 90-degree angle as required by the city code. All
fixtures shall be shielded.
Park and Trail Conditions :
1.Park fees in the amount of $12,000 shall be collected as part of the site plan permit.
Engineering Conditions :
1.An agreement must be obtained from MnDOT and Carver County to allow the driveway to
connect to Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and to allow construction of private utilities in the
right-of-way.
2.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth-
disturbing activity.
3.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
4.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
5.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the bioretention
basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
6.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet protection
shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after installation until
final stabilization is met.
7.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
8.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0 ’).
9.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
10.The plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
11.Ten-foot drainage and utility easements are required over all public utilities.
12.An existing topography plan sheet must be included in the plan set.
13.The grading plans must be amended so that no slopes exceed 3:1.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
7
14.The developer ’s engineer must submit a soils report and boring log for this site indicating the
soil conditions, permeability and slope.
15.The plans must show the elevations at the corners of the proposed building and where the
building foundation is acting as a retaining wall.
16.The plans must identify any stockpile areas that will be used during construction.
17.The developer ’s engineer must call out the 6-foot retaining wall around the “outdoor space ”
in the plans and include top and bottom of wall elevations.
18.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured-
in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or
timber. Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
19.The developer ’s engineer must adjust grading at the face of the east retaining wall to create a
swale so water will flow away from both the wall and the building.
20.The retaining walls shall be privately owned and maintained.
21.All retaining walls over six feet high and within 10 feet of a sidewalk or other public way
must have a fence or other barrier. This condition includes the areas where the building
foundation will act as a retaining wall.
22.Before vehicles enter Pioneer Trail, the driveway must provide a landing area that starts at
least 50 feet back from the crosswalk and is at a 2% maximum grade.
23.The parking lot aisle must be 26 feet wide.
24.The turnaround must allow enough room for a fire truck to turn and exit the parking lot
without going through the parking spaces. Approved turnarounds include a 100-foot
hammerhead and a 70-foot diameter cul-de-sac.
25.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per 1987
Corps Manual.”
26.The 894 ’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer and
setbacks.
27.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage 2
wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
28.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
29.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no greater
than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the applicant is
strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
30.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and approval
and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
8
31.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894 ’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
32.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention ”.
33.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments, underdrain
(if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review and approval.
34.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration rates.
The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
35.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
36.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall be a
grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip pre-
treatment sizing ”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
37.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff condition
into Pioneer Trail, and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the proposed catch
basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer to capture this
event.
38.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.
39.The developer ’s engineer must show the detailed lift station design and location in the plans.
40.The City of Chaska must approve the sanitary sewer plans.
41.The sanitary sewer and watermain shall be privately owned and maintained.
42.A plan sheet is required to show the watermain extension from the driveway to the
connection to Chanhassen ’s watermain system.
43.The watermain that is parallel to Pioneer Trail must be 8 inches for fire flow conditions.
44.The developer ’s engineer shall model the watermain extension for fire flow demand to the
development to ensure the watermain pipe size is adequate.
45.Fire hydrants are required every 400 feet, and gate valves are required every 800 feet.
46.This property has outstanding assessments from previous improvement projects that were
deferred due to the property ’s Green Acres status. Altering the zoning for this property will
cause the assessments to come due.
47.Water and sewer trunk and hook-up fees are to be collected with the development contract.
48.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT or Carver County right-of-way.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
9
49. A temporary construction easement will be required for the i nstallation of utilities within
road right-of-way.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL LO W AND MEDIUM DENSITY;
REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND MIXED LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R);
SUBDIVISION OF 13.22 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS WITH VARIANCES; SITE
PLAN REVIEW; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. APPLICANT: J & S VENTURES
1, INC., PLANNING CASE 2013-12.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff and Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Withrow
asked for clarification on the comprehensive park plan . Commissioner Hokkanen suggested reducing the
number of lots , asked about the variance for the cul-de-sac length, and the speed limit on the curve in the
road. Chairman Aller asked if the cul-de-sac could handle a fire truck. Commissioner Yusuf asked if
staff considered two access points. The applicant, John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane provided
background information on design of the property . Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Troy
Kakacek, 380 West 86 th Street expressed concern with changing the zoning from low to medium density
and future use of the property if this project does not move forward. Karen Blenker, 405 Rice Court had
concern with her property value going down with this development and the effect on wildlife and wetland
quality. LuAnn Markgraf, 401 Rice Court discussed the impact on her property from the entrance ,
sidewalk, and signage. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the land use map amendment from Residential – Low Density to Residential – Low
and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the rezoning from Residential – Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density
Residential (R8) to Planned Unit Development – Residential (PUD-R) with the following
condition; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and
attached ordinance rezoning the property.
1.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the
development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
10
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in
plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions, and adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. All lots must comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area
(square feet)
Width
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Maximum
Hardcover
(square feet)
Notes
PUD 10,000
60 at
building
setback
100 30 percent
L1 B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland
L2 B1 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland
L3 B1 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland
L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland
L5 B1 10,011 69 146 3,003
L6 B1 10,622 62 130 3,198
L7 B1 10,017 62 120 3,005
L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland
L9 B1 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland
L10 B1 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland
L11 B1 12,936 72 (building
setback)121 3,880 Wetland
L12 B1 10,089 75 (building
setback)118 3,026 Wetland
L1 B2
12,723*96 (building
setback)128 3,817
Wetland, * area of neck
(5,580 sq. ft.) excluded
from lot area calculations
L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot
L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029
L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001
Outlot A 281,352 6.46 acres open
space/wetlands
Outlot B 48,043 1.1 acres open
space/wetlands
ROW 72,309 1.66 acres
TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres
Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure.
Front: 25 ft.
Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft.
Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
11
2.All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or
dying within that time period.
3.The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape
materials on state right-of-way.
4.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along the south property line to meet
minimum requirements.
5.Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than
30 mph.
6.The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments:
a.Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations:
i.Runoff leaving the overall site for the two-year (2.8-inch) rainfall and snowmelt
events.
ii.Runoff leaving the wetland located on the western portion of the site for each design
event.
iii.Runoff leaving the site to the north for the snowmelt event.
b.Use a pond in the model at the 18-inch culvert located north of the site.
c.The analysis should reflect any overtopping of the driveway or other overland flows that
may occur.
d.Due to the increased velocities through the12-inch culvert leaving the western wetland,
the developer must provide a design to address associated erosion at this location. Any
required improvements outside of existing easements shall require additional easements.
e.The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the
Drainage Area and Curve Number Table.
f.Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in
the composite Curve Number computation.
g.The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city ’s
requirements for water quality are satisfied.
i.If the event-based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8
or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies.
ii.If an iron-enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be
provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed
plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
12
iii.The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load.
This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either
an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular
rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency.
7.The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30%.
8.If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be
adjusted so that there is a minimum three-foot separation.
9.The developer must provide additional information showing how the proposed
“Preservation/Stormwater Volume Reduction Area ” between the large wetland and the back
of Lots 4-7, Block 1 will meet the minimum requirements.
10.Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with the final plat application and shall
include the existing storm sewer at Tigua Lane (approximately 280 feet east of the proposed
street intersection). The existing 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe north of Lots 7 and 8,
Block 1 shall also be included in the analysis.
11.The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments:
a.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the
MnDOT right-of-way.
b.The grading plan must be revised at the slope down from the street to the wetland at
Station 3+00, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 so the slope does not exceed 3H:1V.
c.The lowest openings of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 must be at least one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
d.The minimum floor elevation of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be 897.6 ’.
e.The building envelope for Lot 3, Block 2 must not encroach into the drainage and utility
easement.
f.The side yard drainage and utility easements between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 must
match what is shown on the plat.
g.The building pad shown for Lot 1, Block 2 cannot accommodate any of the house styles
provided and must be revised accordingly.
h.It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The
developer ’s engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights.
12.A building permit is required to construct the proposed retaining wall. Plans must be
submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
13
13.Some homes may choose to install a privately-owned and maintained booster to provide a
higher water pressure.
14.The watermain shall be 8-inch PVC (C-900).
15.Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain the necessary easement to install the
sanitary sewer off-site, to the north.
16.A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in
the rate in effect at that time.
17.Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat.
18.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone
document and submitted to engineering for review and comment. This SWPPP shall include
a narrative, plan set and applicable details.
19.The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater
Associated with Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA
SWPPP checklist.
20.A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and
approval per the requirements of Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES
Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary
and permanent best management practices.
21.There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off-site discharge locations. Rates must
be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge
points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting.
22.A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed for all areas preserved
as open space including those areas graded for the construction of stormwater management
practices that are above the normal water level.
23.Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way is outside of the City of Chanhassen ’s
WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen ’s review of wetland
boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals
from MnDOT for work on the sound wall.
24.The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
25.Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are
$67,483.50. Provide area of wetland buffer after development to accurately calculate credit.
26.Fifty-percent (50%) of park fees shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of
Outlots A and B. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
14
submission and approval. At today ’s rate these fees would total $46,400 (16 lots X $5,800
per lot /2 ).
27.Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a
neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail shall be further reviewed
for proper placement through the wetland .
28.Construction of the 8-foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the
southeast corner of the property.
29.The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right-of-
way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul-de-sac that
exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following
conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment,
Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received
June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
2.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.
3.Execution of the Site Plan Permit.
4.Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with
the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
15
1.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site.
2.A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs
shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location.
3.The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed
road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1.
4.A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects as well as a signed
and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder.
5.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage
report and wetland replacement application.
6.Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan
Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN
ALTERNATIVE TO A SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS) ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES D. WILSON, ET. AL,
PLANNING CASE 2013-14.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Yusuf asked about servicing of the
holding tank s .
Yusuf moved, Withrow seconded that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2013-14 for a variance to permit installation of sewage
holding tanks subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Decision:
1.Variance allowing holding tanks to be time limited to three years.
2.Sewage holding tanks may not serve an inhabited structure.
3.Site served by holding tanks must be seasonal use only.
4.Sewage holding tank(s) to have capacity alarm.
5.Sewage holding tank(s) pumping contract required.
6.The new holding tanks must be 50 feet from the well on the property.
7.The tanks must 50 feet from the wetland on the north and west sides of the property.
8.The tanks must be outside of the right-of-way.
9.The septic holding tank system must be installed per plumbers code.
Planning Commission Summary – July 16, 2013
16
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 18, 2013 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Kate Aanenson discussed items scheduled for
upcoming meetings.
Withrow moved, Aller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 16, 2013
(Due to technical difficulties, some of the microphones were not working properly.)
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow , and Lisa Hokkanen
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Steven Weick
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior
Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Dave Moore 3811 Williston Road
Chris Hammer 9688 Washington Boulevard
Troy K a kacek 380 West 86 th Street
Jim & Susan Keeler 1817 Freedom Lane
Deb Chenoweth 1829 Freedom Lane
LuAnn Mar kgraf 401 Rice Court
Dick Roe 6771 Pena mi nt Lane
Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road
Ke i th & Julie Peterson 921 Hiawatha Drive
Jeff Kerfeld 2702 Shadow Wood Court
Karen Bl enker 405 Rice Court
Joe Dorn 1833 Freedom Lane
John C. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane
Colleen Kroll 2694 Shadow Wood Court
Emily Owen 2706 Shadow Wood Court
Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court
PUBLIC HEARING:
960 CARVER BEACH ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF
THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON
PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 960
CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INC. OWNER: ANITA
BENSON. PLANNING CASE 2013-15.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Aller: I noticed in the report that the first plan came by with 33%.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: Was that the porch area then?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
2
Aanenson: Yeah I think the interpretation of that was..and actually that was a raised deck so it didn ’t
include the hard surface coverage. It was this area here because a raised deck off that split so it didn ’t
count towards the hard cover so it was just a calculation correction on the staff.
Aller: And my review of the report it shows the history of the lot, apparently there was an original
application for variance which was denied because it was too much on that hard cover and then there was
a second one that had been approved?
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: And this one is less than the one that had been approved as far as the hard coverage?
Aanenson: Yes.
Aller: Isn ’t that the 16 foot center drive?
Aanenson: Yes. That ’s pretty minimal. They can go larger, yes. So that ’s minimal.
Aller: I don ’t have any further questions at this time. Any other concerns? Would the applicant like to
step forward or make a presentation on behalf of the applicant? Please state your name and address for
the record sir.
David Moore: Hi. David Moore. David D. Moore, Inc., applicant. 3811 Williston Road, Minnetonka.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could, I know we ’re having problems with the microphone. Mr. Moore, if you
wouldn ’t mind just speaking into, you can speak into the one on the podium too.
David Moore: Okay. Is that better?
Aller: That ’s better, thank you.
David Moore: Okay.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Moore. Tell us about the variance and what you ’re looking for.
David Moore: Well I went through several plans trying to fit this lot and the difficulty is the width of the
lot. Not necessarily the depth. Originally I spoke with some of the staff members about possibly
applying for an 8 foot side yard variance to go with it and they suggested don ’t do that. Do, follow the
guidelines that were approved some time ago at 36% approval for the hard cover. I did the calculations
myself with 33.5% not knowing your deck coverage was not included. I would like to reserve the 33.5%
is still on my application. That would be a walkout underneath that deck. Would not be underground.
And I would like to reserve that possibly to pour a patio.
Aller: Okay.
David Moore: Give that consideration. The other option obviously would be to put a slab on grade wood
platform deck which would deteriorate over time. Not too friendly to the public I don ’t think but it is a
three bedroom, three bath plan. I could have gone smaller in house. I wouldn ’t be here tonight. It would
be an 860 split with a single tuck under garage. Not favorable to the public and the values around the area
that I viewed myself. I ’ve been selling real estate for Edina Realty for 37 years so I pretty much know
values when I see it and the functionality of a house having three bedrooms on one floor rather than two.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
3
The driveway situation possibly moving it closer to the street. Doesn ’t matter to me either way. I would
like to comply with the 30 foot setback off the street to go with the back. The other difficulties of this
property these, I ’m very well aware of this, there is no sewer/water stubbed to the property. It ’s out in the
street. I visited with staff on several occasions here. There ’s a WAC and SAC charge of about $8,200 to
go with this in addition to cutting into the street and bringing the sewer service and the water service to
the property.
Aller: Well I can ’t help you with the numbers but …
David Moore: No, I ’m just saying it ’s what I ’m trying to deal with here and I understand the whole
situation. I ’m not new to the building industry.
Aller: Great. Well thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions?
David Moore: I guess I ’d like to leave that, at least on the garage side. An 8 foot side yard application
would have been great for only one reason. It gives the width of the bedrooms a 10 foot width dimension
rather than reduce down to 9 foot in width. My architect has designed the house for me to cantilever this
side of the house 18 inches which does not infringe on the hard cover whatsoever because it ’s above
ground. It ’s a little more difficult to do on the gabled end of a house but it can be accomplished. The
aesthetics and the architectural design would be impaired because of that.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: I jus t want to get a clarification on the cantilever. You ’re getting a variance, when you ’re
getting a variance, you can ’t also double dip on a cantilever on a, when you ’re encroaching on. You ’re
giving an 8 foot then you can ’t use a variance too so I guess it ’d be instead of , I ’m just trying to answer
your question. So the way our ordinance is written right now, if you ’re getting a variance on a setback
you can ’t also use the cantilever portion of it. We don ’t allow that. The way I understood it he was trying
to see if he could get an 8 foot and then make sure, if you were to go that direction, that you couldn ’t also
use a cantilever on that.
David Moore: Okay.
Aanenson: That would not be the floor plan in our packet.
Aller: It ’s in the packet. Unless it ’s changed. Alright. Well then at this point I w ill open the public
hearing and …come forward speaking for or against t he application for a variance on this property can do
so at this time.
Keith Peterson: Hi. My name ’s Keith Peterson. I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive.
Aller: Welcome Keith.
Keith Peterson: I guess the reason the neighborhood has kind of always been fired up about this lot.
Back in ’99 when the lot first came for sale, three of us over there called the City and the City told us it
was not buildable. So we were going to buy the lot and divide it up so each of our lots would be bigger,
closer to the size lots that should be in Chanhassen. Well then before we got the deal done somebody
from the City buys it and all of a sudden it ’s buildable and so that ’s why we ’re very fired up. I can ’t
believe the guy that sold the lot didn ’t sue the City because he sold this lot for $4,200 and $4,200 in
Chanhassen you know doesn ’t buy much. It ’s a small lot. It shouldn ’t be a buildable lot. It should be
made into , to make the lots more acceptable size for the houses that are actually there. And another thing
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
4
I noticed, I wish I had more time to prepare but there ’s a letter from Anita saying that in ’99 she was
approved for variances. I don ’t recall that. The first time I recall anything coming to the City was when
she was trying to sell it for $21,000 to Habitat for Humanity without doing a thing. To me that ’s just pure
profit. You ’re getting variances for profit and I don ’t, unless you have information that I don ’t have, I
don ’t think it was ever approved in ’99 because we didn ’t do the, the other one with Habitat until
December of 2000. That ’s the first I recall. I don ’t know about you guys but, so there was just, just a lot
of stuff that really ticked us off and now that it ’s reopened again they ended up approving, you know the
Planning Commission denied it at first and then you guys didn ’t want to get sued, that ’s why we were told
that they had to approve it but you should have gotten sued by the guy that sold the lot because he sold it
for $4,200. We should have sued you because you lied to us. Not you in particular but so. So I think
this variance, and another thing I don ’t understand is a self created hardship. When you buy a lot for
$4,200 and try to sell it for $21,000, if you get the variance, I mean you know it ’s a small lot. I think the
hardship was created by buying a lot like this. You know it should have been a non-buildable lot and
that ’s what the City told everybody else so, I don ’t know we ’re just kind of fired up over there and that ’s
just, I ’m not sure what else I was going to say but I don ’t recall just recap. ’99 I don ’t recall her ever
getting approved and she didn ’t, it never came to you guys until she was trying to sell it and to me that ’s
just pure profit and another thing that lot has been there since what, ’99 she ’s owned it. It ’s never been
mowed once. It looks like a jungle now and for her to be, now she ’s asking what, $29,000 for it? I mean
this variance is just pure profit and for a city employee to, nobody ever gave us a straight answer how it
was unbuildable when we called but a city employee bought it so that ’s just kind of where we ’re, I ’m
coming from so I ’m not sure what everybody else has to say but that ’s my piece.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, in the background we gave the dates that, so there was a variance so.
Aller: Right.
Aanenson: …nothing happens with a variance for one year then it becomes null and void but there was
one approved. The first one was denied …
Keith Peterson: In 2000.
Aanenson: Yeah we do have in the background …
Keith Peterson: It was 2000 and it was approved then in ’99.
Aanenson: 2001.
Keith Peterson: Yeah. She said it was done in ’99.
Aanenson: Well I can ’t comment on the factual. I ’m worried …
Keith Peterson: Well she ’s saying she had it approved to make it look like it wasn ’t done for pure profit.
Aller: Okay, I understand your position sir. Thank you. Anyone else?
Wally Schwab: Yeah. My name is Wally Schwab. I live.
Aller: Sorry?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
5
Wally Schwab: Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road which is just east of the property in
question. Most of what he said is true about the variances. She, Ms. Benson was granted a variance on
the basis of to deny her the variance would be creating a hardship, which would result in a taking by the
papers from the last time this came up. This now is not the case in this instance because the proposed
new owner does not yet own the property. Therefore denial of the variance would not be creating a
hardship. Myself and most of the neighbors to whom I have spoken have concerns about a house, a
building of any size being crammed into a sub-standard sized lot. If you tour the area, all of the lots in
that region are a full, at least a full 100 by 100. Some of them are more than 100 by 200. They ’re all nice,
big sized lots with decent sized houses on them. Yes, there are smaller lots further down Carver Beach
Road. These two lots were originally summer cabins. They ’ve now become full time residences. To
compare the use of them to this property I think is wrong. It just will not fit in our immediate
neighborhood. If you tour the area, the lots are all, there ’s space. This is like that. It doesn ’t work.
That ’s my concern.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Dick Roe: Dick Roe. I live 6771 Penamint. I ’m right directly across from the driveway. My property
and really at this point I wasn ’t for or against. I guess I just wonder how, if all the other homes on both
sides are all single family, or not single family but just single story, how this in addition to getting
approved, how they would allow a two story home, which would be the only one. Would stick up above
the rest of the homes there. There isn ’t a two story home anywhere either direction so it ’s just a matter of,
there ’s many things that he ’s asking for and I hadn ’t seen any prints or plans until tonight but I think that
if somebody could meet all the 10 foot, 10 foot and they could do it on a single story then I would be for
it.
Aller: Thank you sir. Yes ma ’am.
Katie Eckhoff: I ’m Katie Eckhoff and I live at 920 Hiawatha Drive.
Aller: Welcome.
Katie Eckhoff: And I haven ’t lived there as long as these folks have so we ’ve been there for 5 years. 6
years actually and we, our biggest issue is that, you know we moved to Chanhassen because our
neighborhood and the surrounding area has big lot sizes. That was a big factor for our family in moving
to this community and I feel like to cram a house into that tiny, little lot is really going to take away the
integrity of our neighborhood and what people are looking for in our neighborhood and I feel that it may
detract from, it may bring our value of our house down by having this tiny, little house crammed in a lot
where all the rest of the surrounding neighborhood has nice large lots and you know family friendly
homes. This one ’s just, it just is not going to fit in I guess bottom line and I ’m worried for the resale of
our house down the road potentially and also like I said, you know if we want to live in a community
where the houses were crammed in together we would have lived in Minneapolis. I mean we moved to
Chanhassen, this community because it ’s a beautiful area and the lot sizes are large and that ’s what we
were looking for for our family so I mean for what it ’s worth that ’s kind of my opinion and I just don ’t
think it ’s a good fit for our neighborhood.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come up speak for or against? Seeing.
Keith Peterson: What was the original proposal on the house to be built that?
Aller: My history was.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
6
Keith Peterson: Just a single story wasn ’t it?
Aller: It was.
Keith Peterson: What I recall is they approved a house that nobody would want to build just so they
could get something approved and not get sued I guess.
Audience: Should you let them know that …
Keith Peterson: Oh yeah, she ’s been offered to sell that lot at a profit but not like she ’s trying to get now.
Aller: Thank you. I understand that and for everybody ’s edification I can ’t control the market place and
the committee ’s not here to look at the value of the property per se but the use of the property at this point
which is the application before us and so that ’s what we ’re looking for and there ’s a certain structure that
can typically be put on to a property when they combined lots that were platted, these were platted a long
time ago so they ’re smaller lots so in order to get the value out of the properties owners are required to
basically put those platted lots together in order to have a tax parcel and to build on them.
Keith Peterson: You should tell the guy that ’s selling it that it ’s a buildable, not buildable.
Aller: But that ’s the person ’s right and that ’s one of the reasons why the property has a value. A person
has a right to using that to the best of their ability and for that size …the best use. That ’s what we ’re
trying to do is balance that between what we would like to do as a city and restricting those rights and
what a homeowner wants to do with her property so.
Keith Peterson: Well I ’m sure you would have sold it for a lot more if you would …
Aller: At this point I ’m going to close the public hearing and we ’re going to let the applicant come
forward and if you ’d like to respond to any of the comments, that ’s fine.
David Moore: I guess in some of the research I ’ve done with the City as well on this property, it was one
lot at one point and it was split prior to 1977. The abutting owner ’s property, 970 next to 960 was in fact
960 Carver Beach Road. The City did approve and did split along the way this lot. It ’s a lot of record
and it should be buildable. As far as value, my bank ’s got this thing over $300,000. I don ’t know where
the total values are on Carver Beach Road but I think that ’d be on the top of the list right now.
Aller: Okay. Any comments? Discussion. Questions. Any questions on the variance? Comments. I
think that in looking at this, if we grant this motion we ’re allowing for the use of the property in a way
which is less than, which was approved by prior Planning Commissions so I feel fairly comfortable with
that. That being said I ’ve looked at all the conditions and looked at the use that ’s been requested. I do
believe that it ’s a hardship not of the owner ’s making but one of the nature of the property itself. I don ’t
believe that it ’s necessarily for purposes of economics, solely for economics but actually use of the
property to get the highest and best use of the property is obviously going to raise the value of the
property. My hope is that it will raise the value of everyone ’s property if it ’s built. They still have the
hoops to jump through if we grant the variance so I would be voting to approve. Any other comments?
Questions? That being said, anybody who ’d like to make a motion. I ’d entertain a motion.
Hokkanen: I ’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the 5.8%
hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single family home subject to the conditions of the
staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
7
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion? I ’ll just say I believe that there are other variances that have been granted
in that area that this would be in line with as stated in the report.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approves a 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single-family
home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
1.The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall
try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property.
2.The building shall be limited to the split level house design.
3.The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES: REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SENIOR HOUSING F A CILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS
LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING
CASE 2013-08.
Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application is for a
senior housing project, extended care. The site is located north of Pioneer Trail, west of Bluff Creek
Boulevard. The existing zoning as well as the land use on the site, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows this
area designed for development as medium density. Medium density allows for 4 to 8 units per acre.
Types of development appropriate zoning for this type of land use would be an R-8, an RLM which
allows for mixed types of low medium density or a planned unit development residential type of zoning.
What the applicant is proposing to develop on this site is a single building which will contain 24 rooms.
Individual rooms. The occupants of the building will be individuals that need assistance with their
mobility. They will put a substantially less demand on the infrastructure of, on the infrastructure than a
typical medium density type of development would. And for a continuing care facility the only type of
zoning that is, that allows this type of use within the city is the R-8, which is the medium density. So
with that said, what the applicant is requesting is a rezoning of the property from currently as I said it is
zoned Agricultural Estate District. They are proposing to rezone it from Agricultural Estate to Medium
Density which is R-8. They are also requesting a site plan approval for the construction of a continuing
care retirement facility and a conditional use permit since the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. The only way you are allowed to develop within that area is if the City grants a conditional use.
The current zoning of the site is Agricultural Estate District. The applicant is requesting they rezone it to
Medium Density. That type of rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff is recommending
approval of this rezoning. It is compatible with the surrounding area. The area to the north of it has a
medium density. The area to the east has 4 units per acre and then as we go into the Chaska portion of the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
8
city, which is to the southwest, that area is all residential single family homes. The site plan basically
consists of a building that will gain access off of Pioneer Trail. Bluff Creek runs along the northeast
portion of the site. The total area of this building is 13,700 square feet. As I mentioned earlier it will be
one story. 24 bedrooms within this building. The maximum hard surface coverage permitted under this
district is 35%. What the applicant is proposing will result in 8.9% hard surface so they are substantially
below the maximum permitted. One of the things that the applicant has done with this building is
extended a sidewalk that basically goes along the driveway and it will connect with a regional trail along
Pioneer Trail. The design of the building is attractive. It is proposed to be constructed of high quality
materials. They include a cultured stone and a sample of the materials is available. There will also be
paneling. All elevations that can be viewed from the public, by the public have been treated equal.
Treated and given equal attention. There is variation throughout the building and the windows, as well as
doors will comprise over 50% of each elevation as required by ordinance. Bluff Creek. As mentioned
earlier Bluff Creek runs along the northern portion of the site. The area that is highlighted in red on this
slider shows the secondary zone while the blue is the primary zone on the site. Staff has had
conversations with the developer and it is the applicant ’s intention to ultimately donate this property to
the City. The required 40 foot setbacks from Bluff Creek primary zone are being met. Of that 20 feet is
going to be a buffer. And they have no intention of developing anywhere within the area that is the
primary nor the secondary zone. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the site plan
approval and the conditional use permit to allow for the construction of this building for continuing care
for the elderly and I ’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Great, thank you. And the report, as you noted, there ’s a number of additional pages other than
what has been presented in the viewing screen for the general public and can be found on the website.
There are a number of conditions. Have you discussed the conditions with the applicant? And are they,
and do they appear to be willing to comply with those?
Al-Jaff: That ’s for the next item.
Aller: Oh, I ’m sorry. Do we have an equivalent between, with the shrubs that were requested and the
existing vegetation, do we know what that is?
Al-Jaff: Yes. It is.
Aller: In that buffer.
Al-Jaff: They are working with the landscape. They ’re working on the landscaping with the City
Forester and when she reviewed the plans she indicated that they meet all the requirements. She had no
additional comments nor conditions to add to this.
Aller: That ’s all I have for now so, any questions? Comments?
Withrow: What is the size of the amount of land donated to the City?
Al-Jaff: They are working with the Water Resources Coordinator and that will be something that will
come in the future. There are some steep grades on the site. Some bluffs as well as wetlands. They
could do it either through a subdivision or they could grant the City an easement to , over these wetlands
and storm ponds.
Withrow: Okay, and then in the report you mentioned that we ’re still waiting on soil borings.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
9
Withrow: And I don ’t know a whole lot about those but what is the likelihood that they won ’t come back
positive? And if so what would be done about it? What effect would that have?
Al-Jaff: They will have to correct the soils.
Withrow: They can remediate it?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Withrow: Okay. Thank you.
Aller: And if we pass this then any remediation would have to comply with the Bluff Creek requirements.
Al-Jaff: Correct, as well as wetland setbacks, as well as the bluffs.
Aller: And then was there a permit required then for the construction? No?
Aanenson: Well no getting, I mean Chair, the process would be then for the, it ’s not a subdivision so we
put together a site plan agreement. There would still be security put in place for any public utilities or any
landscaping that was to be put in place. The site plan would administer all that so then also for the
building permit process …would be executed to find out if soil corrections …send it to a building official.
And I just want to add one other, going back to, if I may go back to the site showing that watershed area.
The donation. I ’m just trying to find it on this. Oops, there it is. So if you look at this larger area, that ’s
what Sharmeen had indicated relief at, there ’s some steep slopes and there ’s some areas that …it ’s
topographically isolated so it really has no building utility …that ’s fine, we can manage that so …because
they ’re not platting it right now and it ’s not needed for any …except for the fact that they ’re grading next
to it …if they want to work through some other things with the City, that could be a separate discussion …
Aller: Thanks for the clarification. Anything else? Alright, would the applicant like to come forward?
State your name and address for the record sir.
Dave Pokorney: My name is Dave Pokorney. I ’m with Community Asset Development Group. My
address is 1403 Valley View Road, Chaska. Thank you. So I actually don ’t have a lot of comments. I
think we spent a lot of time with the staff working through this. I ’ve got to tell you I ’m really glad I ’m
here with this project and not some of the other ones we looked at because the landowner has owned the
land for a while. We looked at some different uses. I mean you can imagine if we had the townhouse
project and we were really having to be up against the buffers and bluffs and that ’s what, when we kind of
hit upon this is the concept. We just said this is a really good use for the site. Quite frankly we ’re not, as
Sharmeen ’s indicated we kept away from all of the bluffs. Were able to, there are a few trees on one
corner that we ’re touching but everything else is staying so for us it ’s, we ’re excited about the project
because we think it ’s a really good use but quite frankly we ’re also excited it was not a difficult process to
develop this site. I mean we ’ve known for some time that this was going to be a challenge. Relative to
the dedication, I think our discussion we ’ve been having with the staff is that basically everything that
you see that ’s outside of the red line and this we would deed either an easement. It probably would be an
easement because we are not going through a platting but it really is a piece that should be public. Should
be preserved. People should have the right to go in there. It has really little value once we develop this to
our property, although it has the same value to us as it does to the rest of the public so we may have, we
won ’t have our residents hopefully that are using but we may have visitors that will use it as an open
space.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
10
Aller: Just to make it clear.
Dave Pokorney: …we ’re happy with, relative to the conditions which I know is the next item, I do have
to say I think it ’s the most conditions I ’ve ever seen in a project in a long time, if ever but we don ’t have
any concerns regarding the conditions.
Aller: Well and I ’m sure citizens are glad to hear we ’re putting requirements out there. Obviously the
dedication portion is not a requirement for purposes of moving forward with your project, nor is it
something other than a general interest for the people out there listening.
Dave Pokorney: And quite frankly the landowner will probably, because it ’s not a requirement he ’ll be
able to get some kind of tax advantage that will work for him.
Aller: So tell us a little bit more about the project itself. It ’s a senior ’s home . Tell us what you ’re
constructing.
Dave Pokorney: Yep, so it ’s a 24 unit building. It ’s geared to seniors that have, either they ’re having
memory care issues or they ’re elderly and very few, I mean we won ’t have residents that have cars, put it
that way. The way that it ’s set up it ’s actually two separate units. Living units. Both units on each side.
Each living unit will have it ’s own dining, living room area. We will join, the reason we put it into two
12 ’s, particularly with people who have memory care issues. The smaller and simpler that you can make
them, it ’s just a better environment but when we can combine them together then we have the joint
staffing so in the evening times we don ’t need, we can have one person staffing a 24 unit . During the day
there ’s more. These tend to be really that one story environment works well for seniors that have these
types of issues. We ’re, if there ’s a down side to the site it ’s a little bit remote but from an up side it ’s in a
really great environment and it ’s a place that you know I ’d like to sit out in the back porch and that ’s what
our residents will do so they can take advantage of the environment that ’s there and it ’s not the most
convenient but it ’s a place that people who are visitors, they ’re going to be able to know how to get there
so being right on the county road is actually a positive. I ’d tell you that I ’m not so sure that we ’ll ever use
the sidewalk. At least none of our residents will but we ’ll put a sidewalk in. So assuming that it gets
approved, we do have financing in place and we would anticipate starting construction probably in
September and it ’s a 6 to 7 month timeframe.
Aller: Questions?
Hokkanen: No, I think it looks good.
Withrow: Yeah I have a question. Will there be any patios or decks or anything on the outside for
visitors and your residents to enjoy this setting, as you say?
Dave Pokorney: Yes. Yes, so there is, there ’s a small patio directly out the back and then there ’s on the
north end of the site there ’s a larger open space walking area. It shows up on our site plan as a little curly
pathway. That will be fenced and again it ’s because some of our residents will have memory care issues
but that ’s there for, not only for residents but for residents and their guests. And that type of a space is
really important to these because people, for example on a day like today, maybe it was a little bit too hot
today but people, it ’s really a calming environment for them to be in and so you need to have outdoors,
and actually I think it ’s a second part of it when you development these. You have to have a minimum
amount of outdoor space. We probably exceed it by a fair amount.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
11
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else have questions? Okay, I ’m going to open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak for or against the item before us please come forward. State your name and address for
the record.
Chris Hammer: My name ’s Chris Hammer. Address 9688 Washington Boulevard. It ’s the property
directly to the north of the property in question. My only possible cause of concern is potential impact
into the wooded area and Bluff Creek itself in the future. It ’s an area that should be protected. Is the City
preventing any future development into that because that would affect our home values directly to the
north. We have a nice private space with the wooded area and the creek behind with all the wildlife.
We ’re worried about the value of our homes being impacted in the future because if something comes in,
what ’s going to happen next.
Aller: Okay, anybody have an answer for that?
Aanenson: Sure. Similar to what we did on Liberty at Bluff Creek which is where you live, we actually
preserved all these trees and this is part of that same continuum of the Bluff Creek Overlay and it ’s in that
area because it probably has significant slopes and the creek goes through there so it ’s, you can see the
area that ’s …right now is where they ’re putting the building and …
Chris Hammer: Okay.
Aanenson: So we worked hard to try to find a use that would accommodate that as the applicant just
stated so.
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against? Seeing no one
come forward, close the public hearing. Comments, questions from the commissioners.
Hokkanen: I think it ’s a good use of the property. It ’s a nice addition to the city.
Audience: Sir, I think we have audience comments …
Aller: Oh, come on. Move faster than ever.
Colleen Kroll: Three months ago I talked with Sharmeen about the possibility, 3 months ago we got
letters explaining what was going to be developed in that space. My property is the odd shaped one on
the north and.
Aller: And your name and address?
Colleen Kroll: Oh I ’m sorry. I ’m Co lleen Kroll, 2694 Shadow Wood Court.
Aller: Thank you.
Colleen Kroll: And like I said, I ’m the property that is the odd shaped one. Short on the north and long
on the south side. Our property runs right down to the pond. We have a nice woods to the north and I ’m
curious about how the donation would be if it would become open for trails and public parks and so forth
or how that would be detonated with Mr. Klingelhutz donating a certain percentage of what he has, as
well as many, many years ago the easement for Pioneer was to become a much larger road and so the
property can ’t, the State owns it at the time period for it ’s beginning to expand. When they no longer
choose to have that as a need, what is that going to look like, once we say it ’s okay to put a building in,
how does that affect future development? Will there be a second building? Will there be a, you know
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
12
how do you limit the growth on it because it ’s really not that big of a space. It ’s a meadow. It has a deep,
steep slope. The ravine that runs through the trees is quite steep. I know that when you own something
and you can take down as many trees as you want but it will change that entire environment and wild
turkeys and the deer and everything else we have so we have some questions about that. Also how the
sewage is hooking up into the city of Chaska so, I will let the other guys to address that part but we need
to know more what the future ’s going to be because when they ’re sitting out on their back patio, which is
going to be great, they ’re going to be watching my kids in my pool. It ’s a direct way. It ’s about 50 feet
away so it ’s not that, as well as the pond fluctuates in height and to know exactly, I understand that the
City, and I don ’t know if it was Chanhassen or Chaska, took the highest height. What the pond history
has done but there ’s no flags on the meadow right now. There ’s no flags for us to even understand where
this development ’s going to be. How it ’s going to implement us so we ’re going off of that but the
building ’s not even put on it in relationship to our houses so it ’s really kind of hard for us to imagine
what ’s going to happen so the new building. In March we had a building placed on the , plotted out but
not on the new development pieces that we ’ve seen so, it does affe ct us that way so that ’s our part.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, there is copies of the plat. I mean it ’s all engineered. Well this, I mean they ’re all
in the packet so maybe we can get that to the residents as well.
Aller: And it ’s all available on the website as well.
Aanenson: Yep, so you can go on the finished floor elevation and then you can find your finished floor
elevation from your building survey and then you get an idea of what that would be.
Aller: Okay. And then can we go, there was a view of the property. There you go that at least gives you
an idea of where some of the landscaping looks like it ’s potentially …
Aanenson: Yeah, all the plants are in … We can go back to the other one. Maybe Sharmeen wants to talk.
It ’s not our intent to get into where the trees and the ravine are, we don ’t think that ’s buildable. When
MnDOT vacates the right-of-way on that property there is potential for another building. Again this
property is zoned medium density. There could have been a lot of townhouses in there. We worked
really hard to try to find that transition between the single family in Chaska and the residents in
Chanhassen that are guided also medium density so we thought this was really a good use. Much less
units in there. Much less traffic in there plus they ’re also lower profile buildings so.
Aller: That ’s the question I got as well as the fact that we ’re getting incredibly low hardscape.
Aanenson: Correct, if we can go back to, yeah.
Aller: So that ’s going to help. We give a little here and there on these variances all through the city. It ’s
nice to be able to keep some so that we can get some of that water flow through the.
Aanenson: Yeah, I ’m just trying to find the one that showed the, I guess for the right-of-way. So when
MnDOT would vacate that right-of-way, the potential then for additional building would be you know
somewhere in this area. Somewhere through here so, but we don ’t know what that timeframe is going to
be.
Al-Jaff: And it would have to appear before the Planning Commission and a public hearing would be
held so we would have to go through the entire process again.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
13
Aller: Yes sir. Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Jeff Kerfeld: My name is Jeff Kerfeld. I live at 2702 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska and so I am two
doors to the north and west of the Kroll family so just wrap around that cul-de-sac just a little bit so.
Couple questions I have I guess , we ’d like to get a little more clarification as far as how the sewer ’s going
to be connected to our neighborhood. It ’s my understanding that the utilities will not be provided by the
City of Chanhassen but will be provided by the City of Chaska and directly across the road from us is a
lift station and on a regular basis we have the City of Chaska coming out to do maintenance on that.
Their truck is there you know several times. Sometimes several times a month and of course we are
concerned about that because we had issues with flooding in our basements. Power goes out but more
importantly you guys had an incident in Lake Susan about 3 years ago I think with a watermain break that
forced raw sewage in people ’s basements and I don ’t think we ’re in a position where, if there ’s a failure
or a fault as a result of how this utility connection is being made that we want to have that possibly
circumstance come to play into this Shadow Wood neighborhood so can we get a little, if now ’s the
appropriate time to get a little clarification.
Aller: Let me see what I can get for you.
Jeff Kerfeld: Okay, that ’s great.
Aller: That ’s your main issue? Anything else?
Jeff Kerfeld: Yeah, the other part is, I ’d be very curious as far as Colleen had mentioned, it ’s a fairly
steep hill. I mean our kids go sliding down it during the winter time and then you know there really is no
crest per se. It kind of goes down off to the other side so I ’d be very interested , I did see on the map a
little bit as far as where it ’s placed. It seems like it ’s placed more towards the pond than this but I really
question how much leveling of that land and how they can do some leveling without removing some of
those big trees. You know we see wild turkey and deer and pheasants and you know wildlife continually
through that area so that ’s, you know that ’s a major concern.
Aller: Thank you.
Jeff Kerfeld: Beyond that I would also be curious to know as far as what sort of lighting is going to be
used with regards to the building. Right now we look out obviously at a dark field. We do have the
neighborhood to the north but that ’s all protected. My house looks to the north and I don ’t ever see those
townhouses in that area and everything so the hope obviously would be that any lighting would be below
the building so that at nighttime we wouldn ’t, we don ’t want a Walmart parking lot I guess is what I ’m
saying sitting out there in the field across the pond from us and everything so that ’s a concern. And then
lastly runoff. The pond fluctuates immensely. I mean we ’ve had, I ’ve lived in my house for 22 years so
I ’ve been in the Shadow Wood neighborhood for 22 years and we did have one year when there was no
water in the pond. Generally we have water and we use that as a hockey rink. Skating rink for the kids in
the neighborhood. I ’m the dad that goes out and takes the snow blower out and blows off the pond every
year but that ’s part of our recreation for the neighborhood and everything. We want to insure that that
water flow, that natural watershed provides water for that area for, you know for our continual enjoyment
and such so. Beyond that, that ’s all I have.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Jeff Kerfeld: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
Aller: You want to hit those?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
14
Fauske: I would love to answer the questions.
Aller: Thank you.
Fauske: Is this on now? Okay. The question about the sewer connection, City staff has met with the City
Engineer and the Utility Superintendent from the City of Chaska. The question we had is, we had heard
that there had been issues with this lift station that services the Shadow Wood area in the past. They ’ve
indicated that they have taken the appropriate measures to go in and increase the wet well of that
particular lift station and that they would have capacity for this site. At this time the City of Chanhassen
will send a letter to Chaska formally requesting the connection. With regards to where it physically will
be located, the sewer line would run within the Pioneer Trail right-of-way to Shadow Wood Court.
Would connect to a sanitary sewer manhole that ’s at the intersection of Shadow Wood Court and Pioneer
Trail so we don ’t have the specific alignment plan profile of that but, and I apologize we don ’t have it on
the screen but if you do have a packet, Civil Page 4.0 is the utility plan and that does show a close up of
where that proposed sewer connection is so we have had those conversations. Excuse me, the
conversations with Chaska to discuss you know why is the proposal going to Chaska versus Chanhassen.
Just to give you a little bit of history, we did look at making a connecting to the north to the K. Hovnanian
project to the north and as Sharmeen had indicated in her presentation there ’s woods and slopes and a
creek and significant slope elevation changes in there so that ’s why pursuing that option, that option was
not pursued. With regards to the elevation difference. There ’s just, to kind of give you an idea of what
the elevation difference is from the elevation of the wetland to the first floor of the building is about 20
feet so that can kind of give you, and that ’s the slope of the ground. So that should give you an idea of
the elevation difference. And then runoff to the site, on the north side , here ’s that outdoor space that Mr.
Pokorney was speaking about. There ’s a pond, small pond that will treat the runoff from the parking area
before discharging to the wetland here and then there ’s a second, it ’s an infiltration basin that will collect
some of the runoff from the drive before discharging to the wetland so those are the two stormwater
amenities that they are proposing to provide some treatment and some peak discharge attenuation. And
his fourth question was regarding lighting which.
Aanenson: I would just also indicate, it is our water. We will be serving with the City of Chanhassen ’s
water …and again the reason for the sewer is when we looked at the original proposal, there was
significant tree loss with trying to bring it through that area that we were just talking about we ’re trying to
preserve so there was a decision made to say what ’s the best way to preserve that overlay district is to
come through Chaska …
Al-Jaff: There was one other question regarding lighting on the site. Any lighting would have to meet
ordinance requirements. 90 degree cut off. Not to exceed half a foot candle at property lines and all light
fixtures have to be shielded.
Aller: Anyone else? Come on forward. Welcome.
Emily Owen: Thanks. My name is Emily Owen. I ’m at 2706 Shadow Wood Court. I ’m just to the north
of Jeff Kerfeld and I share all of their concerns as well. I additionally, and I may have missed this in a
presentation because I was a little bit late but my, one of my concerns is the road that comes out onto
Pioneer. Will that, the traffic that it ’s going to increase. I don ’t know if visitor hours are going to , if
there ’s going to be hours or if it ’s just going to be any time. What that ’s going to do to the traffic on
Pioneer and whether we ’ll have to have a stop light. I guess there ’s pro ’s and con ’s to either way so that ’s
my only question. Thanks.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
15
Aller: Thank you. My understand is, and anyone can jump in and correct me if I ’m wrong. The State
would be the one to come in and take a look at stop lights and the requirements for stop lights along that
corridor.
Aanenson: Or the County.
Aller: Or the County and the use as requested is substantially less than the use that could be there so I
think overall you ’re looking at getting less traffic this way by far than if it is approved than if we leave it
alone and let somebody come in and build under the zoning currently present. So is that a correct
assessment?
Aanenson: Yep.
Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Please sir, come forward.
Keith Wyman: I ’m Keith Wyman, 2674 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska. I ’m not opposed to the project.
I believe it ’s a good use for the space compared to what could be in there. I do have some, a couple
concerns. One is sight lines or the height. Finished floor is 20 feet above the pond with a I feel fairly
steep roof. You know can that be dropped down at all? Can the roof lines be cut down so we ’re not
seeing this big roof up above the trees that is there ? Is there anyway that that can be, you know can we
drop finished floor down a little bit more? Create some retaining walls on the one side where we have
that steep grade. Our houses now on the other side of the pond are probably you know maybe 12 feet, 10
to 12 feet above the pond. He ’s going to be 20 feet above the pond. You know is there a way to drop that
down to get those you know, the top of that roof down lower? And then also have concerns too with the
sewer connection. I do understand the need for tying into Chaska. You know no, you don ’t want to go
through those, to the north. It just doesn ’t make sense but when the lift station was put in it was sized for
our neighborhood. Not for this addition so is it, you know we went to that meeting with, what Matt had a
couple nights ago for you know he ’s saying that it ’s over sized already but I guess I ’ve never seen a
developer put anything in over sized in the past. Why would they over size this one? So, and you know
it has had problems in the past so you know, if this does causes problems what is, yes it ’s tied into
Chaska ’s system but where does Chanhassen or the owner going to do if it does happen so.
Aller: Thank you sir. I know, most of the matters that come before us like you ’re about the water
systems and the safety systems and sewer systems being put in and my understanding is they look, just as
we do, we have a 2030 plan. We look for future growth and that ’s why you have systems in place to
accept that growth when it comes and they never come but they try to do that so unless I hear something
differently from staff, it sounds like Chaska has made that representation.
Fauske: That ’s correct.
Aller: Anyone else? Comments. Concerns. Okay. Sure? We ’re going to close it now. Close the public
hearing. Comments. Questions. I like the fact that there ’s diversity with the growing age of the citizenry
of Chanhassen. We ’ve looked at the demographics here recently and it ’s good to have projects like these.
I like the fact that we have a project which is going to allow for significantly less impact on the hard
cover surface area and it looks like we ’re preserving a great deal of the Bluff Creek system and of course
the developer has to work with them as well so. With what ’s in the report and the representations I think I
would be looking to approve at this point. I ’m not hearing anything that is going to sway me to say that
we shouldn ’t allow for the opportunity for the product to move forward.
Hokkanen: Well I think we clarified the conservation of all those trees and areas that concern the K.
Hovnanian and some of the others have talked about and the different elevations. It ’s a nice project.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
16
Could be a lot worst in that development and higher density project. Could be much more difficult …so I
think it ’s a great addition to the city.
Yusuf: I agree. It seems like a very good use of the …
Aller: Okay. Any thoughts?
Withrow: No.
Aller: Entertain a motion if anyone would like to do so.
Withrow: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning of
property from Agr icultural Estate District (A-2) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8).
Site plan approval for construction of a continuing ca re retirement facility called Bluff Creek Cottages.
Conditional Use Permit to allow development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Hokkanen: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion?
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Planning Case #2013-08 to rezone 8.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential Bluff Creek Cottages contingent
upon site plan approval, as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and adoption of
the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
4 to 0.
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve t he conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek
Cottages as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 , and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation , subject to the following conditions:
1.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per
1987 Corps Manual.”
2.The 894 ’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer
and setbacks.
3.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage
2 wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
4.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
17
5.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth
-disturbing activity.
6.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
7.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
8.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the
bioretention basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
9.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet
protection shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after
installation until final stabilization is met.
10.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
11.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0 ’).
12.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
13.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no
greater than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the
applicant is strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
14.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and
approval and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
15.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894 ’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
16.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention ”.
17.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments,
underdrain (if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review
and approval.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
18
18.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration
rates. The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
19.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
20.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall
be a grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip
pre-treatment sizing ”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
21.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff
condition into Pioneer Trail and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the
proposed catch basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer
to capture this event.
22.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 13,700 square-foot continuing care retirement
facility , Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek Cottages as shown in plans dated received
June 13, 2013 , and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation , subject
to the following conditions:
Building Official Conditions :
1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required.
3.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and signed
by a structural engineer.
4.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place
when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted.
5.Structures and site must meet Minnesota Accessibility Code.
6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal Conditions :
1.Add one hydrant at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and the entrance road.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
19
2.In addition to 12-inch address numbers on the building, address numbers will be required at
driveway entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements.
3.A PIV, Post indicator valve will be required.
4.Yellow painted curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane ” signs are required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for details.
5.City Engineer shall verify that the purposed fire apparatus turnaround is sufficient.
6.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant(s).
Planning Conditions :
1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2.Approval of the site plan application is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and
conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08.
3.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The
sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line.
4.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. If illuminated, the letters shall be
backlit and use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials
shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit.
5.The trash enclosure for the building has not been shown on the plans. The structure must be
screened from views and constructed of the same materials as the building. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the
trash.
6.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project
perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Light fixtures shall be
downcast and the light shall be cut off at a 90-degree angle as required by the city code. All
fixtures shall be shielded.
Park and Trail Conditions :
1.Park fees in the amount of $12,000 shall be collected as part of the site plan permit.
Engineering Conditions :
1.An agreement must be obtained from MnDOT and Carver County to allow the driveway to
connect to Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and to allow construction of private utilities in the
right-of-way.
2.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth-
disturbing activity.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
20
3.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
4.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
5.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the bioretention
basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
6.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet protection
shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after installation until
final stabilization is met.
7.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
8.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0 ’).
9.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
10.The plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
11.Ten-foot drainage and utility easements are required over all public utilities.
12.An existing topography plan sheet must be included in the plan set.
13.The grading plans must be amended so that no slopes exceed 3:1.
14.The developer ’s engineer must submit a soils report and boring log for this site indicating the
soil conditions, permeability and slope.
15.The plans must show the elevations at the corners of the proposed building and where the
building foundation is acting as a retaining wall.
16.The plans must identify any stockpile areas that will be used during construction.
17.The developer ’s engineer must call out the 6-foot retaining wall around the “outdoor space ”
in the plans and include top and bottom of wall elevations.
18.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured-
in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or
timber. Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
19.The developer ’s engineer must adjust grading at the face of the east retaining wall to create a
swale so water will flow away from both the wall and the building.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
21
20.The retaining walls shall be privately owned and maintained.
21.All retaining walls over six feet high and within 10 feet of a sidewalk or other public way
must have a fence or other barrier. This condition includes the areas where the building
foundation will act as a retaining wall.
22.Before vehicles enter Pioneer Trail, the driveway must provide a landing area that starts at
least 50 feet back from the crosswalk and is at a 2% maximum grade.
23.The parking lot aisle must be 26 feet wide.
24.The turnaround must allow enough room for a fire truck to turn and exit the parking lot
without going through the parking spaces. Approved turnarounds include a 100-foot
hammerhead and a 70-foot diameter cul-de-sac.
25.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per 1987
Corps Manual.”
26.The 894 ’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer and
setbacks.
27.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage 2
wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
28.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
29.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no greater
than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the applicant is
strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
30.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and approval
and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
31.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894 ’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
32.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention ”.
33.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments, underdrain
(if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review and approval.
34.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration rates.
The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
35.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
22
36.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall be a
grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip pre-
treatment sizing ”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
37.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff condition
into Pioneer Trail, and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the proposed catch
basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer to capture this
event.
38.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.
39.The developer ’s engineer must show the detailed lift station design and location in the plans.
40.The City of Chaska must approve the sanitary sewer plans.
41.The sanitary sewer and watermain shall be privately owned and maintained.
42.A plan sheet is required to show the watermain extension from the driveway to the
connection to Chanhassen ’s watermain system.
43.The watermain that is parallel to Pioneer Trail must be 8 inches for fire flow conditions.
44.The developer ’s engineer shall model the watermain extension for fire flow demand to the
development to ensure the watermain pipe size is adequate.
45.Fire hydrants are required every 400 feet, and gate valves are required every 800 feet.
46.This property has outstanding assessments from previous improvement projects that were
deferred due to the property ’s Green Acres status. Altering the zoning for this property will
cause the assessments to come due.
47.Water and sewer trunk and hook-up fees are to be collected with the development contract.
48.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT or Carver County right-of-way.
49. A temporary construction easement will be required for the i nstallation of utilities within
road right-of-way.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY;
REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND MIXED LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R);
SUBDIVISION OF 13.22 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS WITH VARIANCES; SITE
PLAN REVIEW; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. APPLICANT: J & S VENTURES
1, INC., PLANNING CASE 2013-12.
Al-Jaff: The subject site is located south, at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86 th Street,
north of Highway 212. Staff would like to briefly go over the existing conditions of this specific site. It
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
23
is located north of Highway 212. The site has an area of 13.2 acres and it contains multiple bodies of
wetlands. Access to the site is gained via 86 th Street. Another existing condition with the site is the fact
that it falls within the shoreland overlay district of Rice Marsh Lake. This is Rice Marsh Lake. The
entire area that is within 1,000 feet of this, of the ordinary high water mark of the lake is considered
shoreland. And as you can see the portion of the site that is highlighted, shaded in this light blue in it ’s
entirety falls within the shoreland overlay district. Every single parcel proposed on this site is within this
overlay district with the exception of Lot number 1 but even then it, the overlay district touches it. The
existing land use for this development is low density residential. That type of development would allow
for single family homes as well as attached townhomes. Attached single family homes as long as the
density does not exceed 4 units per acre. The current site has two zonings. The portion of the site to the
west is currently zoned RSF while the eastern half is zoned R-4 which allows up to 4 units per acre. And
briefly the property to the north of the site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Property to the west
contains townhomes and has an 8 unit per acre density. Property to the east is actually open space and to
the south is the Highway 212. So the proposal before you will, has multiple components. The first one is
a l and u se m ap a mendment. There ’s a rezoning, a subdivision, a couple of variances, a site plan review as
well as a w etland a lteration p ermit and staff will briefly go through these different items. One of the first
things that we looked at was, what was it that the developer was trying to achieve. The reason I went
through, staff went through the background and features of the site is just to give you an idea of the
environmental sensitivity of the site. With all of these items that we detailed, development becomes
constrained. There are certain setbacks that the different ordinances, different agencies that have
jurisdiction over this site would, that the applicant would need to meet. One of the main constraints was
the fact that the applicant wanted to develop this site as a single family development and it would be a
total of 16 lots. The lots were, that the applicant is proposing, typical parcel would have a 25 foot front
yard setback, 30 foot rear yard and then as far as setbacks, the garage would have a 5 foot setback. The
other side, living space would have a 10 foot separation between homes. Any two homes would have to
maintain 15 feet so that ’s what they are trying to achieve. If we look under the, I mentioned this is in the
shoreland overlay district. If we look at the shoreland overlay district requirements, they require that each
parcel maintains a 90 foot frontage. 90 foot rear width. Each parcel has to maintain a 15,000 square foot
minimum. With all of these requirements, plus we have the existing wetland setbacks. With all of these
things we no longer have the flexibility that we were hoping for. We attempted to find some ways to
meet the intent of the ordinance as well as facilitate this development and do our best to preserve the site.
One of the options that worked best for the site would be to rezone the site to a medium, a planned unit
development with an underlying zoning of medium density. A planned unit development would give us
all the flexibility that we need. If we went with a planned unit development low density. Again we ’re
back to the 15,000 square feet and our hands are tied. We don ’t have this flexibility that we are trying to
achieve. We contacted the DNR, Department of Natural Resources and we tried to explain the situation.
Familiarize them with the constraints of the site and one of the solutions that the City recommended to the
DNR and talked about with them was re-guiding the property to medium density. Under our ordinances
there is no minimum lot size under the medium density. If there is no minimum lot size, that will give us
the flexibility that we need but at the same time we needed to make sure that we don ’t exceed the 4 units
per acre. In order to achieve that we went with a planned unit development which allows us to draft an
ordinance that dictates how many parcels you can have. What is the minimum lot size and the City will
be able to achieve what this, what the intention was to develop this site. So with the subdivision, again 16
single family lots. Setbacks will be 25 feet front yard and 30 feet minimum in the rear. All of the parcels
and the structures will have to maintain required setbacks from wetlands as well as have a wetland buffer.
Minimum lot area on these, or minimum hard surface coverage on these parcels is actually 30%. The
applicant submitted some house plans that could potentially be developed on these parcels. Not all of the
house plans would fit on each parcel. Some of them such as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, there ’s only one
house pad from what the applicant gave us that would fit on those. One of the other concerns was, as the
developer builds the home and then the City is continuing to deal with homeowners, will they ask for a
large patio than what the parcel can handle so to get to, to address this point staff listed under the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
24
ordinance, the planned unit development ordinance which will govern this development, we listed the
maximum hard surface coverage permitted on each parcel. These are the homes that the applicant is
proposing. Two car garage and they range, the homes range in size. In width between 50 and 60 feet
depending on the type, depending on the parcel that we will be looking at. The setbacks currently under
our planned unit development ordinance requirements, this development would need to maintain a 50 foot
setback along the perimeter and the applicant would be able to meet all of these requirements with the
exception of the area along Highway 212. There will be a wall that will separate this development from
Highway 212 and that will be an adequate buffer. This setback is a buffer so it ’s a double buffer if you
will in this case and staff is recommending that the setback variance be approved. Another variance that
is requested with this development is the length of this cul-de-sac. The city code limits the length of a cul
-de-sac to 800 feet. This one exceeds that, that length and typically we look at situations like this and say,
will this road, if connected, how will it connect and we really have no way of reconnecting it. Looping it
with 86 th Street nor with Tigua Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the length of this variance as
well. We address the rezoning of the site and explained why we are recommending approval of rezoning
it to planned unit development. We also went over the guidelines and the ordinance that will govern this
site. In order to allow this site to be a planned unit development with a medium density, the underlying
zoning medium density, the zoning has to be consistent with the land use plan. The current land use plan
guides this site for low density residential. The only , the planned unit development ordinance under the
medium density specifically states that it has to, the land has to be guided medium density to allow that
type of zoning so in order to stay consistent between the zoning ordinance and the land use map, and the
land use we would need to amend the land use map. One of the benefits of rezoning the site to a planned
unit development will be an extension of an existing noise wall and it will currently all there is, is a chain
link fence and it is immediately next to a noise wall that is located between Highway 212 and the
development to the west of the subject site which is Mission Hills. So again that wall will be extended
along Highway 212. It will be within MnDOT right-of-way and there will need to be some agreements
with MnDOT. All approvals would have to be granted in order for the wall to be built. At this point I
would like to turn it over to Alyson with our engineering department to address drainage, grading and,
before we go any further I just wanted to apologize. There was a section in the staff report addressing the
grading that I failed to include. I have handed it out. It will be on the website and it will also be included
in the staff report that will appear before the City Council.
Aller: And for the record we have received a copy of the drainage and grading consisting of three pages.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aller: And it has been reviewed.
Al-Jaff: The conditions will remain as is. They have been included. It ’s the discussion of the item that
was omitted from the staff report.
Aller: So again for everyone present or watching, this will be down on the website shortly so you can
take a look at the discussion with regard to drainage and grading, if that ’s important to you. I know it ’s
important to us so thank you.
Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Staff just wanted to let the, show the Planning Commission what the
drainage patterns are doing on this site. Under the current conditions as shown at the top here of the
screen, the area outlined in purple currently drains to the north via the wetlands on the site and the area in
blue here on the east side that drains to the east through the MnDOT right-of-way area and then to Rice
Marsh Lake. Under the proposed development patterns the area in purple still drains to the north via the
wetlands. This area, and I apologize if it ’s not really clear. This area where the arrow is going, they do
show a proposed bioretention area. At this point they show it on the plan. Whether or not there ’s
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
25
adequate separation from the proposed bioretention basin to the wetland elevation, we ’re unsure of if that
would really function as that so for these purposes I did show it as draining to the wetland but that might
change to a stormwater management facility. The area in pink indicates all the area on the site that drains
to a pond that will be constructed with the development. There are two ponds proposed. One is a small
pond on the southwest corner of the site and then the larger pond over on the east side of the site. And
there again there ’s this area on the east side that would drain to the east side. Also of note is just the way
the lay of the land and unfortunately we ’re not able to change the grades enough to be able to get this
small sliver here. It ’s about 200 feet of street that would drain onto Tigua untreated and within the
development ponds and one of the conditions in the staff report states that we need to get an analysis of
that because there ’s, the current stormwater system on Tigua, from our observations and from what we ’ve
heard is at capacity and so we want to see if there ’s something that can be done to provide something like
an inline treatment. Some kind of inline attenuation to prevent that peak discharge from going to the
existing st orm sewer system. Also in the staff report, with the hydrology analysis that was done, a section
of the city code requires that the peak discharge rates for a proposed development cannot exceed the
current conditions. In the discussion that we ’ve had with the developer is that it ’s at each discharge point.
So for example on the proposed condition here there ’s an existing peak discharge point at this location
and at this location and under the proposed development conditions, depending on the type of event
you ’re looking at, whether it ’s a 2 year event or a snow melt event, there is some peak discharge rates that
will be exceeded. That being said there are some, in our review of the hydrology calculations that were
done on the site, the developer ’s engineer had assumed 32% impervious on the home sites so taking that
down to the 30% maximum that ’s allowed, we ’re not sure if that, it will certainly help. We don ’t know if
that will bring it into compliance but that remains a condition of approval for the proposal. And in
addition to, where those discharge points lie is there ’s a 12 inch culvert at this location and an 18 inch
culvert at this location that would need to be included in the model because again there are concerns about
the existing drainage patterns through that site. There ’s a ditch along the northern property line that is,
after the rainy season that we ’ve had this year has been flowing full so we want to make sure that, that
there ’s some capacity there under the proposed development conditions. Additionally we talked to the
developer about some concerns with some of the ground water. When the soil borings were taken there
wasn ’t any ground water encountered at that time but with the way the drilling operations go, they put the
drill down. They get the samples of the soil. They tell us what kind of soil they ’ve encountered. They
look and see if there ’s water present and then they back fill. The developer at these, these are the
approximate locations but has installed pedometers to provide us with some ground water elevations and
so he ’s provided between 4 and 5 readings for the site and so we have seen some ground water elevations
come up and stabilize and so the developer ’s been working with us to adjust the low floor elevations of
the adjacent homes so that there ’s 3 feet of separation. The reason we want to have a separation from that
ground water to the lowest floor is, even if you do have a sump pump, draintile system, power failures,
your sump pump fails, we want to provide that extra assurance for a property owner that there ’s some
separation through there so that ’s why we ’re so closely monitoring these ground water elevations.
Additionally one of the things, and it ’s just the nature of soils, we don ’t know what will happen but the
area on the east side of the site here where the proposed pond is, is in close proximity of this boring 14
which has shown some higher ground water elevations. The pond area is actually will be about 12 feet of
cut so I ’m not sure if the ground water that ’s present in boring 14 will find it ’s way to that cut area.
We ’re not sure but we did include that as a point of discussion in the staff report that if that ’s the case the
pond design would not function as it is because it ’s not assuming a ground water flow into the system. So
that ’s another element that unfortunately with the nature of soils is kind of a wait and see situation. The
other element I would like to talk to you a little bit about is the wetlands. As Sharmeen had indicated
there ’s a wetland alteration permit application along with this subdivision request. The area shown here
in red is at the roadway location and that impact is shown at a location that the roadway design situated so
that it would minimize that wetland impact. There ’s just due to the site constraints unfortunately that ’s an
impact that we just don ’t see as avoidable. Another impact that ’s shown on the proposal is that the cul-de
-sac there on the very tip of the wetland here on the east side of the site. That impact, as indicated in the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
26
staff report, is avoidable if the trail moves to the north side of the street. The grades coming off of the
road there could be adjusted so that that impact would go away. The trail would also move onto the side
of the street where the homes are. There would be some snow storage provided at the cul-de-sac there
next to the wetland so those are some reasons, some other reasons besides the wetland impact to look at
relocating that trail to the north side. Additionally when you look at having that trail on the south side of
the road, I apologize this isn ’t working. The future trail extension, there we go. The future trail extension
to the east would also have an impact at this location. You know there ’s an opportunity to put, if there
was a boardwalk in that would minimize the impact but that ’s an additional cost. There ’s also the high
flows through the wetland, will that impact so those are all things that through the analysis, that was why
the wetland application was denied based on the trail location so the condition of approval as stated in the
staff report is to move the trail to the north side.
Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending approval of this application to include a land use plan amendment, a
rezoning, a subdivision, variances, site plan review and a wetland alteration permit with conditions.
Again this has not been an easy site. We have been working on it for a very, very long time and I ’m
going to back track just one moment. There is a possibility, there is a way to achieve the 15,000 square
foot lot area but that would mean extending lot lines into the wetlands. That is not what we want to end
up with. Often we have seen people say, well I own the wetland and I can make some alterations so our
intention is to preserve the site and again staff is recommending approval of the application and with
conditions and we ’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: I think that report was very thorough for my purposes so I don ’t have any questions.
Withrow: I have a question with regard to the comprehensive park plan. Is that an open issue to
compliance? I ’m just reading the staff report it indicates that the site is too far away.
Al-Jaff: Correct. One of the, we talked to the Park Director about this item and one of the things that
they suggested was there is no place for an actual park within the immediate area. The trail, the sidewalk
will connect to a trail and that trail is a regional trail. It will go underneath Highway 212 and will connect
with the park along Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley. I know I ’m not answering your question but
there isn ’t a park within the immediate area or a place to have one.
Aller: I think that answers.
Hokkanen: Well I have a couple questions. Are we trying to squeeze too much into one space? What if
we had one less lot in that span, would that create some of the, I mean there ’s so many conditions in,
would that help?
Al-Jaff: Any time you reduce lots, yes it will but it ’s a matter of can they meet the conditions of the
ordinance th at the City would be adopting and it ’s up to the applicant to demonstrate that they can do that.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? We went through this in the preliminary. To get to medium density
zoning you meet the minimum which is 4 units an acre which also is the maximum for low density so
when we went through this in the preliminary process, because some of the size actually are four, four
does allow for twinhomes which is a minimum lot of 10,000 square foot lots so we probably could do
some twinhomes in there so looking at that, those are some of the factors that we went into …4 units an
acre but that was the goal.
Al-Jaff: As it is right now we are exactly at 4.002.
Aanenson: Yeah, so then you weren ’t meeting density requirements.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
27
Hokkanen: Another question. The variance for the 800 length of the cul-de-sac, do we have another long
cul-de-sac or multiple ones in Chanhassen?
Aanenson: Highover. There ’s a few of them.
Hokkanen: Right. Okay and then the curve with the 40 miles an hour, can you explain that ?
Fauske: Certainly. At this location the street design would not meet a 30 miles an hour design curve and
so we just would require an advanced warning sign. The yellow caution sign so that drivers would know
that it ’s not 30 miles an hour and they would have to slow down. And again that design is dictated based
on the constraints of the site with the wetland and then the proximity to the 212 corridor.
Aller: The cul-de-sac, has it been determined that that will safely handle the fire truck if needed?
Fauske: The cul-de-sac is our standard diameter cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac length, the reason we had
included a limitation on the length in the city code is to limit the number of units on a cul-de-sac so that if
there was an emergency where the access was cut off you would limit the number of residents that were
inconvenienced by that. In this situation there is a …supporting the variances. You have the first, I think
it ’s 500 feet of the street does not have any homes on it and then you have a one sided benefit to the street
for another 500 feet or so, so that ’s why we support that variance.
Yusuf: So how long does this cul-de-sac end up being?
Al-Jaff: 1,300.
Yusuf: Did the staff consider having two accesses here? Maybe like a ring road with an access to, is it
Tigua Lane?
Fauske: When we look at that then we, there would be additional wetland impacts and we would not
meet the sequencing requirements of minimizing impacts so that ’s a very good question. That was one of
the reasons we didn ’t look at looping the street back.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Aller: Okay, which leads to the conditions as stated in the report and that we approve tonight would
mandate that those sequences be met. Anything else? The applicant said he would like to come forward.
Welcome sir.
John Knoblauch: Good evening. I ’m John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Chanhassen. We ’re the
applicant and developer and this project, we started I think sometime in April or May of last year and very
many drawings have been done. Staff has worked diligently to try to put their best foot forward to
develop this parcel. We feel this is the best use of this parcel. A couple of pluses, we have hired Shirley
Walker, an engineer that did the sound walls for 212 and she is working with MnDOT on the sound wall.
Noise wall and that will be a huge asset for all the neighbors in that Mission Hills area and everybody to
the north and also to the west. Part of the sound wall in what we call the hole is going to be about 20 feet
high and there ’s a lot of noise that rides through that hole on the south side so that ’s going to dramatically
help many of the neighbors far reaching from this development. The wetland, you know the main
wetland is a Type 3 wetland. The two wetlands on the southeast there are Type 1 wetlands and both the
wetland delineator and Terry, the LGU here in Chan has said that both, well especially the one next to Lot
1, Block 2 there, it ’s a very poor quality wetland. It ’s a seasonal wetland. It ’s got sumac in it and so we
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
28
have a recent drawing that was just delivered to the City here I believe maybe 2 days ago where we ’ve
moved that cul-de-sac just a little bit and we ’ve tweaked it to the north and we ’ve also put a very small
retaining wall, about a 35 foot retaining wall along the sidewalk. It ’s 2 to 3 feet high and that will
completely eliminate that little red, what we call the point impact so we will actually not have any impact
on that wetland and where you see the orange stripe for the, when it turns into a trail. By the way I ’d like
to define the, Alyson referred to it as a trail. I just want to make sure that the, on the drawings that are out
there right now, all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac is a regular sidewalk so it ’s a regular 5 foot
sidewalk. The 8 foot blacktop trail would start at where the road would, the cul-de-sac. So we ’re able to
have no impact there. With a boardwalk we can cross that area between those two wetlands and have
zero impact. Totally allowable with the LGU. I talked to him today and that would be an application that
would be totally allowable and have zero impact. What I would like to see which would be smarter for
the city of Chanhassen, and unfortunately we can ’t get to our laptop up right now but these two wetlands,
the delineators that worked on these two wetlands, I ’ll go over and talk over here louder. In this area,
right in here, this is basically, when this wetland has a bump it eventually flows over into this wetland and
then eventually it goes through this area and dumps down into here and then goes north into Rice Lake.
We are proposing the trail to go here. I know staff has talked about trying to put it on the north side to
avoid this impact. We have not come up sequencing wise with a good way to get the trail to come
through this area. Between this wetland and the ponding we need to do it ’s become very, very difficult to
lay out. If I have pictures of this and really if you go out there, this has trees in it. It literally does not
look like a wetland. It was really delineated, in my opinion as a convenience because the two were so
close but if you walk out on the property this is very, very high ground right here. In my opinion, and
also my wetland delineator which is Mike Gram from Wenck and also my engineer has said that if the
trail were to go through this way, we would deal with a lot of ice and this is about a 6 foot drop that
would go inbetween this V and then come back up. So in other words we either deal with a culvert, a
much more problematic here or we deal wit h a much smaller culvert here and my suggestion just for
maintenance is that somehow staff works, that we just try to avoid this wetland as much as we can. That
staff tries to work it out that we ’re able to bank this area and put a culvert in here and have this blacktop.
8 foot through this area and the reasoning for that is maintenance so that your crews can get a snowplow
back here and so forth so that ’s just some of my suggestions. We don ’t really know any other way to get
the trail over to hook up to the new 3 mile connection which is the parks department ’s main goal. I
wanted to show the National Wetland Inventory Map around Rice Lake Marsh. If you go to the National
Wetland Inventory and you goggle it, right now the existing trail that goes around Rice Lake Marsh,
there ’s about a mile and a half that ’s finished on the north side, as most of you maybe have walked it, and
we ’re going to be, we would be a final link on the south end of Rice Lake that will eventually go through
the MnDOT property. Right now about a mile of that trail goes through a PEMA wetland area according
to the inventory. According to the National Inventory, there is no wetland between these two and so I
would like, if you get a chance to pull that up and get a grip on the 3 mile trail because the wetland
impacts that have been done on that existing trail are unbelievable. It ’s beyond what I could ever
imagined. When I started to look around and really see what this trail was to do to this project, I just
think it ’s miniscule in the realm of the overall trail system that ’s going to be put in. So we would like to
see the trail stay where it is on our drawings. And the other thing is, most of the reasoning is that the trail
will be just that more enjoyable. Walking between houses, we have a trail over at Knob Hill like that.
You know it ’s looking in people ’s windows and you know up against a fence on a trail versus you know
wal king along a beautiful wetland, it ’s just a much more pleasant experience. And also the ground on the,
along the MnDOT right-of-way is higher. I think there ’ll be a lot less maintenance issues on that ground
versus the ground that ’s to the north so our trail ’s all busted up right now from the heavy clay that we
have in Chan and I ’m pretty convinced that the soils are better the closer you get to the MnDOT right-of-
way for that trail. So those are a couple of my comments as far as the trail location if this came to fruition
and got approved, I ’d like Planning Commission to look hard at that and possibly would be willing to
visit the site and walk it to show you what we ’ve got in mind with the trail. Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
29
Aller: Thank you. Questions? Okay, I ’m going to open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to
speak for or against the item, please step forward. Welcome sir.
Troy Kakacek: Thank you. Troy Kakacek, 380 West 86 th Street. I am right across the street from where
the development ’s going. I guess I only have one clarification or question is, so as part of the, because
there ’s multiple variances being requested here. So as part of the change, the zoning change from the
single family, or residential single family to the, what ’s the zoning? Sorry.
Al-Jaff: Planned unit development.
Troy Kakacek: The planned unit development. So as part of that and changing it from low to medium it
all kind of, it ’s a package deal is kind of what I ’m getting at so if we approve, if it ’s approved to do the
plan and then the PUD eventually falls through like the plan itself, is it now considered medium density
property for other uses outside of this current PUD?
Al-Jaff: There is, as a condition of approval we have made a contingency so approval of the rezoning is
contingent upon approval of the subdivision.
Troy Kakacek: The subdivision, okay. And then okay, perfect. And then the subdivision currently sits, I
couldn ’t see the current plans for the homes but they ’re all, the 16 lots are all single family detached
homes?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Troy Kakacek: With, I don ’t know what the square footage approximately was but I think they were all
included in there and I couldn ’t read it, it was too small but so with that I ’m very much for the single
family homes. My only, you know my concern with how much is going into this approval. There ’s a lot
going on so it is just no more townhomes in that area because it ’s all single family to the north and
through Mission Hills so it ’s really, and it ’s a very quiet dead end road so with townhomes that would
bring in significant traffic and also with the drainage that we ’re already kind of talking about. That would
add to the drainage problems in that area through, because all of the current townhomes to the, it ’d be the
west drain down to that holding pond so everything, if it rains hard now it ’s kind of like a river going
through my front yard. So I ’m fine with single family, or for single family. Not for any change if this
PUD does not go forward. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Welcome.
Karen Blenker: Hi. I ’m Karen Blenker and I live at 405 Rice Court and that backs right up to the road.
The proposed road and the reason I bought my place was because of privacy and because of that wooded
area and the wetland and you know I paid $5,000 more for that townhome compared to the exact same
thing on the other side of the road so what is that going to do to the property values? And then also what
is it going to do to the wildlife out there? And the wetlands and you know people putting chemicals on
their lawn and it ’s draining into the wetlands and I guess I, I think we should preserve these areas ,
especially with all these wetlands and you know get back to the way of life and give back to nature and
you know keep these areas the way they are so I guess that ’s my opinion.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: Two comments I thought about was the one is that Knob Hill Lane where I live in the
north part of Chanhassen, we ’re at 1,250 foot on our cul-de-sac. This is about 50 foot longer than Knob
Hill. Secondly, we own about, how maybe wetlands do we own Joe out in western Minnesota? You
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
30
know we have no intention of doing any damage to these wetland areas. All the wetland areas have a 30
foot buffer on the Type 3. Is it 25 or 30?
Al-Jaff: It ’s a 30 foot setback plus 16 1/2 foot average buffer.
John Knoblauch: Okay so, we ’re hoping that there ’s a lot of filtration there before any lawn issues would
come up and so we ’re pretty confident that with these buffer areas that are set up, and the rezoning
provides for that, that these yards won ’t have a ton of impact. You know the nice wetland that ’s there, I
think the wildlife will not change that dramatically. There ’s a few deer that live in there and the areas to
the, especially to the east because that whole property to the east is actually going to be left fairly wild
from the cul-de-sac to the east where the pond is and then over to the MnDOT property. Unfortunately
this drawing really makes it look like we ’re, I don ’t know if there ’s another drawing but it looks like
we ’re kind of building some lots inbetween a lake on an island. If you walk out on the parcel, this was a
farmed parcel for years. They farmed right through those two blue wetlands to the southeast and he has a
cattle walkway where the road is now and we encourage anybody to go out and take a walk back there
and I think it will be a really nice site. One thing that I would also mention is that the homes that I ’ve
built in Shakopee for the last 17 years, we ’ve been building on lots from 8,500 to 9,200 square feet and
those homes are 2,700 to 2,900 square foot, two stories and these pads are actually bigger, believe it or
not than those at 10,000 square feet and so if you think about it, the buildable area in this, on this drawing
up here is 4 acres. It ’s an even 4 acres. Now keep in mind this site is 13.62 acres. Okay so that gives you
a perception of really what ’s out there. I think this is the best thing that could come along rather than
twinhomes. There was a couple twinhome plans that were looked at, that we looked at trying to do, and
we still think this is the best scenario. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to step forward? Yes ma ’am.
LuAnn Markgraf: I ’m LuAnn Markgraf. I live at 401 Rice Court. I would be the first townhouse unit
that would be impacted by the entrance, and there ’s lots of trees and oaks right in the back of my uni t and
how much of that, is all of that going to disappear? And is it going to be looking at a sidewalk? Is there
going to be a retaining wall? What is going to happen with that area? I noticed that there is going to be a
street sign that is going to be going in that corner. In relation to that map, where is the sign going to go?
So those are my biggest issues. Because it is a very quiet area and it ’s going to be impacted by you know
more cars. They ’ll be having that speed limit sign up for people to show how fast they ’re going through
there because people speed through there on 86 th now as it is. So there ’s a lot of issues, and granted they
live in a townhouse. Don ’t live in a single family home which I think John kind of, the last meeting last
winter it was like oh the real estate market for the townhouses has just gone down the tubes. We don ’t
really care about townhouses. What we care about is getting as much , as many units in that area as
possible and not care about the townhouses that face the entrance and the only one entrance to this
development, which is a big issue. So that ’s my comments.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: May I address one?
Aller: Sure, that would be great.
John Knoblauch: Yeah, I ’ve been well aware there ’s about 6 significant oak trees.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I ’m sorry but we ’re having a difficult time hearing …
Aller: Why don ’t you come up.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
31
John Knoblauch: Okay.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: Yep, and backing up to their four, I believe it ’s a four isn ’t it?
LuAnn Markgraf: Four units.
John Knoblauch: Yeah the four unit, there is some significant, in the tree survey, I believe there ’s about 6
oaks there and my understanding is those will not be touched. They ’re pretty tight to the townhome
property. One plus that I heard from one of the townhome owners is that right where the road is proposed
there ’s 3 huge cottonwoods that basically clog their air conditioners every year and those 3 big
cottonwoods would actually come down but the intention is the berm that ’s there now, next to the town,
there ’s kind of a natural berm that comes up and the oaks that are on that are going to remain. Thank you.
LuAnn Markgraf: What about the sign?
Al-Jaff: There is a sign that is shown on the plans that is proposed to be located at this corner, which
would be a southeast corner of the intersection of West 86 th and the proposed road. Staff is
recommending that it meets all ordinance requirements pertaining to wetland setbacks, wetland buffer,
property line setback, which would be 10 feet. It cannot be within sight distances and the area of the sign
cannot exceed 24 square feet nor 5 feet in height.
Aanenson: I just want to make sure we ’re talking about a development sign, not a stop sign.
Al-Jaff: Correct. Yes.
John Knoblauch: We would like to do a stone for a sign. It ’s very, very small spot. It ’s a very small
window on that front corner. I want to call it the southeast corner of the intersection. It looks like it ’d be
doable to get a stone, you know engraved stone. We don ’t have any intentions of having any large, you
know some kind of a monument or anything . It would be pretty minimum for signage but it looks like
there ’s a small spot there. We would like it on that side. Opposite of the townhomes. Thank you.
Aller: Any other individuals? I will close the public hearing. Comments, questions.
Hokkanen: Very thorough report.
Yusuf: I don ’t have any questions.
Aller: If we were to look at the, is there a way to leave open alternatives? I don ’t think there is.
Aanenson: Well what I would suggest Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission is that you direct
your motion and but maybe you can also direct staff to work between now and City Council to consider
some of those alternatives to present to the City Council. You could word it such that …if you wanted to
approve it going that direction but consider the following things between now and then.
Aller: Okay, and this is now …to the commissioners. We ’ve got the potential application of the sidewalk
which I ’m fully in favor of and the whole idea of a PUD is that the City gets certain things out of a PUD
that it normally wouldn ’t under the zoning and that ’s the purpose of changing it. And so that would be
one of my goals is to make sure that the City and the desires of the City to protect that wetland and those
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
32
buffers is effectuated so I ’m all for going ahead because I think there are enough protections here to vote
in favor of moving forward the way it has been presented by staff but my thought is that if Terry and
Water Resources and staff come up with a better plan, I don ’t want to forestall that and I don ’t want to
have them need to come back so that would be my thought.
Hokkanen: No, I agree.
Aller: Because there are a number of conditions that we will be waiting for to be met as far as numbers to
be crunched and water tables and things that would impact that specific requirement. So with that any
other questions or comments?
Withrow: No.
Aller: I ’d entertain a motion. And you add that in there …
Hokkanen: Okay. Okay, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use
Map Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low and Medium Density. Rezoning from
Single Family Residential and Mixed Low Density Residential to Planned Unit Development Residential.
Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and two outlots with variances. Site plan review and Wetland
Alteration Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoptions of the attached Findings of
Fact and Recommendation including further review of the location of the trail within the wetlands. Or
future recommendations of proper placement.
Aller: That being a motion, do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the land use map amendment from Residential – Low Density to Residential – Low
and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the rezoning from Residential – Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density
Residential (R8) to Planned Unit Development – Residential (PUD-R) with the following
condition; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and
attached ordinance rezoning the property.
1.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the
development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
33
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in
plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions, and adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. All lots must comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Area
(square feet)
Width
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Maximum
Hardcover
(square feet)
Notes
PUD 10,000
60 at
building
setback
100 30 percent
L1 B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland
L2 B1 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland
L3 B1 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland
L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland
L5 B1 10,011 69 146 3,003
L6 B1 10,622 62 130 3,198
L7 B1 10,017 62 120 3,005
L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland
L9 B1 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland
L10 B1 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland
L11 B1 12,936 72 (building
setback)121 3,880 Wetland
L12 B1 10,089 75 (building
setback)118 3,026 Wetland
L1 B2
12,723*96 (building
setback)128 3,817
Wetland, * area of neck
(5,580 sq. ft.) excluded
from lot area calculations
L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot
L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029
L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001
Outlot A 281,352 6.46 acres open
space/wetlands
Outlot B 48,043 1.1 acres open
space/wetlands
ROW 72,309 1.66 acres
TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres
Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure.
Front: 25 ft.
Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft.
Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
34
2.All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or
dying within that time period.
3.The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape
materials on state right-of-way.
4.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along the south property line to meet
minimum requirements.
5.Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than
30 mph.
6.The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments:
a.Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations:
i.Runoff leaving the overall site for the two-year (2.8-inch) rainfall and snowmelt
events.
ii.Runoff leaving the wetland located on the western portion of the site for each design
event.
iii.Runoff leaving the site to the north for the snowmelt event.
b.Use a pond in the model at the 18-inch culvert located north of the site.
c.The analysis should reflect any overtopping of the driveway or other overland flows that
may occur.
d.Due to the increased velocities through the12-inch culvert leaving the western wetland,
the developer must provide a design to address associated erosion at this location. Any
required improvements outside of existing easements shall require additional easements.
e.The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the
Drainage Area and Curve Number Table.
f.Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in
the composite Curve Number computation.
g.The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city ’s
requirements for water quality are satisfied.
i.If the event-based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8
or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
35
ii.If an iron-enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be
provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed
plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations.
iii.The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load.
This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either
an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular
rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency.
7.The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30%.
8.If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be
adjusted so that there is a minimum three-foot separation.
9.The developer must provide additional information showing how the proposed
“Preservation/Stormwater Volume Reduction Area ” between the large wetland and the back
of Lots 4-7, Block 1 will meet the minimum requirements.
10.Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with the final plat application and shall
include the existing storm sewer at Tigua Lane (approximately 280 feet east of the proposed
street intersection). The existing 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe north of Lots 7 and 8,
Block 1 shall also be included in the analysis.
11.The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments:
a.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the
MnDOT right-of-way.
b.The grading plan must be revised at the slope down from the street to the wetland at
Station 3+00, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 so the slope does not exceed 3H:1V.
c.The lowest openings of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 must be at least one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
d.The minimum floor elevation of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be 897.6 ’.
e.The building envelope for Lot 3, Block 2 must not encroach into the drainage and utility
easement.
f.The side yard drainage and utility easements between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 must
match what is shown on the plat.
g.The building pad shown for Lot 1, Block 2 cannot accommodate any of the house styles
provided and must be revised accordingly.
h.It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The
developer ’s engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
36
12.A building permit is required to construct the proposed retaining wall. Plans must be
submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
13.Some homes may choose to install a privately-owned and maintained booster to provide a
higher water pressure.
14.The watermain shall be 8-inch PVC (C-900).
15.Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain the necessary easement to install the
sanitary sewer off-site, to the north.
16.A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in
the rate in effect at that time.
17.Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat.
18.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone
document and submitted to engineering for review and comment. This SWPPP shall include
a narrative, plan set and applicable details.
19.The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater
Associated with Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA
SWPPP checklist.
20.A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and
approval per the requirements of Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES
Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary
and permanent best management practices.
21.There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off-site discharge locations. Rates must
be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge
points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting.
22.A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed for all areas preserved
as open space including those areas graded for the construction of stormwater management
practices that are above the normal water level.
23.Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way is outside of the City of Chanhassen ’s
WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen ’s review of wetland
boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals
from MnDOT for work on the sound wall.
24.The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
37
25.Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are
$67,483.50. Provide area of wetland buffer after development to accurately calculate credit.
26.Fifty-percent (50%) of park fees shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of
Outlots A and B. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval. At today ’s rate these fees would total $46,400 (16 lots X $5,800
per lot /2 ).
27.Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a
neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail shall be further reviewed
for proper placement through the wetland .
28.Construction of the 8-foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the
southeast corner of the property.
29.The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right-of-
way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul-de-sac that
exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following
conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment,
Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received
June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
2.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.
3.Execution of the Site Plan Permit.
4.Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
38
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with
the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
1.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site.
2.A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs
shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location.
3.The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed
road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1.
4.A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects as well as a signed
and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder.
5.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage
report and wetland replacement application.
6.Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan
Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN
ALTERNATIVE TO A SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS) ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES D. WILSON, ET. AL,
PLANNING CASE 2013-14.
Aanenson: This is the Wilson Nursery piece. This is a request for a variance in the City Code to allow
the installation of a sewage …on property zoned Agricultural. The subject site is 38, I mean 39 acres and
is seasonally used as a nursery site. It ’s guided low density in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the
location of the subject site. Again it ’s almost 39 acres. It abuts Highway 101 where it just so happens
that the City is doing an improvement project. This is kind of the engineered drawing of the improvement
project. …but as they were working in the, what they believed was the easement, existing septic site was
in that easement area and was not …so it was accidentally hit so if you look at this map, which would be a
little easier to read then the engineering plan …it ’s right on the easement area so it was hit. …so the
resolution that we ’re proposing with this variance request is to put a holding tank in there. The City has
adopted Carver County ’s ordinance for holding tanks and that ’s what we ’re referring to here so the
recommendation would be to replace it with a holding tank so it has to be pumped regularly. We feel
comfortable with this use as this, the Wilson Nursery property because it is a seasonal use. So no one ’s
living there. It ’s used as part of the operation. The reason why another septic site could not be placed on
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
39
this site is that the entire area ’s been compromised through the activity that ’s taken place with the
landscaping business and then the ultimate grading of that right-of-way for the City ’s … There wasn ’t a
good site to put that so this is in a future growth area. We do believe that within the next number of years
they could potentially redevelop. Basically a lift station built off of Powers Boulevard immediately to the
west of this property bringing sewer up …but we do believe that is coming in in the near future so the staff
is comfortable putting the holding tank in there. We did put the conditions on there in the staff report
specifically relating to time line …discussion with the city engineering regarding that …certainly if we ’re
not in there with sewer and water, we would extend that again as long as we needed to make that happen
until such time that sewer and water is available. With that we put the standard conditions that would be
required through the County and through our ordinance to make that happen. So again you put those
ordinance references in there from the County and that we are recommending a variance to install holding
tanks. Subject to those conditions so I ’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Aller: Questions?
Yusuf: Who will be servicing the holding tank?
Aanenson: Oh that ’s a good question. Actually I think because the nursery is, I did ask the City Engineer
that because the nursery is managing their septic system right now. Once they install it, then they will be
managing that. They ’ll have their private contractor manage the …
Aller: Anything else?
Yusuf: Do you have any idea how long this type of …
Aanenson: You know we thought we had some development happening on that, we had a project that
didn ’t come to fruition as the economy turned but you have to come from the property to the, just to the
west of this that abuts Powers Boulevard. That ’s where the lift station would be so, but …interest in the
property. It ’s the property in front of it that ’s not as interested at this time in developing so. Don ’t know.
Could happen in 2 years. Could happen in 5 or 6 years or more.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Withrow: Kate, will these be visible from the highway?
Aanenson: No they won ’t.
Withrow: They will be shielded.
Aanenson: Yep they ’ll be, yeah. Actually they are buried so.
Withrow: They ’re buried, oh okay. I ’m sorry.
Aanenson: That ’s okay. I probably didn ’t make that clear but they are, yep. Yep, and they won ’t be
outside the right-of-way.
Aller: I ’ll entertain a motion.
Yusuf: I ’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approves Planning Case 2013-14 for a variance to permit installation of sewage holding
tanks subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
40
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Withrow: I ’ll second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I have none.
Yusuf moved, Withrow seconded that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2013-14 for a variance to permit installation of sewage
holding tanks subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Decision:
1.Variance allowing holding tanks to be time limited to three years.
2.Sewage holding tanks may not serve an inhabited structure.
3.Site served by holding tanks must be seasonal use only.
4.Sewage holding tank(s) to have capacity alarm.
5.Sewage holding tank(s) pumping contract required.
6.The new holding tanks must be 50 feet from the well on the property.
7.The tanks must 50 feet from the wetland on the north and west sides of the property.
8.The tanks must be outside of the right-of-way.
9.The septic holding tank system must be installed per plumbers code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 18, 2013 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Aanenson: There was no council update. They also did not meet because of the 4 th of July and
just to go over your upcoming items. Next meeting will be National Night Out so we hope
you ’re all doing something in your own neighborhood so, we ’ve had a lot of requests that
people …in their own neighborhood so … For sure we ’re expecting something to come in on this
Friday, so that will be on, a small subdivision on for August 20 th . And we also note that the
Southwest Village Townhomes will be in for September 3 rd so we do anticipate two other
projects coming forward. And we do have a definitive date for our joint commissions tour and
that will be September 11 th , which is a Wednesday. I ’ll send you out another note so, we ’re
going to meet, so three weeks in a row there …
Withrow: So our next meeting is when, I ’m sorry?
Aanenson: It will be on August 20 th .
Withrow: Thank you.
Aanenson: Yep, August 6 th is National Night Out. And also I included in your packet was, just
some information on some new businesses that were welcomed to the City.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
41
Aller: Yeah, so anybody that ’s watching please check us out on the website and take a look at
the new businesses that are issued sign permits throughout the year. They ’re obviously looking
for us to Buy Chanhassen. Thank you to all the sponsors out there who did such a great job on
the 4 th of July parade activities. They were great. With that I ’ll take a motion to adjourn.
Withrow moved, Aller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim