CAS-14_LAKE HARRISON (5)City Council Meeting — July'11, 2005
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Do you have a quorum this
evening?
Mayor Furlong: Yes we do. We have 3 members here.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I know you read the article I wrote in the newspaper and I just want to say
that I think that the item on Harrison Lake going before you is one of the poorest examples of the
process that we have in place. In 5 years I've been watching things happening here and I'm just
amazed by the fact that the preliminary plat was approved with so many missing items. I won't
elaborate on the specifics. There's a lot of questions that remain open. I'm hoping that this
evening you'll give Mr. Broughton an opportunity to talk about the discrepancies he's found and
that you'll consider seriously the fact that this process hasn't gone according to the code. The
preliminary plat and the final plat are real important and the ordinary high water line on a
shoreland is critical to determining where the plats of these subdivision should be organized. I
guess I'm emotionally drained by this frankly. It's just very, very discouraging to see the city
operate in this fashion. There was a rush on this project and I hope, and I know it was because
you knew the individual and you have confidence in his abilities and his projects, but it's a poor
example when you have another company who has not worked within the city sitting in those
meetings and listening to this. Everyone should be treated with the same decorum. I would like
to see a check list developed so that every proposal coming before you, does it meet the
requirements. That is suggested in the planning manual for cities and I think that would be a
good policy to begin to employ. So there's no question of impropriety. I thank you for listening.
I know you all want to do the right thing. I know you work hard and you always hear the
negatives. You do a good job in many other respects but I just wish that we'd start where, we
seem to move ahead and then we move back in the process. Without consistency how can the
people have faith in your decisions. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak during visitor presentations.
Please come forward. State your name and address. Okay. Everyone is welcome each council
meeting for visitor presentations. Move now to item 1(c). Unfinished business which was
pulled from the consent agenda at the request of resident, Mr. Broughton. Good evening. If
you'd like to come forward now.
LAKE HARRISON, 6950 GALPIN BOULEVARD: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND
APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS &
SPECIFICATIONS.
Jim Broughton: I'm Jim Broughton, 6927 Highover Court North but I'd like to request that you
remove the Lake Harrison project from the consent agenda so we have a chance to make
comment later.
Mayor Furlong: No, we're there now so we're ready for your comments.
Jim Broughton: Oh, we're there now.
2
SCAMMED
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
Jim Broughton: I thought you were going to do that during unfinished business. Alright. Do we
have the overhead working tonight?
Mayor Furlong: I believe so.
Jim Broughton: Alright. I think I want to start off with this has been a long term deal for us and
as you heard one other comment here. I think Lots 11 and 12 on Block 1 and I hope you've all
read my e-mail. Have you all had a chance to look over the issues. I think going forward we're
going to require a number of variance for those lots. I tried to point that out I think the house pad
that was proposed on that lot encroached the bluff. Didn't meet the setbacks from the street and
the lot line. And there are some other structure issues with that lot that I think it's trying to force
a house in there. The width of the house is going to have to be quite narrow. I think if it's going
to face the front line, the front lot line, to the north. Maybe zoom in here a little bit. The pink
areas I've drawn here are, this is the required setback from the lot line. It's 30 feet, and this is
the Westwood drawing. This is the bluff, and I know this is the side of the bluff here. Top of the
bluff here. And the house pad was actually set in the bluff, in the bluff setback which is not
allowed by code. The house pad does not meet the structure setback from the lot .line or the
street, which is 30 feet. The Pemtom plan showed grading in the bluff impact zone, which is
clearly not allowed. In fact I think in the staff report, item number 17, it says that no grading in
the bluff will be allowed. I think it's a blatant, a blatant approach here for the developer to show
grading in the bluff impact zone when it's not allowed, and it's clear that we shouldn't be doing
that. The other issues here, and I can point that out. This one right here on Lot 12, there's a
grading line in the bluff impact zone. I believe there's some issues in the power line easement
here. There's a grading line probably 5 feet from that power pole. I believe that Xcel Energy
needs to approve any structures in the power line easement. I guess I'd like to ask the staff if
they have that approval from Xcel Energy. That's one question.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you keep going and then we'll address the questions.
Jim Broughton: Sure, that's fine.
Mayor Furlong: Kind of keeping a list myself so.
Jim Broughton: Yeah, okay. And I think the structures, the retaining wall here in the back of the
lot is in the bluff setback and it's a structure that needs to be 30 feet from the bluff. It's not.
Again there's grading in the bluff. I think there's some fire code issues. The private street was
reviewed. Bob had said to me that he had a Fire Marshal report from March 25`l. I'm not sure if
the Fire Marshal has reviewed this current plan which was done way after that point in time.
There's some fire codes that you're, you'll see tonight in the Jerry Story packet that probably
have not been addressed and not applied here. Including Lot 12 which is the house pad isn't
drawn on here but it will be more than 150 feet from the end of the private street. I think the Fire
Marshal needs to approve that in a written document. I haven't seen that so it's another question
for staff wondering if they have that written document. And to back up a little bit. You know
before this all started the staff, I can read what the staff said. The staff had big concerns about
3 -:'1
City Council Meeting — July11, 2005 •
this and I think some of the staff still have concerns about these two lots with the bluff
encroachment. The first thing that staff wrote about this was that they recommend not doing any
construction or building houses on these lots. It is in the best interest of the public good that the
bluff be preserved as required by ordinance to protect environmental and water quality of the
site. And I think some of them still feel that way. I think we're forcing a house on this lot. I
think the development is a nice, I mean I think it's okay. I mean I think other parts of this are
good. I'm not opposed to it happening. I'm just opposed to requiring so many variances going
forward without addressing those things now. If we go forward, cut the trees down, do all that
and then they come back to the council and ask for variances, if you don't grant them you've
already ruined the environment and taken the trees down, so I think now is the time prior to
approval of the final plat to determine those issues and I think you owe it to you know, owe is
the wrong word. You have the obligation I think to review these and carefully review them so
we don't make a mistake and have a problem with that area of the bluff. I want to thank you for
your calls back, your responses to my e-mail and Brian, thank you for the meeting we had last
Saturday morning. I appreciate you doing that. Those are the major issues. Couple other minor
things. The staff report says that no trees will be, that the trees on Lots 11 and 12 in the front
yard will be preserved. And maybe they've got a new plan of Pemtom, I don't know. But this is
the front yard of Lot 11 here. The line facing the north side as, I think as Roger as you were
saying, one of your documents. All the trees are gone out of there. So I don't know how we can
say we're going to preserve the trees in the front yard of Lot 11 when they're all being cut down.
One last issue that I think is really a serious problem, and I don't know if the group, this is the
drainage plan that we've shown here. This is the after development drainage plan. Pre -
development, this whole area here drains through and there's a gully here down into the wetland
in Lake Harrison. After this is done with the grading and the way this is being proposed, that
drainage is going to be over to Highover Trail. Now I'm not an expert but I think that bluff is
very important if you cut the water supply off to the bluff and the drainage, I think you're going
to have an impact in that area. I'm not sure what the impact is. But I think it's not the right
thing to do. I think now, to preserve the area, that shouldn't happen. I can quote the code on
some of these things. I think that the code says that the structure setbacks are from the top, the
side and the toe of the bluff on that lot. All the issues I'm sure that you've read in my e-mails. I
guess just to wrap this up. I would like to ask you, and I think you heard another comment here
tonight earlier, to look at this very carefully. I think this was not done 100 percent by the book.
I think that a lot of things got skipped. I think we should think carefully about developing homes
on those two lots. It's economically based and I think the code does not allow, I mean I know
everything is economically based but in this case we could disallow these 2 lots. Preserve the
beautiful bluff area. Not try and squeeze homes in there that are going to encroach the bluff. If I
was going to be buying that house on that lot, if it faces the north front line, the house is going to
be 45 feet wide if you measure that. That's the width of a garage. Little bit more than the garage
at my house. And if it faces the north lot, you're going to have a stair step type building,
structure in there. It just, it's not going to be easy to build a house that would be the right kind of
structure for what Dan is planning over there, and I think he's got a beautiful area. Beautiful
homes that can go in there but I think these two are a problem. They're also going to fill, they're
also proposing to fill, there's not, it's not proposed in here but they're going to fill the bluff for
the driveway on Lot 12. The code clearly states that you cannot put excavated material or fill in
the bluff, and there's no, if you don't have any other alternative you can't, it doesn't say that.
Another part of the code does say that. You can put a driveway in the bluff if there's no other
0
0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
alternative you can do that. Let's think about the alternative of not doing that. Of not
encroaching the bluff. That is an alternative that hasn't been addressed. And again I think that's
economically based. So I would just thank you for the time and I would ask that you please
consider very carefully the approval of those two lots. I don't know why this is, I think maybe
we could table this or get more data instead of rushing this through and the long term impacts are
high here I believe. So thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, I made a list. I know you were too. Maybe we can
try to address some of these.
Kate Aanenson: I think I'd like to first start with the staff's due diligence on reviewing the staff
report. On what our obligation is to make sure it does meet code. City Council did grant some
variances last time, and specifically I talk about the Lots 11 and 12. You need to back that out a
little. What we recommended last time is a public street could come in here. This is the bluff
setback zone. Both houses are outside what we told you when it came for preliminary plat, the
staff's recommendation was a cul-de-sac could be placed in there. Again before we'd
recommend a variance we want to show you that it could be built another way and our
recommendation was in order to preserve trees, so a cul-de-sac could go here and a driveway
could come along here. The ordinance does say a driveway can go through the bluff setback if
there's no other feasible alternative, and that was our recommendation to you on their
preliminary plat. Both these homes are outside the bluff setback. Our recommendation on this
one is that because it was a 3 1h acre lot, we thought that was a reasonable use and that they
should submit a plan that showed how they could get a plan, a house on there. Both those houses
are consistent with what's in the area. 2,600 square feet and 3 car garage. Again these won't be
the exact house until the homeowner picks a home but we wanted to show you that they are
legitimate lots. Again what you're approving is the lot. But we wanted to show you that homes
can be built to meet the setback. The change that was made was on Lot 11, to push that private
drive. It does meet the fire marshal's backing requirements, which are different than the Story
variance which you'll see shortly. Completely different. But there is no grading in the bluff
setback on the two lots. There is some on the portion right here for a driveway, which would
probably be similar regarding the drainage area. The recommendation, the concern regarding the
drainage was that we believe that re -directing the water when you have a ravine or a gully is a
better idea than forcing it to one point causing continual erosion. Again the Forester and the
Water Resource Coordinator recommended drainage into a wetland has significant impacts, not
similarly when you have a forced point, that causes erosion. If you remember what we did on
Settlers West, we actually reinverted the water so it wasn't running over the bluff causing
additional erosion. Over time it's accelerating from the backs of these houses too, so that was a
concern so we don't think it's going to make the matter worst. Probably equalize or make it
better. But I just want to address the first issue under visitor's presentation. There's 3
documents that we look at when plans come in. One would be the construction plans, and this is
typically what the engineering department looks through. Grading and erosion and drainage, and
then the sewer and the water plans. The OHW is on the construction plans. Those aren't on the
final plat, which is typically the small, I want to just go to this one first. I did include for you a
letter from the watershed district. Here is the 994. There was a recommendation that we use the
lower number. The 994 is on here. They actually took the more conservative number. The most
conservative number that we got from the watershed district was 993.8. They actually overshot
_.�;A
City Council Meeting — Jul 11, 2005 •
it. Went 994. All measurements for the back of the homes, we're using the more conservative
number and all those lots we checked do meet ordinance. That's our obligation and part of our
check list that was mentioned earlier, so that's one of the things we do. Go through all the
construction plans. These show all the grading and tree loss, to make sure they were consistent
with what was approved with the plat. And the other second document would then be the sewer
and water. And the other point I want to bring up, as a part of this plan there is a directional bore
being planned along the adjacent property, so there will be water. While water, directional
boring that's coming up from the subdivision to the south which would be formerly Yoberry.
Highcrest Meadows, their new name. So that, there's a road, and that would be in that easement
of the driveway. So again those are two sets of plans again that's part of our punch list that we
go through making sure it meets all the city ordinance. So with that you end up with the plat,
and this is the recording document, and there's different terms of conveyances that we follow but
the question was raised on the plat, the private easement. Again these are what the lots look like.
This doesn't show you how the house sits on there. Those are all in the construction.plans, and
with your development contract, you're approving all of those sets of documents. So this would
be the easement for Lots 10, 11 and 12. There is no showing no right-of-way. That's a different
recorded document. Again it's on the construction plans showing the width and how that all
meets city ordinance, but it's not on this document itself. It's recorded in the legal description
showing who has access to that. Again we responded to all of the 2 e-mails that were addressed
to the council regarding interpretations of the city code. Currently I agreed there's a difference
in interpretation. We did recommend the variances on the private drive. There was another
recommendation with variances which we showed you. We're showing the street grade which is
driven by the existing Jerome Carlson's house and trying to preserve those trees which was,
instead of going from 7%, I believe they went to 8%, and again that was to save trees. But it's
our belief that we have met all the requirements of the city code. Again we disagree with the
interpretation of the structure. We believe the small retaining wall next to the street is a part of
the street structure, as would be if we put a trail in and needed to bank it up with a retaining wall,
we couldn't consider that a structure to the driveway itself. So I believe I've answered most of
the questions. It there's any other.
Mayor Furlong: There was an issue, a question was raised about the utility easement, the Xcel
Energy utility easement and any work done.
Kate Aanenson: Again that's not a structure. Again we would have our trail within that same
thing, so it just, the retaining wall's just a small segment of holding up that embankment of the
driveway. It's not a free standing tall structure, and any different than would be our. Again
there is a citation that says a driveway isn't a structure and that's the portion that's on is that
portion of the driveway.
Mayor Furlong: I know there are times where we require a condition to be met which might
include agreements between the developer and other private parties. I mean that happens from
time to time.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
0
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong: And when that's the case we set the condition and they have to find, we have to
make sure, the developer has to make sure that that condition is met, even if that needs to obtain
another agreement with another private party.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. You had one with the watershed district or something like that, or
adjacent property owners. Or Xcel Energy.
Mayor Furlong: I'm thinking, whether it's the utility easement here or whether it's a right turn
lane on a county road...
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, and sometimes those agreements take a while before they get
executed and sometimes even after we approve the plat, those would be before we allow
construction to commence. We wait for all those approvals to come in because that sometimes
may be another 2 week lag period before we'd have a pre -construction meeting or something like
that. 2 or 3 weeks, and they have to have all those permits in before they can proceed.
Mayor Furlong: And is that the same, you say construction. Is that the same then for grading
because that was another issue brought up about grading or taking out trees prior to actually a
permit being issued.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. There's certain permits you have to have in place before you
can grade. Watershed approval... some of those sort of things. I don't know if you wanted to
add anything.
Paul Oehme: Yes, we always look at the issues surrounding each of the permits that come in for
grading or utility installations from different agencies to make sure all the other agencies permits
are met.
Kate Aanenson: So again I just want to reiterate on the staff report, we had a condition that that
meet code. Again the setback, the front setback, this line was moved and the driveway was
moved so that's at the 30 on the front which is required by ordinance. It does have the 20 here,
and then this would be the rear setback, side setback so it meets all of those setbacks. And that
would be, if you look on the final plat approvals which is item 1(c)-1. Page 28. The private
drive, street driveways shall be shown as on lot, plans dated 5/9/05. That plan is revised to
today's date. So that would be modified to 7/11 and that represents this. That does meet that.
What it didn't show on the plat, on the previous presentation, that this line carrying all the way
through, and then they're shifting forward so that is the correct line. Again we verified that as
we're going through the plans, and we just asked them to have a better representation. We had a
black and white one, that's why it's dated today and color. We wanted it to clearly show tonight.
Mayor Furlong: And which condition is that?
Kate Aanenson: On number 49. So this section right here is modified because that plan was
actually shown at the last meeting, and this is a further iteration of that.
7
City Council Meeting — Jul•1, 2005 •
Mayor Furlong:
The other question I heard was about grading within the bluff impact zone
where one of the conditions says there will be none. Talking about the structures I think.
Kate Aanenson:
Structures, correct.
Mayor Furlong:
Is that an inconsistency?
Kate Aanenson:
Again our interpretation is a driveway isn't a structure, nor is that retaining
wall. That was our interpretation.
Mayor Furlong:
Okay. For clarity, could that be tied to the same plan?
Kate Aanenson:
Sure. As per this plan dated yeah.
Mayor Furlong:
So which would mean that if it meets this plan...
Kate Aanenson:
Actually that's a good, your development contract references the dates and
plans and specs
approved for this. All the plans that are on the table here today, so that would
look like this.
Mayor Furlong:
So it's covered then?
Kate Aanenson:
Yes. But that's fine to reiterate that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, maybe I can just make one comment so we're all on the same page. As
you know the approval process for subdivisions is broken down into two parts. The preliminary
plat and the final plat. The preliminary plat review is to determine whether the subdivision
meets the requirements of your code. Your requirements of your zoning ordinance, what have
you. That's where you make the policy decision. That's where you make the planning decisions
where you apply the code. The purpose of the final plat is to condition the preliminary plat on
meeting certain conditions. The purpose of the final plat is to make sure that those conditions in
which you approved the preliminary plat have been met. For example if you say you have to
make, move a lot line, you're required to do this A, B, C or D and you want some changes in the
plat, then when it comes back for final plat approval you make sure that those changes have been
met. It's not the function of final plat approval to review the entire thing from the get go. It's
just to determine whether the conditions of preliminary approval have been satisfied.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. What was the time line of this process in terms of the applicant and the,
because this went through Planning Commission and, do you have those? Is that in the report?
Kate Aanenson: I don't know if I have the application attached to this. To fast track it would be
2 months. It certainly took more than that. 4, 6, 5. I don't have the whole file so I don't have
the first date. Typically we meet with sometimes a developer a month or two before it even gets
submitted to work out some issues so.
0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Mayor Furlong:
Typically we have 60 days, but that can be extended.
Kate Aanenson:
Yes, so it was in excess of 60 days.
Mayor Furlong:
I'm sorry.
Kate Aanenson:
It was in excess of 60 days.
Roger Knutson:
Mayor just to be clear for preliminary plat approval you have 120 days after the
application is submitted and 60 days after for final plat approval.
Mayor Furlong:
After preliminary?
Roger Knutson:
Correct. After the final plat application is filed.
Mayor Furlong:
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from staff, or of staff from the council?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate if I read the data correctly here, actually Xcel did receive a copy of
the plans for review and comment, is that right?
Kate Aanenson:
That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And no objections by them?
Kate Aanenson:
No.
Councilman Lundquist: On the condition 49 that you just referenced for clarification along with
that change in the date on those drawings, would it make sense. I lost the page. To change that
to private street and driveway?
Kate Aanenson: It's actually on the driveway portion of it.
Councilman Lundquist: So should it be called the driveway shall be shown?
Kate Aanenson: It's referencing Lot and 12 and actually it encumbers the change to make the
setback so if you want, I think it's probably best just to leave and driveway.
Councilman Lundquist: Private street and driveway?
Kate Aanenson: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff from council? Oh I'm sorry, Councilman
Lundquist.
0
City Council Meeting — Jul•1, 2005 •
Councilman Lundquist: Kate when we talked before, again these new, this colored page that you
just put out has the bluff impact zone on it. Nann, can you put that one up on the. So that yellow
line that runs along the house, or along the edge of the house is the bluff setback.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it's hard to see on that camera but it's actually.
Councilman Lundquist: So if you've got that house pad right there in the middle and the
retaining walls that are shown in that grading plan.
Kate Aanenson: This retaining wall.
Councilman Lundquist: Or those grading lines, or whatever that are on there. Actually are not
in that bluff impact zone.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Because that, the bluff impact zone is the blue line, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And again the rule on that is to preserve the trees so you're just kind of making
a demarcation of where, similar to what we did on the main street that went in Harrison Lake.
Councilman Lundquist: And that house, and that house pad meets our, without variance meets
setback, front and side and bluff. Meets the minimum requirements for square footage.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And everything else. Same with the one on Lot 12?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Without variances.
Councilman Lundquist: Without variances. The turn around for the fire issue.
Kate Aanenson: Can we just back up on that. If you recall, the applicant wanted us to give this
variance. It was the staff's recommendation that they demonstrate that it didn't require a
variance and that they.
Councilman Lundquist: Correct. Actually in the preliminary I thought we denied that variance.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. They had asked for that and we said no. You have to show us a
legitimate lot and that's what this is, yes.
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: And when we approved the preliminary plat 2 weeks ago, or whenever
that was recently, the only variance that was granted anywhere in 11 and 12 was for the
driveway.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: On this Block 1. The rest of them.
Kate Aanenson: For the private street, because we showed a cul-de-sac could go in there and
you would still allow a driveway off the cul-de-sac so we felt it would be, in order to save the
trees in there, it'd be better to put the private drive in. Because our requirements that they
always demonstrate first on what you're saving. Not to just give it first.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. And that was the only variance that had any impact on Lot 1, 11
and 12. The rest of them were the setbacks.
Kate Aanenson: And then the street grade, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And the street grade in the other areas.
Kate Aanenson: The 8%.
Councilman Lundquist: On the ordinary high water mark again, the letter that was included in
here said that the 993.8 was the number.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: When this plat was put together it was a 994 that was used? So that
actually makes the high water mark 2/10 of a foot higher.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Which would push those plat lines farther from the water, is that the
right way?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, right. And we did measure all those setbacks and they all meet
the setback from the ordinary high water mark.
Councilman Lundquist: By an extra, now that.
Kate Aanenson: 2/10.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And again within that easement, the trail and all of those things,
Xcel's seen that and they don't have an issue with any of that stuff? Because we are going to put
a trail through there and the driveway and all that stuff, correct?
11
City Council Meeting — Ju1•1, 2005 •
Paul Oehme: That's correct, and actually where the power lines are currently located, that is an
outlot owned by the city currently.
Kate Aanenson: The portion on the other side, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. Do we have any other areas in the city that we have utility
easements like that that we have trails or driveways or anything like that in?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sure we do.
Councilman Lundquist: That just came to mind.
Todd Gerhardt: The closest one we have over by the Legion where the pedestrian bridge goes
underneath a power line. Transmission line there. Next to Northcott office building. You know
we cross underneath that periodically as you go west through Stone Creek.
Kate Aanenson: Actually there probably is some on Stone Creek Drive as that line drops off of 5
and goes south. There probably is some through there.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Alright, that's all I have for now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? No? Okay. Sir, for what
pose?
John Broughton: I would just like to ... comment. May I approach the podium?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. One short comment will be appreciated.
John Broughton: ...I apologize. On the Xcel Energy issue.
Mayor Furlong: If you could wait til you get to the microphone so people at home can hear too.
John Broughton: On the Xcel Energy issue, I asked Xcel Energy, there's a gentleman named Ed
O'Trap who is the gentleman, who is the senior right-of-way agent for Xcel, because this is right
behind my home. I talked to him this morning. He said he had not seen this and he had not
approved it. He said he has to approve it. I don't know why Kate's saying that. Here's a
document from Xcel, and I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just want this process to go correctly.
And this says activities requiring approval. Prior approval. Excavation or grade changes.
Landscaping, driveways. And this is the gentleman who is responsible for the approval process
and he has not, I asked him if he'd call the City or send you an e-mail to please address the issue,
and apparently he didn't.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, he did call the city and actually he was very confused on what was going
on. He talked to Allison in the engineering department. Actually he was pretty confused. Again
any permit required before our approval, there's a lot of permitting stuff that isn't executed at
this point and that's normal. Watershed approvals. PCA approvals. That's normal condition.
12
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Again this is the first step going through and make sure the plat meets, before construction can
proceed, all permits have to be executed before they can begin construction. That's the normal
process. Typically those are done with the pre -con. Evaluate on what things are still need to be
secured. But they have received a copy of the plat. Again, this person you spoke to really didn't
know much about it. I'm not sure what area he was in, but he was rather confused about the
whole question.
John Broughton: Well he told me he had never received anything from the city so.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure he's the right person to get the permit either.
John Broughton: He told me he was.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor. Mayor, staff will be contacting Xcel Energy and making sure we follow
all their rules as a part of this. No grading permit will be issued until Xcel is accepted on the
grading plan. And we'll work with them. To Kate's point, I believe it's 35 different agencies
that we send this plat out to and Xcel Energy is one of those agencies that receives a copy of the
plat and we ask for their comments. That's why you have this 120 days. We need to give them
proper time to get their comments back to us so we can submit it to the Planning Commission
and City Council. And with this application we did not receive any comments from Xcel on this
and they would have gotten a copy of the grading plan so, but as a part of this we will call them
personally. Follow up with this and see what concerns they have. Usually there's a pre -
construction meeting where all the utilities attend. Phone company. Minnegasco. Cable TV.
They all attend this meeting to talk about locates and how paths of dirt will be removed and
where the utilities are located so, and that meeting typically doesn't occur until after the final
plat.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
John Broughton: I don't believe you addressed the fire code either, so. Thank you for clarifying
that Todd. I think that's good. I feel strongly because that's right behind my house, and you
show grading within 5 feet of those power poles. I think that's not very safe, and you'd have that
approved prior to final approval plat.
Kate Aanenson: It's not prior to final approval plat. It's prior to construction commencing.
Todd Gerhardt: Prior to construction.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And appreciate the diligence of everybody involved in this to
make sure that we follow our ordinance and get through the details.
Councilman Lundquist: For clarification Mr. Mayor, on the, when the applicant would go
through to final their permits for the driveway or their approval or whatever it is for that
13
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005 •
driveway through that utility easement, if Xcel has an issue with that and they say no, then
essentially .
Todd Gerhardt: We have a problem.
Councilman Lundquist: They don't have a.
Councilman Peterson: We don't have a problem. The developer has a problem.
Councilman Lundquist: But the burden is on the developer to make that happen.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I heard too Mr. Gerhardt you talked about pre -construction but that
would also include grading for the driveway on Lots 11 and 12?
Todd Gerhardt: Well to do the grading on Lots 11 and 12, you would have to have a pre -
construction. That's typically what happens before the, before any grading occurs.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Grading is the first step in the building process. You have to establish the
grades. Then the utilities go in.
Mayor Furlong: Got it. Okay, thank you. Any discussion from council? On this.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think it really comes down to the interpretation, you know
and council is tasked with many things but interpreting code and intention and setting code is
certainly one of those. We've heard tonight from citizens and residents, staff and council, there's
a disagreement. A clear disagreement in interpreting the code but in looking at it and reading all
the information that is here, I certainly look at it and go, it's reasonable and prudent for us to
move ahead with those lots if all those conditions are met. I don't see a compelling reason to
deny it based upon what's been brought up this evening and from all of the conversations that
have happened over the last few days. Our job is to interpret and my reaction is, it's reasonable
and are we bending a little bit? Yeah. Are we bending a lot? Absolutely not. I think that we're
making a reasonable development. I don't think it's an economic thing. We're letting the owner
put on a lot that's reasonable and I don't think we're pushing the limits very much from what I'm
sensing, so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts, comments?
Councilwoman Tjomhom: No, I agree with Councilman Peterson
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
IL!
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: I agree with Councilman Peterson as well and we've put a lot of effort
focused tonight on Lots 11 and 12, but as we look at the development as a whole as well, the
number of house pads on this entire site is actually quite minimal compared to what the options
totally could be. There's a vast amount of open space, wetlands and other things on this that
have been dedicated or outlotted as part of that and be some hopefully some nice parkland in the
one comer so I think as well I believe that it's reasonable to allow the developer to put house
pads given that there's a, that this development has a limited number where they can get them
without variances. And based on our actions on the preliminary plat we showed that we weren't
willing to give up some of that stuff on the bluff by denying that variance, and that obviously
there's some impact to an existing neighborhood but we've seen in this area kind of the hot bed
lately the last few months with Pinehurst and whatever the Yoberry/Highcrest, is that one done?
It's Highcrest. And how this Lake Harrison one, that any time we have an existing development
that it gets encroached by another one in open space that we've had a little friction. So looking
at this I would also commend and say thank you especially to Mr. and Mrs. Broughton and to
Mrs. Paulsen for their comments and keeping this, keeping us and the staff on their toes. I spent
a great deal of time on this one. I took up a lot of staff time on this one going through it several
times as well, and I feel confident that we've answered those questions and as Mr. Peterson said
as well, there's some areas that are open to interpretation and obviously again there is a
disagreement but I think our interpretations are reasonable and accurate and that the development
as a whole for this site is a great development and I'm comfortable with where we're at and with
all of the actions on the final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur with Councilman Peterson and Councilman
Lundquist. I won't reiterate their comments. I think they're well said. The other thing that I
would point out is sometimes we're, with regard to variances and the number of variances on a
particular plat, it's the implication is that we're relaxing the code and I think in this case what
we're trying to do is look at does the code give us the best development or with some variances
can we improve the development. I think in this case both in terms of the private street versus a
public cul-de-sac that would serve Lots 11 and 12, with that variance it's improved. We're
saving trees. We're fitting the infrastructure better to the natural topography. The same would
be true with the other variances that were discussed and approved at our preliminary plat,
whether they were the front yard setback, or the street grade. Again it was to try to improve the
development to better fit with the topography rather than to be lenient. And as was said, the
variances that were asked, that were more the blank check variance, the Planning Commission
and the council said no to and staff concurred with that, and so I think there's been a lot of time
and effort in here and as I said before, I do appreciate the scrutiny with which both our residents
and staff and the council has spent, the Planning Commission as well on this project and we need
to do that on all projects. Reasonable people can differ in terms of what might be best but I think
we have a reasonable development here. One that will be an asset to the city in large part
because of what's not being developed versus what is, so with that I would ask if there are any
other comments. And if not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd move that City Council approve final plat for lake
Harrison creating 39 lots with 6 outlots and associated right-of-way for public streets with a
15
City Council Meeting — Jul•1, 2005 •
variance for a private street and street grades subject to the conditions set forth in the council
packet. With the one change on 49.
Councilman Lundquist: Two changes on 49.
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Inserting the word and between street and driveway and then changing the date
to 11. Or July 11, '05.
Councilman Peterson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves the Final Plat for Lake Harrison Addition creating 39 lots, 6 outlots and associated
right-of-way for public streets (plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated
June 20, 2005) with a variance for a private street and street grade, subject to the following
conditions:
1. If Lot 12, Block 3 is further subdivided to create an additional lot, the swimming pool must be
removed, prior to the replatting.
2. E. Jerome and Linda Carlson will donate Outlots A, C and D to the City of Chanhassen. The
developer shall pay full park fees for 37 new residential lots. The total park and trail fees due
payable at the time of final plat recording are $148,000.00.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. The developer must name and install a street sign for the private street.
d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to
city sewer service when available.
g. The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in
accordance with City Code.
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
4. The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the construction
of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
5. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for the
replacement wetlands. The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of
Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City
approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring. Wetland
replacement monitoring plans shall be submitted annually beginning one growing season after
the wetland is created until the wetland replacement is accepted in writing by the City. The
vegetation management plan shall be enhanced to provide a detailed outline for the treatment of
reed canary grass and purple loosestrife. The vegetation management plan and wetland
mitigation plan sheets shall specify that newly created wetland mitigation areas shall be seeded
in a swath that extends at least 1' above and l' below the normal water level of the mitigation
areas.
6. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be .
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
7. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building setback
requirements.
8. All plans shall illustrate Lake Harrison's OHW and a 150 -foot structure setback from the
OHW.
9. The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 -foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff
and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).
10. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
11. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes
near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately
sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel
base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap
and geotextile or permanent turf re -enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls
shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence,
mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with
17
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements
is needed on Pond 1.
12. Following storm water inlet installation, Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall
be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be
provided.
13. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen specification Type 1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside.
14. Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the
rock construction entrance.
15. Chanhassen Type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re -enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
16. The "Inlet Sediment Filter" detail shall be altered to show a rock _berm (11/2 -inch rock, 2 feet
wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal T -posts shall be used, not
wood stakes.
17. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
18. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Sloe
Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1
7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1
14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1
21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
19. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
20. All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass
grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement
such as wetland or creek crossing areas).
21. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
18
0 0
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the State.
22. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $120,585.00.
23. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
24. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In
no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone.
25._ Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
26. A total of 322 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on
landscape plans dated 6/20/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows:
Lot, Block
Number of trees required
Lot 1, blk 1
5
Lot 2, blk 1
2
Lot 3, blk 1
1
Lot 4, blk 1
1
Lot 5, blk 1
1
Lot 6, blk 1
2
Lot 7, blk 1
2
Lot 8, blk 1
2
Lot 9, blk 1
1
Lot 10, blk 1
2
Lot 11, blkl
None — existing front yard trees to be preserved
Lot 12, blk 1
None — existing front yard trees to be preserved
Lot 1, blk 2
4
Lot 2, blk 2
3
Lot 3, blk 2
2
Lot 4, blk 2
2
Lot 5, blk 2
3
Lot 6, blk 2
1
Lot 7, blk 2
3
Lot 8, blk 2
2
19
City Council Meeting — July11, 2005 •
Lot, Block
Number of trees required
Lot 9, blk 2
2
Lot 10, blk 2
7
Lot 1, blk 3
5
Lot 2, blk 3
3
Lot 3, blk 3
2
Lot 4, blk 3
2
Lot 5, blk 3
1
Lot 6, blk 3
1
Lot 7, blk 3
1
Lot 8, blk 3
2
Lot 9, blk 3
2
Lot 10, blk 3
2
Lot 11, blk 3
3
Lot 12, blk 3
6
Lot 13, blk 3
3
Lot 14, blk 3
2
Lot 15, blk 3
2
Lot 16, blk 3
None — eiisting front yard trees to be preserved
27. The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on
the landscape plan dated 3/18/05.
28. Any private street is required to have 20 -foot wide paved streets from back -of -curb to back -of -
curb, be built to a 7 -ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30 -foot
wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to
submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7 -ton design.
29. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant
should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property
owner.
30. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL. Pond number 3 must be
adequately sized to accommodate the drainage from Lot 1, Block 4, and the proposed park area.
31. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the
Building Department.
32. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data and full size map will need to be submitted for
staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be
required at that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm
event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
20
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005 •
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes
for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width
shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on
the construction plans.
33. Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type II
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately
after grading to minimize erosion.
34. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
35. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
36. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds. Remove the proposed curb along the north side of the right
tum land on Galpin Boulevard,
37. Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall, revise the plan
accordingly.
38. Minimum 40 -foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required between Lots 4
and 5, Block 1, and along the west side of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1.
39. On the grading plan:
a. Show 12 foot spacing between any two parallel retaining walls over 4 -foot in height.
b. Add a note to remove all existing approaches.
c. Show the EOF for the easterly cul-de-sac and the garage elevations of all Lots adjacent to it
need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency overflow for the street.
40. On the utility plan:
21
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005 •
a. Relocate the proposed 12 inch pvc raw water main away from the retaining wall by at least
10 feet along the private street.
b. Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road,
Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Drive.
c. Show the existing sanitary sewer in the center of the existing easement.
d. Add note: any connection to existing structure must be core drilled.
e. Water service must be 1 -inch copper type K.
f. The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard.
41. Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for
future connection to the City's second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw
watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer
will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and
to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction.
42. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (38) than what the property has been assessed
for, the additional 37 units (38-1=37) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral
connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording.
43. As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right -tum lane into the site
will be required to be constructed. The tum lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
44. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
45. Two additional fire hydrants are required.
46. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such
protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction
except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
47. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the
new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
48. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
49. The private street and driveway shall be as shown on the Lot 11 & 12 detail plan dated
7/11/05.
50. On the storm sewer and street plans show all the roads turning radius.
ON
• •
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
51. Show the sanitary sewer minimum 20 -foot easement on Lot 1, Block 2.
52. Show minimum 20 -foot easement for the water -main of Lake Harrison Road looping to the
north with the existing Manchester Drive water -main.
53. Show the right existing sanitary easement on Lot 3, Block 3, and revise the standard easement
accordingly.
54. All outlot boundaries shall be revised to incorporate wetland buffers where applicable.
55. The applicant shall submit a letter of credit in the amount of $136,400 to guarantee the design goal for
the wetland replacement site, as approved in the replacement plan, is fully achieved. The letter of credit
shall be written to remain in effect for 5 years."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Is there another motion that we need there? The development contract?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: Didn't you approve that?
Mayor Furlong: No. We pulled both of them off the consent agenda.
Kate Aanenson: I had turned it off for a second. I didn't know, the development contract was
also on.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Without objection is there a motion to approve item 1(c)(2) as presented
in the consent agenda?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve the construction plans and specifications for Lake Harrison dated June 20, 2005,
prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. and the development contract dated July
11, 2005, conditioned upon the following:
The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,987,300.00 and pay an administration fee of
$318,846.00.
23
City Council Meeting — July 11, 2005
0
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to
meet city standards.
3. Direct the city attorney to draft a purchase agreement for Lot 1, Block 4 ($740,000) and
Outlot B ($560,000) for the development of a future water treatment plant and park land.
Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, in the future you can have one motion. Just include both of those if
you'd like so.
Councilman Peterson: You just have to remember to do that.
Mayor Furlong: That's right. I don't think we officially did it so better to be clean.
Todd Gerhardt: Not a problem.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY TO SERVE
AS A PRIVATE STREET TO DRTBR MOTR THAN ONE LOT: LOCATED WEST OF
POWERS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BRETTON WAY, AND EAST OF TETON LANE,
JERRY STORY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-19.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jerry & Karon Story 12137-88`s Place North
Naomi Carlson 5955 Cathcart Drive, Excelsior
Robert Rabe 6307 Teton Lane
Rob LaFleur 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower, Minneapolis
Cynthia Gallo 16799 Terrey Pine Drive, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson: This is an application for a variance with a subdivision, which has different
criteria, subdivision with variance with a subdivision automatically gets forwarded to the City
Council. That's why it's here before you tonight. The property is located off of Powers
Boulevard. Location is, here's Powers Boulevard. The city owns this piece of property. There
is a private easement that accesses that piece of property currently. I want to give a little bit of
the history of this property. The Story's have had the property since 1991. They don't currently
live on the property but have owned it since that time. This item, they've tried to subdivide this
property over a number of years, and most recently we, as a staff had recommended that they go
to the Planning Commission to talk about different ways to subdivide that property under open
discussion, again to get some direction on how that should occur. It did go to the Planning
Commission under open discussion and didn't feel like that was the right answer that they
`H
CITY OF CHHHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
www.ci.chanhassennn.us
This map is neither a legally reconced map nor a survey and is nth intended to be used as one.
This map Is a confusion of records, Information and data located In various city, county, state and
diadem offices and other sources regarding the area shoves, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The Qty does rot warrent that the Geographic Infomretion System (GIS) Data used
W prepare this map are error free, and me City does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used
for navigauona, tradmq or any other purpose requiring erecting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in Me depiction of geographic features. o enors or discrepancies are found
Please contact 952427.1107. The preceding disclamner is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Stables §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the use, of this map acmovnedges that the City shal not
be liable for any damages, and expressly waves all Gains, and agrees to defend, indertnify, and
hold har rfess the City horn any and all claims brought by User, ns employeas or agents, or third
p6rues which ansa W of the users access or use of data r I&" : Q1 4 Q ;> v
0
CITY OF CHANIIASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
www.ci.chanhassen.w.us
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a compilation of records, m ormation said data located in various city, county, stale and
federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shorn, and is to be used for reference
Purposes only. The City ones not warrent Nat Me Geographic ofommtion System (GIS) Data used
W prepare this map era error free, and Me City does not represent Nat the GIS Data can be used
for navigaema, tracking or any other purpose requiring erecting measurement of distance or
draclion or precision in Me depiction of geographic featuresa mors or dscnepancim are found
pease contact 952427-1107. The practicing disdamer is providetl pursuant to Minnesota
Stamm §466.03, Subd. 21 (20D0), and the user of this map ackno veoges that Me City steal not
bas liable for my damages, and expressly waives all dans, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and
bold hamiess Me City from my antl all claims brought by_VUr n§ EVIoyegs qr gpmN or bird
pcNm wINM area out of the users eccass or use of ala p7ydb " : >F rf 1 i :1 v0 u V
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE OF INFORMATION MEETING
PROPOSED WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Thursday, April 14,
Chanhassen City Hall
7700 Market
Dear Property Owner:
2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
Boulevard
You are invited to an information meeting regarding the proposed water treatment plant to be located on
property west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Woodridge Heights (see location map on the reverse side of
this notice). The purpose of the meeting is to provide information about the water treatment plant and the
City review process. The pending subdivision on the Carlson property (also known as "Lake Harrison") will
be reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2005. A separate notice will be sent for the public
hearing.
If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact City Engineer Paul Oehme at 952-227-1169 or by
email: poehme@ci.chanhassen mn us.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE OF INFORMATION MEETING
PROPOSED WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Chanhassen City Hall Council Chambers
7700 Market Boulevard
Dear Property Owner:
You are invited to an information meeting regarding the proposed water treatment plant to be located on
property west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Woodridge Heights (see location map on the reverse side of
this notice). The purpose of the meeting is to provide information about the water treatment plant and the
City review process. The pending Subdivision on the Carlson property (also known as "Lake Harrison") will
be reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2005. A separate notice will be sent for the public
hearing.
If you have questions regarding this proposal, contact City Engineer Paul Oehme at 952-227-1169 or by
email: poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market
Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is
to consider a request for Rezoning
from Rural Residential, RR, to Single
Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision
review for 40 Lots, 3Outlets and public
right-of-way with Variances; and a
Wetland Alteration Permit for the
grading and filling of wetlands on site,
property consisting of 62 acres located
at 6950 Galpin Boulevard - Lake
Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom
Land Company.
A plan showing the location of the
proposal is available for public review
at City Hall during regular business
hours. All interested persons are
invited to attend this public hearing
and expresstheiropimonswithrespect
to this proposal.
Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
Email:
bgenerousCi)Cl chanhassen mn.us
Phone: 952-227-
1131
(Published in the Chanhassen
Villager on Thursday, April 7, 2005;
No. 4399)
Affidavit of Publication
Southwest Suburban Publishing
State of Minnesota)
)SS.
County of Carver )
Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized
agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil-
lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
(A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.lyj �7
was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said
Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of
the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both
inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition
and publication of the Notice:
abcdefghijklmnopgrs wxyz
Laurie A. Hartmann
Subscribed and sworn before me on
this =day of �. 2005
�""""'�
tCYi"EN M. RAD
NOTARY R&C - MF*MTA
dY Catudttim FspidJn 31, 2)t0
Notary Public 4
RATE INFORMATION
Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch
Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ......................
$22.00 per column inch
Rate actually charged for the above matter ...............................................
$11.18 percolumn inch
Ilq=17-1
a
0
0
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen
City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for Rezoning
from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3
Outlots and public right-of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading
and filling of wetlands on site, property consisting of 62 acres located at 6950 Galpin Boulevard —
Lake Harrison. Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Email: beenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1131
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on April 7, 2005)
SCANNED
Notice of Public Hearing
ChaWhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, April 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Rezoning from Rural Residential, RR, to Single Family
Residential, RSF; Subdivision review for 40 Lots, 3 Outlots and
Proposal:
public right-of-way with Variances; and a Wetland Alteration
Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on site, property
consisting of 62 acres — Lake Harrison
Planning File: 1
05-14
Applicant:
The Pemtom Land Company
Property
6950 Galpin Boulevard
Location: '
A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice'
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting the Chair will lead the
Aps:
What Happens
public hearing through the following
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
Questions &
e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to
Comments:
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will
be available online at htty0206.10.76.8/weblink the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Cay Review Procedure;
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in wdfing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by requesL At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affinn or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokespersordrepresentafive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
SCANNED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
^0. Box 147
Minnesot
17
04, 05 1,
hassenamn3us
SEH �OO pEgS@p^ 07. 94
g"
p A f, P 15
.i@ RE-SVRpt@-rp FO ,O�'
x pEu ,4 >z I.2
V q4 \
'1,401 1p� 1\\` "
@C
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one,
This map is a compilation of records, information and data located In various city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error III and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. It errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227-1107 The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2011 and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
be liable for any damages, and ewressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless IN City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees ora ants Qr th N
parties which arse out 0 the users access or use of datanryyitled T t 71ZII1�!
f7UND
APR 1 5 2005
l;a�-v f:,r ;,I-r,.NHASSEN
MATTHEW & KRISTINE MEDICK
6800 HIGHOVER DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
IIIIIIII IIII'llll lull 1111111111111111111 it 11111111 Ili I 1111111
•
0
FIPVF
C>
U)
—rr
SCANNED T
0
City Council Meeting — May
PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR AN ON -SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE,
CPS COFFEE AND WINE BAR AT 600 MARKET STREET, GEORGE WALTER LLC.
Justin Miller: Mayor, members of the City Council. The city has received an application for an
on sale beer and wine license from George Walter LLC, which is a sole partnership operated by
Cynthia Baker. Mrs. Baker is planning on opening CJ's Coffee and Wine Bar in the Market
Street Station development at 600 Market Street. Law enforcement has completed background
investigations on all the principles involved in this organization and no negative comments were
found. The city also sent out a public hearing notice to property owners within 500 feet
soliciting comments. We received none. At this time staff would recommend holding the public
hearing and then approving the request for the on sale beer and wine license contingent upon
receiving the license fee and liquor liability insurance. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Miller? Hearing none, we'll proceed with
the public hearing. At this time I would invite interested parties to come forward to the podium.
Please state your name and address and address the council on this matter. Anybody that would
like to comment on the public hearing on this matter? Please come forward now. Okay. Seeing
none we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. I'm assuming
that there are no additional questions based upon the public hearing we just preceded with so I'll
bring it back to council for comments.
Councilman Peterson: Move for approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve the on -sale beer and wine license for CJ's Wine & Coffee Bar at 600 Market
Street, Suite 160 contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor license insurance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIRANCES: AND A
HARRISON, THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE 05-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
N
*WNW
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Justin Larson
Matt Hermann
Dan Herbst
Daren Laberee
Dan Cook
Patti Jo Hermann
Larry Marty
Julie Fuecker
Chris Cowan
Mike & Candice McGraw
Ann & Al Taylor
Stephen Kerkvliet
Gina Sauer
David Senner
Ray Alstadt
Jacqie Daugherty
Cheri & Jim Broughton
0
Westwood Professional Services
3920 Stratford Ridge
7640 Crimson Bay
Westwood Professional Services
Pemtom Land Company
Edina Realty
2117 Lake Lucy Road
6751 Manchester Drive
2412 Highover Trail
2446 Highover Trail
2340 Lake Lucy Road
2201 Lake Lucy Road
2244 Lake Lucy Road
6829 Briarwood Court
2423 Highover Trail
2423 Highover Trail
6927 Highover Court North
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located on the map just off of Galpin and Lake
Lucy, and I'm going to actually talk from the computer. I think at the Planning Commission it
was a little hard for some of the people to see the colored map so we'll be using the computer to
go through in a little bit more detail. Again as I indicated, the subject site has numerous requests
before you tonight. Access is gained via Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. The developer
was challenged with a very complex site as far as rolling topography, wetlands and significant
wooded areas. The Planning Commission did review this application on April 19". They did
recommend approval 6-0. The developer did have a neighborhood meeting and at the original
presentation of the subdivision this street right here was actually shown as kind of an access
drive and not a full street. The staff had recommended to the developer that we believed that the
site should be accessed via Galpin and Lake Lucy. In looking at the overall site in itself, when
we laid Lake Lucy Road, the subdivision out, the staff had recommended in this area here the
connection. Approximately 10 lots on that bluff, and then also Highover Trail, that this street
would come through and connect, but as it works out with the grading and the topography, that
connection didn't seem to make the best sense as far as the impact. As far as the eastern part of
the site, the direction that the city's going with that is the future water treatment site and a park.
As far as the park goes, we gave you an update on that. The Park and Recreation Commission
on April 26`s did review that site and did believe it would be a reasonable site for a park. It has
some very beautiful views up at the top so the Park and Rec Director will be working with the
park commission to develop a plan. As far as the water treatment plant, any public process on
that would come back through the Planning Commission for a public hearing and back to the
City Council, so those are both set for future dates as far as that goes. Again, the connection, this
street via Lake Lucy. The developer of this project actually acquired a piece of property next to
the city's well house to actually gain that access, so that was acquired to make the connection.
As I indicated we originally were hoping to tie into Highover but the grades didn't work. Again
there is some significant impacts on this development, the topography. There is some variances
also being requested. There is a few areas that have 8% grade and I'll go through those in a
minute. One up in this area here, and then another one through here. I have cross sections that
0
City Council Meeting — May005 •
I'll be showing you in just a minute. Again it does abut Lake Harrison, which is a natural
development lake which does require greater setbacks. In addition there was a question about
the OHW. That documentation has been provided and the lots can meet that. Again when
you're next to the lakeshore, the lot requirement, the width is larger and as part of this
development there will be an outlot created so the lots are non -riparian. That's typical on some
of the subdivisions that we have with that anomaly. One of the variances that came up was, and
I'm going to go through a color detail that was presented by the developer. When it went to the
Planning Commission there was some variances asked along Block 2, which I'll go to in a
minute, and then the other significant variance was asked along the back of Highover, which is
this area right back in here. The original proposal that was submitted, there was a cul-de-sac up
in this area here, which is the plan that was originally submitted. In working through with the
Planning Commission it was decided to eliminate that so this is the only part that's a common
drive, or common street. The rest of it is a private drive that would serve the back of Lot 12. At
the Planning Commission meeting the applicant had proposed and showed how a house would
fit on there. They actually put a pretty large house on there, significant in square footage but the
staff felt that was premature. We believe it's a reasonable lot. If you look at what we propose
for a standard home size, which we now kind of look at 72 by 40, it does meet that. It'd be a side
loaded with excellent views looking this way. It can meet that without any variances. So the
variance, since we believe it is a reasonable area for a lot, the question then became for the
Planning Commission and the staff was, does it make sense if you have a buildable area to grant
a variance for 2 homes off of a private drive, so that would be Lot 11 and Lot 12. So this would
be the common portion again, and then this would be the private... feasible way to get to a lot, a
street can go into the bluff. In this case the staff felt it was much more environmentally sensitive
to do the private drive. Therefore we recommended the variance to do that private drive within
that. Again as far as the double fronted lot, there is an outlot that runs along Highover where the
trail is, so there is an outlot so the lots aren't touching each other. I want to go back and show a
little bit ... get to the engineer's comments. The 7% gray area was in here. One of the questions
that the Planning Commission had in this area and I'll show this area here on Lot 4, where they
wanted to push the houses close to that 25 feet. Again there's significant topography here in
order to accomplish that and save as many trees as possible, which was the goal. Was if you
didn't allow the 25 feet, you'd actually be impacting the back of the lot 17 additional feet, so
you'd actually push it further into the trees, and that was the information that the Planning
Commission said was important for them to make a decision on whether or not they would grant
a 25 foot variance, so if I could just shoot back to the plat again. So these lots all along which
are Block 2, would be those lots that they're asking for the 25 foot variance, and that's similar to
what we talked about in Longacres. We've done some of those where we're preserving
significant trees. So that was a request. And then the similar circumstance, and actually it's a
little bit bigger on Lot 7 where you're actually by going, not allowing that small 8% grade in that
area, again the 7% is the ordinance, you're actually pushing back into the trees 54 feet. So staff
supported those recommendations for that specific reason. Again there is wetland impacts and
those would be one in the area of crossing the creek through here, and two isolated ones within
the subdivision. There is a wetland replacement plan. The question raised at the Planning
Commission, and I believe in your letter too, the wetland delineation is being done. The lake
OHW is off by 1/10 from what they originally proposed. Again working with the developer
we're pretty confident that we're going to be very, very close as far as the delineation. They are
doing right now and hope to have those done by Friday. They are a condition of approval so
10
0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
before final plat we would have to review those and approve those. Again any increase in lots
could not be approved but if there was a reason that they had to assemble lots because they
couldn't meet a setback or the like, they can't exceed anything that would be a condition of
approval in the staff report. There are some minor changes that we have outlined that we need to
make some small changes on, which we believe can be accomplished but again I want to go
through the motions that are required for this. It is zoned rural residential. The comprehensive
plan has it guided for low density. Staff, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan so the staff
is recommending approval of that. Again there is a preliminary plat subdivision for 40 single
family lots with the variances and those are conditions are also outlined in the staff report. And
then condition C would be, and that's on page 23, would be for the variances for all of Block 2.
The 25 foot that I just mentioned, and then condition D would be for the wetland impacts. And
with that we do have the findings of fact in the staff report that was approved by the Planning
Commission with that. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Why don't we just start with general questions
for staff and then if you want to get into that, we certainly can. I think we're going to get to
staff's response. The question here is whether we want to get into now a response on a couple of
the letters that we received. I think there was, I'm sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, I think written in my narrative I've discussed a majority of them as
far as the notification, the variance process. Again we've reviewed all that with the city attorney
and believe we're in good standing in all of that. I mean and we have, if you wanted me to
repeat anything for the record but some of the, they're worded a little bit different but some of
them are the same question asked a different way, if that makes sense. So I'd be happy to
answer any of those specifically.
Councilman Lundquist: Do you have Mrs. Paulsen's letter?
Kate Aanenson: I have not seen it.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't you take a look at that and do you want to address that now or give
them some time, at least ... time to review it. And Mrs. Paulsen may or may not want to speak to
that.
Councilman Lundquist: Maybe take a couple minutes.
Kate Aanenson: If you want to let the developer go I can read it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any other, before we go to the developer, questions for staff at
this point? Clarifying questions. Okay. I may have a couple as we get through this but they
might be answered as well so, at this point why don't we go ahead to the applicant. Mr. Herbst,
how are you this evening?
Dan Herbst: Fine.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Good evening.
11
City Council Meeting — May P2005 •
Dan Herbst: Honorable Mayor, members of City Council. Professional staff, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst with Pemtom. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen
and as I get older I need more support staff so I'd like to introduce the group behind me. In
Sergio Garcia green is Justin Larson, a professional engineer and planner with Westwood
Professional Services. On his left is Matt Hermann with Edina Realty, helping us market the
Jerome Carlson home and lot. On his left is Daren Laberee, landscape architect and planner with
Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, partner of mine at Pemtom. On
Dan's left is Patti Jo Hermann with Edina Realty helping us market the site. I just want to touch
on a few things. Kate did a great job of giving you an outline of the property. Some of you have
been on this site. We've had all the staff on the site numerous times. This is a magnificent
parcel of land that Jerome Carlson bought, and Linda a number of years back, along with the
Highover property. Been a wonderful steward of the land. Put some trees on the site. Many
trails. Little maintenance building. Beautiful swimming pool and a house. If you've been in the
house, a magnificent 8,800 square foot soft contemporary home with 4 cars up, 4 cars down.
Heated garage so and that kind of sets the tone for what we're trying to create here. The
property, and it's got many challenges but it's the kind of property I thrive on. It's the kind of
property I like to create some of the great neighborhoods I believe I've created at Trillium Bay
and Eagle Bluff, Crimson Bay, Chime, in Deephaven. On this particular site you've got over 110
foot swings in contours. You've got numerous trees. You've got wetlands. And it has all of the
right ingredients that I like to do to create the kind of neighborhood we're attempting to do here.
So our original vision for the property was you know obviously looking at all existing
conditions, doing the topography map, doing the tree survey, doing the wetlands, you know the
siting the site very carefully and neighborhood, the city had plans for connecting Highover Trail
on the west through the site. Lake Lucy up to the north. There was no connection planned
through there, and there was another connection planned to go into the site at a future date off
Manchester and then the entrance to the Carlson property is off of Galpin Road. And this map
kind of shows where Jerome has put some of the trails in on the site. Maintenance building over
here. Swimming pool, and the entrance to the site, but the entrance to the site was critical to us.
It kind of gave us a wonderful feeling. You come in. You've got a bluff on the right. You've
got a wetland on the left. It brings you in through the site. You've got a 1910 windmill sitting on
the old farmstead site where the turn around is, and then it brings you into the woods into the
site. So that was our vision, to create a magnificent entrance off of Galpin. So we started
looking at various plans, and I think it's important to look at the history of these plans, but as
Kate mentioned, we talked about bringing a street off of Galpin, through the site and then
connecting in through Highover. We did not have access to Lake Lucy at that time. So we
studied that with staff and bringing all that, half the traffic through Highover, the other half off of
Galpin, did not make a lot of sense to us. That plan had 57 lots. Then we moved on to putting a
cul-de-sac off of Highover. Putting a cul-de-sac off of Manchester. Having a small entrance
road coming in off of Galpin and then putting a temporary cul-de-sac through the property with
10 lots here, 10 lots through here, a couple lots here, and the rest of the site, and that particular
plan had 53 lots. Then as we started moving through the site we prepared this plan which was
presented to the neighbors at a public hearing on March 10". And the neighbors were very
actively involved in the site and gave us some good suggestions. Our plan was to do a cul-de-sac
off of Manchester, cul-de-sac off of Highover and then we wanted to use the existing trail as kind
of a fire life safety emergency road and then have a cul-de-sac coming off of Lake Lucy, and
12
• •
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
then we optioned up the Gestach-Paulson lot off Lake Lucy, and then shifted out emphasis to
having two entrances off the site. One off of Galpin, and one off of Lake Lucy. And then as we
got further along in our planning process, we actually submitted this plan to the city. We started
having discussions with your need and the staff need to do a park on this site and a water
treatment facility. So now our great vision of having this beautiful entrance off of Galpin went
away. And now we're looking.
Todd Gerhardt: No, it's still there Dan.
Dan Herbst: Huh?
Todd Gerhardt: It's still there.
Dan Herbst: It's not something that we had in our vision and our plans. Not, wouldn't be my
first, wouldn't be my first plan that I've ever created that would have had a water treatment plant
at it's entrance for the entrance monument but anyway, so now we start adjusting our plans. We
wanted to accommodate the neighbors concern. Not bringing traffic through Highover. We
wanted to accommodate the city's needs for a water treatment plant and a park, and this is the
plan that evolved. And then since the location of the treatment plan and the park facilities are
not designed yet, and you plan, this plan had 47 lots. The plan we are presenting to you tonight,
I believe this plan for park purposes and for the water treatment plant creates an entrance off of
Galpin, creates an entrance off of Lake Lucy, and lots off of Highover and 2 lots on a private
road off of Highover Trail. Then after our Planning Commission meeting, you know the
Planning Commission did a masterful job of picking this plan apart. Looking at all aspects of it
and with staff we went back to the drawing board again and came up with a plan to create only 2
lots off of the trail to eliminate a private road and to just put a driveway with a tum around on the
site. And after the public hearing comments, we'll go into these cross sections but after going
back to the drawing board, comments from the Planning Commission, we were able to create
enough site plan to do a large structure here on Lot 12, and a large structure on Lot 11. And the
lines that you see here is the bluff setback and this is our setback from the 30 foot from the high
line that runs behind the Highover homes. And the only variance that we're going to be required
to do this would be a slight fill on that private drive. And that fill actually creates a positive
impact for all the wetlands that are down below. Right now there's a considerable amount of
drainage that's going back of these homes, down through this ravine and once we are allowed to
fill with a slight variance say over this private drive we could capture all that drainage onto the
private street, and then down into the Highover Trail and capture the storm water through the
NURP ponds. So we can go over those in detail to show the cross sections to the homes. So
basically in summary, this is all private property. It's 60 some odd acres. And this site, if
approved tonight as presented to you, only 24.5, 24.8 acres will be actually not encumbered in
some way. With the public right-of-way of about 6.2 acres. There will be a conservation
easements of 13.8 acres. And there will be a dedication for park purposes of 17.2 acres. And
our density here is less than all of the neighborhoods around us. If we want to go through each
one of the variances that we're requesting, almost every one of them will have a positive impact
on the site. Whether it's saving trees. Whether it's protecting wetlands. Whether it's protecting
drainage. And in the case of the private drive there, and you know I think in all my years of
doing this, I've never had a site that there will be so much land given to the public for putting
13
City Council Meeting —May12005 •
conservation easements on or 62% of the site will be actually either dedicated to the city or have
easements on it... It's a magnificent plan on a great site and our goal is to create one of the
finest neighborhoods here in Chanhassen, and I think the letters that you're going to be
addressing tonight and public comments make it sound like we're pushing the envelope and
trying to do this for economic reasons, and as you can see as I walked you through, all the lot
plans we have here, we have diminished our density here substantially. All the variances we're
requesting tonight in effect actually enhance the site. Trees, drainage, etc. When it's all done, I
think you're going to have a great neighborhood here. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, questions for the applicant. Perhaps just for my help and for people
in the audience here and those watching, and whether Mr. Herbst this is a question for you or
Ms. Aanenson, since the Planning Commission met, approved it with various conditions, what
sort of changes have we seen? One of them for example, with regard to the length of the private
driveway. The private street has been moved back to 11. I think on the pictures that's no longer
a round tum around.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe you can just quickly walk through some of those changes so if people
were at the Planning Commission, or watched there, they can see some of the evolution that's
taken place.
Kate Aanenson: This is the old one. Originally this was a cul-de-sac located up in here. This is
a 30 foot right-of-way as per city code, and the rest of it is a driveway. So that's a big, the
biggest change. There was a cul-de-sac up in this area that impacted so it's outside of the bluff.
It is, this portion is in the bluff impact zone, but again that's a driveway to the one lot.
Mayor Furlong: And is that, in terms of turning around, in case delivery trucks or other vehicles
come down, how does that take place?
Kate Aanenson: That would be taken care of right here. Right, otherwise anybody else going to
this home would tum around in that person's driveway but that would be the common portion at
that point.
Mayor Furlong: So where's the driveway? Where would be the proposed driveway for Lot 11?
Kate Aanenson: The driveway?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It could come off this one or that one. Depending on the home placement. I
just wanted to show the difference between that and the original just to be clear. If you could
maybe zoom in on that one. This one had a cul-de-sac quite a ways up so that we believe
mitigated those impacts. The need for a retaining wall, and that is shown on, I know it's on here.
Did I skip it? Where is the cross section with the retaining wall? Did I miss it? This one, I'm
sorry. So I scaled it. About 160 feet, 150 feet between the houses on Highover and the closest
14
0
City Council Meeting —May 9, 2005
lot. Approximately. This is between the houses. So this is the area we're talking in here would
be where that private drive, would be the retaining wall. That slight portion where we're in this
area. So that's the change.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, coming down off of Highover, in that 30 foot, not there. As I'm
looking at the TV, that way. To the left. Other side.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, that left.
Councilman Labatt: There. That stretch there. Now that's a public mad?
Kate Aanenson: This is, this is what the request for the variance is a private drive, which is
required to be 30 feet, which this is. This portion of the plat, and the rest of it is a driveway. So
this is the portion that's serving more than one lot, and that was the variance request, and again
the staff's position on that was, the staff believes this is a buildable lot. Originally the developer
wanted to get variances on it. We believe it can be met without variances, and if the variances
want to come in, we want to see a specific home plan at a future date. Not something
speculative. That may not meet somebody's needs, so the staff recommended against that, as did
the Planning Commission but they did support a variance for the street. ...a driveway, additional
driveway to come off so it's just the two homes. And again, to go back to your question on the
Paulsen, we believe this meets the code.
Councilman Lundquist: Dan, you've already got the drawings for that house on Lot 12 because
you're building it right?
Kate Aanenson: So that was the one biggest change. And the other one, if I can just go through
those slides again, the other biggest change which was hard to understand at the Planning
Commission level was the impact of those 7% grades. There's 2 or 3 areas that exceeded the 7%
and our recommendation is to only give those, if there's a reason for the impact to the trees. And
while we had a very technical explanation, I think it was.
Mayor Furlong: Second derivative is positive.
Kate Aanenson: I think a picture's worth a thousand words, so they actually try to do it in a
picture format, and as I showed on that Lot 7, which is the I ighover connection. The impact
would be actually 70, 54 feet of additional tree loss because you actually have to make, blend
that dirt down in to make that work. To get to the 7%.
Mayor Furlong: So you're saying by allowing to have an 8% grade versus 7% grade.
Kate Aanenson: In that section, correct.
Mayor Furlong: In that particular section, it's 54 feet of reduced grading and that's what they
would use as part of the condition.
15
City Council Meeting — MayI2005 0
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was one of the 3 variance requests. And that's up in this area, up in
here.
Mayor Furlong: And there are trees along that line?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is heavily wooded, and that's where it's dropping off quickly also
down towards the creek.
Mayor Furlong: Does that become part of the contract, the development contract?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So that by granting this variance we build into the contract the expectation that
that grading and that ... will not occur.
Kate Aanenson: In the conservation easement, correct. Right, right. And that goes back to how
we choose other ones too, that there's an expectation. Someone buying that lot isn't going to go
back later and then want to put a different amenity in their back yard. The goal is to save the
trees.
Mayor Furlong: You said conservation easement. Are we putting a conservation easement from,
or are we just as part of the grading and development?
Kate Aanenson: Well you know, in order to save the trees for the grading, I think there needs to
be expectation that by pushing it for we're getting something and that would be to preserve the
trees, so it should be written in that that would be the, you know to save the trees, that would be.
If we didn't push it forward so the trees could go later.
Councilman Lundquist: So is that part of the conservation easement on the property now?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Lundquist: One of the conditions so that would be written into the development.
Kate Aanenson: It should be a condition, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Condition of this approval or condition of the development contract?
Kate Aanenson: Well it would be with final plat when it comes back, we'll put it in there. And
then the other area which I mentioned was Lot 4, Block 2, I think this... Again just for
clarification, all of Lot 2 which backs up. Sorry, I'm moving these back and forth here. Again
just so everybody's following. In this area here again, dropping off in the back. There is a
retaining wall in the back. Again the goal was to preserve as many trees so for example on Lot
4, by allowing the 20 foot you're actually saving 17 feet of additional trees. By that grading. By
pulling the grading back. And so those were the major changes from the Planning Commission.
And this was their original request. The Planning Commission kind of got it to the technical
16
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
explanation but we're just showing it to you more visually so everybody can understand those
impacts.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, on the conservation easement, the reason we're taking the conservation
easement is if we were to replat the lots, then we'd have to give probably more variances on
setbacks or reduce the lot size?
Kate Aanenson: Well in addition to that, if the expectation is to pull the houses to save the trees,
you don't want someone to come back later and need a Sport Court or a tennis court or
something like that in the back yard because the goal was to push it forward to save the trees.
Todd Gerhardt: Right, because then they'd come in and cut down trees and make more of a back
yard.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Flatten it out to meet their needs so there's an expectation that this
was a different type that once that wooded lot.
Mayor Furlong: And I think a question on that, I mean I certainly can understand if the
developer's coming in saying we want to do an 8% grade versus 7, which is code, 7, so we can
save the trees. I think there's an expectation there that the marketplace wants a wooded lot. I'm
a little concerned these would be conservation easements then across the back of the new lots?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or in the outlot areas?
Kate Aanenson: They would be on the backs of those lots, and there is a retaining wall in the
back, and that'd be similar to the approach we did with Vasserman where they're across the
back. Vasserman Ridge, across the entire back of those lots.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: So is there potential trouble in the future for people wanting decks or
for putting...
Kate Aanenson: No, I think the developer's done a good job looking at his marketing. If you
look at the grading plan, I don't have. One, they put the retaining wall because you know as
we've gotten better at looking at these and as the applicant has as far as approaching their
market, that was one of the reasons they put the retaining wall too in so you created that
demarcation of where the usable area is. So I don't know if you have a copy of that that shows
one with the retaining wall. Yeah, these are always harder to read. But on the backs of, this is
Lot 4 which is the one I showed you where the grading goes down. There is a retaining wall in
the back so again that's kind of that area of saving the trees behind that and allowing some
buildable area behind the back of the house. And again that was another reason why on some of
those, pulling that 25 foot forward gave you some of that, because people want some back yard.
Patio, deck.
Mayor Furlong: What are those, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
17
City Council Meeting— Mayt2005 •
DanHerbst: The site, Kate had mentioned that the site is really deceiving. This pond hereis 20
feet higher than this pond here. So Mr. Carlson placed his home properly up on the site, so now
we're across the street. We're dropping 20 feet from here to here. We're trying to do it not as it
would go down that slope, it's going down very aggressively so if we can raise the grade of the
street and we can move the setback 5 feet forward, we can save those cross section of trees and
still have... This is kind of a gentle grade through here and it's on the north side of that pond
about 20 feet below the grades and then it drops off very aggressively so we want to keep the
houses forward.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and again just go back to some where we've had, like on the back of
Yober y. If you remember we had existing houses we were trying to work with and that's a
complexity here. When you've got an existing house on the site, trying to work the street
elevation across. Kind of sets a benchmark, in this section. Which was their challenge. Any
other questions on changes?
Mayor Furlong: Any others?
Kate Aanenson: I think those are, unless I missed anything, I think those are the major changes
from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: I guess for clarification Kate, in the staff report I think it's right up on page 2,
and this might have been left over from the Planning Commission but it states that the staff does
not support approval of a variance as being requested. Based on what I've heard tonight, I'm
assuming that that statement isn't entirely accurate. Is that left over?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that would be for, we just assumed that they still wanted the variance for
the house, and I believe it was like a 5,000, 7,000 square foot. 10,000 square foot. It was.
Mayor Furlong: For Lot 12?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And that was, and again the Planning Commission concurred that that,
so we still advance that forward, as of their request, but we didn't support it, nor did the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So but, but the Planning Commission's recommendation was to provide
the variance for the 8% grade at the points where it was appropriate.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: For the front yard setback and the private driving, bringing it back to Lot 11.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which is on.
In
0 •
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And then if they did want to, if they wanted to do something that couldn't meet
that, that they would have to apply for a separate variance and they may or may not get it.
Mayor Furlong: Future...
Kate Aanenson: Right. It would give them the discretion to say you have to meet that building
envelope.
Mayor Furlong: And that's staffs position as well?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Given the information we received at the Planning Commission and after.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? The applicant? No? Okay.
At this point I would like to accept some public comments. We did have the full public hearing
at the Planning Commission and all of us have had an opportunity to either watch that meeting or
read the notes, so I would ask that the comments be not redundant and repetitious from the
Planning Commission but certainly invite if there's additional comments or information that
residents or others would like to provide to the council on this matter, I would certainly invite
them forward now at this point. If we can just, we'll follow the guidelines for visitor
presentations and we invite public comment at this time.
Jim Broughton: Again I'm Jim Broughton, 692711ighover Court North. Mr. Mayor and
councilmen. City staff. I've heard a lot of things here and I think in my mind there, we have a
lot of concerns about the way this applicant brought forth the application. There are a number of
variances... I have 34 households that have signed a document saying that they are concerned
about this development. I'm just going to try, and this is very complex I know but I'm going to
try and just go over this briefly to try and just tell you where I think we stand on this. First of all
I think variances should be few and far between. I think the more variances we grant on a piece
of land like this, it makes the code not what it's supposed to really be. Not of the intent of the
code. And my, I would just think why don't we take a beautiful piece of land like this and try
and develop it without all these variances, and I think the reason we're not doing that is
economically based. And the zoning ordinance in Section 20, which is referenced in Section 18
of the, this particular thing it says that a variance cannot be granted for an economic basis. And I
think that's one of the things that I see happening here and I think this piece of land is beautiful.
I think we should preserve it and build houses if we can. But not with all the variances. There's
the bluff encroachment. I believe Kate showed the driveway going across the bluff setback and
the bluff impact zone. A variance is required for that. You can't put a driveway in the bluff
setback or bluff impact zone without a variance. It's not being required here. The private street
needs a variance. The private street will also be in the bluff impact zone, I think and the bluff
setback. That structure that also needs a variance I believe. The street grades. The lot setbacks.
Lot 11, which we haven't talked about. The plan that I've seen there are some structure setbacks
there that aren't being met. There should be a 30 foot structure setback from the street. That's
M
City Council Meeting — Mayf2005 Is
not being met. There's a retaining wall behind that house. I mean I could just show that here.
Can we zoom in on that a little bit? There's a lot line here on Lot 11. This is the retaining wall
behind this house, the way it was proposed, at least what I saw. There's no setback from the lot
line on that retaining wall, and that's a structure and by code that's not allowed. That's a
variance. Retaining wall is encroaching the bluff setback and the bluff. Maybe not quite the
bluff impact zone but that's a variance. The way it's proposed here, the house pad needs to be
set back 30 feet from the street. It's not. It's not 30 feet. That's a variance. So I just want to
point out, and I'm not an expert but I've studied the code because I realize what the impact was
going to be on my neighborhood and so I sort of tried to take charge here and just point some of
these things out. The next point is the applicant was incomplete and rushed I believe. There are
things required in the code for an application that are not in place. I haven't seen any. I could be
wrong but if someone can tell me, that's fine. Soil borings. Soil reports. Other things that are
required in the code for the plat have not been done to my knowledge. And then thirdly there are
serious issues here with the environment. We have wetlands, wildlife, lots of trees coming
down. If you look at the web site, the Chanhassen web site, it talks about how we want to
preserve trees and wetlands, how they're very important. So bottom line here is why don't we
just, why don't we build, you know why don't we build houses and put things in there that meet
the code without all of these variances because there are a lot of them, and a lot of them haven't
been brought forward yet. In my mind. And the bottom line here is this is an economic reasons
why we're doing all these things. Why we're trying to make this such a complex deal. And
really contrary to the spirit of the city code I believe to grant all these variances, I'm opposed to
it. And I guess we're surprised, I'm surprised that the city staff management isn't more thorough
and that they aren't supportive of the spirit of the code. And of course this all got started when I
saw all the trees that were coming down back in my house. I think if you're trying to squeeze 2
houses on those lots, I think it's unusual. It's not a very good thing. In fact my, the guy 2 doors
down from me said he's going to move because he doesn't want those trees to come down
behind him and I understand the trees have to come down when you build a house. In this case
you need a lot of variances. It's a beautiful piece of land. City staff actually has said, I believe
Jill Sinclair wrote the piece that I sent you in the e-mail about any development or problems with
that bluff or grading up there long term is going to have a severe impact on Lake Harrison, and I
think it's fine to make all this happen and grant all these variances but when you actually get in
there and start grading, I think it's going to be not what you'd expect so, than you for hearing all
the comments and thanks for your time and thanks for the e-mails that you read.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you sir. Please come forward.
Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and while
we're on the topic of variances and the environment, I'll just add one additional variance that's
been requested, and it really sort of got I think rushed through at the Planning Commission level
and really wasn't specifically addressed tonight. It's my understand that part of the wetland
alteration permit includes the filling in of 2 ponds to create 2 housing pad sites. And Mr. Herbst
had made the comment earlier that all of the variances that are being requested for the Lake
Harrison development in one way or another will have a positive impact and enhance the site.
And I would just hope that we would be able to look at those 2 ponds in a little bit more detail.
Ask a few more questions and specifically understand how they're going to positive impact the
environment. You may be saying okay, what's a couple ponds? Who cares about a couple
K11
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
ponds and if it was just these 2 ponds in a vacuum, that might be true but I think we have to look
at the overall impact. There has been significant environmental impact in terms of wildlife
habitat and overall change to the environment in this corner of Chanhassen. This spring going
on. The City Council approved the Pinehurst development. I've gotten to listen for the past 2
weeks to 11 acres of trees coming down. It's not a nice sound. We're going to have a new
housing development between Longacres and Highover. So this is the third one. This is really
the City of Chanhassen's last opportunity as the last presenter sort of pointed out, to take a stand
and say when we are faced with a decision we're going to make an environmentally sound
decision. So in that respect 2 little ponds may be is a little bit bigger deal. I'd like to make a
procedural comment about that as well. It's my understanding from the Planning Commission
that the guideline that is followed when a variance is requested is what kind of a hardship is
going to be caused if the variance is denied, and again that was sort of rushed through at the
Planning Commission level. The only real discussion about these 2 pieces of wetland, the 2
ponds were a question, why did they need to be filled in and the response from the developer
was, well we're not filling in the big ones so we're going to fill in the small ones. That doesn't
really seem like a sound justification because I think that the City Council probably would not
allow the very large bodies of water on this property to be filled in so it's really not an issue of a
trade off. And more significantly, there wasn't any hardship that was specifically addressed so
again I would hope that we could get into a little bit more detail about that tonight and consider
that more fully. Finally, if the environmental aspects of this don't appeal to anybody, I guess I
would just appeal to the City Council's sense of duty to future homeowners. I understand these
are going to be big, beautiful homes. Million dollars plus some of them and I just wonder what it
would feel like to be a perspective buyer of a million dollar home walking through with a real
estate agent and ask, you know what are we sitting on here? Corn fields? No, we're sitting on a
couple of ponds. I'm not sure how I would feel about that house, so again I would just like to
see a little bit more detail and a little more investigation and not rush that issue through tonight.
So thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate, just point of clarification. We've had some comments
already and I will accept more public comments so that's fine, but to address some of these
issues that have come up. Specifically with those last comments. The ponds and the proposed,
is that part of one of the variance requests or is that just part of the mitigation.
Kate Aanenson: No. It's a wetland alteration permit and our wetland, or Water Resource
Coordinator has a very detailed report on the wetlands and their existing condition. And every
wetland alteration permit, one of the things you look at is how is it being used. Is it isolated?
What we always try to do is look at it as a place that we can enhance. Maybe save a better
wetland. Every project loses some trees and there's isolated wetlands that cannot be saved based
on a project so we don't save every little pocket, and Lori Haak, who is our Water Resource
Coordinator did do a thorough job looking at what they were impacting and making that
decision. Did that seem reasonable so staff believes that again, looking at the layout of the
project and providing those opportunities of larger areas instead of individual fingers, that's a
very reasonable approach. And then if I can just comment on the preservation of the natural
features. Again the reason why there is variances on all of Block 2, we can eliminate those
variances but then it impacts greater tree loss. So the reason for the variances was to preserve
the natural features. If we say we're not going to grant those, then those areas where I showed
21
City Council Meeting — May •
the additional 54 feet or additional 17 feet, there's actually more tree loss. So it's that balance of
compromising to preserve something, so again that was the rationale on that. And if the street
issue, I'm not sure that people are still understanding what the rules are on that as far as a
variance request. Those are two buildable lots. Yes, there will be a retaining wall in there. A
street, if you read the continuation of the city ordinance as cited it says if there's no other
feasible way to get through there, that's where the staff recommended the common portion of the
drive and then separate driveway to the back to eliminate that impact. Again preserving natural
features.
Mayor Furlong: So the variance to go with the private street is in lieu of a public road.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. To save the natural features, because you could put a private
street, I mean a public road in. The mad says if there's no other feasible way to get there then, so
that's why we recommended. We think it's more sensitive to do the variance, again similar to
what we have all of Block 2. We think that preserves the natural features.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess to follow up on a couple other items that I've already heard.
Let me just clarify. There was the issue about retaining walls and private drives. Are those
structures in conjunction with the ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. The retaining wall can go in there on the, because it's part of the street
and the home, the one additional one on the home. Again, depending on how the home
placement comes in on that, that's again, and they showed a lot buildable area but
again... carefully on that to see how that home is sited and obviously you want to minimize that
as would the developer minimizing that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the setback, the 30 foot setback, is that required from a private street?
Kate Aanenson: It meets the 30 foot.
Mayor Furlong: Oh it does.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Or it can meet it, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, for clarification on this. This isn't a preliminary or final plat.
Kate Aanenson: It is preliminary. So it has to come back for final plat, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So to show all of those at that point would then have to have show all of
the setbacks as well on that final plat.
22
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Right, we did make a recommendation on a couple of tweaks but yes,
everything would have to be, all the storm water calc's and all that would be required.
Councilman Lundquist: These are drawn as rough building pads.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and construction plans. All of that, cuts and fills are evaluated to make
sure that we're still within that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other public comment this evening? Good evening sir.
A] Taylor: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, and staff. My name's A] Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy
Road. Right across from the well house and right across from the exit from this subdivision. I
wanted to address two concerns that I had that were not adequately addressed at the Planning
Commission meeting. I tried to set up a meeting with a member of the Planning Commission
meeting and the city engineer. That meeting has not taken place. The staff member
subsequently left and I had no other recourse but to address you. My concern centers around the
exiting onto Lake Lucy Road and the traffic concerns that I have with that. I have two concerns.
One of them is the traffic on Lake Lucy Road. The road between 41 and Galpin is not designed
to be a 30 miles an hour road, although that's the posted limit. It's a very wide road. The
developer stated at the last meeting that the road is not designed for that type of speed limit.
People take that road faster. Those of us who live on Lake Lucy Road know that. There are
enforcement problems with the speed on Lake Lucy Road. If you look at where the exit is... If
you look at the exit right here, we're coming around a curve right here from 41 and you have a
clear sight vision of about 4 seconds worth of time at 30 miles an hour of cars coming from the
west. Going to the east towards Galpin, and we have a heck of a time just getting out of our
driveway, and my belief is there's going to be some potential incidence for cars trying to exit
onto Lake Lucy Road, looking for cars coming from the west. I don't believe that's been
adequately addressed. From a personal standpoint, the other thing is that that road happens to
exit right across from my driveway, so not only do I have the adventure of getting across Lake
Lucy Road when I try to back out of my driveway, I now have to look at an intersection of
people coming from this development. I've asked if that road could be moved to the east, and I
believe there's problems with a well house. So my concerns center around, I understand the
developer's need to make a profit. He's in it for risk reward but he is in it for a profit. But I
don't want to see safety sacrificed as a result of that. And I would like some mechanism to
review with the traffic engineer of taking a look at what that situation looks like, and I would
recommend that we have that study done before this is approved.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can at least, given that you weren't able to talk to
staff, Mr. Oehme do you want to address the issue of the location, sight lines, access point.
Paul Oehme: Yeah. Mr. Taylor brought up a couple points that my assistant did share with me
on this plat and we did read through some of the stop sight distances and we did look at access
points and line of sight at the current location for this development on Lake Lucy Road. And
just based upon our site analysis and stop sight distance that we calculated, we feel that the
access point currently is located sufficiently for Lake Lucy Road. It is posted 30 miles an hour.
23
City Council Meeting — May12005
n
U
It's Lake Lucy Road is a somewhat wide street and we feel that that speed limit is adequate for
that area, and the sight lines for the new development will be adequate as well.
AI Taylor: Can I address council again?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Al Taylor: I think the council stated, or the staff reported that that's a 30 miles an hour, but I
don't believe that is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road. Especially in the area between Galpin
and 41. Again the road is wide. It encourages speed and I believe the sight lines at 40 miles an
hour are considerably lower in timing. So I think there's an enforcement issue of the speed on
Lake Lucy Road. We've had several complaints. We've complained about the speed on Lake
Lucy Road. There's limited enforcement and it's not been effectual.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we have the enforcement issue and I guess just clarification on the
sight lines. Is there a difference coming in from the, using a non -engineering term, the outside of
that curve on Lake Lucy? Cars coming off of this development are coming from the outside so
they'll have the view this way versus being on the inside I think where Mr. Taylor is.
Paul Oehme: Right, they actually have better sight lines on the south side of Lake Lucy Road
than they would have on the north side.
Mayor Furlong: And if it worked at 30, did it work above 30 or was it right at 30 or?
Paul Oehme: We looked at it 30 and I believe 35 too and in both instances it was adequate. You
know and again it's posted for 30 miles an hour. If speeds are above 30 miles an hour that's part
of an enforcement issue we're trying to maintain our city standards.
Councilman Lundquist: Which part of Lake Lucy are we narrowing this year? Is that in that
section or is that further down?
Mayor Furlong: East of Galpin.
Councilman Lundquist: East of Galpin. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide public comment?
Just stay close.
Larry Marty: Lary Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. Mr. Mayor, council members, city staff.
Thank you for your time and your diligence on this. I do appreciate that. I do also appreciate the
insight about the variances and what not and the fact that by increasing it from a 8% to 7% that
we are saving more trees. Less impact from that so I do appreciate those types of things. I did
send an e-mail to the council previously and I guess just in reiterating a couple of key points that
I saw. That I guess I believe really still haven't been addressed or I'd like to see addressed better
before we approve this development. The first is just with the bluff setback. If we're able to
have buildable lots that are accessible through the form of streets, private drives, without impact
24
i •
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
to the bluff, then I guess I'm okay with it but I'm still not convinced that we're doing that and
when I walk that ridge and I look at where the homes are today and I look at where the power
lines are, and I look at the trees that are there on that bluff that will be taken out, I really question
our ability for two lots to do what we're asking to do. With the roads there and the private drive.
Second of all, is dealing with the wetlands and the delineation. I understand we're trying to
accelerate things to understand what the OHW report is. The key that I guess I struggle with
here is the O in OHW is ordinary high water. When I first lived or built my home here, a little
over 7 years ago, 8 years ago now, there was a lot more water back in the wetlands and the area
behind my house there that abuts to the Carlson property. Because of the development, because
of the changing of streams, because of the ponds that have been created and diverted, that is no
longer what I would deem, and I think what a lot of the DNR would now classify as a wetland,
so I'm concerned even about some of that land potentially at the risk for development in the
future because somebody now doesn't believe it's a wetland. Doesn't meet 3 criteria of
hydrology and plant life in order to support that. Even tonight we heard about how the bluffs
and the grading will, and the ponding on the top side of the Highover side will prevent water
runoff down to Lake Harrison and to the wetlands down below. And that was viewed as a
positive. I don't see that as a positive. I see that as a big negative in that these wetlands will be
impacted and will be impacted negatively. This area supports an extreme amount of wildlife and
I guess I'm concerned. Even yesterday there were 9 deer that came down Lake Lucy, almost
caused an accident and this was coming down from the Pinehurst development where we're
already cutting the trees now, so the deer are already trying to find new ways to navigate through
this area. We're going to develop the land, I understand that. I was a big part of this
development to begin with when I built my home here, but I'm real concerned about the wildlife.
Where it's going to go. And I think we should also consider that and understand the impact that
that's going to have for the city as far as complaints of potential deer/car accidents, etc.. The
last concern also echo's the traffic element on Lake Lucy. This road is a collector road. I
understand that. We've talked about speed. We've talked about enforcement being a part of the
project... program. To try and control speed to step up enforcement, and I understand it is an
enforcement issue, but that has, we've done what, I think all that we can do. We've put up signs.
We've had the speed trailer. We've had the Carver County Sheriff sit out there on Father's Day
Sunday and monitor traffic. And none of that has helped so that's why I'm concerned that we're
adding another development. We're putting the entrance to a road that is in a challenging spot
with the existing speed. I also happen to have the situation of having a shared driveway. I have
a challenge that I have to look for where my neighbor is backing out of his driveway before I get
onto Lake Lucy. I'm backing out at an angle so it's difficult to see traffic in both directions
easily, and we're increasing the traffic. The speed is likely to increase or stay at the higher levels
rather than decrease. And we have a number of developments in the area around us, with the
Pinehurst development as well as some of the other ones. So I'm concerned that with this traffic
we're making an enforcement, a greater enforcement issue. Greater challenges for the traffic
without any concern or a plan for really handling that. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ray Alstadt: Good evening. My name is Ray Alstadt. I live at 2423 Highover Trail. I want to
take a moment too and thank the council. I was part of the Yoberry group, or I was involved in
the Yoberry proceedings and we all appreciate your support of our alternatives from the
25
City Council Meeting — May12005 •
Highover group to offer the cul-de-sacs and we're welcoming 15 year neighbors and that's
terrific but, I guess first of all I'd like to address that the variances that are being offered, I had
one on Lot 9 and could we see that drawing. I just had a quick look at it with Jim and it looked
like there were huge retaining wall behind that.
Kate Aanenson: Is that Lot 11?
Ray Alstadt: I'm sorry, 9. On the top, right. And I have a drawing... It sure looked like a huge
variance there would have to be granted to allow 9.
Kate Aanenson: This has been revised. There is a retaining wall...
Ray Alstadt: Okay. Okay, so this wall is gone now?
Kate Aanenson: No, it still exists to a lesser extent.
Ray Alstadt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that's the one that we're saying, just to be clear again those are ones that
we want to see the custom home plans on to minimize those off those, of this area. Again that
street has changed. Homes on I1 and 12 for that retaining wall.
Ray Alstadt: Thank you. So I guess that's, I was just trying to address that. Thank you very
much. I think that answers some of it. I also heard the comment 30 feet several times tonight
and I guess the, for the mad that's going to go in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The right-of-way needs to be 30 feet. Typically they're not paved to
that wide, and then the driveway, just meet the minimum for the driveway.
Ray Alstadt: So the mad that will be on the other side of the existing fence will be a 30 foot
wide road?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Ray Alstadt: 12 foot driveway?
Kate Aanenson: As you're looking at a private road...
Ray Alstadt: That's perfect. That's perfect. This is new to me so forgive me.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. I'll give you this. This part right here, this is ... common. This portion
right here. That's the 30 foot right-of-way. This portion here. After that it becomes a 12 foot
driveway. And what we're saying what the Planning Commission recommended and the staff is
saying when they get a specific home plan, we believe it can meet if they come back and they
want a variance, there's no guarantee they get a variance. That's their risk. So if the Planning
Commission, obviously they could appeal that to the City Council to decide at that time whether
26
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
or not that met the minutes so this would be the 12 foot portion. Again, we separated the closest
house and I believe it's about 160 feet was probably the closest house?
Dan Herbst: 114...
Kate Aanenson: Okay, 170 that's what I scaled off. Okay, the separation.
Ray Alstadt: Now I'll go back to this if I may. This is my home right here. My walkout is on
the east side of that. So if what I'm hearing correctly, this is a 30 foot road.
Kate Aanenson: The right-of-way is. The pavement part is only 20 feet.
Ray Alstadt: So this is a 20 foot wide road.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Ray Alstadt: That's correct, okay. I have a little problem with that because I know I am a
distance from here. A fairly substantial distance, but why do we need this turn around point?
Kate Aanenson: That's a recommendation so, for the common drive. That if somebody goes
down the wrong way that they have a place to back out without going all the way down oops,
and got the wrong address. Fire Marshal also likes to see a secondary, as does engineering.
Ray Alstadt: Okay. And will that be marked private drive, private road?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Ray Alstadt: It will be?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. We can make that a condition.
Ray Alstadt: I guess that's it, other than in closing to say there is, I agree with a lot of people
that have been speaking tonight. There is a lot of wildlife in that area and I think we should be
very careful of that. Once this property is gone, it's a beautiful piece of property. Once it's
gone, it's gone. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Mike McGraw: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, planning staff, I'm Mike McGraw. I live at 2446
Highover Trail. I talked to Bob Generous early last week and he mentioned that the intention is
to clear cut all the trees along Lots 10 and 11, beginning east of the power line to the front half of
both of those lots. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: I'm not familiar with that conversation Bob would have with you. Again when
you do a driveway, and I'd let the developer address how they intend to put the driveway in but
typically that's something you do a walk through and try to, there may be areas that the driveway
27
City Council Meeting — May 2005
0
snakes, if that makes sense. If there's a significant tree you want to save. I think that's kind of
what they're trying to do to get the amenity. I don't want to speak for the developer but it's
typically what you do to preserve the value of that. That you would snake that driveway in to
save the tree.
Mike McGraw: Okay, well then I'd like to make my statement. It sounds like there's a
possibility it might be. Clear cutting would directly expose the power lines and the supporting
towers which would not contribute to the natural beauty of this property and neighborhood. And
there was an article in our local paper about a week ago really explaining the natural beauty of
Chanhassen. The trees that are currently there, that are targeted to be clear cut are a nice mix of
young and mature birch, maple, basswoods, and oaks that dramatically soften the power lines
and existing supporting structure. The developer is saying that he will replace a small fraction of
these trees with nursery stock, start up trees that I think 99% of us won't live long enough to see
them even come close to the growth and height that those current trees have. So what would be a
better plan? I think a better plan would be not to disturb the trees that are just, that butt right up
to the power line on the east. Create a moderate strip of trees closest to the power line, all the
way along Lots 10 and 11, with a depth to be determined after we look at elevation maps.
Wherever we put a road or a driveway along Lots 10 and 11, we're going to lose trees. There's
no question about that. So I think the issue is to pick the place that maintains the natural beauty
and property and preserves that for the neighborhood. So what are the pluses and minuses of
what I'm proposing as an alternative plan? First the minus side. The only minus that I can think
of is that we may, may increase the height of the slope by moving that road farther east. But
we're already going to need a boulder wall in there and I think if we have to add another layer to
that just to save the trees on the, up to the power lines, would be a good decision. Erosion should
not be a factor. I think if the wall is engineered correctly, I think we have probably the longest
and highest boulder wall at the comer of Lake Lucy Road and I ighover Drive in the State of
Minnesota. And that has been there for 7 years and there's no sign of erosion there. Now for the
positives. The new owners of Lots 10 and 11, if we move that road, driveway in a bit will have
dense trees on both sides of the driveway, which will serve as a natural barrier or an natural
barrier for both noise and a buffer for the visual high line and supporting structure. The existing
residential I ighover will continue to have the dense trees to look at as a natural part of their
neighborhood, and also probably concealing somewhat the high line that is there. I think the
existing trees also will, on the western side of the road if we move it in, will actually help to
prevent soil erosion and prevent wash out's to that road. And then finally I think that barrier also
would be habitat for the wildlife inbetween the two neighborhoods. So in summary, I'm asking
to preserve the existing natural beauty of Chanhassen and move the entrance access to Lots 10
and 11 farther east of the power line than it's present intended location. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just add to that?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Kate Aanenson: I would agree with everything he stated and I think the developer would too. In
looking at the location of the driveway, as we move through here, obviously looking at where the
28
9 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
significant trees and I think between now and if the council were to go in the direction of
preliminary plat, between now and that and then final, we would look at again the right-of-way is
30 feet, of siting that within that, the best location... I just also wanted to point out, while we're
working hard to preserve the trees, Xcel is looking at additional voltage on that line through
there to get to the southern end of the city and to service Chaska for additional power, so they
were out this spring. Some of you, or this fall as some of you may know, they were out
surveying that line so there may be some other removal on that, so we're taking that into
consideration with this too, but I think certainly working with the significant tree and we can put
the driveways around it, that would be a good goal.
Mayor Furlong: And just for visual understanding, underneath the power line right in that area
there's a fence that says private property. That's the property line and so, further behind that
fence is part of the easement for the power lines?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Or is the easement for the power lines contained all within the outlot?
Kate Aanenson: It's hard to see on the exhibit...
Dan Herbst: Here's the property line. Project property line of Mr. Carlson in the outline. This is
the easement. The power line is here. This is the easement, 30 feet on each side, so nothing can
be built within that easement. As far as structures. Basically the whole graphic I think I just
want to clarify because it's a better graphic than we had at the Planning Commission but the buff
line here shows where the bluff is on this site. Nothing is being accomplished in the bluff except
for a slight fill there to make that driveway work. The blue line is the bluff setback, where it
says no impact. Within 20 feet nothing is being done as far as structures, except for this private
road. The yellow line is the building setback, 30 feet from the bluff line and all of our homes
will be, because there was a lot of discussion about Lot 11. There is nothing on the retaining
wall or the home pad that will be near the bluff impact zone. So the only thing that's requiring a
slight variance on this entire plan as far as bluff setback and bluff impact is this driveway, which
will be a 12 foot wide driveway. There will be no trees removed between any of these
residences and the power line. Nothing will be done.
Audience: That's not your property.
Dan Herbst: No, but I remember there was a discussion that we were going between the, as far
as visibility of the power. So nothing is going to be disturbed in there and the question of
drainage off of, you know if you understand the storm water drainage, what the storm water
people don't want is they don't want lawn fertilizer and drainage coming down off these lawns,
going down into the wetland. So this will be picking up storm water on the private drive, on the
road. Putting it into the storm water system. Putting it into NURP ponds before they go into the
wetland. So basically those two lots are in full compliance with all of your codes and all of the
ordinances, there will be no building in the bluff impact zone, but we are asking for a fill for that
driveway within that line.
29
City Council Meeting — May12005 0
Mayor Furlong: And just a question with regard to, I think it was Mr. McGraw's comments in
terms of starting at the property line, Mr. Herbst and going back in. That's where the chain link
fence is now, is that correct?
Dan Herbst: Yes, and if we can do that, by all means.
Mayor Furlong: Then I guess the question is, is that something you'd be willing to work with
staff on to try to leave a buffer of trees there between that and the...
Dan Herbst: Trees are my friend. Every time one goes down I have to replace it, and it also
appreciates my market value so anything we can do to save trees will be done.
Mayor Furlong: And we've got some flexibility within the right-of-way as well as the...
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I just want to be clear again we're in the power easement and there
are restrictions, and I just want to make sure that's on the record. We definitely want to work
with them.
Mayor Furlong: Within our opportunities to create a buffer there if possible.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, yep.
Dan Herbst: Okay. Then a question about getting our homework done about reports not being,
everything that's required of your ordinance is more that's been done. Surveys, topography, tree
surveys, geotechnical, wetlands, work with the DNR, work with staff, so that's all available and
something we have to have. Something you have to have, so there's no shortcutting has been
done here whatsoever.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other public comments? Something that we haven't
heard at the Planning Commission or this evening.
Audience: Can I make one more?
Mayor Furlong: Is it a new issue?
A] Taylor: It centers around another suggestion for exiting from the area. Which would go back
to the developer's original plan to exit off of Galpin. My belief is, if you do your traffic study,
the clear line of sight from both of those areas, north and south, are considerably longer than
what they are on Lake Lucy Road. It's 11 seconds to 13 seconds coming from the south to the
north and it's about 7 or 8 seconds coming from Lake Lucy/Galpin intersection from the north.
And I believe that's a safer mechanism than what we're doing on Lake Lucy Road. However, I
believe what changed that was the fact that you're going to put a water treatment plant where
they planned to put that exit and I believe that's more economically driven than safety driven.
Just want to mention that to the City Council for further consideration.
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple more comments.
Jacqie Dougherty: Good evening. I'm too short. I realize that a few of the points that I have
here will be considered to be redundant but I think they bear repeating just because I would like
you to know how important it is to not only myself but my neighbors. My name is Jacqie
Dougherty and my address is 2423 Highover Trail. As a neighbor who's property adjoins the
Carlson property, I'm in agreement with everyone who has stated that this is a unique and special
place. As staff reported it is 62 acres, the majority of which are mature trees. It has a lake, bluff
areas, and wetlands and is home to deer, pheasants, fox, coyote, possum, owls, hawks, ducks,
geese, numerous song birds and of course the infamous turkeys. They visit all of our yards. It's
been kept in park like condition and is literally alive with nature. Before us tonight is a proposal
that would reduce tree canopy cover on this property by two-thirds. It would fill in wetlands,
impact bluff areas and destroy animal habitat. Combine this with all of the other developments
that are going on in the Lake Lucy Road area between Galpin and Highway 41 and you'll see
that nature is literally being squeezed out of our town. Once these resources are gone or
damaged, they are gone for good. No amount of 2 I/2 inch trees will replace them. You may feel
that this is the price one pays to grow our city and that these comments are merely sentimental
rhetoric, but it is my purpose here to encourage all of the involved and make very careful choices
and take a more sensitive approach to the development of this property. Pemtom has stated in a
letter we received from them in February that they take great pride in creating unique
communities. I agree that Trillium Bay is one of the most beautiful in the Twin Cities area. The
trees were preserved. The topography respected and minimum environmental impact was made.
The other developments I visited were not treated as such and were no more special than any
other in the area. The Carlson property is the perfect opportunity to make another Trillium Bay.
Currently the plans before us don't show us that. Don't make a mistake where you could make a
masterpiece. In closing I would ask that you take a long careful look at this proposal. If you
haven't done so already, go out and tour the property and consider what is going to be gained or
lost here. Don't allow impact to the bluffs and wetlands for the needless cutting of trees just
because it's easier and cheaper to go in with a bulldozer rather than work around the existing
trees. Lots 11 and 12 and the private road off Highover Trail are particularly troublesome as
they impact all of the above mentioned items as well as encroach on their neighboring homes.
Once this development is done, Pemtom, Lundgren will move onto their other projects. It is the
neighbors who surround this area who will have to live with the results. I hope that this is
something that we can all be proud of. I thank you for your time and your consideration and
manner. I'd also like to say that I think Mr. McGraw's comments were very good. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is it a new comment? I'd like to try to get moving here.
Jim Broughton: Yes it is. I'd just like to say that I went to the City, I asked Bob on the staff if
he had the soil boring reports that were required for the pre -plat and he said, no. He didn't have
those yet so I don't think everything was there, just for the record. I want to make that comment.
Also I believe on Lots 8 and 9 in Block 1, the topography there is questionable whether those are
also bluffs. I measured the distances and I think we may be, I just want to ask the question of
staff if they evaluated Lots 8 and 9. I think the slope is 30% or more. It's close but it's 30%. I
think those also qualify as bluffs and the proposal is to build 2 homes on those. Thank you.
31
City Council Meeting — May 2005
Kate Aanenson: It has to be 30%. Well, in our evaluation it wasn't. If it's 29.9, as the City
Attorney stated, and I don't know what they are off the top of my head, what the slope is, it
would qualify so, and we do have, as someone pointed out, in Highover there's significant,
throughout the city, and we do look at those really carefully. There was a time when we just
only looked at those on the southern end of the city and we made a conscience effort to apply
that ordinance city wide.
Audience: I don't think Highover's pertinent to this development.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Last one.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I wish to talk
specifically about Lot 11. Well this lot is approached by a private street and private streets
according to code, Chapter 20-615 is supposed to have the front lot line measured from the
public street. The lot line closest to the public street, and that is the lot line running east and
west. The delineation of the bluff, it doesn't look to me like you have a 30 foot front yard from
the front lot line and I was wondering how you wish to address that.
Kate Aanenson: I believe it does. Disagree.
Janet Paulsen: And how do you believe it does?
Kate Aanenson: You can let the engineer.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe the developer can show us.
Daren Laberee: My name is Daren Laberee. I work for Westwood Professional Services. I'm a
landscape architect and planner. It's not a public road. It's a private road and all the setbacks
are from public right-of-way. What we have here is a private drive easement. You see the lot
lines are darken black here. This is the same ... we used in Pinehurst where this is not right-of-
way. This is not an outlot. These are within these two lots and there's an easement for cross
access along this private road. The front yard setback would be from this lot line, 30 foot which
is actually, we are 20 foot from back of curb which is the same standard we used in the
Pinehurst, which is adequate for parking and driveway and not blocking a street. The setback is
actually from right here, the property line is way exceeds 30 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Plus you can move that building pad back further.
Janet Paulsen: Well I beg to differ. The lot line that's the front is this lot line. It has to be
measured from the public street that they determine what the front lot line is. This is the side lot
line. This is the back lot line. You have to have 30 feet in front, 30 feet in back. The bluff
doesn't allow that so you need a variance. Does anybody have a code book here? You can
check it. Chapter 20-615.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any comments?
CN
• •
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Roger Knutson: I would have to measure things for myself to satisfy myself but staff has looked
at it, but there's no variance requested so none is being, on the setback. Am I correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Roger Knutson: So they'll have to meet what the code is. They'll have to move the building pad
if necessary, but apparently staff has looked at it and they disagree with that interpretation. But
if that were true, then you just have to move the building pad. You're not approving building
sites here tonight.
Mayor Furlong: So they would have to follow the ordinance.
Roger Knutson: Yes. We're not giving them any deviation from the ordinance, explain it in that
respect.
Audience: Mr. Mayor, can I just make one more comment?
Mayor Furlong: I really would like to go on. This is a courtesy we provide the public comment
here. I'm not trying to cut people off but at the same time we can keep going and going so, you
know I think it's important we've had a lot of issues in addition to what we've heard tonight.
Again we've heard everything that was offered at the public hearing as well, at the Planning
Commission so.
Audience: Thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for your consideration. I guess at this point we've had a lot of
issues. We've had some questions answered throughout. Is there any questions or follow-up
questions for staff at this point? Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Can you just refresh my, it's a 60 acre parcel and what. Huh?
Councilman Peterson: 62.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: 62 acre parcel. I'm sorry, refresh my memory. What is the actual
number of acres that are being built on? And what is being preserved?
Kate Aanenson: I'd have to look it up real quick in my notes.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: Sorry. I thought someone gave me those numbers earlier. I didn't
write them down.
Councilman Labatt: 22 acres.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It's 22 acres out of the 62 that are being developed?
33
• •
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Dan Herbst: The total site is 62 acres, as was mentioned. The bluff indicates right-of-way,
there'd be 6.2 acres of right-of-way. The conservation easement will be 13.8 acres, which is the
magenta color. And then all of this land, outlot, 17.2 acres will be dedicated to the city as
parkland.
Mayor Furlong: Could you, Mr. Herbst could you put that chart back up there?
Dan Herbst: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: On the conservation. Upside down. Okay. The lot lines, especially along what
will be the extension of Highover Trail. Those lot lines basically come up to the point of the
conservation easement, is that correct? The back lot lines.
Dan Herbst: These are going right for the back of the lot lines through here.
Mayor Furlong: Is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Dan, you're not showing the conservation easement that would be on the
individual's property though.
Dan Herbst: Not through here but we do have, on the back of these lots, the OHW, that's
probably going to be an outlot versus the back of the lot lines so.
Kate Aanenson: Just to answer, it would go up further into those lots.
Mayor Furlong: And where is that in the conditions? And I guess I want to be clear because you
know in terms of providing the variances, especially in these lots.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what needs to be to preserving the trees through a
conservation easement.
Mayor Furlong: We can hold the developer to the tree preservation as part of the grading plan,
correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. The conservation easement is taken on the individual property owners.
Dan is showing in the, I call it purple area, is an outlot that would be dedicated back to the city.
The conservation easement will be owned by the property owner and that property owner will
not have any rights to clear cut or cut any of the trees in the conservation easement area.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I didn't see that and I thought maybe I missed it.
Kate Aanenson: I think the appropriate nexus for that would be under the variance that says, as a
part of the variance the 25 foot, that there be tree conservations be placed on those lots.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess what I'm looking for, and maybe we're getting into comments and
I'd be interested in my fellow council members opinion, is clearly the developer's asking for a
34
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
variance on the street grade. We should hold them to account in terns of the tree preservation
with their grading plan. But then to further impose a permanent conservation easement on a
future property owner, that's where I trip a little bit there. Just in terms of property rights for
those property owners as well. We hold the developer, the developer's putting in, and I guess
that's my question Kate. Didn't see that in here.
Kate Aanenson: It's not in here and I think if you look through the construction plans, look at
them more closely, you know we've got, further iteration of the impact of the grading. That we
also look at that and what's a reasonable pad for that as part of the final plat and proposals,
conservation easements on those lots, and we would review those on those individual lots as a
part of the final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I guess, clearly I think there can be, having not seen that I guess that
would be something that would have to be looked at.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think in the gross sense it is on the site plan, if you follow the grading
limits. What you don't have is the instrument to convey that and that would be in an easement
document that would we would then approve.
Mayor Furlong: If there's a desire to put that easement over the individual private property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: We've got the conservation easement on the, in the outlot areas and in the large
preservation.
Kate Aanenson: That would be correct.
Mayor Furlong: Areas already. That's coming.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Anything that would be in the bluff protection area, that would be a no
touch anyway or the wetland, correct.
Mayor Furlong: And that makes sense.
Kate Aanenson: Those areas that go beyond that, and what the developer showed you was those
minimum areas and it's that additional property, the wooded area.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I'm ... not in there because I didn't see it so.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can talk about that. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Based upon comments received or other information.
35
0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
0
Councilman Lundquist: Kate back to the other list from Mrs. Paulsen. On her questions 1
through 8.
Kate Aanenson: The OHW that we received from the DNR, we did receive a letter 993.6. What
they originally showed in their plan was 993.5 so we have reviewed all those calculations for the
house setbacks. Those lots that abut the, and I think the rest of them were kind of encumbered in
the street issue. The definition of a private street, private drive...
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But you feel like that we're within interpretation to meet all of
those?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. I think we respectfully agree to disagree.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not, let's open discussion. We've got a
number of issues here due to the development that's clearly going through, has some challenging
effects but has some opportunities as well so I guess I'm interested in my fellow council
members comments. Councilman Peterson, would you like to start?
Councilman Peterson: Sure. It's nights like these where this high paying job is a little
frustrating. You know when I first heard that this property was going to be developed, I was
concerned about the ability to retain the feeling and the general ambience that Mr. Carlson has
maintained over the years and really built. And I actually expected a lot more density than 1.35
acres. Which I was very pleased to see that that the density was that low. I think that is a
testament to the developer being sensitive to all the issues that were brought up by the citizens
tonight. I think we've talked a lot about the variances that are here, and when I was prepping for
the meeting this week, I was, I saw the variances as being minor in nature. Relatively speaking.
Relative is really an important word there. Relatively the variances are minor. And they are
done for the right reasons and I truly don't think that they're economic because at the end of the
day everything is about economics when you're developing property but the density that this is
low, and the variances were to save the trees and to save the general feeling of that
neighborhood, which I think is a huge positive. I also heard a lot about the wildlife and we hear
about that with every development and chances are the wildlife that is in this area now was in the
area that the people that are talking about it tonight, they were probably, the deer were probably
laying in that building pad before a house was built so everything is contracting and we can't
really do a lot about the fact that the land owner has a right to develop and our obligation is to
develop that and guide that development in proper fashion that we want our city to do. And
through the comprehensive plan so you know, I wish the city could afford to write a check and
keep that 60 some acres of parkland. We can't. So that means we have to develop it in the most
sensitive fashion possible. In summary, I'm pleased with the development. I think that the
variances are small and appropriate. I think everything that's been brought up tonight, the
developer seems to be amenable to working with staff by working with the neighbors to continue
to improve it as we get to final plat so, I'm looking forward to the final plat being a sensitive, to
that particular environment as it can be and I'd recommend moving ahead.
36
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjomhom.
Councilwoman Tjomhom: I guess I concur with what Councilman Peterson said but you know
what, I also feel that the developer, I've often said is only as good as his reputation is and I think
this developer does have a good reputation of having a really excellent final product and a
product that we can all be proud of and I think we should you know, be thankful he is trying to
do what he is doing to make that work. I think the variances also are a positive thing. I think a
lot, a couple people said tonight when we were talking about preserving habitat and preserving
trees and the wetlands and I think that's what these variances are doing. You know we're saving
the trees and we're saving, or we're trying to protect our bluff so the animals will have a place to
still live, and I think Councilman Peterson's right that it's just, it's growth and that's what
happens throughout the city. I've lived in Minnetonka and we've had 12 deer in my yard. I've
lived in Chanhassen, I've got 9. We all have deer. I think we all have, I see ducks on top of our
neighbors house you know. We all have to learn to live together at some point and hopefully
that will happen. And so I'm supportive as also, I'm always encouraged when he does try to
work with the neighbors and have meetings because a lot of details and a lot of fears get ironed
out through those meetings and I think he's done a good job with that, and working with staff.
And the Planning Commission also I think did a good job in trying to iron out some of these
wrinkles.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo comments made previously and also I think this is one
time when the term variance, it kind of has a negative connotation usually when we get into these
things. That that's somehow a bad thing always, and generally speaking might be considered
that way, but this, at least in the grading ones here seems to be a positive thing and we've got to
look at the site as a whole and say, we've heard a lot of comments from staff from the developer
and from residents that we want to save the trees. Yet if we want to save the trees, we've got to
have some variances. So I'm in favor of those. I think the private street is a good compromise
there. Again those lots can be developed so if you can put a building pad on that. We could
easily within the ordinance plow a nice 30 foot wide street through there with curb and gutter
and sidewalks and all kinds of stuff that's undesirable through there, so that's also a good
compromise. Any time you have a site that's fully wooded or predominantly wooded like this
one is, it's always a challenge and also need to understand that just because you have a lot that's
full of trees doesn't mean that you don't have a right to cut some of those trees to put a building
pad on it. And that's why we have our preservation ordinances the way they are and the
developer will be planting a lot of trees, and when there's a lot of pieces in our city that when
they do get developed unfortunately, some trees come out, but again there's a compromise there.
And again as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, this developer has in the past and other
developments and experiences shown a sensitivity to the natural resources so again I am thankful
that we have a sensitive or a developer who has some background being sensitive with those
resources here. It is I think ironic or funny that all of these developments are coming in this part
of the city at the same time. And I think that exacerbates the impact, especially as one of our
residents commented tonight, with the Pinehurst, the Crestview that we talked about tonight, the
Yoberry in there as well, so yes. There's a lot of things going on in this area at one time. For
what reason I guess I don't know. We haven't done anything special up there so just so happens
37 #
City Council Meeting — May 2005 •
that that's the way it's going so, yeah. It does push it and it does impact it. I think the curious
thing in this one is, not that I want to propose this but funny how we also have another cul-de-sac
coming out of Highover. Perhaps that will be the birth place of long cul-de-sacs in our city
rather than through streets so Mr. Mayor, I know you'll appreciate that comment. But on a
serious note, I think a lot of time, effort has been put in. Staff, developer. I do thank all the
residents for comments and for taking your time out at the Planning Commission and here
tonight. The e-mails. They are read. They are considered. And by staff as well. Hopefully you
feel like as you've given your comments, that they're heard and considered. They're not
obviously all granted all the time, but know that they are heard and considered as well in the
grand scheme of things. So, I am in favor of the development as it stands as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I won't disagree with a majority of the comments that I heard here
from my three counterparts up here. The only, I mean I like the, I think it's a wonderful piece of
property and a wonderful development and the applicant has obviously taken steps to minimize
the overall impact environmentally I think. The only really concern I have is this Lot 11, Lot 12
issue. But I realize this is preliminary here and I think the city staff has put in enough safeguards
to protect the residents along here and I mean if they can't build on it once they come in for final,
they can't build on it so. My whole, you know grant a variance there for the bluff impact to fill
that and to create that driveway. That's my sticking point but overall, you take the development
as a whole package, I think it's a very nice development.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Interesting to hear those comments for me. I believe I would
concur with them. The only thing I'd like to, I think it was helpful this evening for me to see the
progression of plans Mr. Herbst laid out initially. Where this started. Where it ended up and
that, how the process continued to evolve. That continued with the neighborhood meetings, with
the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission will concur with Councilwoman
Tjomhom. I think they did a very detailed and diligent job in terms of reviewing this and
coming up with good recommendations. They had more information than staff did going into
that meeting and once that information and the answers started coming out, then you can see the
justifications for why they wanted to go 8% versus 7%. I mean we sit here and we argue about
1% grade in the road, but when you start seeing where the benefit of that is, to the city in terms
of our natural resources, it's worth asking those questions and making sure that we see those
answers. You know again, the developer's history with the city is helpful in terms of developing
a level of trust here and trust would verify, a phrase spoken by I believe President Reagan was
the one that made that more public and I think that's what we do with our conditions and our,
looking at all the plans as we trust that we verify and we make sure that it's done as they say
they're going to do it. In terms of, you know and I asked some questions here tonight. I'm not, I
believe that from a, in terms of preserving some of the trees in the forested areas in the backs of
some of these lots, I think we can do that with...
Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that, and I'm sorry. If you look at condition number 34 on
page 19. I just want to make sure this is on the record. That does say any trees outside the tree
preservation plan, and if I can just show this really quick. We do have a colored preservation
plan. It's on the plans that you have.
19
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Any trees removed. Yes, I saw that.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, and that, I just want to show this for the record really quickly. This is the
colored one. So if you look at the map that the applicant showed, it'd be more, it'd be, can you
zoom in all the way out. Sorry, back it up. So if you saw what he was preserving, it was this
area here, but they're still ... and so that goes back to your question. So this is the tie back to the
preservation plan and that's condition number 34.
Mayor Furlong: And I understand.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, but I just want to make sure everybody understood that. We weren't
looking at the minimum on that. We took it through the middle and that was the intent on that,
so there is a condition in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and as I looked at that condition, and just for clarification, I think when
the developer's asking for a variance, in order to preserve trees, we make sure through the
grading plan and through the tree preservation plan, that that occurs. That the developer does
what they say they're going to do, and that's the trust would verify that I look at. The question is
then the continual government demand on what, on the use of those trees when it becomes
somebody's private home. That's the leap that I haven't taken yet. That being said, I don't see
that here and we can talk about that if that comes back, but I think overall, to build upon a couple
of the comments that my fellow council members made. You know I think what the variances
here are indeed trying to preserve some of our natural resources. I had an opportunity a couple
weeks ago to join Jill Sinclair, who's our Environmental Resource Specialist, Forester at the
national, I guess it was a national Minnesota Arbor Day luncheon out at our Arboretum where
the City of Chanhassen received Tree City USA award, which is awarded by the National Arbor
Day Society. Tenth year in a row. It was our tenth anniversary receiving that award as a city,
and we're the only city in Carver County, to my knowledge that gets that award each and every
year. While we look at what's taking place, let's not forget some of the good things that we are
doing too. To build a house you have to cut down some trees. I was very pleased to hear Mr.
Herbst tonight listen to Mr. McGraw and say, hey can we look at creating a buffer there. And
the willingness to do that and work with that. Those are things that staff and the developer can
work on after here, and that's all again, getting back to my first comment where this process
started, that process continued tonight with regards to part of the public comment and that's, you
end up getting the best development in this area. I would agree with, going back to Councilman
Peterson's first comments and others up here as well, I think we've got a very nice development
here. It is a development. It's changed. There will be houses where there are now trees. But I
think that in terms of what could have been done, and here's the example. Coming through,
following our ordinance with a 7 foot grade. Taking out more trees. Would that have been
found? Would that have been discovered? I don't know. Just going with the standard setback
on Lot 2, or Block 2 I think is where we're providing a 5 foot, getting them 5 foot closer to the
street so we can save 17 feet when they come through with the grading and put up those tree
preservation. Save 17 feet in the back. Would that have been discovered? I don't know. But
the developer is bringing those forward as a way to make the development better. Wooded lots
are more valuable. That's clear and I think we all appreciate that, and but there it's a classic
39
a'
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
example where perhaps the profit motivation of the developer is right in sync with what as a city
we'd like to see and that's preservation of trees where we can't, so overall I support this. I think
the staff, the developer put a lot of time and I especially thank the residents for being involved in
the process to make sure that we trust to verify that we get all the information in there. As
Councilman Lundquist said, we may not always agree with the recommendations but I can
assure you that we do listen and that we do read the e-mails and that we do take the information
very seriously and spend the time to understand what's in the packet and what the information
that the residents are bringing up so I appreciate their involvement. Overall I agree with the
proposal and the plan this evening, which was recommended by the Planning Commission. I
think they did a good job and I would concur with what we have and what my sense is my fellow
council members concur with as well. Any other comments? Questions. If not we have a
number of motions beginning on page 15. Who'd like to go?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd be willing to make a first motion which would be to
approve the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family
Residential District based upon the findings of fact attached to this report.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councihnan Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to move approval of the
Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential
District based on the findings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson: I'd make the second to approve preliminary plat subdivision to create 40
single family lots, 4 outlots and the public right-of-way with the approval of a variance for a private
street and a street grade, plans provided by Westwood Professional Services dated 3/18/05 based
upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to conditions 1 through 63.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussions on that? One point, just a note earlier Kate.
Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on number 63. References a cul-de-sac.
Kate Aanenson: That should be eliminated. It actually on the motion if you want to modify we
should reference Lots 11 and 12 as modified on plans dated 5/9/05.
Mayor Furlong: Do you incorporate that?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, you would concur?
29
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, deleting the 63 then?
Mayor Furlong: Not 63. I think.
Councilman Labatt: Changing from the cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Just strike the word cul-de-sac I think.
Kate Aanenson: That's what 63 should say, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Just strike the word cul-de-sac would clean that up? Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: I had a question on condition 57. Usually I don't see personal pronouns in
conditions. Does that need to be re -worded?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah...
Mayor Furlong: So strike the last sentence?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? If not, then Councilman Peterson you moved
the motion as stated with these additional comments?
Councilman Peterson: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt you seconded?
Councilman Labatt: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Hearing none we'll proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 40 single-family lots, four outlots and public right-of-
way with approval of a variance for a private street and street grade, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 03/18/05, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report, subject to the following conditions:
1. The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
2. The lot frontage for Lot 3, Block 1, must meet the 90 feet standard at the building setback line.
3. Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards.
41
0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
4. The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width if it is a lake shore
lot.
5. Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot until the
pool is removed or the platting of the lot is concurrent with an application for a building permit
for a principal dwelling on the lot.
6. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall verify that acceptable building pads can be
accommodated on all lots that have lake setbacks.
7. If Lot 1, Block 4 is not dedicated for park proposes, then the development shall pay full park
fees in force at the time of final plat approval.
8. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to
city sewer service when available.
g. The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in
accordance with City Code.
h. The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
9. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
10. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
42
0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
0
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
11. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
12. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wedand ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
13. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
14. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
15. The OHW determination shall be completed prior to final plat approval. All plans shall
illustrate Lake Harrison's OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW.
16. All non -riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet
wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management
zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot area.
17. The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff
and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).
18. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water ponding is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
19. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
20. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes
near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately
sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel
base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap
and geotextile or permanent turf re -enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls
shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence,
43
City Council Meeting — May 2005
0
mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with
category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements
is needed on Pond 1.
21. Following stone water inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall
be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be
provided.
22. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen -specification Type -1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside.
23. Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the
rock construction entrance.
24. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re -enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
25. The "Inlet Sediment Filter" detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1 1h -inch rock, 2 feet
wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal t -posts shall be used, not
wood stakes.
26. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
27. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slow
Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1
7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1
14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1
21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
28. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
29. All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass
grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement
such as wetland or creek crossing areas).
Fq-
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
30. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $135,285.38.
32. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase 11 Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
33. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In
no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone.
34. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
35. A total of 319 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on
landscape plans dated 3/18/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows:
Lot, Block
Number of trees required
Lot 1, blk 1
5
Lot 2, blk 1
2
Lot 3, blk 1
1
Lot 4, blk 1
1
Lot 5, blk I
1
Lot 6, blk 1
2
Lot 7, blk 1
2
Lot 8, blk 1
2
Lot 9, blk 1
1
Lot 10, blk 1
2
Lot 11, blkl
None — existing front yard trees to be
reserved
Lot 12, blk 1
None — existing front yard trees to be
reserved
Lot 1, blk 2
4
Lot 2, blk 2
3
Lot 3, blk 2
2
Lot 4, blk 2
2
45
City Council Meeting — May12005
11
Lo4 Block
Number of trees required
Lot 5, blk 2
3
Lot 6, blk 2
1
Lot 7, blk 2
3
Lot 8, blk 2
2
Lot 9, blk 2
2
Lot 10, blk 2
7
Lot 1, blk 3
5
Lot 2, blk 3
2
Lot 3, blk 3
2
Lot 4, blk 3
3
Lot 5, blk 3
1
Lot 6, blk 3
1
Lot 7, blk 3
1
Lot 8, blk 3
2
Lot 9, blk 3
2
Lot 10, blk 3
3
Lot 11, blk 3
2
Lot 12, blk 3
3
Lot 13, blk 3
3
Lot 14, blk 3
3
Lot 15, blk 3
2
Lot 16, blk 3
1
Lot 17, blk 3
None — existing front yard trees to be
reserved
36. The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on
the landscape plan dated 3/18/05.
37. Any private street is required to have 20 -foot wide paved streets from back -of -curb to back -of -
curb, be built to a 7 -ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30 -foot
wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to
submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7 -ton design.
38. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant
should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property
owner.
39. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
40. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the
Building Department.
C5l
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
41. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance,
and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the
construction plans.
42. Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type Il
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately
after grading to minimize erosion.
43. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
44. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
45. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
46. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota.
47. Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall.
48. On the preliminary plat sheet show the street right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs.
49. Minimum 20 -foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required over the sanitary
sewer and watermain that is outside of the right-of-way.
47 e<
City Council Meeting — May 2005 •
50. On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark.
b. Add a note to remove all existing approaches.
c. Show the retaining walls top and bottom elevations.
d. Revise the street grades to comply with the 7% maximum requirement.
e. Eliminate Pond 1 and bring the drainage to Pond 2.
f. The proposed grading for Lots 4-6, Block 3 needs to be revised to prevent the garage
elevation of Lot 4 from being lower than the street.
g. The garage elevations of Lots 5 and 6 need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency
overflow for the street.
h. Install a culvert under the proposed street connection at Galpin Boulevard.
i. Show the 1036 contour around the housepad of Lot 2, Block 1.
j. Show the proposed storm sewer on the plan.
51. Label the existing and proposed street names on all plan sheets.
52. On the utility plan:
a. Revise the note to say "All storm pipe shall be Class 5...".
b. Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road,
Galpin Boulevard, Mghover Trail and Manchester Drive.
c. Revise the location of the downstream sanitary sewer from MH -15 so it goes between Lots
4 and 5 versus Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
d. Show all utility and storm ponds easements.
e. Sanitary service must be 6 -inch PVC and water service 14nch copper type K.
f. The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard.
53. Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for
future connection to the City's second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw
watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer
will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and
to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction.
54. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (39) than what the property has been assessed
for, the additional 38 units (39-1=38) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral
connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording.
55. As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right -tum lane into the site
will be required to be constructed. The tum lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
56. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
M
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
57. Two additional fire hydrants are required.
58. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such
protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction
except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
59. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the
new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
60. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
61. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
62. Create a Lot 1,Block 4 on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E.
63. The private street for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 shall be modified as shown on revised plans
dated 5/9/05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Motion C.
Councilman Lundquist: You're on a roll Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, Mr. Mayor I'd recommend City Council approve the front yard
variance for Block 2 and deny the bluff setback variances based on the findings of fact attached to
this report.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
front yard variance for Block 2 and denies the bluff setback variances based on the findings of
fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Fourth motion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd recommend City Council approve the Wetland Alteration
Permit to fill and alter wetlands on the subject site with the following conditions 1 through 13.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
49
City Council Meeting — Mayyl 2005 is
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Seconded by Councilman Labatt. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none,
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following conditions:
1. The wetiand alteration permit is contingent on final plat approval for Lake Harrison.
2. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
4. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
5. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
6. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
7. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
50
0 0
City Council Meeting — May 9, 2005
8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
9. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for
Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1
slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket.
10. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re -enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
11. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
12. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase 11 Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, we'll see some things back on final but thank you Mr. Herbst and your
associates, we appreciate it.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CHANHASSEN SKATE PARK.
Mayor Furlong: Do we have copies of this for those in attendance? Okay, there are copies at the
table. Councilman Lundquist, this was your item. If you'd like to go.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Resolution that I put together, the skate park is of
particular interest to me. My family and I use particularly the playground equipment and park
behind the elementary school so we're in this area a lot, although I'm glad that we have the skate
park. Keeps that activity from, mostly from being on our, in front of our library and the steps and
certainly from the businesses around Subway and that over there. I am dissatisfied with where the,
what's going on at the skate park lately, and so I put this resolution together to drive some change to
that particularly in the foul language, excessive litter and even this morning wonderful graffiti that
we had on there at 6:30 in the morning as I drove past. So the purpose of it is I guess, well not I
guess. The purpose is to direct Mr. Gerhardt and staff, also the Park and Rec Commission to, within
30 days to submit a plan to use for what we can do to eliminate those behaviors and other things
51
os -l4
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
McDonald: Second.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Preliminary Plat 05-13 for the subdivision of 5.2 acres into two lots, as shown on the plans
dated Received March 18, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
At this time the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $74,089.00.
2. Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing Second Addition is subject to a park dedication fee
as a condition of approval for subdivision. Park dedication fees for Lot 2 will total $5900
(25,749 square feet or 0.59 acres X $10,000 per acre).
3. The applicant shall provide a cross parking agreement in favor of Lot 2. The agreement shall
specify that Lot 1 will have access to 24 parking spaces located on Lot 2.
4. A cross access agreement shall be recorded across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, RR TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF; SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 40 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES; AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON
SITE, PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 62 ACRES LOCATED AT 6950 GALPIN
BOULEVARD, LAKE HARRISON. APPLICANT, PEMTOM LAND COMPANY,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jacqie Daugherty & Ray Alstad
Jim & Cheri Broughton
Julie Fuecker
Kevin Finger
Lynn Eggers
Cari Piatkowski
John Moberg
John Holcomb
Judy Stretar
Justin Larson
2423 Highover Trail
6927 Highover Court North
6751 Manchester Drive
7052 Harrison Hill Trail
6791 Briarwood Court
6833 Manchester Drive
6738 Manchester Drive
6852 Briarwood Court
6801 Manchester Drive
Westwood Professional Services
4
0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Daren Laberee
Dan Cook
Dan Herbst
Ruoper C.
Stacey Hurrell
Gina Sauer
Norm & Cleare Foster
Jean Moore
Mike Byrd
Dan W.
1]
Westwood Professional Services
Pemtom Land Company
Pemtom Land Company
2135 Lake Lucy Road
7460 Bent Bow Trail
2244 Lake Lucy Road
2275 Lake Lucy Road
6826 Manchester Drive
Lundgren Bros
JRG
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff, and I may add since we have so many people
here, and I would assume at least half of you are here for this item, maybe we can ask some of
the more important questions and maybe we can come back to more detail questions after that.
Jerry.
McDonald: I have a question for staff concerning Lots 11 and 12. Especially Lot 12. That's
one of the ones you're recommending that they eliminate. Would you explain why you think
that needs to be eliminated, what the problems are with that particular lot from a topography
standpoint?
Generous: Well it's just adjacent to the top of a bluff area. While we haven't strictly said
eliminate it, we did say that deny, we would recommend denial of the setback variances and they
would have to come in and prove that they could get a road in there and a house pad in on top of
the hill that would not encroach into that 30 foot bluff setback.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I have was again you've gone over that about the
grade elevations of the road coming in from the west there. That's going to be quite a drop and
everything. What do you see being able to be done there in order to meet the requirements for
grade?
Saam: I believe you're referring to the western cul-de-sac...
McDonald: The western cul-de-sac.
Saam: That's 1 of the 3 areas where they're proposing to use an 8% street grade. Basically in
that area, I did a quick calc from the existing elevation, or on the property line that they're
proposing up to the cul-de-sac, you can easily get a 7% grade in there. It's in the middle where
they've steepen it up to 8%. It's not like it's 8% everywhere. So that's why we're saying you
can easily get a 7% in there. Maybe we need to see some more information about what 7%
would do to the site. In our estimation it, at least from this, it won't really hurt the site from an
environmental standpoint. When you're varying a half a foot to 1 foot, I don't see how that's
going to wipe out a lot more trees.
5
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
McDonald: Okay. And then as far as services for the city for snowplowing and those things,
what's the impact there, if a lot, or if the elevation isn't within the 7% grade?
Saam: Well sure, and that's one of the reasons we limit it to 7% is you can get the ice forming
issues. I mean it's easy to imagine in the winter there's ice on a steeper grade. It's going to be
harder for cars to navigate, so that's one of the reasons we like to limit it to the 7%.
McDonald: And also, when do you expect the report from the DNR to come back as far as the
normal high water mark?
Generous: Lori's initiated that. We think within the next 3 weeks they should have at least the
initial determination.
McDonald: Okay. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Good questions.
Zorn: Bob, I have a question for you. You mentioned that street access from Galpin was
considered through Lot 5. Were there any other considerations and can you speak to those
considerations?
Generous: Besides the existing one? At one time we were looking at no additional access to the
east. Just the access off of Lake Lucy Road. However we had some concern that we were
creating a long cul-de-sac, even though there were only 29, 27 homes on that. We try to provide
two means of access into most neighborhoods when possible, and so we moved on this. Part of
the reason for the realignment was the amount of upland and the outlot A, the site that the city's
looking at for the potential water treatment plant and the park, was being impacted by the road
getting shifted into the upland area. So it was just those two, but we did look at connecting it
into Highover, but coming down that hill was just too steep. We wouldn't be able to do that.
We'd have switchbacks in there and we'd take out the trees that we want to preserve.
Zorn: Thank you.
Sacchet: Any questions this side?
Keefe: I'll just ask one. In regards to, could you speak a little bit more to the parks and where
we are with the parks in terms of where exactly is the water treatment facility going to be and
when, you know what do we know in regards to the parks?
Sacchet: Is it a given that there's a water treatment plant there? I mean the report seems to
assume so.
Aanenson: Yes, and the .Park and Rec Director has commissioned a study design to see how that
could lay out and what amenities could go in that facility. With the water treatment, correct.
Keefe: So in terms of timing.
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Aanenson: As far as a park?
Keefe: Yeah. You know.
Aanenson: Well this subdivision, the recommendation is for extraction of park and trail fees, so
that would be applied towards that. I think that the goal would be to try to get some of that in
ahead of water treatment, which would be a number of years down the road so. This is a park
deficient site, so we try to work together. Obviously the parking lot works with the water
treatment plant so we'll have to look at that.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Mark, Kurt?
Papke: One of the issues we're bound to hit tonight is the issue of the financial viability of this if
we trim back a lot or two. Could you clarify for myself and the other commissioners whether,
what the rules are in regards to financial hardship with the developer. Does that constitute, you
know one of the conditions for granting a variance, etc, because that's likely to be an issue that
will be discussed tonight.
Aanenson: I'll try to take that one. I think obviously there's implications on any development,
they try to maximize the lots. It's our goal to make sure that it's a lot that's viable in the fact that
whether or not it's, this is a very complicated site in the fact that it's wetlands, heavily wooded,
steep slopes. Even getting the access off of Galpin is compromised. Existing driveway snakes
around so it's a very difficult site. So I think the balance is to say, if there's some areas that we
can give a variance in principle because it is a tough site, but I don't think that we want to
compromise a lot that's substandard in such a way that it would be difficult to make it a
reasonable size home in that neighborhood.
Sacchet: Alright. Mark, you have a question?
Undestad: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I think with the number of people we have here, it makes sense to save the
detail questions for later. I have a ton of questions but to go through those would take quite a
while so I'd like to move towards the public hearing. Before we do that however I'd like to
invite the applicant to come forward. I noticed there was a letter from you that we just got
tonight so I assume you're going to summarize what's in that for us. Because I think it addresses
some of the concerns you may have based on the staff report. Because I know some of us had a
chance to look at it a little bit but certainly to absorb it we can use a little help, if you don't mind.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, professional staff,
ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. I'd
like to introduce some people who are with me here this evening. This distinguished gentleman
here with the vest and the beard is Justin Larson. He's a registered engineer and a planner with
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Daren Laberee, a landscape architect and planner
with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, a partner with mine at Pemtom,
and behind them is Matt and Patty Jo Herman from Edina Realty who are helping us market the
Jerome Carlson residence. As Kate indicated, it is a difficult site but it's the kind I've been
thriving on for 35-36 years. It's a wonderful site and has great opportunities to really create a
neighborhood here in Chanhassen like no other. As Kate mentioned, there's great swings in
contours. Is this going to work this way?
Sacchet: Yeah, that's just fine if you do it that way.
Dan Herbst: The site basically swings in contours by about 114 feet. It's a heavily wooded site.
It's got a substantial amount of wetlands. A road was stubbed in from Highover a number of
years back when Jerome and Linda Carlson platted that. We've acquired another access off of
Lake Lucy so that we can provide proper access off the site. And the main access for years has
been the access off Galpin Road. It's a wonderful access and it's a point that we wanted to make
a statement with. When you come into the site, you go down. You have a wetland on your left,
there's a hill on the right. You have a 1911 windmill. You have the remaining farm site that's
been there and you go into the site and when you get on top, the bluff is just beautiful. Mr.
Carlson and Linda and Jerome have built just a magnificent soft, contemporary home there.
About 8,800 square feet. It's just a killer home with a swimming pool, totlot for kids, an office
in it. 8 car heated garage. It's just a very, very wonderful home. So besides the land we need to
maximize the housing to compliment that great home on the site with beautiful trees on there. If
you've been on the site, Jerome and Linda have planted paths through the site. They've marked
trees. It's a miniature arboretum. Jerome, like myself is a farm boy. He's from Mora,
Minnesota and as Kate and Bob know, when he originally bought this site he wanted to make
sure he's kind of self contained so berms, landscaping were put all around the site so when
you're in the site you're just in a perfect situation. You're walking out the house is southwest
facing, overlooking Lake Harrison and the views in there so it's a great site. A wonderful
challenge and we want to do something special with it. But I think so you understand where
we're at tonight, you've got to understand a little bit of history. We've taken staff out there. We
started walking the site last year. At that time, I'm not sure all of staff was even aware that this
might be a good site for a water treatment plant so we were focusing on coming off of Galpin
Road, coming into the site. Creating a very, very special entrance, and we went through a whole
series of plans. The first plan had up to 52 lots on it and we were going to make ... and we
needed another access so we picked up the lot off of Lake Lucy. Some of the earlier plans I
didn't bring along but you a stage 2 plan was a plan that, after we were able to acquire the lot off
of Lake Lucy, we planned a cul-de-sac off of Highover, which has 10 lots and then 4 private lots
off in this vicinity. And then as I indicated our earlier plan, we wanted to make a magnificent
entrance off here. We wanted to do 10 lots off of Manchester. Preserve all the wetlands and
then have an additional street through the property here, and then a state 2 off of that was a spin
off where instead of having a main road off of Galpin, we looked at a fire and life safety type of
road with the lots up in this vicinity, where this would be the main cul-de-sac coming into the
home. Another cul-de-sac here with a turn around would be a fire and life safety road, but also
would be a trail that the public could use coming off Galpin to get into the site, get into the
wetlands and go through that. Then along came the water treatment plant. So we lost our
wonderful benefit of having this magnificent entrance off of Galpin Road. We lost 10 lots off of
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Manchester and so the plan then, and this is not the final version of the water treatment plant
because I understand the plat is going to be configured differently than that and possibly even
larger than that but, so then we had a neighborhood meeting about a month ago and this is the
plan we showed the neighbors with a potential water treatment plant or the balance of the site for
parks and then a fire and life safety access off there. And the neighbors had many, many
legitimate concerns. I think we had a pretty good meeting. They were concerned with all of the
access going off of Lake Lucy, and so we started looking at how can we accommodate splitting
that access off of the site, even though Lake Lucy is not even close to being at capacity. I think
the road is eventually geared to handle 3,000-3,500 trips a day. It's only at 1,700 trips today and
we would be only adding 270 additional trips. We thought we would take that extra step that
came out of that meeting, and come up with a plan to gain another access off Galpin. Again, at
this stage in life we do not have the configuration final with the water treatment plant or the park,
so we're showing that land as vacant. We're trying to accommodate the needs of the city. We
worked hard, not only to develop a plan here that would be very unique, but to try and fit the city
needs for a park and water treatment plant which, if we had our druthers we would like to see go
away obviously. So anyway, our main road now, we would ask for a little split. Divided
boulevard off of Galpin with a main road coming into the site here. A cul-de-sac coming off of
Lake Lucy. A sidewalk system through the entire neighborhood. A trail connecting off of the
trail that's currently under the utility lines there, and I believe there's a sidewalk that comes off
of Highover that would connect and come down so there'd be a complete public trail system
through. We're talking about all public streets with the exception of the street we're proposing
here that would serve the 2 lots. So the current plan is from 52, a number of different versions
down to 39 home sites, 2 of which would be the swimming pool, that would be platted off later
with a home, and the other lot would be the existing home of Jerome and Linda Carlson. So we
are doing everything possible here to work with the contours to preserve the trees, to work with
the wetlands. It's not a perfect site. Any time you have this kind of a challenging site with all
the variables we just talked about, you're going to have to make some compromises but we feel
we have, we're at a point now where it's a wonderful plan. We've got a minimum amount of
wetland encroachment. As minimum amount of tree removal that will still accommodate the site
and minimum amount of variances. I think if I was in your shoes, and I was in your shoes in
Chanhassen a few years back. If somebody handed me a 54 page report and I found out that this
guy has been in business for 35-36 years I would have said, you sure in hell could do a better job
than this, but we have worked very, very hard on this site. And instead of going into all of the
details of the variances and stuff I'd like to cover those later to save you some time.
Sacchet: Yeah, and since we didn't get into the detail questions, we'd probably call on you again
as we get into more details.
Dan Herbst: Any questions at this point?
Sacchet: Any general questions at this point for the applicant? Alright, thank you very much
Dan. With that I'd like to open the public hearing. So this is your chance to speak up as
residents. If you have comments, concerns to this proposal. I do want to point out that as a
Planning Commission how we look at these proposals is that we have to assess to what extent the
proposal conforms with the regulations and ordinances of the city. We're not at liberty to change
those rules in the process, so I just want to make that clear because it's not a free for all. We
W
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
have a basis in the ordinances and the regulations. The comprehensive plan of the city and so
our role as a Planning Commission is to assess to what extent does the application conform with
that. So with that, is there anybody who'd like to address this item? Please come forward and
state your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Is there
anybody? Yeah, first one always takes a minute you know. Please tum the microphone towards
you. If you can tell us your name and address for the record please.
John Moberg: Yes, John Moberg. I live at 6738 Manchester. Right on the comer of Lake Lucy
and Manchester. First I'd just like to clarify the existing road access, and from what I just saw it
appears that there will be access both on Lake Lucy and Galpin.
Sacchet: Correct.
John Moberg: Okay.
Sacchet: And then the access is pretty much where it is on Galpin now and on Lake Lucy it
would be just slightly west from that little well building, the way I understand it.
Generous: Yes.
John Moberg: Familiar with that, okay. And then as far as the water treatment plant. Is there,
has there been discussions around alternate locations or what makes that an ideal spot for a water
treatment plant?
Sacchet: Is that something you'd address Kate?
Aanenson: We did hold a neighborhood meeting on that. Again, there is a recommendation.
This is the primary site. I don't want to encumber the subdivision with that discussion tonight.
We'd be happy to meet with anybody that has questions on that. The engineering staff would.
John Moberg: Okay, so that's not set in stone by any means?
Aanenson: I think this is the primary site, yes. The City Council will be making that decision as
this plat goes forward. There is a recommendation to extract, as the developer has indicated, it's
not his first choice but is the number one choice for the city. So we're asking, in working with
the developer for the extraction of that.
John Moberg: Okay, so what would make that the number one choice, just give me a short
answer.
Sacchet: Go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: We've already been through this with water treatment and what I can tell you is that
it comes down to location to the wells. There's 2 wells in the city. There's one over here by
Lotus Lake and there's one in your area. So the water treatment plant, the site is pretty much
judged by the location of those wells. That's why you couldn't take your water treatment plant
10
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
and put it down 41 someplace. It's too far away to you know do it's job so that's why the
placement is where it's at and any alternatives, it's all based upon distance.
Aanenson: And again we did have a neighborhood meeting on that last week, and I just didn't
want to get off track on water treatment because what we're here to discuss tonight is this
subdivision itself.
Sacchet: It's tricky. It's a little bit intertwined but it's not what's in front of us tonight.
Aanenson: That's correct.
John Moberg: Yeah, I was just looking for some clarification on that.
Aanenson: Sure, and we'd be happy to give you any information on that.
John Moberg: Okay, and then is there, would there be a park integrated with that?
Aanenson: That's correct.
John Moberg: I've heard some, okay. So there'd be some, part of that plan.
Aanenson: Yeah, and both those would be separate review processes that would come back
before the Planning Commission for site plan review, as would, we'd show you, the park would
come back for review too.
Sacchet: Since it is obviously a concern, and I assume it's not just your concern but other people
here in the audience as well with the water treatment plant, we just looked at the primary water
treatment plant by Highway 5, what was it 2 weeks ago. And one of the important, interesting
things was that really, I mean the tanks and everything is underground and I would assume that
would be the same in this case so it's not like you're going to have some ungodly structure
sitting around there. Really this stuff is underground so you're going to have more green space
is what it boils down to.
John Moberg: Okay.
Sacchet: And the building, if it's anything like what is planned for this water treatment plant is a
very attractive building. Very well designed so we don't want to get into this, as Kate said, but
just to maybe help you be a little more at ease with the notion.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bob.
Generous: Paul is also planning on another informational meeting. They are looking at the
various sites and they're showing what the differential would be for the cost for that. That was
one of the important things that came out of the last meeting.
11
• i
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Sacchet: So there will be more discussion, public discussion that you could participate in on the
topic.
Generous: And it hasn't been scheduled yet.
John Moberg: Okay, fair enough. And then would there be, what would happen with that end of
Manchester? Just short answer.
Aanenson: Cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: Matt, can you address that?
Saam: Oh Manchester's just to the north of..
John Moberg: Correct. Right now it's just kind of a blocked off.
Sacchet: We'd cul-de-sac it right?
Aanenson: Yeah, we'd cul-de-sac the end.
Saam: Yeah, right now we're thinking we would just finish up a cul-de-sac. I believe right now
it's like a temporary, just pavement behind the curb.
John Moberg: Yeah, yeah.
Saam: Yeah, we would basically clean that up and make it a permanent cul-de-sac. It would
probably be as a part of the treatment plant site.
Sacchet: Would become the access to the treatment plant and again there is very minimal, if any
traffic to the water treatment plant.
John Moberg: Right, nobody gets too excited about that. Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Ahight, anybody else. Please come forward. Let us know who you are, where you live
and what you have to say.
Lary Marty: Hello there. Lary Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. I guess my first initial concern
with regards to this development, I think Pemtom's done a very good job of illustrating this and I
think doing a very good job as far as trying to make a development that fits within the various
neighborhoods around, as well as taking advantage of the property there. But my biggest
concern that we have at this point of trying to move forward on the development comes down to
the wetlands delineation and acceptance or assumptions at this point of where those borders are.
Wetlands are something that change. They vary year to year with the amount of water. Rainfall,
so for us to go out there right now and look at it and say, is the hydrology there? Is the plant life
thereto support it? I have a lot of difficulty in just saying it's a wetland or no, this is where the
12
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
line is because if you really truly want to assess a wetland you need to look at the area over time
and you need to really look at the high levels and the low levels to be able to then determine
where that border is. A lot of the development that has already been done around the Lake
Harrison area has already impacted these wetlands significantly already. As I back up on the
south side of Lake Lucy, we have a lot of wetlands directly behind my property and my
neighbors property, and we've already noticed that the land itself, when I had first looked at the
lot a little over 6 years ago, there was standing water down there. I literally couldn't walk
through that area in a pair of tennis shoes without getting them soaked. There are areas in that
that are totally dry now. There's no water there now. The ponding has been channeled to collect
the water but it's also affecting the wetland areas. Even the stream on the north hand side of
Lake Lucy has been channeled and re-routed and that's also impacted directly. There's a
significant amount of wildlife that's in that area. My son's a nature photographer for
Minnetonka High School and has gotten permission from Jerome Carlson to photograph on his
land, the large species of animals that are supported in this area, and as much as I'm for
supporting the development, I'm also for trying to maintain green spaces for the wildlife and
supporting that. I've heard pheasant cackling and turkeys gobbling this morning at 5:45 this
morning. A large number of deer. Coyotes in that area, and I'm concerned about where that
wildlife gets forced by developing this as well. I'd also like to see a little bit of the tree area. It
is a heavily area, forested area so I'd like to see a little bit of discussion about what trees are
going to be impacted or removed by this development of the site. And then be able to
understand that, because it's such a nice area, and it's ideal for a site and I can see where it
would be very advantageous from a developer's standpoint, but from my vantage point and
looking back on the Carlson property, I enjoy it just the way it is and I'd loved to see it you
know, stay that way.
Sacchet: We all do.
Larry Marty: My last point comes back to the water treatment facility and I know this is not our
hearing for this, but in a way it is. It is very closely tied to this and so for us to kind of make
some assumptions and decisions about this development without understanding what kind of the
general direction is for that, I think it's very difficult for me to just accept that carte blanche and
say yeah, go ahead. At the meeting on Thursday, you know as Bob pointed out, there was
concern that this seemed very opportunistic for a development site for the water treatment plant.
I understand the wells are located there. That's where the water's coming from, so obviously it
makes sense for the water treatment plant to be there, but there was no you know cost elements
to understand what about the other options. What is the cost difference between this site and the
other sites? And it seemed like there was a lot of I guess some questions that were unanswered
with regards to the chemicals to be used for this facility. The design concept, all of that is very
well, you know enabled to make it look as low profile and berming and trees to hide that, that
this is still a 12,000 foot facility. Brick facility. It's not something that you could just throw
some trees up there and it disappears from our sight lines, so it is something that I guess I'd like
to have a better understanding on so that I could truly bless a development like this as well.
Thanks.
Sacchet: Very good comments, thank you.
13
•
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and I have one
comment and one question. My comment first of all is to thank the developer for having heard
us at the informational meeting that took place a few weeks ago. Those of us that live on and
around Lake Lucy Road and were concerned about the only entrance being off of Lake Lucy,
and our concern was not just about this development but in the aggregate. There are 3 new
developments going into our area over the next few months. Pinehurst which is directly north of
Lake Lucy. What used to be called Yoberry. I think it has a new name as of, Highcrest? Which
are the homes that are being added onto Highover. And then this development. Currently
between, on Lake Lucy Road between Galpin and 41 there are approximately 120 homes that
feed onto Lake Lucy Road, either who's driveways back directly onto Lake Lucy Road, as mine
happens to, or who are on cul-de-sacs that feed onto Lake Lucy Road. Between the former
Yoberry, now Highcrest, Lake Harrison and Pinehurst, we're looking at approximately another
112 homes added to 120 so that's really almost doubling the traffic. I understand that Lake Lucy
Road is considered a quote, unquote collector road by the city, and that it is considered able to
handle the traffic but I think there is a difference between Lake Lucy Road and perhaps other
collector roads like Galpin. Namely the number of homes that again, back directly onto Lake
Lucy. We have 19 homes with driveways on Lake Lucy. We have our mailboxes that we're
crossing the road to get to, and significantly we have a number of children crossing the street to
get to bus stops on Lake Lucy, so I do appreciate the fact that there has been consideration taken
into that and I looks like we will not have just one entrance on and off so I do appreciate that.
My second is a question and a follow-up to the environmental concerns that were expressed, and
again I think the concerns of those of us in that area with respect to the environment are because
of aggregately what is happening. Pinehurst, we have a lot of wildlife there. We're losing I 1
out of 18 acres of trees which the City Council approved at the end of 2004. It's going to
displace a lot of wildlife. It's going to change our environment in Chanhassen in that sector.
We're looking at a significant amount of wetland change now and a significant amount of trees
across the street in the other area. This was a great area, or is a great area of Chanhassen and it's
one of the places that makes our city very unique and makes us not look like, not to dis on any
suburbs but it makes us not look like Brooklyn Center or Richfield. There, I said it. It has some
open spaces. We're losing them. We're losing them in Pinehurst. We're going to lose them
here. We're going to lose a lot of trees in Highcrest, so I would ask perhaps the landscape
architect or the developer or the city, whoever has the figures readily handy to comment on the
amount of trees that we're going to lose, and you had mentioned the city has to live by
guidelines. So if you could perhaps comment on the amount of trees that are planned to be lost
here and how that fits in with the city's guidelines.
Sacchet: Would you want to address that Bob?
Generous: Yeah, I'm trying to do the math. It looks like they're removing approximately 15
acres of trees on the 60 acre site, so that's a quarter of the land area. If you look strictly at our
ordinance, we're exceeding our tree removal but part of the issue that the developer has is a lot
of their trees are in the wetlands and on the bluff and we don't give them credit for that as a part
of their tree removal calculation. So they are preserving a significant amount of the site. 20
acres of the site is, approximately 20 acres of the site is wetland. That will remain primarily as it
is today. They have for the road access, there's a minimal amount of wetland impacts. It's the 2
isolated wetlands that are the big losses in there but the wetland complexes themselves will
14
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
remain as an entity and so we're very pleased about that. You know the developer has worked
hard and he has tried to look at alternatives to save as much as he could. The additional road
grade. The use of retaining walls. There's an extensive system in there so if this was another
community like Anoka or someplace that was flat, we wouldn't have all these issues but we have
a lot of changes.
Sacchet: If I can summarize that in a little for you, since you asked a very specific question, and
it's important to understand what Bob just pointed out. Is that in the calculation that's being
used in the staff report, we're only looking at the upland. All the trees are being saved as part of
the wetland are not calculated in that. In terms of the, what we look at is what's the baseline
canopy coverage for the upland, buildable part which currently is 76% of that is covered with
trees. And the proposed preservation is 30% of that. So you could say well, it's 2/3 that gets cut
in the upland area. And by looking at that, that's where the other part of the question comes in.
Well what's the city regulation with it? By looking at that, they're actually cutting more than the
city would let them cut without doing mitigation. So the city would require them to plant 269
trees in order to balance the scale, and what actually what the applicant is proposing to plant 319
trees, so they're exceeding the requirement of planting, the way I understand it, and that's just
based on the upland calculation without including all the wetlands, and it also doesn't include the
bluff areas, does it?
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: Which is a very significant wooded area as well, so if you factor all that in, it actually
is not quite as alarming as you might think at first glance. Does that answer your question?
Gina Sauer: That does answer my question and I appreciate the clarification and I guess I would
just encourage the Planning Commission as they are considering this development, I understand
that a lot of thought has gone into it, but again to consider, this is really our last pocket of
wildlife in that area of Chanhassen and anything that can be done to take that into account is
going to make a big difference for the quality of life in our area so thank you.
Sacchet: Well I share that. I live there too and I'm curious whether the deer are just going to
feast on all the hostas everybody plants and all that stuff. Alright, with that is there anybody else
who wants to address this item? Please come forward and let us know who you are.
Al Taylor: My name's Al Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy. That's the house that's a little bit
west of the well house. About where the exit's going to come out. I have a couple concerns.
First concern is where the exit's going to come out on Lake Lucy. Besides the extra illumination
I'm going to get in my house from all the headlights, the concern I have is that it's coming out on
a curve. If you do a traffic study in that area, you have about 2 to 3 seconds from pulling out of
2340, 2360 and 2380 Lake Lucy Road from the blind spots along that curve. Now you're going
to put a traffic feeder coming out in that same area. So when you come from the 41 area, you
have about 3 seconds to a see a car. And I wonder if that was taken into account in your traffic
study.
Sacchet: Matt, can you address that in terms of sight lines and that type of concerns?
15
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Saam: Sure. The proposed location being just west of the well site. It is in what we call the, or
toward the center of the curve so you can see, I guess the example is if you're in the center of the
curve you can see around the curve on both sides. This is just off set to the right, or to the east I
should say. So in our estimation the sight lines there for the speed on Lake Lucy being 30, you
know we're not coming out onto a highway where people are supposed to be up on us very
quickly, so in our estimation that location will be fine.
Sacchet: So it's relatively, in terms of the location in the curve, it's actually at a relatively ideal
spot?
Saam: Well the ideal spot would be just to the west in the exact center of the curve. We're just
off set so let's say it could be worst. It could be a little better but it could be also much worst.
You wouldn't want to be on the end of the curve where you couldn't see around to the west at
all.
Sacchet: So in other words from a traffic engineering, city engineering viewpoint it seems like it
works.
Saam: Exactly, yeah.
Al Taylor: What about at 35 or 40? Which is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road.
Saam: Yeah, and people may be doing that. I was out there today and it's posted 30 out there
SO.
Al Taylor: It's posted 30 but it's not enforced.
Saam: We're getting into speed. I mean we can't design for a 50 when it's 30, those sorts of
things. It comes down to enforcement.
Sacchet: The enforcement, it does have, I mean if, and I see some faces about the speed. Talk to
the sheriff.
Al Taylor: We have.
Sacchet: It will be enforced. I mean they do listen.
Al Taylor: He sits down at the well house about once every 2 months. That's the enforcement.
Sacchet: It's my understanding that they are receptive to requests like that and they do enforce
more based on complaints like that.
Al Taylor: Enforcement, if it was enforced I think you would get more adherence to the speed
limit.
16
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Right, there's still the exceptions but.
Al Taylor: The other question I have is in regards to dual access. There are currently 6 locations
that have single access onto Lake Lucy Road between 41 and Powers Boulevard. Can you
explain your process for going through and evaluating why you would require two exits versus
one exit and how those apply to this location and how they're not applying to Highover.
Sacchet: That's an awesome question that I share too so I refer to maybe Kate to try that one, or
Matt.
Saam: Well as Bob said we always, at least in larger type developments such as this, 20 plus
lots, that sort of thing, you always look for 2 accesses in and out. Some of the reasons are for
emergency access. If there happens to be something going on on the road, say construction and
there would be a fire, we want to have an alternate access, both for residents to get out and for
fire emergency type vehicles to get in. We always look for that. In addition to that, I mean ease
of convenience it provides. When you get into a long cul-de-sac situation, it's something we
want to stay away from. When you only have the one access in and out, both for convenience,
emergency access, that sort of thing so.
Al Taylor: Can you explain the Highover situation then? Which is currently.
Sacchet: That would be a question for City Council sir.
Aanenson: Yeah, we recommended that connection.
Al Taylor: Okay, and we're adding to that right with this?
Sacchet: Yes.
Al Taylor: Another 20 some houses.
Sacchet: It is part of our comprehensive plan that we want to connect neighborhoods. Now
when there are exceptions made, as I said in the beginning the final decisions are made by City
Council. So that would be a question for City Council.
Al Taylor: Okay.
Sacchet: As far as we're concerned, we want to connect neighborhoods because that's what the
comprehensive plan says.
Al Taylor: And then on the more personal note of the illumination of my house from the exit,
where do I address that?
Sacchet: What are the elevations there? I understand from the planting plan there is quite a bit
of buffer planting in that area planned.
r.
17
Planning Commission Meeting— April 19, 2005
Saam: Yes. I was out there like I said today and if you look at the plan, where the road is
proposed, it's on what I would call the east side of your house and if your's is the house I'm
thinking of, your garage is on that side.
Al Taylor: Yes. The one right where the mailbox is right next to the little dirt road.
Saam: Across the street from the well.
Al Taylor: Yep.
Saam: Yeah. So what I'm getting at is the people coming out of this development, if the street is
on the garage side of the house, the east side, the windows, the living area's on the other side. I
guess in my opinion.
Sacchet: Shouldn't impact it?
Saam: No, it's not like the headlights are coming directly into the front, in the family window of
your home.
Sacchet: Maybe one thing if you were where the little well house is but being moved further,
you should be quite alright.
Al Taylor: I think it's tougher to move east. You've got a grade there that you've got to
overcome.
Saam: The other thing is the elevations. Your house is higher in elevation and this will be
coming up to Lake Lucy so it's not like the cars will all be coming down and shining on the roof
going down the side of the house, anything like that so.
Sacchet: Also, according to the landscaping plan there's a double row of trees... Appreciate
your comments and questions. Who else would like to address this item? Please come forward
and state your name and address.
Can Piatkowski: I'm Can Piatkowski. I live at 6833 Manchester Drive and we over here it's
just unclear maybe a little bit with what Bob you had said about there being a denial to one of the
requests and something to do with the access onto Galpin. And this is where we're not clear.
We want to make sure that what, you know the developer is saying the road goes through and
what I heard from him is the road's not going to go through.
Sacchet: Can you clarify?
Generous: I'll clarify. We were looking at changing the alignment of the easterly access and
we're not going to pursue that anymore. It will go as proposed on the plan.
Can Piatkowski: Okay, so it will go.
In
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Sacchet: It does not affect the Lake Lucy access.
Cari Piatkowski: Not the Lake Lucy. I'm talking about the Galpin access.
Generous: Yes, it does not affect it.
Can Piatkowski: So that will be there and we're assured that road's going to be in place.
Generous: Unless it's killed by council.
Can Piatkowski: Okay, and who knows huh. And the other question we wondered about is, this
water treatment center, if per chance somehow that disappears to a different site, what happens
then? Do we go back to one of these original plans for the?
Generous: They would have to come in for a separate subdivision review for that portion.
Cari Piatkowski: So we would re -address at that point?
Aanenson: More than likely, yes. If the council chose not to execute on that, more than likely
the developer would come back in, extend the street and propose additional lots.
Can Piatkowski: Okay, on the end of Manchester...
Aanenson: Right. And that would be another hearing process just like tonight's and go through
the same evaluation.
Cari Piatkowski: Will all that be decided before they start actually excavating and starting work
on the subdivision?
Aanenson: Well that's the goal, to take it to the City Council and again what we're
recommending is that be extracted for the park and for the water treatment. Ultimately that's a
legislative, a City Council decision so, by the time we get up to the City Council for this, that
decision should be...
Cari Piatkowski: Should be made and they will address both of those probably at the same
meeting is what you're saying.
Aanenson: Correct.
Can Piatkowski: So we'll know one before the other is started.
Aanenson: Yes.
Cari Piatkowski: Okay, thank you.
19
`,
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Anybody else? Yes, you can come more than once. As long as you don't keep saying
the same thing.
Al Taylor: This has to do with the water treatment plant, and I was at the meeting the last week.
The well pipe that comes from Well House No. 7 I think, it's the one on Lake Lucy Road.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's number 7.
AI Taylor: They had indicated this, that piping would go through this property?
Sacchet: Correct. I believe that's right, right?
Al Taylor: So do you show an easement right now through here for that well pipe can go down
to the proposed water treatment plant?
Saam; It will be a combination of easements and then in the proposed street right-of-way also.
We'll try to keep it in the street as much as we can.
AI Taylor: Can you explain that? What street?
Aanenson: The proposed subdivision.
A] Taylor: Okay.
Saam: The well's right here. We're basically proposing to bring a pipe down the street, then up
in here we'd have to go outside the right-of-way.
Al Taylor: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Alright. Anybody else like to address this item? Please come forward.
Kevin Finger: I have to write down what I'm going to say. I'm not like everybody else.
Sacchet: That's alright. As long as you tell us who you are first and where you live.
Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger. My wife Teresa and I live at 7052 Harrison Hill Trail.
We border the southwest comer of the project. First I'd like to thank the staff for being very
helpful in giving me their time at the last minute this week. I appreciate that. I'd also like to
point out that I did call and leave a message with the developer about my concerns right after our
neighborhood meeting and I never received a call back or a response. I would ask that the
Planning Commission execute one of the following alternatives that I present. Two is what I'll
present. My first proposal is most advantageous to me and I'm nervous, can you tell?
Sacchet: It's alright.
20
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Kevin Finger: Of course it's advantageous to me but it's also advantageous to the people to the
northwest of me in the Highover neighborhood. It's also I think more advantageous to the
people of Chanhassen as a whole. I propose that you disallow the bluff setback variance that is
necessary to include Lot 12 in the project. I ask that you also then instruct the developer to
remove Lot 12 and just include Lot 11 in the project via use of the private driveway just to Lot
11. The developer would also have to request a variance for this private driveway but it's my
understanding that's a lot simpler than asking for a bluff variance. Why would the developer
ever be willing to give up one of the lots, in fact according to them probably one of the most
valuable lots? I believe one lot of this size, if you combine 11 and 12, with the amount of trees,
the amount of size, the privacy in Chanhassen, you could name your price and you'd probably
get it. I don't think the developer would lose any money by doing that. Why is it good for me?
Well it's obvious. I have more privacy, correct? Well, it goes beyond that. Lundgren developed
our development as you know. They were required to have a tree preservation. It's about, in my
property it goes about 200 feet from my house back. Now I understand that you don't want to do
that anymore because of other reasons, and that's alright, but I believe that the idea of a tree
preservation is to preserve the trees. Everyone's concerned. The only reason we're going to add
Lot 12 is so they can put a very large house and tear down a large chunk of trees right through
here. Not granted I heard they were going to put in a lot of trees, but I know the size of trees
they're putting in. We see them all the time. Takes a long time to replace a tree this size. It will
also benefit the people in the Highover area. These houses right here. They have beautiful
houses that have a great deal of privacy. You as a Planning Commission certainly do not
guarantee these residents total privacy within their developments but I do believe you owe it to
residents that live around new developments to maintain as closely as possible what they have,
and/or within reason. By only allowing 1 housing site on this drive you will be providing these
residents what they believe they would have for as long as they own their house. These
individuals would benefit by keeping the wonderful settings that they have become to know and
cherish. How does my proposal benefit all the people of Chan? Every time this commission
allows another forest to come down you set a precedent to allow one more. By keeping the tree
buffer that was required for those of us in Longacres development, you are telling everyone we
care about trees that are left and we will do everything we can to preserve them. Okay, so my
option one. Disallow the setback variance and combine Lots 11 and 12 and only allow the
housing lot for the housing pod for Lot 11. I believe this is fair. The reason I believe it's fair
because I don't think regardless of what they say, I don't think it will cost the developer
anything. Okay. Alright, so you're not going to take proposal one. I think proposal two.
Sacchet: Well actually that is staff recommendation is not to allow bluff impact. So you can
summarize your second one.
Kevin Finger: I know but he did add a but to that. He did say that if they could come back and
show that they could adequately support that, they would accept it. You know any good
engineer can come up with something in today's world. So anyways, so my second proposal, at
the very minimum is if I have to have a 200 foot tree buffer, they only have 30 feet here. 30 feet.
If I have to have 200, they should have 100. Thank you for your time.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. I see somebody else coming up.
Let's hear what you have to say.
21
•
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Jim Broughton: My name is Jim Broughton. I live on 6927 Highover Court North and this
gentleman was... I live right adjacent to 11 and 12 back there and your staff report, if you look at
their report they talked about these two lots and there words were that if they were allowed to
build structures there, that there would be a lasting detrimental effect on the bluff and the
wetland and the Harrison Lake area so I think I understand what this gentleman is saying and I'd
also like to understand what they would do with the trees behind our houses there. I have the
very same concerns and so I want to hear what was going to happen with that small road that
they're going to build and is that road going to, would the bluff setback that is being required
there, is that road going to have to move over onto the power line easement area or how does that
work?
Sacchet: I think that's a fair question. I mean if you tell the applicant we're not allowing the
bluff impact, does it or does it not work?
Generous: Matt and I had discussed whether or not they can provide a private driveway access
into there and it looks feasible. There's 25 feet from the closest point of the bluff to the westerly
property line. We think it may be engineerable. We don't know for sure.
Sacchet: So it might be, okay.
Jim Broughton: I guess I would be opposed to anything because a couple people back talked
about that area and there's a lot of wildlife there and I think a lot of trees would be cut down and
the impact that would have on that area is, I don't think you should allow those variances. I
know you aren't recommending that you do that but I would be opposed to doing that. And I
think it's part of what you were saying before. In order for you to grant a variance, in your
report here, one statement that you make is, it has to be, it can't be based upon the desire to
increase value but only to facilitate wetlands being preserved, and if you look at the comments
that the staff made, they're saying that there's going to be a very high impact on those wetlands
so I think that's an issue here we need to address carefully. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Kurt, you have something? Go ahead.
Papke: Since there's a lot of interest in this bluff setback issue, I've been trying to search
through the staff report to find out what is the incursion? You know how big of a variance is
being requested and how much grading into the area you're not allowed to grade in is being
requested? I think the comments are all well taken but it would be good to know how big the
impact is before we get too far.
Generous: The applicant is requesting that the variance be permit to eliminate all of the bluff
buffer zone so they would grade up to the top of the bluff. And then the setback would be 10
feet from that. From the top of the bluff. So that's a variance request.
Sacchet: Across the bluff?
Generous: Yes.
22
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
0
Sacchet: Yeah, okay so that's a lot. If you quantify it like that. Does that help at all? I mean
it's not really specifically quantified.
Papke: That's pretty quantified. Grading right up to the edge of the bluff as opposed to a 30 foot
setback, 20 foot setback, that's.
Sacchet: That's a lot of variance, yes. Definitely.
Papke: And the length of the incursion is how big? How long would this setback be in terms of,
is it you know, it's going to go in in 1 foot? It's going to be one little spot or is it 200 feet of
incursion or?
Saam: Well the length of the road where it goes into the bluff basically or the setback is
approximately 140 feet, but then where it would go the other way directly into the bluff, I mean
it's basically the width of the road in some places so you're 20 to 30 feet. Something like that.
At the worst point. I mean it goes in and out. If you could follow that.
Sacchet: Alright, public hearing is still open. Do we have, yeah we have other people.
Judy Stretar: Judy Stretar, 6801 Manchester.
Sacchet: You're the one who sent e-mail right?
Judy Stretar: No, I didn't send.
Sacchet: Oh, it wasn't you. Sounded like you.
Judy Stretar: No... We're with Woodridge Heights which is the development on Manchester
and Lake Lucy, and when we were built, when our houses were built we were surrounded on all
sides by basically forests. We had the tree farm across the street off of Galpin. We had the
Carlson property and then we had the other property and basically we were surrounded by
wildlife and forests and now we lost the tree farm to Ashling Meadows. And we saw what
happened at Ashling Meadows and I'm not sure about the tree, you know how many trees you
kept but as far as what we saw, and I witnessed it, every tree was taken out and then they put in a
few other trees. And they might have, you might have counted.
Sacchet: Yeah they left 1.
Judy Stretar: Well it went from a tree farm to nothing. I mean there's nothing there now, and
maybe you know 20 years from now there's going to be trees, but where we were put into this
lovely little community and it is great, it's wildlife and it's going to be gone and I think one of
our primary concerns is the Galpin access, and we greatly appreciate the road going through
from Galpin. We think that's very necessary for traffic flow to that area, but we're talking about
a water treatment plant and a park that we keep hearing is not settled on yet and it's very much
attached to this plans of building this because if the water treatment plant is denied and is moved,
23
0 f
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
then his plans have to go back to another, you know putting another 10 houses down at the end
of my street or adding houses along the road that's coming on an access road. So what I think
we're concerned about is what is the timing? Is this the final meeting?
Sacchet: Well I mean the way this goes through the system is that we look at it. We hold the
public hearings as the Planning Commission. We may or may not make recommendation. I
mean our recommendation might be to table it, have a little more information but eventually you
make recommendation either tonight or maybe next time, whatever it is, and then the decision's
being made by City Council based on the proposal that's in front of us. That means for this
particular subdivision. Not the part that is not on it, like if something changes with that comer
that may be either development or maybe water plant and all that, that is not part of this proposal.
So you've got to look at that as separate tracks, which is a little bit tricky because they are
intertwined, and I share that same frustration a little bit with you.
Judy Stretar: And if this plan, as it stands, Plan number 3 I think it is with the Galpin Road and
all that is approved and that goes forward and Outlet 1 stays nothing right now, it's like a little
prairie right now waiting for the water treatment plant which I believe is coming in 6 years or so,
2009, then when would the hearings start on making that aesthetically pleasing instead of having
a well house sitting there?
Aanenson: Sure, I believe I stated earlier that the park would advance and that the designs are
being done for that park right now to try to advance that as soon as possible.
Judy Stretar: So there's going to be some public discussion on the park?
Aanenson: Correct.
Judy Stretar: And that's going to be announced?
Aanenson: When the time table is for the Park Director on that but I'm assuming that would be
as timely as possible.
Generous: The Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing this plat next Tuesday the 26th.
Aanenson: But that's not the site plan for the piece...
Generous: Yeah, that won't have a site plan but they'll discuss the park location there and that's
another opportunity for you to provide input into that out.
Sawn: And whenever that park does come back you'll get noticed on it, correct? Well I'm
sorry, the water treatment plant would, if that would go, there'd be a site plan and that would
have to come to a body like this and the council so there'd be another hearing on anything like
that.
Judy Stretar: So when is the next council meeting that's going to be, this is going to be brought
to?
24
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well currently the time like for this is that if we do come to a recommendation tonight,
which is our goal, it would go to City Council on May 9`b.
Judy Stretar: That's my concern.
Sacchet: Alright. Now I saw somebody else getting up there.
Ray Alstad: Hello. My name is Ray Alstad, 2423 Highover Trail. Kind of got a little panic in
my voice what I just heard about that road that could go in to the Lot 10, or 11, I'm sorry. I live
directly next to or to the west of 10. My house is a little unusual is that my walkout is to the east.
I'd be looking right at that driveway and right now I have the power lines there so that's like a
trail. If that was turned into a road, that would very much hurt the property value.
Sacchet: It would not be the power lines. It would be past the power lines. At least that.
Ray Alstad: Okay, you know where the fence is?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Ray Alstad: It's be approximately there?
Sacchet: I mean the property that they're dealing with is all past the fence.
Ray Alstad: So it'd be on the other side of the existing fence.
Sacchet: East of the fence plus according to the landscaping plan, which I'm trying to find here,
there it is. There is significant amount of plantings, but you've got to be aware that under a
power lines you can only plant.
Ray Alstad: Yeah, I believe it's 10 feet or 11 feet.
Sacchet: Right, right, but it has to, I believe the road actually is outside the power easement or
just slightly encroaching.
Ray Alstad: Okay. That wouldn't be so bad. And I also would recommend or suggest the
abandonment of 12. I think we looked at that tonight and that's a heck of a drop there. I can't
imagine they could get a home in there so, thank you.
Sacchet: It's a long shot, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Okay, who else? Debbie, are
you coming up?
Debbie Lloyd: I am. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. To the point of the staff report, I'm
sure you've noticed there is no variance request in here for a private street, which is required by
code.
25
. i •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well there is the finding of fact part, which is a little bit convoluted I have to admit.
Debbie Lloyd: But it is not cited for a variance and it is required by code and it was not written
that way in the report. I just really want to point that out for the citizens who live there and have
pointed out their concerns about the private street. So needless to say. Also I guess my concern
about that private street, and I know they're concerned about it going in their back yard but I
don't understand why a private street has to go adjacent to an existing property owner. When
you have undeveloped land, why could not that private street be moved and be a burden to the
new development? So in other words move that over to the right and let the new lots deal with
it, not have it be a burden for the existing homeowners. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Anybody else like to address this item? If not, I'm going to close this
public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Now we got some good comments and
feedback. We do have to come to a conclusion at this point where we go with this tonight. I do
have a fair amount personally, a fair amount of detail questions that some of them have been
addressed to some extent. I'm not sure, I don't think they've been addressed enough so in my
case, just speaking for myself, I would have to ask a lot of more questions to try to come to a
conclusion but let's have some discussion here. Where do we stand with this and to what extent
do we want to get into detail questions with this thing?
McDonald: Mr. Chairman, can we ask some detail questions of the developer at this point?
Sacchet: Certainly.
McDonald: Because yeah, a lot of what I have right now after all the meeting revolves around
Lot 12. I guess I've got some questions as to exactly what you plan to put in there. In dealing
with that area it would seem as though you're going to have to do quite a bit of readjustment of
property there in order to put a house there because of where the bluff is at. The distances
you've got to work with, and those types of things and what I'm wondering is, based upon what
the city has said we would like you to do, what can you do without the variance and if you don't
get the variance, then does that mean Lot 12 could not be developed?
Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, Commissioner. I'm going to, if I may, answer that question and then go
through some of the others, is that alright?
Sacchet: Okay, please do.
Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize to Mr. Finger. We passionately answer every phone call at
our office, and I feel bad about that. We've had many calls from your neighbors. We have
answered them all. We've had many neighbors come into our office and gone through the
project so I really apologize for that. It fell through the cracks somehow but our cell phones, our
home phones and everything are available to anybody that calls us so. Should we deal with Lot
11 and 12 first?
Sacchet: Please.
26
i •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: Okay. I've done a blow up sketch, just so everybody can figure out what's going
on here. The area they're talking about is 11 here and 12 here. There's the proposed private
drive, and this is, is this called Highover Drive?
Sacchet: Highover Way I think.
Dan Herbst: Highover here, private drive, little cul-de-sac, Lot 11 and 12. So that is the large
scale. This is a little blow up of the site. Okay, here's the proposed road. Some lines I'd like to
explain to you. This is a, one of the reasons we're asking for a variance, there's a 30 foot power
line easement on each side of that, so nothing can be proposed down there.
Sacchet: So it's 30 foot from the property line, like from the fence.
Dan Herbst: It's 30 feet on each side of the center of the power line, right? A 60 foot easement?
35 each side? Okay, so it's a 70 foot easement. I think we're only showing 30 feet here, is that
correct? I guess maybe the geometries are probably right. We took the description right off the
legal description of the power line easement so minus the red line that's mmning, which means
no buildings can be placed within that. We are proposing, if you can imagine, if you've been by
Bearpath, we're not allowed to put large trees under that but we're proposing some very high
arborvitaes the entire length of our property. All of this is off of Highover property. This is all
of our property lines of Mr. Carlson's here. So we're screening this all with landscaping. There
will be no buildings on the easement whatsoever. These are both very large lots. We're
proposing on Lot 11 that there would be a number of retaining walls, so there would be no
encroachments beyond those retaining walls. The lot that creates a question for everyone is Lot
12. This, if there was a building setback, this is where it would be at from your bluff line, and
you can see as Bob mentioned we are putting the home right within the proposed building. This
is your blue bluff line, and this is an open area within the lot that is also pretty flat that a
driveway could be down but.
Sacchet: If I may ask a clarification. That's the edge of the bluff, not the edge of the bluff
setback, correct?
Dan Herbst: This is the bluff line itself.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be clear.
Dan Herbst: And Lot 11 is a very sizable lot. It's 1.44 acres. And if what we are proposing is
approved, there would only be an area of about 14,854 square feet of that out of a total area of
62,896 that there would be any construction on whatsoever. Everything else would have
easements over it and would be protected. On Lot 12, which is the controversial one, it's a very
sizeable lot. It's 3.66 acres and there's 1.92 acres that's in the bluff, and of that the area we are
proposing that would be encroached upon is about .31 acres. And about 13,365 square feet. I
know you do not prefer any building on the bluff. You have a 30 foot setback, but both
environmental and economic sanctions can be put on place in this lot. Every home I've built on
Lake Minnewashta whether it was on Lone Cedar or on Crimson Bay Road, was built right on
the bluff. Right on Lake Minnewashta and if you put the proper erosion control measures in
27
r •
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
place, as we've done on all the houses right on the bluff. Not 30 foot back but right on the bluff,
you can protect that. And I'm willing also to place economic security in place so that if there is
any encroachment but all of this area would be covered by an easement. It's very difficult to
have an erosion event if you confine all of your construction to the area we're proposing that
would ever impact on Lake Harrison. And I think to double that security you can add erosion
fences behind all the construction and you can also put another safety net at the end of the
property line. So I believe it's a very doable development. We're showing a very large house
there. I do not know if a home will be built that large. We are putting in all the landscaping that
we're legally allowed to do to protect the homeowners to the west because obviously they've
lived there many years, and you want to appease, they'd prefer not to see anything but the woods
and the trails. But I would bet that there are very few lots in the city of Chanhassen that have a
home on them that will have the covenants and restrictions and easements placed on it that we're
proposing here, and also to put separate environmental protection on those lots and economic
sanctions to make sure that nothing happens to that wetland down below. Any questions on Lot
11 and 12?
McDonald: If I can answer your question, around that bluff area where the elevation begins to
go down, which is just about where your green space is at, and then from there to the west you
know there's quite a bit of drop off. Are you looking at using a retaining wall then in that area to
shore up that particular area?
Dan Herbst: This doesn't drop off that fast, but here we do have some drop offs and we're
outside of the bluff but we would put retaining walls in here because the topography pretty much
demands that we want to keep that building pad up and we do not want to encroach into the trees.
This area here doesn't drop off quite as fast and if retaining walls are necessary we would
definitely do that also. But it is an issue of dropping off as much as our encroachment upon your
code that says no building within 30 feet of the edge of the bluff. And we're actually proposing
a house right on the bluff. But I think there is a hardship here. We are struggling to make this
property work with the loss of lots for the water treatment plant. We have a 35 foot easement
there which is pushing everything down the envelope. If we were allowed to move everything
up to the property line we'd have a different situation. We could easily, if you move this
building 35 feet to the property line, we could easily comply with your bluff ordinance.
McDonald: Is it possible to put a smaller house on that parcel that would then fit within the
requirements?
Dan Herbst: Yes. I'm always reluctant to put a little one on there because you're saying ... sol
wanted to show basically...
McDonald: Okay, well what that gets back to then is my question at that point, is it only viable
with a larger home on it. What happens if you do put a smaller home on it? Is it still viable at
that point to do something with?
Dan Herbst: You know the realtor can certainly answer your question better than I can but you
know there's almost an over supply of larger homes. We're actually proposing extremely
upscale neighborhood on the Sweat property in Wayzata right now, where we're also proposing
M
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
that all the home sizes would be reduced down. Instead of having the very large boxes that are
being built around Lake Minnetonka right now. And I think the market is there for that also so.
Papke: What's the size of the building pad that you're proposing?
Dan Herbst: I don't know if we scaled that out but it's probably a typical home I guess...
different scale. You know there's the Jerome Carlson home which is a very large. About 9,000
square feet. Daren, you have any idea of how many square feet that house might be?
Daren Laberee: About 5,000.
Dan Herbst: Up and down.
Daren Laberee: No, that's the footprint...
Dan Herbst: Okay, so the footprint is 5,000 with the garage and the home.
Papke: Sometimes you see on a lot where you, if it's along a lake or something like that you'll
see a house constructed that's very long and narrow. This looks very rectangular and it seems
like you could move a little further away back from the bluff by coming up with a design that
more accommodates that setting.
DanHerbst: We just got him through landscape so now we're going to work on... Yeah I agree
with you. First time I saw it that was my reaction.
Sacchet: Did you want to address some other aspects you said in the beginning?
Dan Herbst: The tree issue is you know, you've heard my speech before. I love trees. I've
spent millions of dollars saving them. Millions of dollars planting them. I get tom as you do and
staff does here. I live in Chanhassen but I think you really have to challenge what's going on in
this town with 60 foot rights-of-way and 31 foot of road. And we're getting Matt's blood
pressure up but you know I would like to provide to you if I can legally do it a book, in it's third
edition by the American Society of Civil Engineers and Urban Land... National Association of
Home Builders. We really on a site like this, my prize site of my whole career is Chimo in
Deephaven. I was able to talk the city into a 24 foot right-of-way and a 20 foot street. And it's
on Minnetonka Boulevard and Excelsior Boulevard. It's something I did in 1976 but I'd like you
to go look at that. We have 12% grades on the west side. We have 20 foot roads. A 24 foot
right-of-way and when you go into that site you know that all the trees have been saved. They're
right touching almost the blacktop. You do not need a speed sign. You do not speed under any
condition on that narrow road because it's bending, it's rising up the hill. You know you've got
some very tough code restrictions that fight what you're trying to do. You're trying to cut down
on impervious surface here. If you were to go from a 31 foot street, which is proposed in your
code, to what you did at Settlers West, we could save almost 2 %: acres of blacktop. And if you
were to cut those streets back from 60, for the right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet, or even to 48 and
put a 26 or 28 foot street in there, I think people, the reason people speed on Lake Lucy, unless
you're going to have a sheriff there all the time, it's a wide road. It's open and you don't get the
29
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
perception of speed. So I think if you really want to save trees, I think you've got to challenge
your street rights of way in your code. Highover Street has a grade almost approaching 9% at
the end and we're just asking you to raise the grade by 1 % slightly over and that's going to save
grading and save some trees. We're asking you to, oh some setbacks from 30 feet to 25 feet.
That will keep from pushing the house down the slope and save some grading and same some
trees. And we'll do everything possible during our process to save as many trees as we can. But
when you start putting this size of road segment through there and you try and keep everything at
7%, you're running with some conflicting goals here. So I think all of our variances are very
justified. I think there is a hardship that's expressed here on Lots 11 and 12.
Papke: On the issue of the tree preservation on page 4 of staff report, you know one of the areas
of contention here, getting to the setback that you're asking for, city standards allow 105 feet of
tree removal and you're showing on Lots 3 and 5 105 to 115 and then you've got another 1, 2, 3,
7 or so lots where you're clearing 115 to 140 feet. How do you reconcile that, and that's one of
the major issues here and I haven't heard an explanation of why you require to clear those trees
beyond the level of city standards.
Dan Herbst: I'm going to let Daren Laberee address that issue. I think it has to do with grading
and having the house set up with the road through there. Daren Laberee.
Daren Laberee: As Dan said, my name's Daren Laberee. I work with Westwood Professional
Services. A landscape architect. I did the planning on this site. The reason why you see that
extra you know tree removal on the back side, it's not right at the 105. 105 is what you have to
qualify to take out. You can actually save in the front of those trees and you can't count it as
saved according to ordinance. Well that doesn't really show it. You can see the dark lines here.
These are retaining walls that we are putting in the back sides of these sites. One of the things I
could do on site is provide back yards for families. With that 25 foot setback, 60 foot deep pad
and then the additional 20 foot, trying to maintain a slightly flat back yard for a family to have.
That's where we start drawing the lines then to get, that's where we put our walls and that's
where we grade down as fast as we can to get to match that tree line. Other areas, you know
you're talking about 8, 9, 10. There's no wall. Well 9, 10 we're not, probably back to 8. We're
trying not to use walls as much as possible. We're trying to match the existing grade. One of the
biggest problems and constraints with this site, we just did an overview looking, and if you look
at how this site lays out, Kate said in the beginning you know that it's got a lot of, a lot of
opportunity or constraint, whichever way you want to look at it. There's two major wetland
systems. One up here. Down here on the southern side. One up here on the kind of the northern
side. There's a 20 foot drop inbetween these two wetland systems that most people don't
recognize and that gradually makes it's way around and they connect to this low area through
here. On top of that 20 foot connection, you know the existing home that we're trying to save is
sitting up 30 foot above this wetland. It's 20 foot above this one so this house is 50 foot higher
than this wetland system, and that's one of the reasons why 8% grade in the road, we have to try
to come down from this part here. Get up to the house and then come back down to try to meet
you know the difference between this 20 foot, between the 2 wetlands and the grading downhill
here is down to this really, really low wetland is what's kind of really hurting us on these back
yards, which is why we're trying to force these houses along that street. See I'm pushing it 5
foot. The way to get the 5 foot on the front, that goes 5 foot on the back. We're trying to do
30
i •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
everything we can to get out of that. Like Dan said, we'd like to do more. We'd like to go down
to the 50 foot right-of-way. We'd like to do everything possible but we tried to work with staff
as well.
Sacchet: Since we're on that right-of-way and setback issue a minute. One of the variances
you're requesting is that reduced front setback on what is it, Block 2. Or 1. And it seems like
staff is not quite agreeing with you on the benefits that are derived from that. If I understood the
staff report coffectly, staffs position is that you're really not bringing the results you would
expect from that type of a variance. Can you address that?
Daren Laberce: Yeah, I think staffs position is 5 feet is 5 feet and I think they feel that if we
push back the units back 5 foot then that's just 5 foot more that it has to go into there and I don't
think they see the concern for a waiver in this case. It's kind of our job to put our best foot
forward. We would like to go 5 foot away. We're doing everything possible. We're trying to,
you know the reduced front yard setbacks. The increase in the road. Slopes to you know,
actually up to 10 in the tree ordinance. They actually suggested in the tree preservation
ordinance in the city and they're suggested to stay away from trees, to stay away from wetlands,
to stay away from the natural things. It's not like we're pulling these numbers out of the air and
you know and just throwing them out to look at. We're grabbing them out of ordinance to make
these work and the way I look at it is that we are in sort of...I'd like to prefer to say that I'm
conforming with ordinance because I'm trying to use the tree preservation ordinance part where
it suggests to do this type of stuff. Some of the staff disagrees with that, but that is their right to
do so. Which is why we have Planning Commission's to sort through it.
Sacchet: Oh, we'll see about that part. Do we have other questions from the applicant? Since
we have the applicant on the spot here. Otherwise I would suggest maybe have a few more
questions from staff and then if we need more applicant input we'll ask you for that or if you
want to ask something, you'd certainly be welcome to do so. Did you want to add something at
this point still?
DanHerbst: Well I just want to do a little summary herein case I don't get another chance. I
think that since the water treatment plant came into play and the park and everything we are
making extraordinary efforts here, concessions in marketing, economics to try to make this thing
work. If I thought, as Mr. Finger represents I could sell one lot for a million dollars versus two
lots for $500,000, I would do it but I don't think I can do that. So, and I think we are
encroaching so little on that bluff and for the compromises we're making, and the hardships
incurred here, I think one lot, and the things I want to put in place, both environmentally and
economically to make sure nothing ... we can handle that. I don't believe there's any
neighborhood in the city, when it's all said and done you'll have, if I can find my last little chart
here. I just want you to focus on this for a moment. Out of the 62 acre site, between what we are
giving to the city in right-of-way, which is in the buff color, which will be left as permanent
wetlands in the pink colors and putting the easements on it, which will be a benefit to the city,
and the land that we will be donating to the city, there's over 62% of this whole land mass will
be under your control. Will be public and will be beautiful space, which doesn't exist today.
100% of it is all private. And I do think that if you look at the big picture here, instead of
picking away at 5 foot setbacks here and the bluff ordinance here, I think if you look at the big
31
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
picture here and what we're trying to create and how hard we've worked to do this, with the
limited time we have left to get this done, I need you to give me some direction tonight because I
don't have the time frame to be able to be tabled. I need to get to the council to make some
decisions because the landowner has got other options with other developers so I want to put my
best foot forward. I want to create great neighborhoods for the city. I live here. I want to be
high class. I want you to be proud of it when it's all done, as I am on every neighborhood I do.
And I think on a 62 acre, 39 lot, the 2 existing homes included, we're looking at a very low
density, probably lower than Highover or anything around. I think the density is less and
protection of environmental features is better. I think the traffic access is magnificent now and
in the scheme of things it looks like we're asking for a lot of variances, but if you're really
looking at it.
Sacchet: If I may ask you a very straight question. I mean is this Lot 12 a make it or break it for
you with this project?
Dan Herbst: How I, you know nothing is over until I go back to the landowner and say this is the
deal you know so, but it's a break point right now with, the deal was structured before we knew
about a park. Before we knew about a treatment plant and so I'm struggling to make this all
work within the time line because he's got other vultures like myself that want to buy... But I
want to do the right thing, I really do and I know you'll be proud of it.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Dan Herbst: You're welcome.
Sacchet: Alright.
McDonald: Before he goes.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I have one question and it's because, you really haven't answered this about Lot 12
for me. I've been out there. I've been all over that area. I understand the city's concerns about
bluffs. What I haven't heard is, how are you going to mitigate any damage to that area if we
allow you to go up to the edge where you're asking for? What you've shown today is that you
could get by without a variance. You just couldn't build as large a home on that particular lot,
which would probably be much more attractive, and I understand that. But what I can't get past
is how are you going to, you haven't convinced me to give you the variance yet.
Dan Herbst: Well let me go back to the graphic. If you were to go to the proposed building
setback line and then go back 30 feet from there, and that's the width of the garage there, I don't
think you can get the kind of house that's warranted on that site, you know. Somebody's not
going to pay that kind of money for a lot and want to put a 1,200 square foot ramble with an end
loaded garage on it.
McDonald: I agree with you.
32
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: So we're, we tried to exaggerate here. Show you a bigger envelope but in terms of
grading and tree loss, there isn't much happening here, as I indicated in the numbers I gave you.
The only thing that we're stepping on is your 30 foot setback from the bluff. Because as I
understand the private drive has to be incorporated as a variance into your, when we get to the
council... We're talking about something that's been approved before. 2 lots. Private drive,
and that's acceptable I think.
Sacchet: Okay?
McDonald: Okay.
Dan Herbst: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Wbere do we go from here? I appreciate your being upfront, that you do
want to move this ahead and I do want to acknowledge that you certainly make a very valiant
effort and your developments are awesome. There are a fair amount of issues in this and I mean
ideally personally I would like to see it again. Little worked out a little further than it's worked
out right now. So the question that I have for fellow commissioners here is, do we want to jump
in and go through more detailed questions with staff at this point and try to wrestle this to a point
where we can make a recommendation and again our recommendation is meant to be how does it
apply to the rules and regulations. We're not at liberty to change the rules and regulations as part
of this process.
Papke: I think we need to move forward, seeing what happens when we vote no and pass them
along so.
Sacchet: Alright, anybody have detail questions? Otherwise I start with some detail questions.
First of all we touched on the Highover, the termination. I heard you say that we were kind of
conservative so we're not expecting much of a surprise there that could impact the development,
because that is a big variable.
Generous: Yes. When Lori and I walked the site we used their original map and we were uphill
of that.
Sacchet: So with the 150 foot setback we should not create more issues most likely?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Now in terms of the couple of lots, can you explain what's riparian and what's not
because I'm a little confused. The staff report says that 3, at least those, what is it, 9, 10 and I I?
On that Block 3, would have, that one of those lots would have to be eliminated because it does
not meet the riparian lot requirements in terms of width and surface.
Generous: Right. And that's with them platting the lot lines out, all the way to the property line.
We believe the ordinary high water elevation is somewhere in here. That's what the DNR needs
33
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
to determine. A solution to that is if they outlotted that, then these lots becomes non -riparian and
they're upland lots and they don't have to meet the 40,000 square foot and the 125 foot low
width.
Sacchet: So it's my understanding normally we would include all the wetland part in the outlot.
Generous: Right. That's one of the recommendations under.
Sacchet: And then therefore you would not have to meet the riparian size requirements.
Generous: Correct. Correct.
Sacchet: So they would be okay. They would not lose any lots.
Generous: They would work, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, because that's not what, the understanding I got from the report. In terms of the
wetlands, I mean what kind of alarms is again with the wetlands that it requires further
investigation. I mean what I'm trying to establish is how solid is the data that we're based on at
this point? I mean I can understand the urgency from the side of the developer wanting to move
forward. On the other hand for us to make a well founded recommendation we need to have
some solid data to base ourselves on so we're not sure exactly where the high water line is. And
with the wetlands we say it needs delineation. And we had one pretty strong comment from one
of the residents. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury to measure this over a couple years, but
at least we should measure it with some solidity.
Generous: As part of the determination though they do look at historical, aerial photography of
the site and look at it over time to help them make the determination.
Sacchet: So what's missing, I mean I know the staff report says very clearly requires further
investigation and delineation. What's missing?
Generous: We don't have the final delineation report because of the timing. They need to wait
til spring basically.
Sacchet: So it is spring, so how close are we to at least, I mean in Minnesota you never quite
know for sure. You want to address that please?
Daren Laberee: Yeah, certainly. I think what we discussed with staff is that the approvals we're
going for tonight are all contingent and that's the risk that Dan's put on himself is that if the
wetland delineation is significantly different, we would have to come right back forth to staff and
say hey you guys need to change you know, this doesn't match what you guys showed before. If
it's significantly similar, and there isn't a large change and it's you know minor tweaks here and
there, there would be no reason for us to have to come back. It'd just kind of be a staff say yep,
you guys met everything with your plan as is, and that was the reason why we felt that we put
very conservative lines on the plan when we went out this winter and did it. The growing season
34
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
I believe is going to be May I" this year is when the first time that the, it's all up to the agencies
which there'd be 3 different agencies on the site, to go out and look at it together
and... vegetations and they can get proper soil borings too to...
Sacchet: And those are people that have experience to see a little bit over a time frame, not just
where the water is at that very moment.
Daren Laberee: Exactly, and that's.
Sacchet: And that's where we get some reassurance.
Aanenson: ...we have our own wetland person on staff to verify all that.
Daren Laberee: And the DNR one too for the.
Sacchet: Now the, okay, thank you. Now there are these two little wetlands that are being filled
for house pads. In the past having sat here on the Planning Commission for a while, there is
wetland impacts to build a road, and that's one thing. But I think it's another thing to fill a
wetland to make a house pad. Can you enlighten me how we justify that? Because it's my
understanding from looking at the findings of fact or what we're supposed to apply to this fact
that that doesn't necessarily fit. Is that something you want to address Bob?
Generous: I think it's built into the grading for that roadway and all that. But yes, they are
creating a house pad out into those wetlands.
Sacchet: I mean there's two little wetlands. It's not that huge a deal but I mean what's our
framework?
Generous: I believe that we were looking at the preservation of that contiguous large site was
more important than these isolated wetlands.
Sacchet: Okay. So it's a little bit of a give and take, which makes sense, yeah. It's a balancing
act. Now, we have this approach here that says we have to, first step avoidance of wetland
impacts. Second step, minimization of wetland impact. Third step, rectification of wetland
impact and fourth, mitigation. And we're, if I understand the staff report correctly, we're stating
that those steps have not been followed sufficiently yet. That's still something that the developer
has to do? Or where are we at with that?
Generous: Completely, yes because we first we need to find out, make the final delineation
determination and so we will know what the total impacts are.
Sacchet: Yeah, you see that's where I'm getting a little uneasy you know.
Generous: We know we have made minimization. We're looking at, at least for the roadway.
We're trying to go with the existing alignment on the existing driveway to follow that to
35
0 9
Planning Commission Meeting— April 19, 2005
minimize it on the east side. And then this coming down to meet city ordinances for the road
coming in on the right.
Aanenson: Let me just add to that a little bit, just for clarification so everybody understands the
process. So as the developer has stated, they're proceeding at their risk. That they believe that
they're pretty close. And that there might be minimal line changes which would affect buffering
and the like, but obviously if there's a substantial change it would result in changing the plat. If
they drop a lot, typically we don't bring that back. It happens often that a lot gets dropped
between now and final plat, but this process, as it moves forward, goes to the City Council for
preliminary recommendation. They still typically take anywhere from, up to 2 months to do a
final plat, and that's where all the is are crossed and the I's are dotted and work with the staff to
make sure that's done. And that final plat again goes back to City Council and when all these
conditions are put in place, go back to the City Council and we itemize how they've been
addressed and it states that they have been addressed or been modified or, so they can all be
tracked to make sure it's executed as stated in the conditions.
Sacchet: And I have to be honest, I mean if it wouldn't be a developer that we know and we
know your integrity, I would think that would be a reason actually not to move forward at this
point because I mean we're a little bit out on a limb with that. Now based on the fact that he has
a proven integrity of dealing with the city and I don't think that's ... point but it's certainly not a
point of warm and fuzzy. Alright, the building setbacks, 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips.
There are a couple lots that need to be adjusted according to that. That can be done without too
much. That's trivial?
Generous: Yeah, it's just they show some of their lots are back farther or the houses are back
farther.
Sacchet: Alright. And to come back once more to our favorite two lots, that 11 and 12 there on
the private, little street on the west, southwest side. When I read the staff report, it also implies
that Lot 11 has some, it might be impacted. Lot 11 also needs a variance from the bluff setback?
Generous: Just for a portion of the retaining wall.
Sacchet: The retaining wall's encroach?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Now, retaining walls is another area where I'm very uneasy. I mean do
we know the height of these retaining walls?
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: There are a lot of them.
Saam: Yeah. Specifically Lot 11, the ones in the rear yard that Mr. Herbst was showing.
36
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: There are 4 or 5, is there?
Saam: Yeah. 4 I believe. 3 for the most part and then there's a fourth. At the highest that I saw
it was 16 feet approximately.
Sacchet: 16 between the 4 combined?
Saam: Yeah. That'd be in the 4. Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay.
Saam: Then as you go, say to the south down the private drive, the retaining walls along the
west side it looks like they're about 8 feet. Those would be holding back Highover basically.
Sacchet: So Highover would be higher than the private road.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: But then there's also a retaining wall on the other side of that.
Saam: Of that cul-de-sac. That one's 8 feet also. That's where in the staff report we were
talking about it holding back both sides like a tunnel.
Sacchet: Both sides are higher, so the cul-de-sac is like set down into the ground.
Saam: Correct. And that's, I guess that's an area I want to clarify. That private drive does go in
the bluff in that area. No other area goes into the bluff. 'There's a structure setback where they
go into but they are actually, they do go through the bluff in that area, just to clarify for
everybody.
Keefe: How deep are we going down into the bluff in that area, do you know?
Saam: How deep?
Keefe: Yeah. In other words I mean you're saying you cut in but, to what, it's a little piece right
and then how high will the wall, how high would the wall be?
Sacchet: It would have to be held up by a retaining wall that's not shown right now, isn't it?
Saam: No. Let me go up here. This is going to be hard to see probably but maybe we'll zoom
way in Nann.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it.
Saam: This dark line right here is the actual bluff. So as you can see, the private street goes
right through that.
37
• i
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: But how, they need a retaining wall to hold it up?
Saam: The retaining wall is on this side because Highover over here is higher in elevation.
Sacchet: So we don't need, we don't need anything on the low side of the bluff?
Saam: Not in this area, but as you can see as you go to the south then you do start to get into
another knoll or high area, so they have to cut in that cul-de-sac and they need a retaining wall to
hold back that dirt.
Keefe: How high is that retaining wall? Any idea?
Saam: That one's about 8.
Sacchet: And then on the opposite side you said it was, it's a double retaining wall.
Saam: Yeah, this one's about 8 in here. This is the 16 that I mentioned, you know
approximately give or take a foot or two. I just wanted to clarify that.
Sacchet: Alright, yeah appreciate that. So that's why you called it a tunnel like access in the
staff report.
Aanenson: Can I just give... clarification to that.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Aanenson: One of the things that we talked about, and I'm not sure you understood that, but
when Bob made his presentation, as you look at that bubble that we were just talking about, that
one way to solve that additional retaining wall on the bluff side, where actually you pull that
bubble back and maybe you could just.
Saam: Yeah, why don't I show that quick here. That's fine Nann. So what we were mentioning
to get away from the need for the variance in this area is to move this bubble back into the,
basically out of the bluff area onto Lot 11 say. You may have to reconfigure the lot. Then you
hug a driveway for Lot 12 up in here and get it up away from the bluff.
Papke: How long would that driveway be?
Saam: Well I'll scale it here quick. It'd be quite a long driveway, but it would be again for a
single house. It'd be shorter than the one that the existing house has.
Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution from your perspective or?
Saam: Now we haven't looked at that in terms of grades. 'that's something, I mean we're
challenging the applicant to do but that's an alternative to what they've proposed.
T3
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution?
Saam: It looks like about 350 feet maybe to the house they were showing.
Sacchet: So there is a possibility of an alternate solution.
Aanenson: Correct, just reduce the grading.
Sacchet: Alright. Jumping around here a little bit. We're asking for a right tum lane on Galpin,
but not on Lake Lucy, is that accurate?
Saam: Yes. That's due to the speeds on Galpin versus Lake Lucy.
Sacchet: With the lot, you said like in Block 1 lot size adjustments and with adjustments that's
something that could just be shifted and adjusted easily. And we touched on the riparian thing.
Keefe: Go to Block 2, the setback variances. Lots 1 through 12.
Sacchet: Alright, let's see what else. The ponds. Storm water ponds. Right now there are 3
planned. Can you point out where those 3 are because it seems like the conditions actually state
one of them should be eliminated. So if you could clarify where the two are and which one
needs to be eliminated.
Saam: Yep. There's one right here in the north, just west of the Lake Lucy access.
Sacchet: Yep.
Saam: Then as we go to the cast there's another one here on what would possibly be the park
water treatment plant site. Then there's also a very small one just south of the road off Galpin.
That's the one we're seeing, based on the design. It doesn't meet our existing criteria and it
looks, what we're recommending is just take this lot here and bring it back here.
Sacchet: Okay. In terms of wetland mitigation, I mean the staff report makes a point that
currently wetland mitigation is lacking. There's not enough and I understand the applicant made
a request to possibly do off site mitigation rather than on site. Where are we at with that?
Aanenson: We're still working on that. We believe that some of it probably could be on site,
maybe on some city property but in close proximity. We're working through that too.
Sacchet: Okay. The, I mean those are type of things that to be honest I'd like to have some
clarity when we have to make recommendation. Now the real sticky thing I have is with the
findings of fact. I mean we have, the way I read them I get very confused because on one hand
you're recommending, staff is recommending not to allow the variances, pretty much all of them
except the wetland impact. The findings of fact, I'm not sure I follow exactly what's happening
there. The first finding, let's see how this works. First there is actually, Deb you'd be happy to
39
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
hear, it actually does talk about private streets so that has not been forgotten. If you look at the
staff report it's the part, finding of fact where, it's page 2 but it's not page 2 of the staff report.
It's in the appendix, the findings of fact. It says that the private street will permit enhanced
protection of the city's natural resources, specifically bluffs and forest areas. Now, how does
that fit together with pardon the expression, shoe horning in a house or a lot between a bluff
easement and a utility easement. Then it seems like that comes straight out of code that the
private street permits enhanced protection of city natural resources, specifically bluffs and
forested areas. Is that a reason to allow the private street or not?
Generous: Well, we believe you should allow the private street. We're looking at the alternative
that we would shorten the cul-de-sac and they would have private driveways, individual
driveways.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's how we try to mitigate it.
Generous: That's, yes. What we were looking, I was looking at when I was making that finding.
Sacchet: And I understand the quandary of the applicant and we're not really at comments but I
do want to make a comment that for me certainly the bluff setback restriction has much more
weight, is more significant to me than utility easement setback. I mean from a city viewpoint, in
terms of looking out for the welfare of the city. So that needs to be balanced there. Then we
have a variance from the subdivision ordinances. The setback, now we're not really, the staff
report does not recommend that we grant the setback variance, correct?
Generous: Correct. The one option was for Lots 3 and 5 I believe.
Sacchet: Because the findings of fact lead me to believe that they sound like they're conceived
to actually back up. I'm not sure, I'm confused about that part. And then the variance from the
bluff setback, which again staff is recommending not to grant it, proposed setback variance
enhances tree preservation. That doesn't compute for me. I mean if we give this variance we let
them cut further into the trees. It's not based on the desire to increase the value or income
potential. Well, if we grant the variance we make it easier to put a building in there which
definitely is at this point, since this is a development situation, an increase of the income
potential. And it's not self created. Well it's self created by wanting to put a house there. So
I'm not very clear about those findings of fact and I think they're very fundamental because
that's the legal foundation for the recommendation, ultimately for the decision that the city's
going to make. I have a very hard time on that basis not to lean towards tabling to be honest.
Let's see. Well I've talked long enough. I can add more in later and maybe let you guys, other
guys take a little bit, make noise here for a while. Anybody want to jump in please. Jerry.
McDonald: Well I guess the couple things came up. You know I'm not going to give up on Lot
12, but I'll move off of that for a second. You said something during the reading of this that onto
Galpin it would be a right tum only.
Keefe: Right tum lane.
40
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
McDonald: Okay, good.
Sacchet: Because I guess Galpin being a county road would require a right tum lane. Is that
accurate?
Generous: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. I guess from the city's perspective, help me understand this thing about this
variance he wants on the bluff, because he's right at that end of the property, yeah it's not as
severe as it is. I always envisioned the home being more toward the high point and what he's
doing is going past that down the low point, and it's not as severe. What's the impact of us you
know either granting or not granting that variance for that home on Lot 12. It doesn't seem to
me, as I recall the property, to be that big of a deal.
Saam: Again we're recommending denial of the bluff variance. We believe with some revisions
to the plan that they can stay out of the bluff and still possibly get a lot, on Lot 12. So as far as
where they're coming from, you know the applicant stated his case. We disagree. We're against
that.
McDonald: Okay, because I know there was a few houses in that area that they're pretty much
on a bluff, especially the one on the comer down there. That's close to Lake Lucy and 42 where
you first go into, I guess that's Highover Drive. The house right there on that comer sits up quite
a bit. They've done a lot of terracing to create a lot on that particular house. In fact.
Sacchet: It probably doesn't qualify as a bluff, does it?
McDonald: Well it doesn't qualify as a bluff but I mean when we allowed some building on an
area there that you created a livable space which is, you know what the developer's asking to do
here and I see in that particular area where he wants to go it'd be a lot less severe than a few of
the other areas in that general neighborhood that were granted.
Aanenson: If I can just refrain. I think you're asking us to make the decision for you, which we
can't. We're just giving you our information but the bottom line is, there is some buildable area.
What the applicant is saying, to make it reasonable, reasonable use of that area, he would need to
go into the bluff. Because if he showed.
Sacchet: The bluff setback at least.
Aanenson: In the bluff setback. Because as he showed you on the plan, what he could get is a 2
car garage and a smaller home on there, and he's saying for a large acreage lot, that probably
wouldn't equate to the value. So that's what he's saying, I need a little bit more. There is some
buildable area but is that reasonable for that big of a lot and that's.
McDonald: Again what I'm trying to do is get a balance here from both sides. I want to hear
both sides before I make a decision on this because there is an impact of what we're being asked
to do here.
41
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: There's a third element we can do Jerry. I mean we can discuss this as Planning
Commissioners. I mean we're still, I was, we were jumbling a little bit our process here tonight
because this is such a complex thing in front of us but, so we're still doing questions at this point
but at the same time I think we probably could discuss this Lot 12 amongst us commissioners
and then if additional questions come up, either to the applicant or the staff, we can ask those
questions. I mean that's the type of discussion that needs to be taking place in public because
that leads to recommendations that we ultimately make. And I'm certainly willing to make a
statement where I stand with the Lot 12. Personally I think the bluff set requirement has a lot of
weight. I mean it's like the wetland setbacks. The bluff setbacks are generally things that we
don't monkey with. They're important. They're put in there and that's one of the few places
where we can actually preserve sensitive nature. And we've heard several of the residents point
out that abundance of wildlife, the beauty of the nature in that area. I think it personally, I really
would like to see that area remain as natural as possible. And to grant a variance that helps
impact that further seems totally contrary to the interest of the city at large to me personally.
That's my discussion contribution to this point.
Keefe: Well, he could still you know, they're in the, if you didn't grant the variance he could
still build something on there.
Sacchet: Potentially yeah, but we don't know that. I mean and that's one of the reasons I would
like to see what they can work out. I mean the ideal case I would like to see this come back a
little more cooked with the wetlands delineated, with this worked out in terms of what can be
done with it without a variance and so forth. And also with the grades of the street.
Aanenson: Otherwise ultimately until you see house plans you're not going to know. So that
would be the other option is when he comes back with a house plan.
McDonald: Well okay, if we look at trying to preserve the area, I mean the house you're looking
at preserves the vast majority of that area down there. It is unbuildable and it remains as is, you
know natural and everything.
Keefe: But I don't think it is unbuildable. I mean it's unbuildable as the plan that he's proposed
but he could still get a house in there. You could still.
McDonald: Well yeah, what I'm saying is if we granted the variance, you're still saving the
majority of that 3 some acres so I believe that we begin to meet more of the criteria's we trying
to accomplish here of saving area but yet at the same time you know giving the developer an
opportunity to develop that piece of property into something that would be viable for the
community. I guess that's all I'm saying on that point.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Papke: One of the things, this bluff area drains down into a wetland, yes?
Sacchet: Yep.
42
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Papke: So I think we not only have to take into account a bluff impact but also the
environmental impact of the construction along there. And we've looked at these sort of bluff
setback variances before. This has been in the city code since what, 1988? I believe somewhere
in that range? 88, 89. Somewhere is when the bluff setback went into play?
Aanenson: Probably.
Sacchet: Quite awhile.
Papke: Quite a while, and we've been pretty much sticklers on this one and this one, the only
word that comes to my mind is this is an egregious violation of the setback and this is not 5 foot
incursion. This is right up to the bloody edge of the bluff right over a wetland. I don't know, it's
just egregious.
Undestad: I was just wondering if maybe Kate, can I ask you a question?
Aanenson: Yes, I'm sorry.
Undestad: On the bluff, I mean again going to the zoning lot 12 here but you know the bluff
ordinance. I know there is quite an extensive report that's gone through and it covers much more
than Lot 12 through the City of Chanhassen. Can you just kind of give a little 2 minute summary
as to why that 30 feet is important and why it stretches along the entire bluff ordinance out there,
not just.
Aanenson: Sure. I mean the goal was to prevent, it used to just apply in the southern end of the
city and we started applying it city wide, just to prevent erosion. People that wanted to build
right to the edge, or to put their swimming pool or those gazebos, it was really an erosion control
kind of tying back into some of the other preservation such as the trees and wetlands that we
incorporated. Because I can just take a minute and go back to Lot 12. There is a buildable area
on Lot 12, so you can create a lot and not give it a variance. And somebody's going to come in
and ask for one later. Because there is a buildable envelope on there. Outside the 30 foot
setback.
Undestad: With just the size issue...
Aanenson: Yeah, we're just scaling off, correct. Is it to get the variance now and know that the
developer can get something pretty similar on there, which is what he's seeking but it is a
buildable lot.
Undestad: Did you come up with a scale number on that?
Aanenson: Yeah, we just looked at that outside the bluff in the driveway, if you stop the
driveway short, you could have, outside the easement, 70 foot depth to the edge. The setback
edge by maybe 60. Little tighter than that.
J
43
0 9
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Saam: It's not 70 the whole width but there's a width of probably 25 feet that's 70 and then
like...
Aanenson: It's got an anomaly to it, yeah. There's a push out to it that, and that's what makes it
more complex so if you approved it as a lot, which it meets a lot requirement for building on a
bluff, you may get somebody coming in and asking for a variance to, if you were to give it two
driveways off that street.
Keefe: Okay, so it's kind of two questions. One, do we grant the variance. And then the second
piece is, do we allow the lots at all or just take the lot out?
Sacchet: No, I don't think we, this is without our jurisdiction to allow or disallow a lot. If
they're buildable...
Keefe: ... one of their recommendations was to not allow that lot.
Sacchet: Some things went a little back and forth on that, yeah. But I mean our jurisdiction is
not to allow or disallow buildable lots. Our aspect is to look at does it meet ordinance and
regulations and in this case is there the justification for a variance how it is spelled out in our
code to meet it, which is, is it a hardship? Is it applicable to other properties in similar
situations? Is it self created? Is it detrimental? And aspects like that. About 5 or 6 items like
that.
Aanenson: Just to refrain it again, to get to the driveway to the back lot, number 12 you'd have
to get a variance on the first, on Lot 11 for a private street so the other driveway can come off it.
Sacchet: Yeah, and that's where it does fall apart as far as I'm concerned because the private
street element says use of the a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's
natural resources specifically while it's in forested areas.
Undestad: So on this lot again if the variance wasn't, if it was denied tonight, the subdivision,
the preliminary plat was approved and the variance was not, the applicant would then come back
at another point in time with a more detailed plan as to how they're plan to.
Aanenson: But there's two things that need to happen. First, you need to give the street
variance, so there's still the variance required. If you gave the street variance that allows a
second lot, and whoever bought that lot pursued, or the applicant chose to come back at a later
date with a specific home plan, you could approve or deny that. You could say it has to meet the
setbacks or you may grant some relief based on the design of the home. But it's all predicated on
the first variance.
Sacchet: But then at that point the variance would be for a specific encroachment. It wouldn't
be just blanket.
Aanenson: Correct. A specific design and you could attach.
• •
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Because right now it's across the board to the bluff. All the setback basically waived.
That's what I understand the applicant is asking for.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Let me ask one other question. If we deny the street variance, and we're not even
dealing with the bluff variance right because they can't build on it.
Aanenson: Right, because you wouldn't be able to...
Keefe: Right, you couldn't access the site, right?
Aanenson: That's correct...
Keefe: So if we were to deny the street, right. Yeah.
Sacchet: And again, I mean I'm not trying to be difficult but I do have to assume that this comes
out of city code this statement here on the findings of fact, where it says use of the private street
will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, specifically bluffs and forested
areas. I mean if that is in our code, we're not at liberty.
Generous: The specific, natural resources, I added the specifically the bluffs and forested areas
to that.
Sacchet: Okay, but the other part is code?
Generous: Yes. And Mr. Chairman, number 7 also deals with the private street. That's part of
the findings.
Sacchet: Okay, so we have them both, side by side. Is that how it's meant to be?
Generous: Because you have to find that it meets the criteria and also that it meets the variance
criteria under the subdivision variance. For a private street.
Sacchet: Yeah, I appreciate you made it relative by saying substantially. Not substantially
detrimental. This is a tough one. More discussion on this? Jerry, I mean you started back on
this Lot 12 thing and I do think it's one of the pivotal areas here that we're struggling with.
McDonald: It's kind of the last one. I mean that whole thing about the wetlands is dependent
upon the DNR study. It sounds as though they put it up ... in there. If it doesn't work out, the
developer understands the risk so that problem could probably take care of itself It looks as
though the only thing left is this one corner and how we're going to deal with it.
Papke: There's a number of other variances being asked for here. We really haven't discussed
some of the other ones like the street grade. We're I% off. How do people feel about that?
45
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well it seems like staffs position is that it could be possibly mitigated and that they
would like to see whether that has an impact, which I think is a reasonable position to take. But
then where does that put us? I mean that puts us in front of a proposal that is just not fully
cooked yet. I hate to say that because I know you did tremendous effort as the applicant for this.
Keefe: Well we've also got the variance on the Block 2 as well, the 5 foot variance. 30 foot to
25 feet. Can you speak to that just a little bit in terms of you said that well if they were to clear
fewer trees you might consider it. I wasn't clear on what.
Generous: Under the subdivision ordinance we state that in calculating tree removal, that we
estimate that every subdivision will remove the first 105 feet of trees. That's our basis. Now.
Papke: Not the first 105, first 105 feet from the right-of-way.
Generous: From the right-of-way. From the front property line to 105 feet into the lot will be
cleared.
Sacchet: So that will be moved to 25 feet instead of 30 feet with this? But you're saying that's
not what's happening.
Generous: That's not what's happening. What we've been doing is saying well we could, we
would support recommending approval of a setback variance if we could show that it pulls back
that tree clearance, instead of 105 feet it's 100 feet, or it's 90 or whatever the case may be. And
then in this instance it's true, they were right at the threshold and you know Jill was giving them
the benefit of the doubt and the rest of them, they were grading even farther.
Keefe: Can you reconcile then the point that they were making that part of the reason why they
were asking for the setback variance was due to more grading issues than necessarily the tree.
Generous: Because the site's on a slope, yes. They have to.
Keefe: Yeah, so it isn't really driven necessarily by the tree clearing per se. It's more due to the
depth of the property based upon the drop off of the land.
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: That's the reason with the topography of the land is the reason why they're asking for the
setback.
Generous: Right. It's that 50 foot elevation from the existing house to that northerly wetland.
Keefe: Yeah, and that's what I'm confused. I'm trying to understand why you were saying in
the report that if they were to clear fewer trees, but it doesn't sound like that's what, the reason
why they're asking for the variance. The reason why they're asking for the variance is for the
depth of the lot.
46
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Generous: Well it allows them to pull up.
Saam: Yeah, I think the applicant added in there, they like to provide a little back yard. So in
order to do that, just from my review, and meet the 105, because it slopes off so much they
would have to put in retaining walls pretty much at the 105 foot point all the way down. So
instead of doing that they're matching into the existing grade at a 3:1. That takes them beyond
the 105 foot, if you follow that.
Sacchet: Now there is still very significant retaining wall, like this it's called a 4 tier retaining
wall. How high does that get, do you know?
Saam: Yeah, on Lot 5 that one gets up to 16. On Lots 5 and 6.
Sacchet: And is that dropping oft? I mean that's the retaining wall going up behind the
building, or going down?
Saam: No, it's the back yard slopes down.
Sacchet: It goes down.
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: Going down, okay.
Keefe: So the setback variance, what we have to find in regards to that is the hardship as it's
related to, would probably be related to the topography of wetlands in this case.
Aanenson: Correct. ...it's not for treatment. Understand their goal is to create a bigger back
yard, which is a legitimate goal. People want to have that but we're just saying it wasn't for
treatment.
Sacchet: Since we're coming back to retaining walls, I mean in past developments I've seen
staff make an effort to try to minimize retaining walls. I mean there is more retaining walls in
this development that I've seen probably in any other development ever before and understand
it's a challenging site. Has a lot of elevation changes and everything, and the natural value of it,
it's certainly special.
Aanenson: As the developer stated, there's a 50 foot change in grade.
Sacchet: So staff is in concurrence that those retaining walls are appropriate to this extent, which
is a ... extent anywhere else?
Aanenson: Yep.
47
Planning Commission Meering — April 19, 2005
Saam: Yeah, I think so. I mean it's a balance. You know like I said, either you put in the wall
and stop the grading and filling pretty much, or you tie into the grades and you fill out another
whatever it is, 20 feet.
Aanenson: It's an expense for them. It'd be cheaper to fill it, which we don't want.
Sacchet: Okay, so it's a value to the city, okay.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Good.
Keefe: Can you address the 8% grade variance? Which roads are we talking about specifically?
One was the private street, as I recall.
Saam: No, the private streets can go up to 10%.
Keefe: Okay, so we're okay.
Saam: Yeah. Let's see, you guys can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe, maybe let's zoom in a
little Nann, if we can. Thanks. One, I know this is hard to see but there's a street here. That's 7,
okay. Now I know this area's in the 8%. Oh, I'm sorry. Somewhere in here it just goes over the
7upto8.
Sacchet: Both sides of the existing house? Yeah, I can see that where the lines are closer.
Saam: Yeah, which is right here. They go up to 8. And then the other area is way over on the
west which I stated earlier, this cul-de-sac. And again, my point is we don't mind giving that but
we want to see some real proof and when I looked at it, think of it from our perspective. They're
varying it by I%, which means it's going from a half a foot to a foot. Well, it would seem to me
you could do some modifications to gain that foot back and you're not filling any more. You're
not taking out more trees for that. If you go to a 3 to 1, 1 foot is 3 feet additional that you have
to fill so, I guess that we're challenging them to show us how this is going to effect this site up
here. Where's all the tree degradation that's going to happen if you meet a 7%.
Keefe: Can I ask one of you to respond to his, just in terms of that?
Justin Larson: My name's Justin Larson. I'm with Westwood.
Sacchet: Do you mind moving the mic to your neighborhood? Thank you.
Justin Larson: Justin Larson. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. We looked at that too.
As you know there's a couple of areas that we're looking for variances on. I did put a couple
exhibits together to help illustrate the point. First of all I think I probably should address the
existing home area. You can tell by the grading plan, give me a second to track it down there.
I've got too many exhibits. I tried to cover all the different facets... Okay, this particular
M
9 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
profile, if you can take a look at it here. This is the crest of this hill is where the existing home is
located and what we're trying to achieve, as you can see we're trying, this is a huge deep hole
that we're trying to get down to as quickly as possible, and the only way we can achieve that is
to seek that 8% variance.
Keefe: Just so I'm clear. We're looking at the elevation of the main road and you're looking at,
to the right it would be the west, is that correct?
Justin Larson: Correct. Well, this is the west side. This is the east side.
Keefe: Okay, we're looking north.
Justin Larson: So the existing home and the grade in front of this garage are really what sets the
high point or this crest elevation, and you can see, well you probably won't be able to see it at
this detail but this house is located basically on top of a hill and it's 20 feet or so in elevation.
With these deep ravines that we're going down to. We're just trying to limit the amount of fill
that would be required if he went at 7%, or whatever the grade is, and that fill would mostly take
place on the north side of this road here. Now when you go from 8% to 7% or vice versa, what
you're really doing is you're changing your vertical grade 1 foot for every 100 feet. So the
actual difference between a high point and our low point in this case, the pbi which is, and I
know these are kind of mundane details for many listeners but you know that's 300 feet which is
3 vertical feet which would save us 9 feet in back. So 9 feet of horizontal distance we no longer
have to grade that far out into the trees or the wetlands. The other point I want to make is, the
transition that we have going from this pbi, which is basically an invisible point in space where
the surveyor could lay out the vertical curves for sight distances and things, but the pbi here and
the pbi at the high point, that's where the 8% is computed but anybody driving on this road
would really never see an 8% grade because they're coming up the hill, and as soon as they hit
the crest or where the 8% tangent would be, they're actually be getting a different, if you can
imagine, they're going up a hill and then it transitions immediately to going over the hill, so they
never really see 8% grade.
Sacchet: So it's not 8%. It's just, it comes and goes.
Justin Larson: Right. You're not driving an 8% for any distance. It's an instantaneous point in
the road where it transitions to a reverse vertical curve.
Papke: I'm not sure I'm following you. I mean if the overall grade over that whole 300 foot
distance is 8%, but they're not seeing 8% over much of the distance, at some point they're seeing
a heck of a lot more than 8% for it to average out, or I'm misunderstanding your math.
Justin Larson: Well I guess I'm not, the 8% is computed over the distance from some station in
your roadway to, in this case it's not necessarily a low point but a pbi point so the transition from
2 different grades.
Papke: So the average over that entire distance is 8%?
49
0 9
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Justin Larson: No.
Papke: No.
Justin Larson: No. It's an 8% from 2 invisible points in space to lay out your vertical curves.
So if going from this point in space to this point in space and you see the road doesn't actually go
up, the different between that space and this point in space and the actual roadway elevation is.
Papke: So where is the roadway elevation depicted on your drawing?
Aanenson: I think if you can show it on the road itself and not the.
Justin Larson: This is the.
Aanenson: No, go to the road map. Now take that same translation.
Justin Larson: When you're coming up the hill right here, it's a constant. I guess, I hope I'm
answering the question here but when you're going up this hill it's the curve of the vertical, the
curve of the street never really reaches 8% because as soon as you, it's transitioning from this
tangent, and it's kind of a hard concept I guess maybe to illustrate but if you're traveling along
the road at 2% and this is the 2% street grade here, and suddenly it starts, it's like a parabola.
Papke: So the second derivative is positive.
Justin Larson: Right, it's changing. So it's always changing but that parabola is built on 2 points
in space and those points are different by 8%...
Sacchet: Yeah, I mean there's a somewhat simpler way to look at this. If mean if you have the
grading lines close together, that means it's steeper.
Justin Larson: Right.
Sacchet: And in those two places the lines are closer together. And then how close together
would be 7% versus 8%? I mean that might be making it a little more understandable for.
Justin Larson: Yeah, I got stuck with kind of the engineering.
Sacchet: With all the parabola part.
Justin Larson: It's I foot in 100 and you know I heard the argument from Mr. Saam that there's
an ice issue that we don't want to be driving on 8% grades when there's ice. Really when you're
dealing with ice on a road, there's not going to, the condition isn't really any different from 7 to
8 percent.
Sacchet: Yeah, let me stop you here though because we have to be very clear about this. I mean
I keep saying this. We're not at liberty to change the rules. I mean whether, if you're making a
50
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
case that 8% is really not more dangerous than 7%, that's not what we are tasked to look at. Our
task is to look how does it meet ordinances and regulations.
Justin Larson: Well I can say that the reason why we're pursuing these 8% grades is specifically
to preserve trees.
Sacchet: Okay, that's significant.
Justin Larson: And that's, as Daren mentioned earlier, that's permitted. That's what your tree
replacement or your tree preservation code wants us to do.
Keefe: That would be our hardship? Giving a variance for that. I mean could be the additional
tree preservation for a I% grade.
Saam: And Mr. Chair, and again I'm saying well that's fine. We'll look at that but we need to
see what's being saved. Again when we look at this you can easily get a 7% and maybe a wall
has to come up a foot in the back. Well if you have a 16 foot wall anyways, what does it matter
if it's now 17 feet? We want to see where these trees are that they're going to be saving. I guess
that's what our point was.
Papke: I think everyone would agree that we're willing to trade off saving trees for giving a little
bit on the grade, but city staff doesn't understand where that trade off is being made. I as a
Planning Commissioner, we just went through this long explanation and I still don't bloody
understand how, where the thing comes into play here.
McDonald: My comment on this is getting back to something that you said is that, we're being
asked to approve something without any details. You know we would like to see some details
but we can't get the details until later. How can we grant variances on something we have no
details on? This whole thing on Lot 12, what I'm beginning to understand there is that yeah, you
don't need a variance right now. When you build a house you need to come back and then you
may need a variance but we can't just give you a blanket variance. On this whole thing with the
roads, that's begin to become a blanket variance too. City staff has got a problem because you
haven't proven your point to them that it needs to be 8% versus 7. They're willing to look at it
but they need some more details. If we give you a variance, you don't have to prove it to them.
You've got your variance. So I think going back to one of the things that you said, this may not
be ready yet. We just may not have enough details to grant some of this stuff.
Keefe: Let me ask him one more question. In regards to the tree saving, is that tree saving just
on the mail road? How about the cul-de-sac? Would you say that's the reason why for both of
them or is that a different case in each one?
Justin Larson: It's the same for both. The road, the cul-de-sac, what I did is I looked at it as 7%
and 8% and if you would I've got an exhibit here. Hopefully this will be somewhat more clear.
I have an 8% grade starting basically at this station, and it extends for 300 feet. You don't see it
here but down to station 4. If you just look at the first 200 feet, I'm saving my house, these pads
can be 2 foot, this pad and specifically can be 2 feet lower than if I was at a 7% grade. And what
51
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
that equates to on the back of the pad, and that's what we're really trying to drive home is, by
setting these pads lower, in this case 2 feet, I can save an additional amount of grading off the
back of these houses and what I've shown here in this exhibit, and I'm thinking I may have 32.
I'm trying, basically my grading limits would extend all the way down to, I don't know how
close you can zoom in here. But if this became 7% instead of my 8%, this road would come up 2
feet. This pad would come up 2 feet. This walkout elevation would come up 2 feet, and if that
elevation comes up 2 feet, that pushes my grading farther out, which means you know if you
have a slope here, you know when we draw our grading plans we're drawing at 3, you know our
contours are at 3 to 1 slope but in this case this slope, these are 3 %z to 1 or something, which
means we're not going to daylight our proposed contours. We're not going to match in until we
start creeping down the slope and the farther we have to creep down that slope, the more losses
that you're going to have in trees. And that's, again that's what's driving it. We're saving 1 foot
for every 100 feet vertically in the street. Which equates to 3 horizontal feet in the back.
Keefe: So, and you haven't had an opportunity to really study that at all.
Saam: This is the type of info that we don't have that we didn't have. I took their proposed
elevations from that cul-de-sac going to the west property line of Highover. That's less than 7%.
So you can obviously get a 7% in there. Now we didn't see the effects of what he's presenting
now. That's what we're asking to see.
Keefe: Well I mean it's possible that you could look at that and say well, we agree with that.
Therefore we agree with the variance versus deny the variance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: But we don't know.
Justin Larson: Can I also add that, you know there's a lot of different parts that were shown in
the plans. We have retaining walls as well as the variance hopefully we can get for the streets,
but you know this is all, it's all interrelated and we're employing it in the plan to save trees.
Sacchet: Thank you. There's one key question that you brought up Jerry. I mean if we would
take the position that we'd like to see this one more time a little more solidified, what's the time
line? Right now according to what I read here it's that the deadline, the review deadline is the
21s` of May. That's what's on the staff report. It's currently planned to go from here to City
Council on May 9`h. If we table tonight we can see it again in 2-3 weeks? Potentially, yeah.
And that could still bring it to City Council before the May 21 deadline. However, that would
restrict the City Council to have any wiggle room, and I certainly heard the statement of the
applicant that they're really not, they've got a specific request that they'd like us to make a
decision if at all possible, so what's staff s position on that in terms of the time line?
Aanenson: I'll leave that up to the applicant.
Sacchet: Okay. Do you want to address that once more Dan, if I may please ask you.
52
9 0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: Chairman, members of the commission. Dan Herbst. The deadline is not imposed
by asking for an extension with the legal. I've got a deadline with the land seller. It's because of
all the things we've been doing since last fall with all the things I talked about earlier, treatment
plant, the park, moving things around and everything. Okay. So what I'd like you to do is what
I outlined in the letter to you and I outlined verbally, I would like you to approve what you feel
comfortable with tonight and if you don't feel comfortable with it, I don't have the liberty to
come back in 3 weeks to go to the council. If you don't feel comfortable with it, deny what you
don't feel comfortable with.
Sacchet: Now I'm not asking you to give us an extension. What I'm asking you is, if within the
current review deadline, which is like 21 " of May, whether you can work with that because I'm
under the impression that, and staff please correct me if that's unrealistic, that if we would end
up tabling tonight, which I don't know whether everybody's leaning towards or not at this point
but I think it's something that has come up several times in our discussion that I'd like to have a
clear framework for it, that it could still go to City Council before the 21 s' of May. And I'd like
to ask you whether that would break your deal, your time line with the owner.
Dan Herbst: Again I'll have to go back to the land owner and work it out you know. Tonight I
don't have the liberty.
Sacchet: Okay, okay.
Keefe: Our next meeting is what, the 3'a of May?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: And it might be possible to get this back on then? If we were to table it.
Sacchet: How is our agenda for the 3`a9
Aanenson: Yeah, just to be clear. There's some information we're still not going to have.
We're still not going to have the wetland information. Okay, so the information that you're
really asking for, you're debating among yourselves is the street variances and the other lots.
You're not going to get the wetland stuff before the next, even if we met again on May 3'd,
which is the only meeting you can meet to still meet the 21 " deadline. The critical information is
the street variances and the lot. The street with Lot 12.
Sacchet: The bluff and the private street, okay.
Aanenson: And let me just, you know maybe idea. What my understanding is what you're
saying is that, if ..couple of those variances you would just as soon as have them make a
recommendation yeah or nay on those?
Dan Herbst: Yes.
Sacchet: To have it move forward, yes I think we understand that.
53
0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
9
Dan Herbst: Specifically with the street variance. We can build this with 7%. There'd be no
problem. These kids are struggling to save trees, save grade and that's the charge I gave them.
You want 7%, we'll do it.
Aanenson: Right, just to be clear too, no matter what you recommend, the council can re -hear
those same items.
Sacchet: Right, absolutely.
Aanenson: Besides the additional information, correct...
Sacchet: Alright. Thank you for making such a clear statement Dan. Alright, back to us guys.
Where do we go with this? I think we have a proposal in front of us that a lot of effort went into
it. I think the point Kate made is that we still wouldn't have the wetland information in 2-3
weeks, which is a significant variable. That leaves the variable with the street grade, which I
think we got ultimately pretty good explanation and insight once we got beyond the parabola.
And then the other thing is the situation with that Lot 12, which we discussed at quite some
length, and then we have the aspect with the private street. Would we want to go somewhere
with that? Deborah, are you itching to say something? You've been quiet here for a while.
Zom: Digesting.
Sacchet: Yeah, there's a lot to digest.
Keefe: Yeah I mean, look at the way it lines up in terms of the recommendation and the Lot 12
is in with the denial with the approval of the plat. So that variance, in terms of that bluff
variance and the private street variance is tied in to number B, or letter B on our
recommendation. The other variances and the other variances we're talking about are the street
variance, the setback variance and those two are recommended to be denied and I don't know if
we're on comment time but those are the.
Sacchet: Yeah we are.
Keefe: Okay. My thinking on those is just based on their presentation. I might consider
allowing those versus B where I think on Lot 12, based on the discussion, I'm not very
comfortable with that so I would likely go, I would agree with the wording with Letter A, Letter
B. I would probably look at C and say, I might approve the front yard. Where's the street?
Saam: The street grade is in B. That's in denying it.
Keefe: Okay, so that's why I'm trying to talk through this. See I might approve the street
variance. I might approve the street variance based upon what I'm hearing tonight.
McDonald: You talking about the private street?
54
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
Sacchet: No, the grade.
Keefe: No. No, I would approve, I would change the wording in B to approve the variance and
then C, I would approve the front yard setback but deny the bluff setback. The bluff variance.
And then lastly.
Sacchet: That's wetland.
Keefe: Yeah.
Papke: I'm with you so far and then maybe move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 12 to Lot 11.
Sacchet: Where does it talk about the private street in the conditions, and the motion?
Generous: Well it doesn't say it specifically. There's a condition related to it which is
subdivision, 37.
Sacchet: See that's part of what scares me too. We have like conditions that are as long as the
staff report.
Keefe: I'm trying to work the developer and to his wishes and also to try and get some
movement here.
Papke: The only thing that still makes me a little nervous here, if we go ahead with the private
street but we deny the bluff setback, and even if we move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 11, do we
still have a bluff setback problem with the private street if we trunk it at Lot 11?
Saam: I mean possibly. Just from us looking at it, we think. Let me clarify something. The
private street is not classified as a structure, so you can put pavement in the grading setback.
Papke: The grading setback.
Saam: But it's where it's in the bluff, I mean nothing can go in the bluff. No grading, no
pavement, no anything. So we think they can get the private driveway, they skinny it up to 10
feet just for Lot 12, by the bluff yeah, and stay out of the bluff.
Sacchet: I don't see anywhere in the proposed motions where it actually gives them the variance
for the private street. Is that just implied or I mean that's.
Generous: Yes. It should be as part...
Keefe: So we could add that.
Generous: Street grade and private street.
Sacchet: So Debbie Lloyd definitely did have a point about that part, okay.
55
0 9
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Keefe: So can we add that?
Sacchet: Or deny it.
Keefe: And then letter D, I guess I would agree with what they've got there.
Sacchet: Alright. Comments. Anybody else who wants to make comments? Kurt, you look
ready.
Papke: I'm ready to roll.
Sacchet: Alright. I'd like to make comment that I do agree with your point with the exception
that I really, based on how I read this justification that is required for private street, I don't think
we can support a private street variance. That's in the findings. If you go further back, it's on
page 2 of the findings. The last bullet on bullet C on the bottom, and apparently the full first line
of that bullet C comes straight off city code and say, use of private streets will permit enhanced
protection of the city's natural resources. I think on that basis we cannot make a variance for a
private street.
Papke: Why? Using a private street here instead of a public street you are protecting the natural
resources.
Sacchet: You could never justify a public street in that case and by allowing the private street,
you allow further cutting into the natural resources.
Keefe: But not as much as you would with a public street.
Papke: That's the rationale for a private street, so you can make them narrower. You can
have ... you work around those constraints.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Alright. Are we ready to roll?
Papke: I'll take a crack at it. Okay. I make a motion. I'm sorry, did you ask for a motion?
Sacchet: Yes, I'm asking for a motion.
Papke: Okay. I would like to make a motion.
Sacchet: A whole collection of them.
Papke: A collection of motions, A through D. First of all A, I make a motion that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Single Family Residential District based upon the findings of fact attached to this report.
Motion B. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat
(Subdivision) to create 39 single family lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with, and
56
9 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
here's where I differ from what's written in the staff, approval of variance for a private street and
I will strike with denial of variance for street grade. Plans prepared by Westwood Professional
Services Inc. dated 03-18-05 based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to
conditions 1 through 62.
Keefe: Can I do a point of clarification at this point on B?
Papke: You'll have to wait until I finish with the motion.
Sacchet: Let him make the motion first and then we get a second and then we get.
Papke: And then I would like to add condition 63 that the cul-de-sac be moved back from Block
1, Lot 12 and that private street be truncated at Lot 11. Okay. Motion C. The Planning
Commission recommends denial of the, strike front yard, so it'd be denial of only the bluff
setback variances based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, and motion D,
recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on the site
subject to conditions I through 5.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
McDonald: Well point of clarification on that one. It should be I through 13 on D.
Sacchet: D is 13.
Papke: Oops, I'm sorry. I have the other page on top of the second page. Yes, I stand corrected.
1 through 13.
McDonald: I will second the motion.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Now we can start weeding through
this. Dan?
Keefe: C you said, could you repeat what you said on C, I'm sorry?
Papke: In C I stated I recommend denial of only the bluff setback variance. So approval of the
front yard variance and denial of the bluff setback.
Sacchet: So did you say approval of the front yard?
Papke: Approval of front yard. Denial of the bluff setback.
Sacchet: So we do get an approval there and a denial of the bluff setback. Okay. Alright.
Keefe: Going back to B. Are we still creating 39 single family lots?
Papke: Yes.
57
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Keefe: Even with, if we're not allowing access to 12.
Sacchet: Well we don't disallow. I don't think it's within our perimeter to disallow that. That's
the landowner's right.
Keefe: And then, okay. Are we creating an additional outlot with.
Papke: It's merged in. If you look at condition 14, it incorporates all the wetland into Outlot C.
I don't believe you, the way you stated the conditions that it creates a new outlot, if I'm reading
it.
Keefe: That was my question.
Sacchet: Clarification and possibly friendly amendment. B, condition 3 reads Lots 10, 11, 12,
Block 3 must be reconfigured to meet minimum standards. This will result in the elimination of
one lot.
Generous; Not with the outlotting of the wetland.
Sacchet: So that's understood?
Generous: You can delete that condition.
Sacchet: Well we can leave it in too if it doesn't conflict with anything. Just want to be clear.
Papke: Then it's going to be confusing about how many lots we ended up with.
Sacchet: So we want to get rid of this will result in elimination of outlot. Just the first sentence
stays then, that's my friendly amendment.
Papke: Accepted.
Sacchet: I think condition 7, I don't know whether my English fails me there. If the land is not
dedicated for park purposes then the development shall pay full park fees. I know we've talked
about that land in what is it, north east corner but the condition certainly doesn't say that. So
maybe you could say what we're talking about. Like the amendment would be, if the designated
land on the northeast corner.
Aanenson: Outlot something.
Generous: Yeah, it'd be Lot 1, Block 4. And we actually have 40 lots.
Sacchet: So we have to make it 40 lots, then we call this by name, that would help.
Generous: Lot 1, Block 4.
M.
E
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
Papke: So condition 7 reads, if Lot 1, Block 4 is not dedicated for park purposes?
Sacchet: Yep.
Papke: Okay, got it. And we go to 40 lots in motion B, yes.
Sacchet: And we actually have condition number 17 which makes it very clear about the bluff
setback already, which would have conflicted with the variance.
Keefe: If 14 is included, do you need the second sentence in 16? Because we're not creating
any riparian lots if, we're including it all in outlot correct?
Sacchet: That's fuzzy at best. That riparian situation at this point.
Papke: Do you still have riparian lots though?
Sacchet: They may.
Keefe: You wouldn't, would you?
Generous: You probably wouldn't because the OHW would.
Aanenson: Just leave it in and...
Sacchet: Alright. Do we need to say something about the private street beyond what we said at
this point in order to be proper?
Papke: I added condition 63.
Generous: A variance for the private street and.
Sacchet: Is in there, okay. Alright. Condition 57, the second part of it sounds more like notes
than a condition. I had discussion with city engineer. That needs to go but that's no big deal.
Anything else?
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential
District based on the findings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 40 single-family lots, four outlots and public right-
of-way with approval of a variance for a private street and street grade, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 03/18/05, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report, subject to the following conditions:
59
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
1. The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
2. The lot frontage for Lot 3, Block 1, must meet the 90 feet standard at the building setback line.
3. Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards.
4. The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width.
5. Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot unless the
pool is removed or the platting of the lot is concurrent with an application for a building permit
for a principal dwelling on the lot.
6. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall verify that acceptable building pads can be
accommodated on all lots that have lake setbacks.
7. If Lot 1, Block 4, is not dedicated for park purposes, then the development shall pay full park
fees in force at the time of final plat approval.
8. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to
city sewer service when available.
g. The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in
accordance with City Code.
h. The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
9. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
10. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
11. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
12. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
13. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
14. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
15. The OHW determination shall be completed prior to final plat approval. All plans shall
illustrate Lake Harrison's OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW.
16. All non -riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet
wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management
zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot area.
17. The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff
and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).
18. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water ponding is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
19. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
20. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes
near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately
sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel
61
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap
and geotextile or permanent turf re -enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls
shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence,
mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with
category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements
is needed on Pond 1.
21. Following storm water inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall
be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be
provided.
22. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen -specification Type -1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside.
23. Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the
rock construction entrance.
24. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re -enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
25. The "Inlet Sediment Filter" detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1 V2 -inch rock, 2 feet
wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal t -posts shall be used, not
wood stakes.
26. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
27. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slone Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent, drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
28. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
62
0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
29. All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass
grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement
such as wetland or creek crossing areas).
30. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $135,285.38.
32. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
33. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In
no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone.
34. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
35. A total of 319 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on
landscape plans dated 3/18/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows:
Lot, Block
Number of trees required
Lot 1, blk 1
5
Lot 2, blk 1
2
Lot 3, blk 1
1
Lot 4, blk 1
1
Lot 5, blk 1
1
Lot 6, blk 1
2
Lot 7, blk 1
2
Lot 8, blk 1
2
Lot 9, blk 1
1
Lot 10, blk 1
2
Lot 11, blkI
None— existing front yard trees to be
reserved
Lot 12, blk 1
None — existing front yard trees to be
reserved
Lot 1, blk 2
4
63
0
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
0
Lot, Block
Number of trees required
Lot 2, blk 2
3
Lot 3, blk 2
2
Lot 4, blk 2
2
Lot 5, blk 2
3
Lot 6, blk 2
1
Lot 7, blk 2
3
Lot 8, blk 2
2
Lot 9, blk 2
2
Lot 10, blk 2
7
Lot 1, blk 3
5
Lot 2, blk 3
2
Lot 3, blk 3
2
Lot 4, blk 3
3
Lot 5, blk 3
1
Lot 6, blk 3
1
Lot 7, blk 3
1
Lot 8, blk 3
2
Lot 9, blk 3
2
Lot 10, blk 3
3
Lot 11, blk 3
2
Lot 12, blk 3
3
Lot 13, blk 3
3
Lot 14, blk 3
3
Lot 15, blk 3
2
Lot 16, blk 3
1
Lot 17, blk 3
None — existing front yard trees to be
preserved
36. The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on
the landscape plan dated 3/18/05.
37. Any private street is required to have 20 -foot wide paved streets from back -of -curb to back -of -
curb, be built to a 7 -ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30 -foot
wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to
submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7 -ton design.
38. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant
should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property
owner.
39. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
RE
• •
Planning Commission Meeting —April 19, 2005
40. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the
Building Department.
41. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 -year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance,
and wetlands up to the 100 -year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the
construction plans.
42. Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type II
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately
after grading to minimize erosion.
43. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City s
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
44. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
45. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
46. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota
47. Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall.
48. On the preliminary plat sheet show the street right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs.
49. Minimum 20 -foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required over the sanitary
sewer and watermain that is outside of the right-of-way.
65
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
50. On the grading plan:
a. Show the benchmark.
b. Add a note to remove all existing approaches.
c. Show the retaining walls top and bottom elevations.
d. Revise the street grades to comply with the 7% maximum requirement
e. Eliminate Pond 1 and bring the drainage to Pond 2.
f. The proposed grading for Lots 4-6, Block 3 needs to be revised to prevent the garage
elevation of Lot 4 from being lower than the street.
g. The garage elevations of Lots 5 and 6 need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency
overflow for the street
It. Install a culvert under the proposed street connection at Galpin Boulevard.
i. Show the 1036 contour around the housepad of Lot 2, Block 1.
j. Show the proposed storm sewer on the plan.
51. Label the existing and proposed street names on all plan sheets.
52. On the utility plan:
a. Revise the note to say "All storm pipe shall be Class 5...".
b. Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road,
Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Drive.
c. Revise the location of the downstream sanitary sewer from MH -15 so it goes between Lots
4 and 5 versus Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
d. Show all utility and storm ponds easements.
e. Sanitary service must be 6 -inch PVC and water service 1 -inch copper type K.
f. The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard.
53. Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for
future connection to the City's second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw
watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer
will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and
to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction.
54. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (39) than what the property has been assessed
for, the additional 38 units (39-1=38) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral
connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording.
55. As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right -tum lane into the site
will be required to be constructed. The tum lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
56. A 10 -foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
CSS]
CI
Planning Commission Meeting—April 19, 2005
•
57. Two additional fire hydrants are required. I had discussion with Assistant City Engineer Matt
Saam as to their location.
58. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such
protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction
except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
59. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the
new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
60. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
61. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
62. Create a Lot and Block on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E.
63. The private street cul-de-sac shall be moved back from Lot 12, Block 1 to Lot 11, Block
1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the front yard variance and denial of the bluff setback variances based on the findings of fact
attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following
conditions:
1. The wetland alteration permit is contingent on final plat approval for Lake Harrison.
2. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
3. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
67
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
4. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
5. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
6. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
7. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided overall existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
9. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for
Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1
slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket.
10. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re -enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
11. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
12. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
M
0 0
Planning Commission Meeting — April 19, 2005
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
pnd comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Well we wish you luck with this and I got to be very honest. If it was a different
developer I would have had a very hard time going along with this. So we'll take a 5 minute
recess and we'll try to briefly address the remaining items.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD -R; SUBDIVISION
WITH VARUNCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE
UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN: AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK,
APPLICANT, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff& Jenny Silus 2662 Shadow Lane, Chaska
Rick Dorsey 14215 Green View Court, Eden Prairie
Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska
Dave Zelinsky 2886 Ironwood Blvd.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions. Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: Yeah we're, if my math is correct we're losing about 3% of our office industrial space.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: What's our feeling in terms of tax base? In terms of the market for office industrial right
now? You know is this lost?
Aanenson: Well that's the question that the council has. When, in the process of looking at the
AUAR they spent some time saying that maybe this should be predominantly industrial, this area
down here. What you have to remember is when we updated the comprehensive plan in 1998,
we put this land use together. Projections were made. People made other economic decisions
51: