PC 1994 10 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 1994
Chairman Scott called thc meeting to order at 7:30 pan. He gave a brief description of the
role of the Planning Commission and asked each of the Planner Commissioners to stag their
interests and reasons for being appoints! on the Planning Commission.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, loc Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy
Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farrnakes
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Planner H; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave
Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODF_. ARTICLE XXVI~ REGARDING ~ SIGN
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Addre~
~ndy Herman
Scott Danielson
Leonard Thiel
Kaye Benson
2791 Piper Ridge
U.S. Bench
U.S. Bench
2211 Sommergate
John Rask presented the stuff report on thi~ iten~
!
Scott: Good. Thank you very much for your report. Comments or questions from the
commissioners please.
Harberts: Can you give me a definition of what you refer to as a bus bench.
Rask: Yeah. The ordinance doesn't really contain a definition. What we're trying to I guess
prohibit here is just a proliferation of bus benches for adv~ purposes.
Harbe~: Well what's a bus bench? Are we speaking benches that may be in error
considered a bus bench? What's your definition of a bus bench?
Rask: Well I guess right now the ordinance just prohibits advertising on bus benches.
They're not looking to define a bus bench necessarily. I guess a bus bench could be anything
whether it's outside of Festival or Byerly's or the parking lot. I guess thc ordinance, thc sign
ordinance is prohibiting advertisement on these benches.
Harbens: Would it be correct to clarify that the oixiinance is referring to benches that are
outside? I think it's in error to refer to it as a bus bench.
Rask: Cer'minly that we could look at chan~ng. The wording of that.
Harberts: Yeah. I'm just, bus bench doesn't clarify what we're speaking of but I think what
we're spes~ng about is benches that are located outside and I would just offer that as a
suggestion to consider because I believe a bus bench is certainly ming because I think
it's just a name or a label that's been in error assigned to a bench that may be sitting next to
the street or something.
Mancino: Excuse me, I have a question on that for Commissioner Harberts. In the Park and
Ride glass buildings, there aren't benches in there, arc there? The ones I've seen have chairs.
Harberts: No. In the park and ride location within the shel~, there are benches located in
the shelter as well as passenger benches located outside the ahelter.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: A question John. One of the things that we asked as we were reviewing this was
in thc section when it got to be the wtal square footage of signs for different buildings in
certain zones. We asked to see some visuals there so it would show to us what is 15% of the
600 wall areas in square feet and to have some actual visuals here in our ordinance. At some
point.
Rask: Yeah. We were still working on the diagra_ma...some of the d_e~initions. We reserved
spaces that we're going to insert diagrams and because of the short timeframe we weren't
able to get all this.
Mancino: Will we do it?
Rask: Yes, we will do it.
Mancino: Can you tell me looking at thc, we have a new building up, thc new Byerly's
building with a new Byerly's sign up in front that faces 78th Street. Where is this in the
general business district and cenlxal business district?
Generous: In the general.
Chanhassen Planning Comm~don - October 19, 199~
Mancino: So it would be Section 20-1303. And which category would that particular
building in that wall sign.
Generous: It's the highest...up to 230.
Mancino: Is that about the size of thc Byerly's sign?
Generous: Of the Byerly's sign, yes. The total size on that I believe is 840 with the Fine
Foods, Open 24 Hours, and Wines and Spirits.
Mancino: So then this 40 number only stands for one of the signs or?
Generous: No. It would be for the entire from of that area.
Mancino: Okay. But that one's bigger than 240.
Generous: Right. They requested a variance.
Mancino: Okay. So any business can, if they want m, come before us and ask for a
variance?
Generous: They always have that option. Whether or not we grant it is another thing.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or cormnents? This is a public hem'ing so ff I could have
a motion to open the public hearing, I'd spprechte it.
Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. Ail voted in hvor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Anyone who would like to speak at the public hearing please, yes sir. S~"p up.
Introduce yourself and give us your address and let us hear what's on your mind.
Leonard Thiel: Gentl~ Members of the Planning Commi.~siom My name is Leonard
Thicl. I live at 6643 Green Circle Drive, 1V~innctollk~, 1VIinnesota. I'm lgg representing U.S.
Bench. Mr. Dauielson, the ~t, wanted to be here. He got mixed up and we thought
the meeting was going to be two weeks ago...out of Wwn and he apologizes for not being
here. However, his son Scott is here if you've got any questions of him... I'd like to make a
few comments if I may relative to these are benches. U.S. Bench is operating in
Chanhn.s~o Pla~nln§ Commi.~sion - October 19, 1994
approximately 90 W 100 communities in the metropolitan area and operate only at bas-stops.
They also, most cities have a separate ordinance for this and it's not incotpola~ed in their sign
ordinance. Most of them have separate ordinanc~ simply because, as in~ some time
ago by the Attorney General that, and may I read from that to kind of further clarify our
position. I did speak before your group but I don't know if I, I must have done a fairly poor
job and didn't explain myself too well May I read partly from this is the Attarney General's
opinion and this opinion came out of the result of taxing a sign. I think the question has to
be analyzed in terms of what is the primary purpose and function of the bench because
clearly the bench is serving... It seems to me the primary purpose or function of the property
is to provide a place to sit or waiting for bus mmsportafion. It's secondary purpose is that of
advertising for the retailer who places the bench there .... to maWhbooks...bags and nmmewus
other items distributed for public convenience. Even though advertising is placed thereon, I
don't think anyone would deny that the primm3' purpose or fimction is to provide mawhes,
litterbugs and so forth. Often times people do not even notice the adv~g but merely use
the property for it's intended purpose. I think too, with waiting benches there it is an aspect
of assistance to the public which should be encouraged. The retailers could place a narmal
advertising sign, billboard on the comer and it would be the...but providing the small
advertising signs as an item of public convenience. Not only are billboards eliminated but the
public expenditures for...are assured by the retailer. This should be encouraged by
recoglaizing the primary function is to provide the waiting benches and only secondary as an
advertising function- If you want a copy, I will certainly provide you one. The governor,
then governor quite some time ago wrote a letter too. As Governor of l~innesola I commend
the U.S. Bench Coqx)ration for the 25 years of public service they have rendered our slate.
This firm has provided courtesy benches at bas stops and it is a fine example of private
companies helping the community in cooperation with city offi~. This locally owned
l~inrlesota corporation has provided the much needed public sea'vice without cost...for a
generation. The importance of mass trandt cannot be minimized in today's society. The
service the transit company provides a necessary component of a successful transit system. I
noticed in, it referred here, the Attc~ey's opinion and what have you it refers to in the...
planner here. I have copies of that and actually I think it does make it confusing if it's a pan
of the regular sign ordinance. I noticed also that the purpose of signage of your ordinance,
which is a good one by the way and I do want to, I think you're in an exciting period. Your
city is growing. I spent...part of the city to grow from 1959. Spent 18 years in a city
growing and it's an exciting time and a challenging time for you and I compliment that for
your enthusiasm to be a part of the city and always remember as a worthwhile thing to do. I
noticed on your purpose and finelings. There isn't anything here, anything...belabor it too
much. There isn't anything here that is in conflict with U.S. Bench. There isn't anything in
conflict. U.S. Bench will not take advertising for liquor, wbacco, or political They also
restrict florescent colors and reflective mR__tedal_ U.S. Bench has their benches at bus stops.
Only in bus stops and between 90 and 100 metropolitan cotnrr~__ mifies. Many of these
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
communities have a separate ordinance for bus stop benches and I think that's an important
item because I think it isn't, as I pointed out before, it doesn't quite fit into the sign
ordinance because it is a multi use. And many of these cities, they charge a license fee for
the bench. The cities charge a license fee and pay a license fee to the city. In various
amounts. One example for instance is Bloomington which has a lot of them, may charge
$1.00. U.S. Bench also has a willion dollars of liability on them. Insurance policy for
which the city is named as an additional insurer. And as you know in today's society, it's
not uncommon to have lawsuits come up over nothing and so the city would be ~ for
of U.S. Bench's that would have. That may create a problem. And also do the maintaining
of these benches which, and I have some pictures I'll show you in just a minute. It's also an
economically way for the local small business pemon to advertise for a reasonable cost. It's
also a way for the small businessman to supply a service to the community and small
businesses are the heart of the city. They encourage, as you well know, they encourage
residential development...small businesses for residential development and commercial
development, which let's face it, helps you maintain the tax base that's healthy and good for
the city. I think that I would like you to seriously consider a separate ordinance or
reconunendation for a separate ordinance just for that. There's a lot of examples of any
number of cities I can get from any city you want and what they use as an example and it
wouldn't require a lot of your time to work one of those out and I certainly would
recowanend that to you. As I look through this and I think it would be the easiest way for
this to be handled and then it would not be conflicting with what your planner brought up
with what the City Attorney said. There'd be no conflict there. I'm sure of that. I have a
picture here that I think you'll find interesting. This is at 50th and Nrance in Edina. Next to
a bus stop and a shelter and we have a spedal, for certain areas U.S. Bench has a special
bench that they put out...and then I have one that's regular. May I pass that round?
Scott: Sure.
Leonard Thiel: I think I've taken quite a bit of your time and I thank you for your kind
attention~ If you have any questions of either myseff or Mr. Scott Danielson, why we'd be
glad to try and answer them.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? Well flumk you very much. Would anyone else
like to speak at the public hearing regarding the sign c~dinance?
Randy Herman: My name is Randy Herman. I live on Piper Ridge Lane in Chanhassen.
I'm thc sole representative tonight of the Chamber committee that worked on the sign
question, as you can probably see. I'm really here I think to ask a favor and that is, since the
notice came out last Thursday we have been unable to meet as a group to review the final
draft Pan of it is our own fault. I was the only one that was aware that it was on tonight's
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
agenda and we had a very brief opporumity just before the meeting to kind of quickly go
over it. I realize you want to move forward with thi~. If it's possible, we would like to ask
to be able to have until the next Planning Commission meeting to review it and to prepare
our comments. In our quick glance over tonight, the overwhelming feeling was that it looks
~ally good. We made a ton of progress I think in the weeks that we met. There were a
couple issues that we'd like to look at a little harder. I don't know if that's possible or not
but that's the request I'm coming with. If not, I guess we'd prepared those comments and
address them at the City Council leveL But again, I guess the overwhelming feeling that we
talked briefly tonight was we've come a long way on both sides. We made a lot of progress.
A lot of it seems to make a lot more sense when you do it. And it seems thinner to me, I
don't know if that's true or not.
Scott: No.
Randy Hennan: That was one of the goals...
Scott: Good, thank you very much. Ma'am.
Kaye Benson: Hi. I'm Kaye Ben.son. I live on Sommerg~ in the city of Chanhassen. I
wasn't here for this issue but...In your ordinance, for the si~gns, will you be addressing any of
the issues relating to ~affic? In particular my experien~ has been, the intersection- It would
be the northeast intersection of Highway 15 and Oalpin Blvd. It's kind of a depository for
signs and I drive a fairly low car, a Honda, and there are times when there are so .many si~ns
that it really does obstruct your vision of the traffic corning, especially from the east. Is that
being addressed anywhere?
Scottz Yes, there's a section and I'm not able to quote the exact numbers but I'm sure that
John will find it before I get done with my sentence. But we've nofitxxi that too. We've set
up an area, a triangular area at an intersection where there can be no more than 4 si~gns of a
certain size and shape and that's exactly right. As a.ms__ner of fact that very intersection was
brought up several times at our work sessions. But yes it has been addre~ed and I think
lohn probably can find it. But we're looking at limiting those kinds of areas to relatively
small signs and then the larger ones for development and so forth are usually at the entry
points to those. But yes. The answer to your question is yes and if you'd like, maybe when
somebody else is commenting, John can show you the actual section of the sign ordinance so
you can review that for yourseff. Good, thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to
speak at this public heating? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing
please.
Chanhass~ Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to dose the public hearin~ All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closetL
Farmsice~: I missed some of the presentation s_nd the public heazing. I have some gomal
philosophical issues and how they translate to what we do. I use a case in point to the
Byerly's building that was passed over here. I think that the.issue is well pointed out is the
unnecessary duplication of signage. That he's facing front and we argued about that for quite
some time and I think rather than deal with each specific b~ildlng, there should be a
philosophical intent of what we want to end up with, and I'm not sure even their intent
statement here covers the issue of nnneces~ duplication of signage. It ia always good to
have more in business than less than what you need, and I suspect in this case, there still
se~ns to be sorn~ confusion ~en af~ reading this of whal w~'re going to end up with. Do
wc want 20 foot pylon signs down ?Sth Street? l~vca if it happcas to bca big dcvel~t.
It seems to mc that somc of thc direction that wc started out with with reducing those signs
and making thcrn more monumcamrc signs down 78th to try and keep the small town feel
We're not arriving at that here. Striping on some of the, sc t~ildings, on thc Taco Bell Thc
issuc of what constitutcs a sign and what constitutes a building. I don't think that we've
dcfincd that quite yet here. I think one of thc ways that wc approach that, perhaps in this
ordinance would bc to incorporate thc square £ootagc of all this banding and thc bright colors
around thc buitrting to bring that in with thc overall square footage of thc sign and that would
bca way to monitor it. Again, I §ct back to what is thc intcat of what wc want to wind up
with and it seems to mc that our intent is to provide opportunity for thc business persons to
advertise their goods or scrviccs and locations and at thc same time modcratc what wc wind
up with so that wc have an uncluttered city. There's a lot of bad retail advertising done and
a lot of it is ineffective. There arc several men~x~s in this commission that I think combln_ed
maybe have 60 years in advcrtisin§. And thc fact is that there's a big di~crcncc in an
caviromncnt that is created by signa§c and it sneaks up on you. Especially in a developing
town because wc start multiplying thc effect. You start _sd_din§ more and more retail
buildings. More and more bsnncrs. More and more outside clutter. More and more window
displays. And once it's done and it starts adding up, it creates an image. Thc ira_age of
downtown Lake Street is diffcrcat than thc Oxbom dcvelopmcat in Fxtina. It has a differcat
image. Other than it has to do with signagc. A lot of it has to do with clutter. A lot of it
has to do with what thc community wants to wind up with in thc cad. And getting back to
some specifics say on thc bcach advertising. I guess since I don't see Chanhassca as being a
hugc bus opcration~ I'm going to support thc staff on that. I don't think that's a hugc issue in
front of us. I don't think that it's thcrc yet. I think this is maybe 90% there. There's still a
couple of issues that I think arc stilt; to mc, i ,mlx~mt and not addrcsse, d here. And although
we've discusscd them, I think somc of thc verbiage, cvca ~ust getting back to thc intcat
statement. Talking about thc right to adv~isc. Equitable oppommity to advertise. I think
Chanhassen Planning Commh.~ion - Octo~ 19, 1994
the intent to me is not to advertise goods or services but signage should be identify location
of the goods and services being offered. There's a difference and we've argued about that.
infinitum. Again, I think it goes back to the be~nning, the intent. Is it to locate and
advertise for the consumer the location of the building or is it to tell them that they have beer
for $12.69 a 6 pack. I don't think for in.qance on the window dis~y advertising...yet
thought out correctly. There's been a case in point made that if the Riveria is being
penalized by the original approach that we took on that because they have a 6 foot window
space. Whereas MGM has 70% of their front surface is glass and they have a much larger
capacity so therefore if you ~1~ a ~tage of that window space, MGM winds up with a
much greater percentage of space than somebody by the Riveria. And so anyway, I'll pass
om I'd vote to table this. It needs some more walk.
Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I guess from my perspective, the sign ordinance has a si~i~icant i ,mpact on the
business comnmnity and I guess we took the extra steps measure to hold the wade sessions
with the chamber and other representatives of the bnsi_'ness community to try and
through some of the issues here. I would move to table also for the purpose of hearing any
additional or final comments so we have a chance to wox/c throuEh those issues in the same
spirit of cooperation that we atten~ted to achieve at those work sessions.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Well I have some discussion points and I'd actually like to hear other
commissioners opinions on that are in the ordinance and would be fine to again table this and
listen to thc Chamber's. Have thcm participate in it too. But certain big areas that I have are
in the height of the pylon signs which is on page l/i, which is Section 20-1303. And it's not
whether I'm for or against pylon signs but I think that tying the height of a pylon sign to the
square footage of the principle ~ just doesn't make sense for me. I think that the
height of a pylon signs should be, you know where the road grade is and where the grade of
the building is and whether it needs to be like Target. Be maybe a little taller so that you can
see it from the road. But when you have the same grade of the road and as with the building
is, then I think that 10 feet is tall enough. So I would like to revim't that area in the pylon
signs and how tall they can be. And I would like to hear other people's comments on that.
Couple other areas would also be, one that left brought out on page 12, which should be
general location restrictions which is Section 20-1265 on window si,~o~s. Again I don't think
that we're being fair to people who do not have windows at all And I think that windows
are as much an architecttual element just like a brick. Just like another rock sm-face and
we're not allowing signs on those. $o what is the difference and how can we be equitable to
businesses who do have windows, glass surfaces, and those who don't. And I'd like to
Chanhassen Planning Commission - Octo~ 19, 199~
rethink that. Another area, and I think that Kay~ Benson brought this up. On page 8 under
off ~se directional si~t,~s (c)(2), and I think the Chamber did bring this up and I'm not in
agreement with it. They wanted us to remove "there shall not be more than 4 signs per
intersection". Now these signs we have increased from 24 feet to 32 feet, because they have
asked us to do that. But whether it's 32 feet or 24 feet, I think the same prem_ ise that she
brought up. When you get to C-alpin and Highway 5, you have not limiiEd how many signs
can be on that poor intersection. This statement clearly says that we have taken away a
number maximum and I would like to rethink that. Retalk about that and put in a maximum
number of signs per intersection. I would also, on page 6, 9(g) under temparaty development
project advertising signs, I would like us to decide at the very bottom. Such signs shall be
removed when the project being advertised is complet~ I would like the ward con~.let~ to
be defined very specifically. Or at~ 3 years. I'd like to add the phrase, or whichever comes
first. And the last area that I'd like w, when we talk about at a work session when we meet
with the chamber is on page 9(2). I'm sorry, page 10. Number 5. When we talk about
search li~ts. I would like to make sure that we have hours set on search lights so especially
when there is a neighborhood commercial area, etc, that they cannot be on late at ni~t for
the adjoining neighbors. I think it's just intrusive and invasive, and I'm not even ~ I ~
the ideas of search lights to tell you the truth. Because I'm so concerned about
neighborhoods. So those are my areas of concern and I could, I would like...those areas.
Scorn Good, Matt.
Ledvina: As it relates to the benches, I guess I would support staff in terms of their
recomr~ndations regarding the report. I want~ to ask Diane if the Southwest Metro, I mean
do you contract with U.S. Bench to have benches installed or how does that, is there a
relationship there or no?
Harberts: We don't have any relationship with U.S. Bench or any other sign company or
bench company. Currently it's the policy of Southwest Metro Transit that we do not allow
any advertising at our park and ride sites or bus stops or even on our buses. But it is an area
that we are reviewing because there is revenue opportunity and I think one of thc comments
brought up in the public hearing was the fact, and I guess I'll just kind of sum it up as a
pannership between public and private. It gets to be a si~ifieant cost savings to a
government entity when they can go into partnership with a private company and both in a
sense accomplish their goals together. And I'll certainly speak to that in a little bit more
detail when it's my turn.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I guess some of the things that Jeff had talked about as it mlat~ to
thc duplication of thc signagc. I think that we could perhaps have more disctmsion of that.
That seems to be a reasonable thing to add into the intent ~n~. The way I see it and as
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
it relates to color bands being d~fin~! as part of signage I think, I don't know. That seems to
be a very touchy kind of thing and a very difficult thing to define. I'm not saying that I'm
against something like that in term~ of trying to get a handle on that but I just think that's an
area that can be very difficult. I don't know how we deal with that. I think we can have
more discussion on it as it relates to that. I guess that's the extent of my comments. I don't
know how we want to handle it in terms of de-qling with these issues but if it means that
another work session is appropriate, I don't know. I mean because there are some
philosophical things that we're looking at too and I mean, re-open_ ing issues like window
signage and, I mean those are some things that took a lot of time to even get where they are
right now so I don't know. I don't know where we go from-here to be honest. I can sense
that we're tabling it. That we will likely table it but maybe somebody, someone else can
provide some more direction.
Scott: Okay. I will. Ladd.
Conrad: I think we should table it, and simply because I want to hand the City Council a
pretty good package because I don't want you to go through what we've gone throu~ And
that's very honest. I don't know if we're going to make much of a difference as we dissect
this again but I think we should let the Chamb~ come in and Randy, I'm real disappointed in
the Chamber. We've worked 3 or 4 sessions and spent a lot of time and not to have you able
to have the Chamber respond it's sort of a disappoinunent.
Randy Herman: Were we wrong in thinking that we were going to get a copy of this before
it hit the public hearing?
Conrad: You should. You should have.
Randy Herman: Well nobody did. I picked up my copy at the city...
Conrad: Yeah, I would have liked to have you had that copy because I do want your input.
We worked real hard with you. I think we made it a wodmble sign ordinance. It's maybe
not as pure as some people would like but on ~ other hand, it's probably better than what
we've had. And I think there's still a few issues out there that I think we should talk about.
But on the other hand, talking about it doesn't mean that we're going to, you know I think if
we do have issues, I think the Planning Commission should come prepared to talk about those
issues and not just throw them up. That you come with specific proposals because we'll
never get this off our desk. And my perspective is, we're not going to improve signagc in
Chanhassen a whole lot more~ So we're splitting hairs and we have to move this through and
some of us have spent a lot of time working on this and again it's not perfecL But I think it
suppoms the business community. It also suppot~ the resid~ts of C~u~assen in terms of
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1904
helping to develop a decent community in terms of the signage so, not belaboring the point.
There are some issues I still have with it I think if we all picked out own little issues,
nobody would pass this ordinance on. There's some things that I really don't like. Being in
advertising, there's some things that I really, you know they're reslrictive. But on the other
hand I think so far it's turned out to be a little bit of a compromise. I think we should come
back and take a look at it. I really don't want a special work session. I think we should be
able to handle this fight here and with ~ direction of staff, to either explore somethin§
and bring it back or does somebody come in to the next meeting and say, this is what I want.
Case in point. I don't know if window signage 33%, you know we could talk about window
signa§e for the rest of our lives and still wouldn't get to the bottom of it. And I don't want
to. I really don't want to do that. Window dgnage can be real offensive but so far nobody
in Chanhassen, I've been here a while, nobody's talked to me about window signage. Really
haven't. I think more people have talked to me about maintenance of signage. How big is
our mainmumce section in here? It's two lines. And who's out there check-lng our
maintenance? But it'd certainly be easier to go out and check how much window signage
we're going w have per square foot. You know again, let's make sure our priadfies are right
here. I think the ordinance is pretty good. I think the Chamber of Commerce believes it's
getting better. I'm going to make a few quick points and I would hope that staff would
follow them up so when it comes back one more time, that we can talk about it. Permit and
variance fees. Page 2. I think our intent was to make sure that it said it covers the city cost.
It wam't trying to be prohibitive of taking out a permit. It was u3dng to cover the cost of
managing permits. A lot of us had a concern about permits in general but I think generally
we felt let's keep them but not have them be so big. So again, I'd like an intent in there
saying what we're trying to do in m-ms of the cost. I don't want a cost in there becau~
they're going to change but I think we need an intent statement. When we say bench signs
are prohibited, that's okay fight now but uausit and trandt shelters need to have the
opportunity to advertise. I don't have a problem with a bench sign being prohibited but I
think, if I interpret, because we don't have a _de~nifion in here, I don't want this generalized
to transit in general. So I'm comfortable with the way it reads but that's only because we
don't have definitions, which means it's a bad ardinance.
Sco~t: Or that part is bad.
Conrad: For that part, thank you. Thank you Joe. I've worked too hard on this to mean the
whole thing is a bad ordinance. I'll tell you, we're not going to do that anymore. Totally
agree with Nancy's opinion on seawh lights and the hours of operation. Absolutely. I don't
know how we missed that. Under ~ and repair, there are 4 lines. ~ Maybe
we haven't thought it. We've tackled all the numba~ in here but maybe we haven't tackled
the issues that trolly are signi/icant. You know I didn't see anything that said the
Chanhassen Bowl sign will be improved. Maybe we don't want it to be or main~ but the
11
~n Planning Commi~don - October 19, 1994
words rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, defaced.-Does tl~ mean faded? Does that mean flaked?.
Does that ~, what does that mean? You know I'd really like staff to make sure that
there's some teeth into maintenance of signage. Same page 13. I really don't buy the 15%
of the sign di~lay area for corporate logos. I don't get it. Now maybe that went over my
head in all those meetings but Byerly's sign is a logo. Target's sign is a logo. So I don't get
the 15%. I don't have a clue how to interpret that. Other than that, heard some other
comments from commissioners. I think we should revisit those but again, if not just to kick it
around, I thiuk it's bring in something. Be ready to lalk about it. Give us some specifics and
let's react and Randy, I apologize if you didn't get the ordinance ahead of time. You should
have. We really want, I want to hear what the Chamber is thinking about where we are today
so that's why I would like this tabled.
Maucino: And I'll add onto that specifically you'd like to hear from the Chamber. If there
are areas, you would also like to heart very specific solutions.
Conrad: Yes. Yeah. Thanks Nancy. When we come back Randy, it's like here's what we
want. It's not like we don't like this, and I think you've done a nice job of doing that in the
past but the next time we meet, I think we just have to say. This is what we're
recommending and we just have to, unless the Planning. You know I'm just ~ for
myself but I honestly, I've watched the sign ordinance over many years and it's really wugh
to come to a conclusion. It really ~ There's so many different cuts at an ordinance. It's the
toughest ordinance that the city has to write and we'll never get to the bottom. And really,
the Chanhass~ signage is not all that bad. But we're trying for some ~ement and
that's okay but it's never going to be perfect.
Scott: Okay, Diane.
Hartxa'm: I would just basically to my cotmnents earlier, as well as agree with Ladd's
comments with regard to transit I'd like to, I guess my feeling here is that there's a good
chance that this may be tabled and so this might give an oppoztunity .for staff. Don't you
love that word, staff. Yeah, I know it. It's a new 4 letter word. 5 letters. To maybe revisit
the element of bench signs as it's then refers to transit, and I guess the question ia, is it so
much the problem of signage or perhaps where sometimes the benches are placed. You know
I'll take for example in Chanhas~n I'm aware of only two transit related passenger benches
which are located at the park and fide locati~ at Paulys Road there. Those are the only two
passenger benches associated with Southwest Melro. I'm aware though of numerous other
benches in the community though that may have an advertising that may be questioned as to
their location. But I've also seen these same other benches used by the general public. I
know one instance the bench that's located at Laredo and ?Sth Street. It's in that thing of
trees and plantings. I noticed a walker or runner, whichever, was using the bench as a place
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
to rest. And so I guess as long as this is being tabled, I would ~y encourage staff to
perhaps review some of the other ways that the other communities handle this. It would be
interesting to know that Chanhassen is, would be the only community that I'm aware of in the
metro area that wouldn't allow any signage whatsoever. Maybe it's just a ms__n~r of revim' '.ng
that. I said there's a lot of benefits that can be achieved for the general good of the public, or
for the benefit by having a parmership so maybe it's just a matter of better defining what
we're talking about, what we're speaking to. Is it indeed signage? Any kind of gigllage ion a
bench or is it perhaps the location of a particular bench and how it looks, w~er. I'm not
advocating for U.S. Bench. I do not have a, thcre's no professional or business relationship
with them between Southwest Metro Transit and them but I'm just speaking from my
experience in the bus industry. The transit industry and from a revenue generating
pers~ve, it's very advantageous to transit and badcally what it allows is the transit
revenue dollars be put into more opiating of buses rath~ than for anywhere from find a
bench to maintaining. Even to thc liability of it so I woold just suggest that perhaps staff
might be able to talk to other commnnlties al~ I'm ~ $outhwe,~t Melro would certainly be
available to assist you with that My thoughta
Scott: Okay. I'm going to try to, I guess for staff's benefit, I'm going to go through some of
the notes that I've taken to make sure that we've covered... If I ha~ to miss an issue that
some of thc other commissioRers have Im~ught up please, I don't have to ask you to speak up
because I know you will. Obviously Diane's question about a bet~ d_eneinition. Originally
we wanted a better definition of a bench, vis a vis it's transit capabilitie~ Additional
diagrams that spell out relative size of si~R to building. Wall surfaces. Song in the
intent statement to reduce duplication of signage, i.e. banding or striping with corporate
colors. In 20-1252, purpose being to cover the city's administrative cost for permit and
variance fees. Application fees. On, this is now 20-1255, Section 9(g). Better definition of
when a project is completed, and then there's a section, after 3 years, whichever comes first.
Now in Section 10(c) of the same area, item number 2. Off premise directional si~. Put in
some limit. Right now we're, there shall be no more than 4 si~s per intersection. Have that
included again. The search light section. Set hours of operation. Let's see. I'm not going
to say anything about window signs. And then also some additional definition as to
maintenance of signage. And then in Section 20-1303. Have some work done on, instead of
relating, the height of the pylon size to the square footage of the principle structure. Have
some sort of relationship with the distance from the roadway. Perhaps the classic roadway,
i.e. the speed limit and then the difference in grades between the roadway and the base of the
sign. What did I miss? I'm sure I missed something.
Mancino: Ladd's 15% of sign display.
13
~sen Planning Commission - October ]9, 1994
Scott: Oh okay. Where their sign is a logo. That's 100%. Okay. Any other cornm_~ts? If
not, then I'd like to have a motion please.
Conrad: I move to table the sign o~dinance.
Scott: Okay, is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Sc. om It's been moved and seconded that we table the sign ordinance. Is there any
discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planni~ Commi _~on table the amendment
to the City Code, Article XXVl regarding the sign oraimmc~ AU voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Scott: And if you could add Randy Herman, Moore Sign, would you like that delivered to
your office?
Randy Herman: That'd be great And I'll get it distributed to the others.
Scott: Okay. That will go out with our, we usually get th~ Planning Commission pac, k~ on
Saturday? Friday7
Generous: They come out on Thursday.
Scorn Thursday or Friday, something like that so you'll be getting your's just after
Halloween.
Rask: ...same time you received it so if possible we will try to get it to him earlier this time.
Scott: Good. Thank you all very much for coming for that item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT
6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD~ HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION~
HOBEN CORPO~TION.
Public Present:
14
Chanhassen Planning Con, mission - October 19, 1994
Name
Address
lames Hoben
Perry & Pat Harrison
Charles Spevacc~
David McFarland
Paul & Betty Burkholder
Kaye Benson
Peter & Lisa Staudohar
Robert & margaret Cristofono
Lynda Kuzma
Keith Boudrie
Hoben ~on
2221 Sommergate
6474 Murray Hill Road
6341 Murray Hill Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
2211 Sommergate
2204 Sommergate
2210 Sommergate
2241 S~ate
6464 Murray Hill Road
6482 Murray Hill Road
Bob Generous presented the 8tnff report on this item.
Sco~ Questions.
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a
grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road
will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things.
Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there
won't be a lot of grading because it is so fiat Thc roadways...proposed 30 foot easement.
There is a location of the houscpad that could be...the gtbacks and conservation easement
along the north property line...I think the applicant has...
Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was
not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will
probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that
Scorn Okay. Any other questions or con.norm for stuff? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you
like to make a presentation.
Sim Hoben: Sum. This is the...
Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can
put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a
piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there.
15
Chanhassen Planning C~mm/saion = October 19, 1994
Harberts: Or just hold it in front of the stand.
Jim Hoben: Very quickly I probably should mention first, because I was asked by several
people, my name is Jim Hoben. Hoben Coqxn'afi~ I've been a developer far 35 years.
Commercial, office buildings and warehouses and stuff like that The Wayzaia First National
Bank in Wayza~ The Citizens State Bank. I've been building and developing residential
since the mid 1970's. I'll pick that up in just a second. Since the mid 1970's. We built in
the Deephaven...property. I've developed the Hollyhrook Townhouse they call it up in
Wayzala which is 60 some units over there and we've built hon~s in Orono, Plymouth,
Wayzata, Deephaven and then in Minnetonka and areas such as that.. In looking for land in
which to do an neat little development, thi~ came to me, which we're always on the lookout
far. We came upon this nice wooded ~ up there. I've been working with the staff as
to what the requirements are and we have put wgether...approximately haft acre lots. I don't
know if anybody's familiar but basically something like the Villages which Fazenden did over
in the north pan of Plymouth...but that's generally what we're doing. Putting in this with we
established a private mad with the 4 residents that facing in on it. I'm using setbacks gremrr
than the required. The 40 feet which Mr. Generous spoke of is shown on there and it's being
used. We also used a more than 30 feet, which is I think is the requirement We've gone to
about 40 feet as this property backs up to the Burkholders which are on the other side...
We've met and exceeded I think the requiren~nts as to the lot size. As we pointed out the
utilities are all there. The grading plan as I understood it would be there before the final plat
which... There isn't that much grading on this road to be done as he said with this plat. We
acquired the outlot or the ~ to acq~ the Ouflot B which abuts Sommergate Road and
having, in doing that, that 40 foot setback allowed him which we also were able then to move
the intersection, private road over so that the trees that you spoke of is not getting touched.
We talked about that large cottonwood tree. That's off to the left hand side now and we've
got a problem. I'm ready to answer any questions that you might have.
Scott: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? None. Do you have anything else, any
other comments you'd like to make?
Jim Hoben: No. I think none that I'm aware of. I've tried to work with the slaff to meet
the requirements and I think we've done so.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. This is a public heating and if I could have a
motion please to open the public hearing.
Harberts: Can I ask some staff questious first?
Scott: Sure.
16
Chanimssen Plavnlng Commhsion - October 19, 1994
Harberts: This might be a Dave question. With this privaU: driveway ~greement, I'm
guessing that's that blue. Is that acres1.
Jim Hoben: You mm it sideways. This is Murray Hill Road. This is the prival~ road.
Harberts: Okay. Is it a road or driveway?
Hempel: It'd be a 20 foot wide l~rivate driveway.
Harberts: And so it would be a private driveway to at least 3 parcels, if not 4, is that correct?
Hempel: No, that's not co~ We currently serve up to 3 homes. There's one home that
would maintain existing driveway access off of Murray Hill_ I believe it's Lot 4. They right
now have a horseshoe type of driveway.
Jim Hoben: That was not stated...all entrances would be off this mad.
Harberts: Well it goes back to my original question- Are we talking a road? You know in
reality here, or is it in a sense just a driveway?
Hempel: It is just a driveway.
~: Are we going to be, if it's the only access point to the homes that are propo~
am I correct on that so far? Is the 20 foot going to allow for 2 way traffic? You know if
someone's coming in and someone wants to come out, is 20 feet big enough for that?
Hempel: It would be, yes.
Harberts: Okay. And did public safety, in terms of the fire clepsrm~ut and all those people
take a look to concur that 20 feet was okay?
Hempel: That's c~re~ That's your normal, standard driveway width.
Harberts: And how does the, at least the public safety vehicles go in there and turn around?
Hempel: That was askexi by Mark Litffin, the Fire Marshal, and he tells us the length of this
road is not long enough to warrant a mm around for thc fire truck vehicles.
Harberts: Even if they turn in there by mistake? I don't know, I'm just asking.
17
~ Plal~nin§ Commission - October 19, 1994
Hen'q~l: That question I guess has not been answered or addressed by Mark Litffin. Mark's
comments were that he didn't feel that it was appropriate to require a mm around for this
length of driveway.
Harberts: Okay. And it seems to me based on some other proposals that had come forward
in terms of, we didn't call them private driveways. They were like shared driveways. I think
that's what it was. And I always, it's my feeling that that was one of those things that
Chanhas~n didn't feel very cornf~le with unless there was some unique situation so I
guess I'd be interested W, do you recall any of that conversation that took place at ~
commission level here Dave?
Hcmpel: No, I don't think I do but the ordinance does state that if we are saving vegetation
or reducing grading and so forth by doing a private drive, then it would be warran~ I think
in this case, as Bob Generous indicated earlier, there arc some significant trees on this site.
Some maples and walnuts and also the 50 some inch cottonwood that are going to be saved
as a result of the narrower pavement width.
Harberts: Right. I just wanted to just kind of _remind people on that. I gue~ the only other
question I have with regard to, there was a couple d ~ or one ~ in here with regard
to the local residents raising concern about the, that perhaps the integrity or that there would
be a change within' the environment If I'm coxrect, I think I read in here in one of the
findings that this is within the zoning allowed for the area in terms of having 4 homes there.
Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirenumts.
Harberts: So they're meeting the code or the zoning requirement?
Generous: Yes.
Harberts: Okay. That's it.
Scorn Good.
Jim Hoben: Dave when you say driveway, I've got a townhouse development where the
blac~ is 20 feet for 220 or 225 feet width and there's plenty of room w...
Harberts: Iust one more, and maybe this is a Bob question. I know it said somewhere in the
staff report about some kind of cross use agreement would be.
Generous: That's required under thc...
18
Chanhass~n Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Haflgrts: And if I recall, that includes maintenance unders~, all of this.
Generous: Exactly. Maintenance, snow clearing...
Scott: Okay, good. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. AH voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Public hearing is now open and we invite memlxrs of the general public to step
forward and let us know who you arc. Let us know your address and go from there. Yes sir.
Paul Burkholder: Thank you Mr. Chair and memhcm of the commission. My ~ is Paul
Bmkholder and I live directly to the south of this property, 6370 Murray Hill Road. I moved
to Chanhassen about 6 years ago after living in Deephaven for about 10 1/2 years. One of
the reasons I moved to Chanhassen, and in this particular area, was because of the large lots
and the mature trees and the fact that...and it was just a very nice... Our neighbors next door
was the Graummns. An older couple who loved their yard and planted lots of things and...
environment for wildlife and birds and their garden and it was a very nice place. They've
passed on and a few years ago the pmpe~ was sold. On my lot and on their lot there were
things like woodchucks, raccoons, well there's raccoons all over, but all kinds of squirrels. In
my yard there's black walnut trees. I think in the yard in the subject ~ them is
perhaps 6 or 8 black walnut trees. There is this magnificent cottonwood tree right in the
middle of thc yard. And fruit trees, them are wild flowers. What Mr. Hoben is proposing is
totally out of context and out of character with the neighborhood. It is basically a cluster
home concept. One driveway and I agree with Commissioner Harberts that it's a driveway. A
shared driveway by 4 houses. I say to myself, after looking at Mr. Hoben's plan, if
pr~ were allowed to be developed, what would happen on Thanksgiving and Easter,
Chrisunas time when all 4 of these homes decided to have a gathering and all of them had 6
or 7 cars and a fire started in one of these hotnes? Again, I didn't hear any clear answer
whether this proposal has been nm past the Fire Chief and how he feels about getting a fire
truck or emergency vehicle here in a situation such as that. I'd like to know about that.
Secondly, we have a problem with the topography is rather rial The southern end of Murray
Hill Road is higher than the rest of it so the water flows northward in heavy rains. When we
first moved into our property and the heavy rain, the water would come down our driveway
and make almost a small lake. We had the city, when they were out doing some blacktop
repairing, we asked them to put a little tiny, 3 or 4 inch curbing to direct thc water a little
further down. Now Murray Hill Road, for those that live there, every time it rains there's a
torrential amount of rain that goes down that hill and they're constantly trying to fix it up
down there. It's a terrible little winding country road. Now we're talking about in this
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
particular situation, of brining in another 8 to 10 cars with 4 home~ There's another site to
the south of me with 2 1/2 acres which I believe will probably, someone will be appearing to
try to develop that one too. U~ing this proDert¥, this particular situation as precedent to
squeeze as many possible homes on this site as they can. Mr. Scott, the Ch~ir at the meeting
here, he mentioned Lake Wobegon where everything is perfect and that Chanhassen is
growing and I know that and you're going through these sorts of problems and I malizc that
the people next door to me are attempting to maximize as much money out of their WOPcny
as they can and perhaps this is a way to do it. Try to cut it up into 4 small homesi~ I
know that they meet the requirements but I am very much against it. Again I'm going to be
redundant and say it will change the total character of our neighborhood. If one looks at the
plat map, you can see the lots are much larger than what is being developed in some of the
PUD developments currently in Chanhassen. And nobody is making a lot of mov~ I know
over, just recently over on H~gbird Road. A lot of property was sold by the Rainey
family. They did not go in there and try to maximize that ~ and cut it up into as
many small lots as they can. They sold them in big, large, over an acre piece of property
maintaining the integrity of the trees and everything that's in that area. Again the 4 homes on
this particular property I think would create a real water problem. We're going to have a lot
more water runoff from these properties. The soil will no longer be able to absorb the rsins
up there and it is flat. I get water in my basement even though I'm on top of the hill_ I
mentioned that I lived in Deephavon for 10 1/2 ye, am I don't mean to compare Deephaven
with Chanhassen but Deephaven back in 1973, facing somewhat, I think problems somewhat
sin-dlar to what Chanhassen is facing now, changed their zoning req~ts in some of the
older areas.., requirement at 20,000 square feet. And out in Northo~ they raised it to
60,000 square feet and in the area where I lived in the 10 1/2 years, I built two homes there,
the lots were 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hoben I'm aware...during that time and he did build
them in a 40,000 square foot area but I'm not saying that 40,000 square feet is the ideal site
but it does make for lovely home sites and the kind of homes that come in the price range of
the homes are cerlainly at an addition to the community in general I guess I don't have
much else to say about it except I'm here to object to _this cutting up of this property into 4
sites. I would have no objection to it being 2 sites. I know when the Caauunan's, when Mrs.
Graummn passed away and I thought that the ~ was going to be offered for sale in the
open market, I checked with the city here and found out there were two sewer stubs put into
this prope~ when they installed the sewer and water back in the late '/O's, or early 70's
rather. So I thought possibly at that time probably the thinking was that that site at some
time would be developed into two sites and that seemed reasonable to me. Four sites to me
seem -nreasonable. It's a cluster home type situation. I'm concerned about the private road.
I'm concerned that these houses will be facing out on Murray Hill Road or onto Sonunerga~
like the rest of the homes are and I guess thank you very much.
Chanhasseo Planning Comm~,ion - October 19, 199~
Scott: Well thank you. Dave, if you could just address the public safety issue and then Bob,
if you could talk about the zoning of the adjacent prope~ lot size and so farth.
Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman. Agsin I did look through the staff ~ There is a sentence
or two in there that says something about there should be a turn around acceptable to the Fire
Marsh~ and I think that that got put in by mistake, to be honest with you because I did have
conversations with the Fire Marshal in regards to hydrant placement as well as the mm
around. He felt that the driveway length of approximst¢ly 180 feet long which did not
warrant taking a turn around on behalf of the fire truck scenario so. Then I'll just touch on
one other point that Mr. Burkholder had concern with on the drainage in the neighborhood
there. Certainly it's always a concenL With developers and such increasing i .mlx~wious
surface for the private driveway which is a nan~ower street from a city street, the od_ding of
the two home sites would not dramatically increase the amount of runoff on _this parcel of
land. The runoff from this development does flow north to Sommergate where it is pick~ up
with storm sewer system and conveyed to a storm water pond on the north side of
Sommergate...the runoff along Murray Hill Road is a maintenance problem with the city...
Generous: This area is zoned residential single family which permits lot sizes down to
15,000 square feec The development has an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of
the lots are over 20,000 square feet. The development immed_ in_rely west of ~ Eight Acre
Woods is 16 lots. Their average lot size is 20,744 square feet. From that standpoint it is
very consistent with the area.
Mancino: Well it is for those west but for those across the street that are east of it and the
old parcels are much bigger that really abut this pwpeny also. And that are south of it. That
is one part of that whole area, which I live very close to, has a very open, old restore tree,
very narrow street, old neighborhood feel And it is something for us to be considerate of it
and I think you have been too. Staff has been too.
Scott: Okay. Sir.
Keith Boudrie: I just have a question.
Scott: Oh, please step up to them microphone and identify yourself. I don't like to do that
either.
Keith Boudfie: I may have more questions but my name is Kei& Boudrie and I live at 6482
Murray Hill Road. We've been there for a little over 10 years. We were the first residemts
of thc new homes that have gone in in that area. My question is, you keep refcn'ing to a
subdivision and I'm not sure I know which one that is.
21
Cha~hal~en Planning Cowmlssion - October 19, 1994
Generous: It's the one off of Sormnerga~ Road.
Keith Boudrie: The one off of Sommer§ate Road?
Generous: Yeah. Now that's the access for it.
Resident: At the end of the cul-de-sac.
Keith Boudde: Oh, okay. So it's the Sommergate development?
Mancino: Yeah.
Keith Boudrie: Thank you.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public ~g? Yes sir.
Dick Herrboldt: My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Muzray Hill Road, which is
directly south of this, fight close to the Boudrie's and the cul-de-sac that's south of this
proposed development. I'd like to address a little bit the concept of the uees that are in that
area and what provides for the neighborhood. These are all mature trees and one of the
things that drew myself and my wife to the neighborhood. We've lived now in the area for 7
years. We love it up there. We love the peace and the quiet, but most of all we like the
trees. And as I looked around my cul-de-sac, or the cul-de-sac that I live on and my lot, after
the construction process in the development, you're going to lose trees, I, myself have lost
about 5, even though we spent a substantial amount of money treating the existing maple
trees. When I look around the cul-de-sac, all of the houses have lost magn/ficeat Irees that
have resulted from the construction. If you stm't driving earth moving equipment, trucks, etc,
over surfaces of land where there's w. atm~ trees, you're going to lose them and I would
suspect, I haven't looked at the plat that closely but I would suspect that if you do
construction in this area where this cottonwood ~ree is, after a couple years, you're going to
see that cottonwood tree §o. That's one of my major concerns because we're looking at an
area in Chanhassen that's a mature ~tial neighborhood with magnificent trees and you're
going to substantially change that environment by allowing a high density development to go
in. The other concern I have is Murray Hill Road, which is a very nan~w road. Maybe
many of you have not been on that road but again times of family gatherings, I don't see that
these houses are going to have adequau: parking. What you're going to wind up having is
tra~c flowing over on Murray Hill Road. Pafldn§. Blocking other vehicles and again in the
case of an emergency, which was brought up, I don't know how a large fire truck or other
safety equipment would be able to navigate up Murray Hill Road. So I'm concerned about
the overall enviromnent and what a project of this type would do to that area. Again there's
22
Chanhassen Planning Commi.~sion - October 19, 19o~
a lot of wildlife. There's a lot of birds up there. You're going to lose, you're going to
change the entire environment so those are my comments.
Scott Okay. I think I can respond to a couple of those. And I don't know when your home
was constructx~ My guess 5 years, 10 years ago.
Dick Herrboldt: Probably about ?.
Scott: 7 years ago. One of thc things that we've recently done as a Planning Commiesion
and as a City Council is have a very restrictive end very detailed tree preservation ordinance.
Thc old way of doing things is you'd wrap thc trunk of thc ucc with snow fence and then
hope that if somebody ran into it, it would be okay. And at that time that was st~ of the
art. What we've done now is we've, because we have a forester on stnff now, we're
concerned about not allowing any conviction around the drip line. So now we have snow
fence going around the drip line of the tree. In the case of a cottonwood, from my
understanding, that is one of the species of trees that is thc most tolerant to compaction and
also to severance. That's obviously, the staff x~port had a paragraph on that particular tree
and what we're trying, we're not trying to manage on a tree by tree basis. We're looking at
it as the overall canopy coverage. But I think the commissioners would agr~ with us, we've
gomm a lot bett~r at ~ pro,on and understanding the needs of various species and so
forth. So I think from the tree standpoint, that's a major issue in the project. I guess from
what staff has told us and from what I've seen of the property, I think that's obviously going
to be an amenity that is going to allow this development to be a lot mm profitable for the
developer. So that works both ways~ From what I'm looking at where the house pads are to
be positioned and from a, I'm concerned about public safety. One of the things I think that,
the way it looks here is that there are going to be driveways exqmading off of this common
drive which usually in houses, these are probably going to be 2,500 square foot houses. In
that roughly, 2 to :3 car garages. My guess is, at least at my house, we can get 4 cars in our
just parking area so my guess is, you'd probably have to have 4 simultaneous, pretty huge
parties before you'd even back out onto that private drive. That's my sense but hopefully
those comments will assist you. If anybody on city stuff, if you've got some other comments
to rvuke., that might help. I think the way _this is laid out, it is, the lots are 30% larger than
what is required by the ordinance and it appears that the public safety and the vegets_ __ _fi on
concerns have been dealt with. I personally feel fairly well So I ~ if there are any other
comments from staff on there or cornmi~sioners on that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank
you sir. Yes sir.
Chuck Spevac~: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, ~ of the commissiom My uarne is
Chuck Spevacek and I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road. I'm Mr. Herrboldt's neighbor and Mr.
Bourdrie's neighbor aud pardon my voice. I'm fighting a cold that my children have had for
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
months that they've just gotten over and I've picked up. I echo the scntinmnts-of the other
residents in the neighborhood that have spoken, which I understand will continue to speak
tonight. I do believe that the proposed sulxiivision is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of
the neighborhood. What we have now is a blend of large and small homes in an ope~
natural setting and what we're proposing is a parcel of property with 4 homes, sitting 2 deep
with the front or facing houses having their sides figing towards the street serviced by a
common drive. And while the lot sizes themselves might have enough square feet to meet or
exceed the zoning codes, them is nothing in the vicinity remotely like this development. And
I know that the reference has been made to the houses on Sommergate. That if you just want
to compare square foot to square foot, then we're utlking apples and apples. But ff you want
to talk the way the homes are situat~l on the site md how they present themselves to the
neighborhood and the community, what's going on in Sormnerga~ is really totally different
than what's being proposed for this deveioptmmt. Despite the size of the lots in this
development, the ~ itself is very narrow and the lot size com~ from the property's
depth. Thus the proposed development is one that gets it's lot size by stacking the houses 2
deep off of the street. Servicing them with a common drive and again having the front facing
houses not presenting themselves to the street but presenting their side yards in the side of the
house to the street. And while the lot sizes are large,, this type of arrangement is inconsisteat
with the characmr of the neighborhood and is more amine to the type of clust~ type homes
you see in an urban setting whom land is at a premium. Now in addition, and as I've
indicated, this proposed deveioptmmt is inconsistent with the type of development that has
recently taken place in this neighborhood. Both the Sommergate Addition, while lot sizes are
similar, they present themselves to the neighborhood much differently and much more
consistently with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. That's particularly true with the
Melody Hill development or the cul-de-sac at the end of Murray Hill on the south side where
my house is. Thom are some extremely large lots. Thom are some more modest lots but
again, in that situation we don't have a situation like you'd expect to see...where you have 4
home sitting 2 deep off of the street serviced by a narrow cul-de-sac. I'm convinced that
anyone driving through the neighborhood will reach the same conclusion that the proposed
development is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the waY..-now. I undersumd, and can
trust me I have done my own independent check on this where the proposed development is
not inconsisumt with the present zoning ordinances. And therein lies the fundatmmtal
problem I think for myself and the remaind~ of the people who live in this neighborhood.
Because what this is w. lling us is that the zoning code doesn't reflect the charact~ of how our
neighborhood. It may be a zoning code that has applicability to the vast majority of the city
of Chanhassen. But the vast majority of the city of Chanhas~n i~n't our neighborhood and
our neighborhood is a neighborhood of mature, developed foliage, trees, homes. Again, that
gives one the flavor of a mixULre of modest and substantial homes in an open, natural setting
and one whom a subdivision where you're stacking homes 2 deep off the street is inconsistent
even if the lot sizes meet the technical requirements of the zoning code. Two homes on this
Chsnhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
parcel would be consistent with the precedent set by recent development. Sonvner~te came
in by the development on Mmray Hill. I truly think 4 homes on this parcel of property,
despite it's ability to accommodate large lots because it's a deep, still shadows that precedent
because of the way that they tgesent themselves. Finally, while I understand this issue is not
directly before this commission, I mist that the commission bases it's decision not just one
any particular parcel it's dealing with but also what the effect might be on other potential
development in the neighborhood. There is mother parcel of property just on the other side
of the Burkholder property at 6398 Mtmay Hill Road, the Woida ~, which has been on
the market for sale and as I understand, although _this is pure hearsay, that the Hoben
Corporation has an option to purchase and develop this ~ contingent upon the success
of the present development. And that might not be true. But regardless of whether that's
true or not, this is a 2 1/2 acre site. It sits at the comer of Murray Hill and Melody Hill_
Right at the entrance to the Melody Hill subdivision that Mr. Boudrie and Mr. Herrboldt and
I live in. No more than 50 yards from the subject ~, and if the approval of _this
development is in any way deemed to be precedent for what must be allowed on the Woida
property, or the property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, we're talking about someone coming in
and saying I want to stack 6 homes in this pwtna~ and irlling this committ~ that in Inms of
pure square footage, it meets the zoning regulations, And those of us who live here will
think more than ever that the zoning regulations don't reflect what the nature of our
community and what our neigh~ho~ is for putting 6 parcels of pmtna~ on that piece
would truly destroy the ambience of the homes that are at the south end cul-de-sac on Murray
Hill. And I know that the county or the city or whoever is in charge of this must think
highly of the ambience of the homes on the south cul-de-sac of Murray Hill because in the 2
years that I've lived there without making substantial additions to it, my assessed valuation
has gone up over $60,000.00 and that would truly reverse if you Wss the 6 homes on the
Woida ~. To conclude my remarks, I understand that technically there's enough lot
size to sustain this development. But technically that exists only ~ you have a pwpeny
that's narrow and deep. You can look around this neighborhood and you will not see
anything at all rernot~y resembling what's being pwt~sed for this property, and in this case
the zoning ordinances do not reflect the character and nature of the neighborhood we live in
and we believe our neighborhood will be diminished by allowing more than 2 hom~ on this
parcel Where we live now is an above average section of _this community and this proposed
subdivision is truly average and it will not help bring us up any. It will do nothing but bring
our subdivision down to a level where it hadn't been before. Two homes is consistent with
what we've established and what other developa~ have tried to do here...thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else, yes sir.
Peter Staudohar: Good evening. My name is Peter Staudohar and my wife Lisa and I live at
2204 Somnu:rgate. As David referred to, the drainage area there happens to be my front yard
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
so I'd rather refer to it as my front yard rather than the drainage area. I'm ri~t here. I'm-
sorry, right here ff I'm underslanding this cozrecC I have a couple of questions and then I
have a couple of convnen~. The outlot is a concern of mine. I live directly across from the
outlot and I'd like you to address the issue of what will happen to that if it's acquired by the
corporation.
Generous: It will be desi~t~ as a tree conservation easement.
Peter Staudohar: Which means what?
Generous: The trees that are there will stay there.
Pctrr Staudohar: In it's present form?
Generous: Yes. Should maintain...
Peter Staudohar: Okay. If I am assured of that, that helps some of my concerns a little bit
but my wife and I moved into this area in March of 1994 and one of the ~s purposes of
moving into this neighborhood was, as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the aesthetic~ The
way it presents itself and the development that you're suggesting presents itself comple~y
different to the surrounding area. I can say without any hesitation, because we looked at an
awfifl lot of houses. An awful lot of new developments. We wouldn't have moved into this
neighborhood in March of 1994 if the proposed development were in place at that thne.
Without question. And I think if you went around the room to the other people that live on
Sornmer§atc, their co~ts would be the sam~ ff they would have known 5 years ago, 4
years ago, 3 years, 2 years ago when they built their house, they would not have built a house
in a neighborhood that was going to have a development across the street that has a cluster of
homes. I'm not very excit~ about getting up in the morning and wAlkin§ OUt my front door
with the dog and §oin§ for a walk and looking at the back of 2 houses where there now is
woods. Or in the winter, at the very least, there's a little red, aumcfive farmhouse that my
wife and I happen to fall in love with when we moved into the neighborhood and would have
probably gladly purchased it and updatrd it if it would have been for sale at that point in
time. I'm confused about one other item. We keep referring to the developmmit west of thc
proposed development and you suggest that's the houses on $omm~gatc, on thc south side of
Smmncrgatc?
Generous: It's that whole development. It's called Eight Acre Woods.
Peter Staudoha~. Okay. Bccanse that area was referred to as north of the development
earlier. Smmnergatc being north of the development. David, I do have another question for
Chanhass~ Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
you. I'm a little bit concemed about the drainage. If you would have been at my house
during a few of these rains, you'd been a little bit nervous as to the level of the water. It's
crept up dramatically as the summer's gone on and that concerns me. If we put 4 lots in
there, we're ~idng away some locations far the water to settle into the soil What's going to
happen to my front yard or my drainage area based on your guesstimn_t,'s7
Hempel: The drainage area in your front yard has been sized to take on the neighborhood
drainage from this area. The increase of 2 additional homes...common driveway. If you have
4 separate driveways, there's more impervious surface. Therefore a common driveway makes
more sense from an hnpervious surface standpoint. Those calculations for the storm wat~
are going to be supplied to us with the final plat just to verify thai we will not exceed the
capacity of that po_riding are~ for the storm sewer system down the street. We don't
anticipate any problems with the additional 2 lots which are being cre. al~ with this proposaL
Peter Stsudohar: One last issue that may or may not be appropriate to bring up at this time
but the gentlemen before you mentioned the appreciation on his ~ based on
assessments. Based on the U~x bill I've had the same benefits as I moved in in March. I'm
very happy to see that for a lot of reasons. My question and concern is, what is this duster
of homes going to do to my home value and I'd like to briefly have the gentlemen proposing
the develotnnent speak to the size of the homes. He said 2,.~0 to 3,000 square feet and
values of the home, which is extremely imp~t to a lot of people concerned. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate it.
Scott: Would you like to answer that question Mr. Hoben?
Jim Hoben: I'd be glad to have an opportunity to answer thai. One of the main reasons we
chose this site to go ahead and do _this, I can't imagine that anybody's houses will be
depreciateA from thai standpoint because I'm looking at an entrance coming in here where
we'll call this Woods. There will be a little brick thing on the inside and it is. You call it
cluster homes. Well duster homes sometimes is a phrase used to demean a development and
that's not the case here. These homes will be in the neighborhood of $300,000.00.
$310,000.00-$315,000.00. That's the idea. It's not, I don't build and have not been and I
think even Mr. Burkholder knows thai. Go in and build low end housing. If I didn't thini~
that we could go in here and build homes in the neighborhood of $300,000.00, which is... the
studies that we've made of the homes both on the cul-de-sac where Curt Osterman built and
where the other gentlemen built up on the other cul-de-sac and also with the Eight Acre
Woods, I wouldn't be inl~ested in the site. So again, we would go in thc trees that were
attractive to the area. We'd work with the staff. It's not my intention to go in and knock
down trees indiscriminately. We will save all the trees that are possible and I think planning
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
showed most of the trees being saved there, except for the...pad where the house will sit
because that's what will add value to the...to the homes so in no way will we be demeaning,
setting down the value of the homes for surronndin§.
Harbens: Mr. Hoben, I have a question for you. Will you, your firm be acting as both the
devel~ and the builder?
Jim Hoben: Pardon7 Will I be the builder as well as the developer, yes.
Harberts: And I'm ignorant in _this area. So ff someone comes in and they choose a lot.
Will they be able to choose the type of home they want to put on or will you already have
that established. Is it like a package ~a17 Is it like a package deal7 You get this lot and
you get this house or do you buy the lot separately and then decide separately on what house
you put on there? And I'm really ignorant in this area, sorry. I apologize.
~lim Hoben: We will have 2 or 3 home plans that will fit on these sites. I mean is your
question that you have to take this house7
Harberts: Well is it a package deal when they go in there7 Do they buy the lot separately
and then they buy the house separately or do they, if they're interesuxt in purchasing, do they
buy the house and the lot at a given ~7
Jim Hoben: Yes, because that's what we'll be doing but they will have a choice of a couple
of different plans to put on that.
Harbem: Alright. Well you know based on my experience when I was looking, we were
looking around for a home, you'd go out and buy your lot for x thousand and then you'd go
and find a house and then they'd have a builder. Or you bring your builder in so I was just
wondering if that was the case.
Jim Hoben: No, you won't bring your builder in here. I will have 2 or 3 plans...would look
at and this has been done in Plymouth and so forth. Again, I go back to the word cluster.
Cluster homes and doing this intently with the idea of pointing them into themselves so that
they have their own identity.
Harberts: So is it, so am I undcrs~g that these probably will not be custom homes?
You know an individual's choice.
Jim Hoben: Yes, they will be custom homes. Absolul~ly.
28
Chanhassen Planning Cor~mi,~sion - October 19, 1994
Harbem: But I'm understanding you to mil me that you're going to have 2 or 3 different
designs and they can pick from one of those to put on there. When I'm speaking of a custom
home, they bring in their plan or their idea in terms of their dream house. This is what I'm
asking.
Jim Hoben: If you brought me, for exan~le, if you brought me in a plan that would fit on
that lot and the square footage of it was such that after I constructed it, it would be in that
price range, compatible with what I'm talking about, yes. You could do that. I'm not going
to. .. somebody you've got to take this plan, if that's your question.
Harberts: Well it's more the question.
Jim Hoben: You would have to conform to the.
Harberts: I understand that. It's more the question is, is it a package deal or do you buy
your lot separate and then thc house is another separate transaction in a sense, or whatever.
Jim Hoben: No, it's all one transaction. The lot and the house would all be.
Harberts: No, that's fine thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir.
Perry Harrison: I'm Perry Harrison. My wife Pat and I live at 2221 Sommergate. Just down
the mad from Peter. And some of my fears have been allayed here ttnx)u~ this disom~n
but I guess I still have two primary ones and I guess they both focus around what this
gentlemen so eloquently said about the integrity and nature and the ambience of the
neighborhood. As he so well pointed out, this is "cluster" or whatever you want to talk about
the layout of these home~ is totally different than our area. Having 4 homes positioned there
that have most, all but 1 home facing the two major roads of that intersection, which is
Sommergate and Murray. And I can envision and I assume other people on Sommerg~
would be acceptable to having 2 homes where they be both sitting at the west end of the
property facing Murray Hill. Therefore having minimum exposnm to the sides or the backs
of their houses to either Sormnergate or Murray Hill. Otherwi~ right now, the way it's laid
out, you're going to have 3 homes with their backs or sides of both facing the road. Every
home in that whole area, $ or 6 lots in a mile or two circumference around that area, has their
homes facing the main road. There isn't a single house that has a side of their house facing
one of those roads and it just establishes the integrity of the neighborhood and the natmalness
of the neighborhood. We're now looking at the back of somebody's house or deck or an
undeveloped barren back yard. Now the other part of that I think is you can't help but tear
29
~ Plao~i~g Commission - Octobe~ 19, 1994
down a whole lot more trees with 4 houses than 2. I mean you just can't fit for the 2 and
there's some big, beaufififl trees on that lot and I can't envisioned where you'd hecp this
many trees as the 4 would do, so that was...
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak far the first time, and if we're dear ~ Sir, if
you've got another comment you'd like to make~
Keith Boudrie: Well I just want to come up. Keith Boudrie again, 6482 Murray Hill Road.
I really only had one question earlier. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Again, I
don't think there's an objection at all by any of us to having change on that lot. h is a cute
little red farmhouse but I think we all realized coming in there that, even 10 years ago when
we built there, that someday that would probably change. The indication and what we were
told by Mr. Curt Oste~nan at thc time, was that lot was set up with 2 stubs and would
eventually be 2 homes in the future. And apparently we relied on that explanation as opposed
to looking inW it ~. I think that you're hearing objections here and I think technically
we have nothing to object to. I think emotionally and I think that there certainly are more
taxpayers sitting here that are concerned about it than potentially taxpayers that are coming in
on these 4 1o~ We're here because we love it here. We like it here. We've invested in the
neighborhood. The developer's corning in strictly for profit and he's coming into the area on
the basis that our homes are there. Our homes are going to help attract potential buyers that
he's looking for. I think the price range of the homes that he's building are/ine. I think the
square foot of the home that he's bnilding is ~ine. My major objection is the stacking.
Cluster was used. It's an obvious...w be able to get 4 homes in place of where 2 should go.
That's my objection. We've lost 5 large lxees on our front yard. Maples about this big
around and we did everything possible to try to protect them and not lose them and 2-3 years
after the home was built, the damage shows up. $o I think in every effort that he makes to
save these flees, I would be willing to guess that 80% of them will probably be lost. I think
that's been the experience of the neighborhood. I think Dick Herrboldt can speak to that. I
can speak to that. left can speak to that. We all made every effort possible to save the trees
and even with our efforts, we lost them. The comment was made before hand, two homes
probably fit more logically on that lot. That's all I have to say.
Scott: Okay, good. Is there anybody else who would like to spenk?
Kaye Benson: I'm Kaye Benson again from 2211 Sonvnergate. My neighbors and people in
thc neighborhood have spoken very eloquently of all the issues associated. My husband and I
live in the property that is directly adjacent to this development and I just thought I should at
least stand up in front of you and say that our feelings are certainly echoed by everybody that
has been in front of you tonighL I think in a little bit broader perspective, the next agenda
item is going to be another huge development that's just south of us. Just off of Galpin
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Boulevard and that too is going to change the whole nature of that particular area, which is
really country. So I guess if this is only 4 houses, and the next one's only 37 and then the
next one's only 37 but it all adds up and impacts people that are there and they impact our
Scott: Good, thank you. We'll have one final comment from this gentlemen then we'll close
the public hearing.
Chuck Spevacek: I had a final comment and then I had a question. The comment I think
after you were having to hear a lot of the people in the neighborhood criticizing what's been
proposed, and in particular of the planners, I guess I want to say something positive. We do
appreciate the work that the city has done to preserve the trees. To see that the outlot that
was along Sommergate would be set off as a nature area and not be developed. I think this
shows a tree sensitivity on the pan of the city and it's planners to a lot of concerns of what is
there. The fact is, that doesn't change that we still thinic there are 2 more houses that are
§oing to §o on this lot than there should be...central character of our neighborhood doesn't
change but I wanted to expl~s, at least from my standpoint, our appxedation of the steps that
were taken to address some of these concerns. The last concern however wasn't addressed
and that is that 4 homes stacked 2 deep is really inconsistent. I also know that the planner
who was responsible for this isn't here today but I spoke with Sharmin on the phone about
this and I was very impressed by her dedication to her work and the effort that she put in on
this so I don't think any of us here want to let you think that we're unappredafive of the
efforts that you took. And I think that you understand, as well as we do the purpose of
something like this is for us to express areas where we still have concern and this is a very
serious area of concern. That's my comment. My que.~on is now for the developer.
Whether there are going to be restrictive covenants on this property that will specify the
minimum square footage for the house size or is the idea of the 2,500 to 2,000 square foot
house the initial hope that wonJd_ economic factors or perhaps the... Is there going to be a
square foot minimum restrictive covenant put on the ~?
Jim Hoben: ...res~ in the way that I build them, yes...
Chuck Spevacelc But if there are.
Jim Hoben: The restrictive covenants will be as required by the city and obviously even
from my part...to the road. The maintenance and up to the road which wonld be... Other than
that, the individual homes can do their own watm'ing of the grass and cutting of the grass and
all that sort of thing. In fact it's a little bit different than a wwnhouse development where
they don't...and that's in a townhouse development. This is a single family. But it's the
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 19o~t
same type of concept that I'm proposing here and actually I think this is in charac~ in my-
opinion...
Chuck Spevacek: I guess my question was whether there's going to be some son of
guarantee with the development by the developer that there be a restrictive covenant on the
property that would require h~ries of a minimal square footage or whether this is just a
developer's hope that if there are no takers of that size...And I guess what I'm hearing is the
guarantee that we have now of larger homes, which obviously if I'd rather be for, I'd rather
much have them be four $300,0{)0.00 homes on this ~ than three $150,000.00 homes
on this property. It's dictated by economics. If they can sell four $300,000.00 homes, then
we have our guaranu~e. If not, then I guess we don't know what...~ you.
Scott Good, thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hem~g please?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearin~ AH voted in favor and
the nmtion carried. The public hearing was dosed.
Ledvina: Well I have, I did not receive the gr,_dip§ plan and apparently one was not
available so that, and that's one of the things that I like to sec when I'm evaluating a plat. I
feel fairly strongly that even though we're looking at somewhat of a flat parcel, I think it still
in every case it warrants knowing where the din is being moved so from my perspective I
feel that I haven't evalual~xi it entirely without that plan. Listening to the neighbors, I can
certainly understand their coucerns and in general I agree that a development with this density
is not in character with thc neighborhood. I think, I can't arguc that point whatsoever. I
think that if this plat would go through as it's laid out with thc 4 homes, or thc 4 lots, I think
potentially what could be done would be to provide some more screen_ lng or bu~ along
the property boundaries here to maybe isolate it somewhat and typically we see lsnd_scaping
plans with our subdivision plans. But saying that, I don't know if that would actually work
in this instance. That that can work in many times in umns of providing the buffering but
when we're talking about relatively smaller lots and relatively larger homes, there's not much
area to do the buffering and still space physical dislances does become i .mportant. So I feel
that can be used as a factor to help mitigate some of the concerns as it rela~ to the
surrounding property owners. The proposed driveway, I gues~ I would agree that that makes
sense from a grading perspective and i .ml~rvious surface. I don't know, I guess I'm still a
little bit concerned about the safety issue and Dave, did you mention that the Fire Marshal
bas looked at this in terms of specifically from a safety pewspective and in terms of getting
~ency vehicles in there?
32
Planning Commission - Octol~r 19, 1994
Hempeh Mr. Chairman and commissionenu..access standpoint. Access the site...have to go
into that driveway with a fire muT~ The other thing is that...~s or tuu'amedie~ or the
fire chief himself who responds to the site as welL.as far. as access goes.
Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my commen~.
Scott: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Unfoxmnately I didn't go out and tour the site. This does meet all the specs that the
city requires and I've been sitting up here trying to undersumd or wying to determine is
there's some good rationale, good logic to changc it from 4 to 2. And I'm sUug.~ling with
that. I've heard what the neighlx~rs said. I empathize with what they say. I've gone through
that many, many, many times in my neighborhood. I think the staff report is good. I think
the staff is preserving what we're trying to preserve. It's hard to fault what fl~r present~
The one issue though is, what I haven't done and that was to visit the site and if I thought
that this was really out of character with the neighborhood, then I think I'd have a reason to
change the density. At this point I don't because I haven't been there. $o if this gets tabled,
I will make a point of going out there. But at this point in time, not looking at the site,
knowing the area however. I'm not ~ with the ~ I just haven't loolmd at this, I
think the plat as presented is acceptable.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ladd a question?
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: I think you raise a very good point and should we table and go out and look at it.
But my question is, I mean I hate to see it. However, this is going to come up again in that
neighborhood. It may come up in other people who own larger lots. Acre, 2 acres or 3
acres. I don't have an answer to this. I'd like to say to the neighbors, be mindful of who
else is selling and go and get your money together and buy the lots and keep it that way. But
it will keep coming up and I think it probably will in this neighborhood. We've seen it for
the last, I mean even thought of us who lived in a neighbarhood when Sommergate can~ up.
That was a big deal.
Conrad: Major deal.
Mancino: A major deal so, and it will lmep coming up.
Conrad: And everybody that's hem tonight has that opportunity to subdivide their lots. If
they're bigger, they can do thaC Vv'nen we've gone out to ask the public far input on lot size
33
Chanha~en Plaoning Commission - October 19, 1994
and we've tried to zone larger, we've never had enough public support to zone larger. We've
tried to do that. So it's not that we haven't looked at those issues. We haven't seen a
demand of people beating the development to the pass, so to speak. Where you come in and
say our arc. a, we want a different zoning. Yotl haven't done that so on the one hand we've
looked at zoning~ We've paid attention~ We've suggested some 40,000 square foot zoning
blocks but I don't think the public's ever come in and said yeah, we endorse that. What we
have today is 15,000, which is still decent. This is 20,000 which is 30% more than decent
and it's always an issue. It's always an issue when it's in your neighborhood and you're
looking at it. I don't parti~ly care for smaller lots but that's reaUy a very practical thing
and every one of you has that opportunity and unfortunately you say no, I won't do it but we,
those of us who have been around for a while, the people who said no, we won't do it. They
come back. They want that ri~t to do it so. Hard to restrict developmenL But in this case
it's hard for me to hook onto something. I think what we try to do is preserve what we've
got. Can't preserve density very much, other than using our standards that we have but we
can preserve the natural sulTOUndingS. We can preserve some of the siopes. This one doesn't
have any. We do have ordinances in place to preserve the natural assets of Chanhasse~ I'm
real comfortable with that. I think the staff has prepared a report that looks like we're
preserving. Tree coverage of about 6,000 square feet of trees or canopy coverage is taken out
but I think some of that is put back in. It's a better proposal than a lot of things that we've
seen. That doesn't satisfy you but there's some good elements in it and partly that's ~
staff I think has done a pretty good job on this one. That still doesn't say that I agree with
the 4 however. I haven't seen the site. I haven't seen how it fits into the neighborhood and
that's the only key thing that I think the neighbors have said to me that I guess I just need to
t~ire, a look at. Now if everybody else has taken a look at the site and feels comfortable that
it's out of character, then I think we have something to hang our hat on and to change
density. However boy what, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Ledvina: Can you say it's out of character and say oh, then there should be 3 lots? I ~
is that a basis for...
Conrad: In my mind it i~ In my mind we're trying to fit things into a neighborhood and not
destroy, thc people who live there really, I think we cater to as much as we can. They arc
there. We want this to fit in their sum)nndings as much as we can. I think we have that
control. But there's a lot of definitional _things. What fits? You put a 20,000 next to a
30,000 square foot, does that fit? Or is it 20 to 40? So d_eFinitionally it's just real tough.
And usually when you look at it you can really tell what fits. I think we're going to have
another, weU we'U have some other exercises in what fits tonight after this warm-up. So
anyway.
Scou: So your thought is to.
C~ Pla~nlng Commission - October 19, 1994
Conrad: I don't know. I'm intel~ted in what everybody else. If you've seen the site, I
think you should respond to what the neighbors are saying. Doesn't fit. Out of character.
But I don't think you can use square footage as the factor here. It's does it ~flly, has it
changed the neighborhood. Has it changed the character? Not square footase wise but in
what that neighborhood is now. Is it changing? You've got to tell me.
Scott: Okay. Diane, tell Ladd.
Harberts: I would certainly support a recommendation to table it. And my feeling is one, I
guess the other comn~s/oners noted they didn't feel that they've had a complete package and
it certainly is our responsibility and our task to look at the package completely and then pass
it up to the Council. If we pass it up without doin§ our job. Well if we pass it up to the
Council in this form, I don't believe we are doin§ our job. Second, I would be interested in
looldng at where the proposed house pad locations wonld be. Also with regard to the, I
don't know where the potential drawings are for the particular homes that would be available
for this site. Just to publically share then what type of houses are being considered for this,
So if that's available, I'd certainly ~ to see that in terms of the skelches or what. er, I'm
still uncomfortable, from a safety perspective, with the private driveway. I certainly support
the ordinance. The intent in terms of saving or hearing the integrity of the vegetation and
things like that around there so I can support, I'll support the public driveway in that sense.
One question Dave. Is there a stop sign? When you have a public driveway, can you put in
traffic conlrol si~ns like that on that type of location? IS that to be determined?
Hempel: It's really no different than a single driveway access I guess. Some certain...we
have added stop signs.
Harberts: So it can be added?
Hen'q~l: They can be added.
Harberts: Traffic control or safety things can be added. Well and I guess if this gets tabled,
see again going back to design. Are we talking 3 car garages? Are we talking 4 car garages?
I mean what's the average, I'm a single person at my house and I have 2 vehicles. That's
what I'm saying.
Scott: $100,000.00 a garage.
Harberts: Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. I guess I'd like to see what we're dealing with
and with regards to that private driveway, and should we extemd the concern or the covenants
or the restrictions or whatever within the city that they have for l~vate driveway agreements
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
that perhaps we resuict to some or no parking of any vehicles on that driveway simply
because of the limitation and size. Because I'm guessing, because of the limitation in size,
that any parking that's going to be on the vegetation and isn't that what we're trying to be
considerate of? So I guess if this is tabled, I'd like to extend a potential restriction or
whatever. A condition of the agreement that there is no pazking on there nnless it's public
safety or the city vehicles or whatever purposes. I don't know if we can do that but again
also with regard to traffic or public safety si~ns or whatever is needed. I'm not too familiar
with the amount of traffic on Murray Hill Road so that's where I raise the concern about stop
signs. And is it going W, depen_ din§ on how dense it is, with the turning Uaffic, from what
I'm hearing from the residents and from what I've seen it is a nan'ow road, are we causing a
lot of traffic problems perhaps with turning in and out? I don't know that. So again that's
part of my justification to table this until I get a little bit more inf~on on that. Is that
clear Dave?
Mancino: Want me to go ahead?
Scott: I was just waiting. Are you finished ma'am?
Ha_rberts: Oh yeah.
Mancino: Okay, a few points that I'd like to mRIre. First of all I think that staff has done,
Sharmin has done a very good job of looidn§ at the site. Of asking for a 40 foot
conservation easement on the northern side of the ~. It is the whole north boundary
line of Lot 1 and 2 and I hope that the neighbors know that. That that steep slope that goes
inW Sommer§~ will all be kept naturaL That that means that nothing can be taken out of it.
Now there is Bob, in the conditions, it does say under condition 2 that all healthy trees over 6
inch caliper, 4 feet height shall not be pennilied to be removed. I would like that line taken
out and just no removal of any vegetation so that some of our second and third generation
saplings can grow and mature and becon~ healthy big uees. So that we're looking ahead to
the future. But Sharmin isn't here tonight but I would say that, and she also worked with the
applicant on another conservation easement bordering the Lot 2 and Lot 1, 55 feet to preserve
that area too. And I would say that I have a little different view than some of the other
commissioners about the private drive, and I think the private drive is also used to, and has
been stated to preserve as much of the environment as possible. That there won't be any
driveways coming up to Somrnerga~ that will §o and will obliterate and dsrnage that sleep
slope. That you will have the visual screw_ ing there and it will be there all year round. Now
one of the things that we may want to add is year round coniferous trees to ihat screw_ lng
from Sommer§a~. But I think that her efforts, keeping it somewhat narrow. The 30 foot
right-of-way and having 4 houses come off of it, was a very good plan. And I think it will
keep the integrity of the neighborhood much, much better. I do have the same concerns Ladd
36
Chanbassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
does about how compatible it is for the rest of the neighborhood. I would favor tabling it so
that everyone gets out there and looks a~ it and comes back and talks about it next time. And
I also favor tabling it because I really, as I said earlier, would like ~o receive complet~
packages and that is with I/l'8ging, with house pads so I can see exactly wtfich irees will be
removed and which ones won't. $o I would like to see it again and take into account all of
what the neighbors have said.
Scott: Good, Rom
Nutting: I can keep my comments brief because I think most ev~g has been covered. I
guess to get to the issue of density, I need to undentand where the house pads are going to
be. How things are situauxi and then to look and say, okay here's what it's going to be here.
Dealing with the issues of being compatible with the surwu_nding development. I haven't
been around hcrc that long but I do know that we have given that issue serious con~id_e~tion
with other developrrmats here and for me it's a su'uggle. You've got the den~ty of the
residents who spoke here tonight and then you've got the 2.1 per acre to the west and where
do you bridge thc gap when those developnmats come together. And does that mean that one
wins and one loses or is there some compromise to bring it together so it flows a little bit
betty. There's no way for everybody to be a winner on the density issue. Someone has to
give somewhat but Iarn hearing positive comntents to the, if the development does fall in the
$300,000.00 plus area, that that in and of itself is not so much the concern. It's just the
number of units per acre and how that visually intpacts the amenities of the area. So I'd like
to see it back with the details that Nancy spoke of and Matt spoke of and then assuming we
get our package next Thursday, or Thursday-Nriday before the next meeting, have a chance to
then go out and lay out the map and say okay, here's how it's going to be so I would move
to table and go forward on that.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmsl~es: I don't have much to add. You can table this but it's still going to be 1.8 acres.
It's still going to be a square. And it's still going to be smack dab in the middle of a bunch
of large lots. There is no solution for this. As Ladd said, earlier in the 80's Chanhassen
toyed with the issue of having a second single family zone for large lots. I think it was 2
acres or higher or some_thing like that is what th~ were throwing around. There are
pressures on the opposite end of this, and I don't know ff our citizem3r knows that because
they have large lots and they're not perhaps watching as closely but them are a lot of
pressures on municipalities m reduce the size of lots, both from the funds that they get from
the Met Council, from County and the State, which pays for your utilities and so on. Their
pressures are to m~e as many people as possible fit in the least amount of land as possible
because these things are such enormously expensive. And developers come in here constantly
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
and say that 15,000 square feet is...developcrs come by and buy small acreage that may crop
up in the middle but also some of your neighbors may sell the ~. I think the average
piece of ~ in Minnesota is owned 7 years. So what may happen is that your neighbor
may sell and the person who comes by to purchase that ~, if you don't, may finance
that ~ by looking at subdividing it. And over a period of time, that's going to happen.
You don't see a lot of 5 acre lots in Edina and that area developed af~ World War IL You
don't see a lot of big lots even in Eden Prairie anymore. There's a reason for that. Because
eventually they get divided up to the minimum requiremBnt and I'd liim to see the hobby
farms, because I'd like to see those ~ spaces. I've lived in Chanhassen a 1on§ time and
I'd like to see that kept but the only way that's ever goin§ to happen is for the city to look at
a larger lot, and as Ladd said, there's been very little support for that. In fact there's been a
considerable amount of support in the opposi~ direction to not only allow I think develope~
who would like to see always the maximum allowed of housing on a piece of ~ as
possible, but also there's a move afoot now to lower the price of housing. To have cheaper
housing in Chanhassen. And land and the cost of housing are, you can't separa~ it. So
especially in Chanhassen. The price of our housin§'s going up and the comments that you
asked, we can't sit here and ask the developer what's the ~ of the house. That's not legal.
That's not so~§ that we should be doing. We can't say well, there's a $300,000.00
house here and therefore we're going to legislate that you're §oin§ to have to have an
equivalent cost house next to it We deal with minimum~ Whether that's fair or not that's,
economics of the marketplace to decide what's going to go in there. And I don't know ff
that's going to be solvable by making that 3 houses on a square lot. I'm not sure that that's
§oin§ to solve anything other than to say making a co.,p~oi~ise. I would like to see 2 houses
on there but I have nothing to grab onto and say that that's what it should be. Again, if it
was a larger scaled development I could say, well let's see more of a buffer here ~ we
have in some other developments. But it's so small that it's difficult to hang your hat on
these days. As to the driveway, 20 feet isn't that much. Are we putting parking restrictions
on that driveway at all? Are we going to §et parking on both sides of the road ff there's a
party or consuuction?
Hempeh I believe the ordinance does cover parking lots and...
Farmakes: Okay. The developments that I've seen like this, the square I'm thinking of is the
one on Lake Lucy Road and CR 17. I don't, there are 4 houses and there's a driveway
splitting it in the middle and you see delivery tracks or something and it blocks the whole
road going in there. Whether that's temporary or not, it doesn't look very nice. These are
somewhat bigger lots but the road's about the same size. So as I said before, I don't know if
there's a solution to this is going to solve the problems for the neighborhood but I empathize
with the fact that if I had a 4 acre hobby farm, I wouldn't want to see...city density in the
middle of our hobby farm area. And I'm not opposed to the city to look at trying to main~
38
Chanhassen Planning Commisdon - October 19, 1994
that. It sccm~ to mc that some of that may be spitting in thc fact of thc other direction that
it's going but on thc other hand, looking at thc comprehensive plans, that docs maintain
somewhat the character thc people profess here that they want to see so I'll leave it at that.
Scott: Can I have a motion please7
Ledvina: I would move that we table Case ~15, which is the Hobens Wild Wood Farms
1st Addition.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the development. Is there any discussion?
Mancino: No, the only comment I was going to make was, I don't know if there was a
neighborhood meeting with thc neighborhood and the applicant. That might be a good idea
~ between now and then.
Scott: Another conuncnt mo is that if there's one of the neighbors could idcn~ themselves
so that when thc ncxt package that thc Planning Com~ get bc sent to one of you
folk~ You can just speak with Bob Generous and get the address and then you'U have it the
same time we have it and then we can run the process at thc same time.
Rcsidmt: vvq~n is thc next meeting7
Scott: It will be I think the 2nd of November.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Comm'mslon table action on the
preliminary plat for Subdivision ~l-lS, Hobens Wild Woods Farms 1st Addition. Ali
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: The motion is tabled and the reasons behind it has to do with needing more
information. Grading, drainage and also tree inventory and house pads and so forth. Thank
you all for coming. Landscaping. And one of the things that I wanted to mention just briefly
is that before a development gets to the point of public hearing, there's a ~ous amount
of work that goes on so the form in which a development comes to the city sometimes does
not resemble what it is at this point in time and somefim~ it does not even resemble what
our fi'iends at thc City Council will see. The final decisions are not made hcrc. We make thc
recommendation to the City Council so please follow, continue to follow your issue and I
have a feeling you will Thank you all for coming.
39
C~ml~ssen Planning ~ommission - October 19. 1994
(Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and was not preseat to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF~ PRELIMINARY
PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE FAMII.Y LOTS AND 30lYrLOTS~ WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREA~ AND
CQNDmONAL ~ISE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WlTnl~q A FLOOD
PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WES~
RAH,ROAD TRACICq~ WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD
ESTATES AND STONE CREEI~ HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION~ HF~RITAGE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Addre~
John Dietrich
Michael Duffy
John Dobbs
RIX Associates
30E 7th Stre~ St Paul, MN 55101
450 E Co. Rd D
Bob Genenms presented the stuff report on this item and asked if there were any
questions from the commi~_'on.
Mancino: Bob I do, just a couple, lust to help me remember a little bit of what came to us
before because quite frankly I've for§ot~n. What I want to know is why staff has changed
it's mind about the placement of the roadway and not wanted the road closer to the wetland
which would reduce the grading in that northern third of the steep slot~ and it would also, as
you say, give it more of a public kind of a roadway and in looking out at Bluff Creek and the
whole area and we're very concerned with Bluff Creek and having it be a community area.
So why is it that the stuff has said this is okay insl~t of k~ping the road alignment the way
it was and pulling off od-de-sacs. I don't understand what we're getting for giving that up.
Generous: We'd rather have thc diversity and thc...trail on the rear of those lots to give the
public access to the wetland complex and then have the dedicated land in that forested area.
Chanlmssen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: But couldn't we still get, have the forested area and move the road closer to the
wetland and have the trail on the other side of the road7
Generous: I suppose that's an option. I don't know...
Mancino: Okay. I just wondered background.
Generous: We still think that we give a lot of the same benefits. We will have view
corridors between the housing pads so that people can see into that. We believe with the
access that will be providexl to the trail easement... We wanted to have the sewer system go
through the, either along that corridor and the city mad because of the soil conditions down
there and so we believe in looking at this development, that curv~ street does have a lot
of benefits to it...
Mancino: Instead of going straight through it. Now we are buying, the Park Board is
buying these lots, correct7
Generous: Well they would buy the land in excess of the dedication requirement They have
to provide 2 acres of dedication.
Mancino: So we are paying for it. It's not being dedical~cl to the city.
Generous: Right, for the excess.
Mancino: Yes, okay. Thank you.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments.
Ledvina: The NSP easement along the west side of the pr~. How far does that go into
the property7
Generous: I believe it's a 40 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay, so there's 40 feet in Timberwood and 40 feet in Heritage, is that com~?
Applicant: According to our research, it ia an 80 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any meas~t of EMF that you're aware of? Okay,
maybe I'll ask the developer to review that when he does mak~ his presentation. The Outlot
D area, what's the fat~ of that? What's the rationale for that? It's toward the southerly.
41
Chanhassen PlarminE Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: 1.47 acres? That was a...provided as part of the Stone Creek development...
Hempel: That's a water quality and trea~t project which was developed with the Hans
Hagen Stone Creek development. It will also provide some treatment for a portion of this
development.
Ledvina: Okay, so it's adjacent to the wetland then?
Hempcl: That's corrc~ I believe Outlot D docs cover the wetland and the stm-m pond.
Ledvina: Okay. Thank you.
Sc, otc Any other co~ts or questions? Okay, thank you for the stuff report Would the
development t~tm like to make a presentation? Please identify yourself and let us know what
you have to say.
Michael Duffy: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My nan~ is Michael Duffy and
I'm an attorney with... I'm here representing Heritage Development. Also on ~ of
Heritage Development is Mr. John Dietrich. Specifically he is the land dedgn architect with
R I.K and Associates and Mr. Dietrich has ~ the plat that is before you this evening.
Also on behalf of Heritage, Mr. John Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs is Director of Development with
Heritage. First off I'd like to express Heritage who'd like to express it's appreciation for the
staff acceptance of the road realignn~nt and express it's appteciau~n for the sta/f's
recommendation as this preliminary plat...approvecL Mr. Dietrich and I however have a few
comments with respect to the staff reporL After Mr. Dietrich and I have made our comments,
we are EoinE to ask that the staff approve the plat as submitted this evening... With that I'm
going W step aside and Mr. Dietrich is going W give his comments with respect to the
conditions set forth in the staff report and then I will be making some more comments after
John Dietrich: Thank you. My name is John Dietrich, RLK Associates, I would like to
briefly talk a little bit about the hi,~-y of the site and then go inw some of the details and
the characteristics and components of this site that we are pleased to present in the
preliminary plat format. In order to do that I will be walking between the overhead projector
and the microphone...can be heard well enough from the overhead projector, I'm going to just
stand there. As Mr. Generous had mentioned, is that loud enough?
Ledvina: That's fine.
42
Chanhnssen Planning Commission - Octobee 19, 1994
John Dietrich: Had mentioned, the site itself is a 39 acre parcel and it's bounded on the west
by the Timberwood Estates. On the north by the property that's currently defined as
Chanhassen Corporate Center. On the west, or excuse me, on the east by a large e~
wetland that does go into the site. And on the south, Stone Creek Subdivision essentially on
the southwest corner. Alon§ the southern border is the Twin ~ and Western Railroad
tracks. Approximately in a location ~1 with the ncmlx/south line along the west is the .
unde~ass undgr the railroad tracks that is to be included as a part of the comprche~ve trail
corridor for the city of Chanha~c~ It is thc intent of this subdivision to meet the
requirements of the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordimmce for thc site as it would be
rezoned from A2 to a residential ~ngle family. The lot minimum for ~sidential single family
is 15,000 squarc foot lots. Thc lots that are proposed avcragc 21,000 square fcct. That was
very important that we wanted to increase that size based on some of the comments when we
received when this came through in the l~Jimins~ PUD last spring, lust to redefine some
of the edges. Timberwood Estates is along the edge with tree cover and large single flunily
lots. They currently do not have sanitary sewer located in this sulxh'vision. Bluff Creek
comes down and forms the northerly berder as well as the eastern tributary of Bluff Creek
and then thc creek runs along the eastern property edge. The red line identifies the delinea~i
wetlands that are existing on site. The green area identifies an area of ovcrstory mam~
growth which principally occupies the southcrn one-third of the site. There's a cluster of
ovcrstory uees in the center and one isolated wetland up in the top portion of the slope. This
entire area has been pasture land and is cunently farmed for a portion of it. The development
will have the opportunity to meet the storm water pon,qing and wetland protection so the
opportunity for Bluff Creek and the entire Bluff Creek con'Mor includes water quality will be
greatly enhanced through the development of this 39 acres. Lastly, this little wetland to the
south will also be protected and there is on'rently a pond down on the very southwestern
corner that will take runoff from approximately the lower portion of the site and the Hans
Hagen site into that pond, l~'treated before it would be discharged into the wetland.
Secondly, there will be a pond area to the east of the wetland area which the maj~ty of the
si~c will flow into and that again will be l~mCatcd accorain§ to thc city's standm~ of Best
Management Practices before dischar~ng into the wetland ~or. We propose a stem
water pond north of the creek to handle the northern portion of the site and that would also
be developed in conjunction with the development to the north of Bluff Creek. The roadway
system will extend from Stone Creek and through the site so that the roadway system will
extend from Stone Creek subdivision, ~ through the site. Have two public cul-de-sacs
and then it's proposed to extend north across the creek into Chanhassen Cc~orate Center to
the east/west frontage road which is currently under development by the city. That will be
serving the school site and discussions as to how far east that will be extended will i~
the timing and development of this roadway connection to the north. If I may briefly touch
upon the comprehensive plan. This site has utilized the comprehensive plan as it's basis.
This year 2000 land use plan, taken from your ordinance, identifies the site outlin~l in red. h
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19. 1994
is scheduled for residential single family density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Our development
is proposing a net acreage or net density of 1.6, which is close to the lower end of the
residential range. The desi~~ open space development principally lies entirely east of this
site, except for this northern knob, the entire site is programmed in your comlm~hensive plan
to have residential single family on it. And the park and open space development will occur
to the east. As par~ of our development we are proposing that the parkland dedication ex~m~
the comprehensive trail system from the south, under the unde~ass and would allow trail
access around the site to bridge an area between the wetland, the ponding and the teaidential
single family development. It is our proposal that that 2 acre park dedication, as it's
identified on this site plan in green, complies with the ordinance and meets the objectives of
thc park dedication requirements. It will also prou~ the dopes ~ are along thc steep
corridor of Bluff Creek while pwv/ding a sense of variety of spaces...open space, poading
areas and along the wooded areas to ~ south of the site.
Mancino: John, could you give me a description of that padc dedication area as far as
physical as elevation. What people would do there, etc.
John Dietrich: In m-ms of the park dedication, the topography has a low point at the
southwest comer. Comes across the wetland and then we would anticipate it raising up in the
range of 8 to 10 feet along the southern, southeastern comer. Coming back down along the
east side of the creek and then from ~is point it is in the wooded area. It would then be
fairly flat as it would go through ~ pon_ding and wetland area. We anticipate it to be a 8
foot ~rail within a 20 foot buffer ~ that would have wetland and po_~ding along side. It is
this segment of the trail that would be fairly fiat. It would have a rise of a couple of feet as
it would need too to have access up to the north/south roadway. And as it would start to ring
around the site to the north~ the elevation has an opportunity to go up along the slope or
follow the creek which is quite a bit down the side of ~ slope. There are very steep slopes
along this side and we would defini~y want to work with the city and Pa~k and Reae. afion
Director to place that trail appropria~,Jy. We have even ~alked at one time fl~at we would
su§§est a trail physically cross/n§ the creek in this location and move the trail on the other
side of the creek. You may have an oppoWmity for a bet~ wail here. In roms of the site
itself, the city would be looking at grs~dln§ the nonhero portion of the site and taking that
down. We are concerned about the Timberwood Estat~ and the transition that will occur
between them. The large lo~s to the west would allow those items to have verb, lime impact
from this development. By ~aidug the slope fi'om the property line down, we would allow the
views from Timberwood Esta~.~s to basically remain as they ~e today. The pads coming west
of the north/south roadway would have elevations of anywhere from 20 to 25 to 50 feet
below the elevations that are currently on that knoll We are taidng this hil! down and
anticipating movin§ it south so that we have an undulating roadway experience. As part of
the contours that are anfici~ to be shown on, we've put together a 3D model of the site.
Planning ~o~~on - O~b~r 1~, 1~
This is looking at the site, essentially a bird's eye view if we are southeast of the site. W'~h-
this it would allow the existing knoll on thc north and it shows how the bank is running
through the si~e. The proposal with the roadway wrapping through would maintain the
western edge. Hopefully come down and we will have a bench for the homesite~ Roadway.
Another bench for the homesites and then the slope would project a bit closer to the wetland
on the northenst corner and then taper back in around the povdin§ nrea nnd as we would
reach the tribuUcry to Bluff Creek, which extends up into Timherwood Estates, we would
to match grades as close as possible and as we would move into the wooded area on the
southern one-third of the site, we will keep gr_n_ding to a minimm~ so that it will have a
minimal impact to the trees. There will be trees removed on this site. We understand that is
part of the development process. However we want to make sure that we have the
number of trees calculated when this roadway project goes in...and we will work with staff to
make sure that we compensate any uee removal according to the woodland management plan.
With the site itself, we are looking forward to an approval that would talk to the merits of
this project. The sensitivity that we are providing for this site and the opporttmit7 of
provi'ding 48 home sites in the Bluff ~ con'idor while maintaining a public presence with
the trail which cortes along the east side of the road. East side of the homes and the public
nature of the wetlands and the ponding aria. Both on the east and on the west side.
Mancino: $ohn, could I ask you a couple more questions?
John Dietrich: ~y.
Mancino: First of all I'd like to thank you for Nresenfing this and having it for us. I'd just
like to ask a couple questions on it and make sure I'm looking at it right and understanding
it. As I go from the existing view to proposed view, where you're putting the road north and
south, you're acumlly building up a ridge, especially towards the middle and going n~h, that
the road sits on and then on each side are walkouts. Is that correct?
John Dietrich: Not on each side.
Mancino: Just on the wetland side?
John Dietrich: Walkouts would only be on the east side of the roadway.
Mancino: Okay. So that's why the ridge is, you kind of built up that area?
John Dietrich: Yes.
Mancino: You filled in.
45
C~anhassen Planning Comm/ssion - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: We have filled in east of the roadway in that northeast section. Not on the
north side where the steep slopes are from the Bluff Creek but as we start to round. As we
begin to round the site more to the east, this are8 is ~11. Along the north we are making the
grades match for those walkouts because.
Mancino: It works that way?
John Dietrich: We need to stay 50 feet away from their center line fnym thc creek for
grading and 100 feet away for any structure and this plan achieves that.
Mancino: When you get up to thc northern edge of a pwpeny and to thc west of that road it,
to me, looking at the existing view, it looks like mountains you know and then when I look at
the proposed view, it looks like there aren't too many mountains to the west there anymore.
Are you looping off, how many feet? 20-30 feet of those dopes?
lohn Dietrich: We are taking the slope down appwximn~ly 20 feet in a couple of locations
and on the average it would probably be in the range of 8 to 12 feet across that.
Mancino: And have you done anything to protect and preserve those? I mean have you
thought about instead of going in with regular sized cul-de-sacs? Doing private drives.
Placing the lots a little differently.
lohn Dietrich: We have gone through a number of desi~ alternatives. We previously have
looked at a plan with the private drives trying to service the lots so we would have an
oppomJnity to have the steeper slope going up the hi. Ride. That was basically rejected by
staff when we discus~ it previously. We feel we have looked at the alternatives. We have
tried to work with the slopes. Work with the en~neering department to have the slope as low
as possible for the sanitary sewer but yet try and minimize the cuts and fills on the site.
· Mancino: V~nat's the balance? I mean what is cut and fill?. What do you come up with over
the whole project?
John Dietrich: Over thc whole project right now we are a little long. When I say we're a
little long, we're in the range of I would say 20 to 25,000 yards long. We anticipate trying to
work with thc grades along this center portion. Bring those up a little bit so we can have a
Mancino: Thank you.
Chanhas~m Planning Cornmi.~ion - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: It's getting ~ here. I'll try to quickly go through a few items that I would
like to touch on. The imm~ that were, that begin on page 23 of the staff report, that being the
conditions of approval. And for the most part we are in agreement with a great majority of
them. However L.. To be~n with on page 23 of the staff report. Number 1, Michael will
address that one on his closure. Number 2, we will definitely attempt and retain the natural
character of the slopes and thc site wherever possible. We will have to work with the grades
to make this site balance~ Especially on the north side. The woodland management plan will
be provided. We have submitted a landscape plan that staff has counted and said we are
maybe about 30 trees off in terms of replacement. We will work with staff to make sure that
we are in concurrence with that woodland management plan for the tree removal In order
for that roadway W go through, therc will havc to be trees removed. In ordcr to have home
sites in thc wooded area, there will be trees removed. We would like this woodland
management plan to be comprehensive and address even the individual lots and fight-of-way
so that when this plan is finally approved, those individual lots will already have the
calculation of trees that would be anticipated removed when the private development moves
forward on this. Item number 4. The revise the grading plato We will not have a problem
revising the grading plan w try and keep a balance site. We will also make sure we identify
each and every floor elevation according to the City of Chanhassen Code. We use a different
nurnefi~ numbering system... Item number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, we would have no problem
with. Item number 11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3 and
bring the wtal number of lots to 47. For an overall site plan I'm going to show a detailed
area of this area that talks about Lot 24 and 25, that are essentially along the tributary of
Bluff Creel As part of the approval or the plan that was submitted did not identify
easern~ts for the tributary of the Bluff Creek and the ~ line was defined by this line
here. Staff has recommended that the ~ line center along the Bluff Creek tributary
center line, which is this heavily dashed line. The red hash areas would represent a 30 foot
easement centered on the tributary center line. The green linc represents a 50 foot setback
from the center line of the creek that has been suggested to be added as a buffer to the
tributary for water clarity issues. Thc Lot 2.5 is this shape with a private drive coming in.
We suggest that based on the tree survey, there is an opening of si..tyni/:icant trees in _this area
of Lot 25. We previously had identified thc house pad within this area. We would propose,
without changing thc property lines up to thc center line adjusUncnt, the home pads could
move to the south and still have more than 4,000 square feet of space for that house to be
placed. It would be a bit askew. However, we would anticipate any of the home sites within
the woodland area would be of a higher quality and individually placed within thc site.
Additionally Block 24, had the opportunity to move that home pad 60 feet to the south and
still be well within the boundaries and setback requirements whereas also Lot 26 could
possibly shift down... By adjusting the home sites within this wooded area we feel we still
have the opportunity to have those floor elevations. A minimum of 3 feet above the flood
stage and still have adequate home sites without unduly, or without sacrificing the natural
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
amenities that this creek corridor does have and we would also not lose any other significant.
trees by maintaining these two sites.
Mancino: Would you be custom gra~iing those?
John Dietrich: Yes. These would be custom graded and also, for exaxnple. Lot 24. I iden~
3 trees that are within that 60 x 60 foot pad. I also know the right-of-way...identitqecl this
cluster of trees to be removed. We would work with staff so that any trees within the home
pads and access to them would be included as part of the woodland management plan to
allow a'development to proceed and-we would anticipate that would be a worse case ~enario
on these individual lots and ideally as they would be initially graded and designed, more of
the frees could and would be saved. Such as the home site could wrap around the site and
definitely save these... Those would have to be addressed on a lot by lot basis but we wanted
you to have the u~e calculation figures in~o the final plat of the process.
Scott: How would that lot be serviced? Would that come off of, would it be a driveway off
of the private drive?
John Dietrich: Lot 24 would come directly off the access. They would have to have their
own driveway. A private drive only allows one lot to be served. This is really not a private
driveway. It's almost like a flag lot. So only one ~tial unit may be served to
accommodate the flag loc
Mancino: That area isn't covered in our grs~ding plan.
John Dietrich: On the grading plan that is part of the package, we did not put the grades on
Mancino: So we can't tell how many of the trees will stay or go.
$ohn Dietrich: At this time, in order to make a calculation we would say the trees that are
within the designated home pads that were put into the cakulations as removable.
Generous: That's what my estimates come from...
$ohn Dietrich: If I could continue so we can get out of here. Item number 12, Mr. Duffy
will address. Item number 13, the site plan does identify the 100 foot setback from the center
line of the creek and all structures will be beyond that 100 foot setback line, and that is
identified both the 50 foot setback for grading and...setback on the site plan. Items number
14 and 15 we will happily comply with. ~ number 16 we will comply with and the pond
Chnnhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
has been designed to provide slopes of 10 to 1 at the high water...proper water elevation. I
need my en~neer to tell me those and with the ~-mainder at 3:1 slope. Item number 17 will
be fine. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 we will all comply with. Item number 24. Individual
grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to
issuance of the buildin§ permit. We will show a grading plan that will be minimal for those
lots. We want those trees to be saved w~er possible and wozk with the contours that are
in there. We will include the potential for those individual home buyers to know what uees
and the conditions of development are on those individual sites in.~ld of leaving that up to
the individual home buyer after the site is... The 60 x 60 pads is probably a worst case
scenario. 'lnaat's 3,600 square feet. If we stlll't bniltling homes that are 3,600 square feet
floor area, it's going to be tough. We anticipa~ these to be two story homes and the floor
plan be quite a bit less than 3,600 square feet. Item number 25 and 26 and 27, we will
comply with. Item number 28, the southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private
driveway. We have looked at a private driveway in an earlier submission that we did pull
because of items that were not fully addrest~L One of the issues staff brought up was the
number of units that were serviced off the private drive access and servi~ab~ty to fire
safety. We have not redesigned this site w incorporate public drives in both of the cul-de-
sacs so that we will have a betl~ and we feel the best plan that can be put together on this
site. The public service and fire safety and not meeting conditions of approvsl or
encumbrances and cross easements, will make _thh a much mm~ sellable and attractive
subdivision. Item number 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanilary
sewer line to the westerly edge of the phit along the Bluff Creek tributary. If I could go back
to this il~n. The Bluff Creek tributary is centered right here. There wonld have to be
significant tree removal along this easement that's outlined in red in order for that sanitary
sewer stub to be taken to the eastern, western pwpe~ line far potential servicing of the
Timberwood Estates development. The need for moving the lots and home pads on Lots 24
and 25 was to retain the natural cha_mc~ and amenifi~ and tree cover along this tributary. It
is our desire that sanitary sewer not go in for the di~-upfion that it would put on that area and
we feel that the trees that would be removed will not grow back easily. The trees that will be
removed, they have to be replaced with smaller trees and that's why we're trying to minimize
the number lhat we would have on this sil~
Scott: Dave, on that particular point. Is the rationale for that stub, is that to service another
or future development?
Hert~l: Yes Mr. Chairman, that's one of the viable mutes to provide gravity sanitm'y sewer
service to thc Timberwood Estates development at some future date when those l~ger lots
reconfigure down into smaller lots. Short of installing a lift station or two in that area to
service it, which is a great cost and maintenance problem for the city. That would be the
alternative.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Dave, we've done that though in other areas like Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
because of the preservation of trees and other things. We went in and did a couple lift
stations.
Hernpcl: I am not recalling any off hand. I can use an example of the sewer line, one of the
existing slreet areas. In fact there's one in the Bighorn Shadow Ridge development which you
couldn't even tell that we were in there. That was done about 6 years ago.
Mancino: But how long does it take to get back natural? I mean is that a 5-6 year? I mean
it's not really natural.
Hernpel: The life of thc sanitary sewer is determined in the field based on the existing trees.
They can be, the sewer line doesn't have to go perfectly stnli~t, h can rL~_a__nd_er along ~
to avoid significant trees ff it stays within this corridar. The depth of the sanitm~ sewer line
will be relatively shallow. Less than 10 feet because we don't need the great depth that we
put in...
Mancino: The shallower the less wide you go.
Hempel: That's exactly right.
Mancino: What about coming up from Stone Creek? I mean why wasn't there, when that
Hempeh We did explore that avenue as well There ar~ two low points on...drive where
sanitary sewer would actually daylight with the gravity system. Short of the lift station... We
did look at, when Hans Hagen was developing Stone Crock and felt the only other alternative
was this corridor through this tributary to service it.
Scott: Okay, thanks.
1ohn Dietrich: Item number 30, we will definitely show grading contours for the storm sewer
plan proposed in a temporary fashion on the north side of the creek and we will also look
closely at the need for the elevations of that crossing in order to accommodate a storm sewer
as it would cross the creek in order to maintain the proper flow. The extension of, ntm/ix~
31. Extension of thc north/south street be c~ through to the frontage road within 3
years. We would have no problem with that condition on that the city has also extruded the
roadway to that point and to the east. Cummtly that roadway is not there and we would need
a roadway to hook up inw. But it is our desire to have that as an access for the anticipated
traffic flow and ciwulation for this entire area. Number 33, the trail alignment around the
Chanhassen Plaianing Commission - October 19, 1994
wetland along the Bluff Creek corridor. We would definitely work with stuff to have that
placement within the defined park dedication area that we are proposing. Item number 34
we will concur with. Item number 35 we will use retaining walls. We anticipate they will be
field stone quality from bonMers and rocks unearthed during the excavation- And item
number 36, we would adjust the ~ lines along the Bluff Creek tributary as we had
shown on the overhead as necessary. And we still feel we have the opportunity to maintain
that number of lots and maintain the natural amenities and si..unit~eant free population far
those two lots. And lastly I'd like to point out the sketch plan that was identified in your
plavning commission packets was a discussion of the plan that Heritage Development
presented to the city a number of months ago for discussion only. That plan was never
officially submitted and the plan that we are proposing at _this time we feel is the best plan
that is available and meets the objectives of the subdivision code and the concerns that the
Planning Commission did address when _this was initially proposed as a concept PUD plat.
And conditional use permit and wetland permit alteration, items number 1 and 2, we will also
concur with. And with that I'd like to turn it over briefly to Mr. Duffy for a couple points in
closing.
Michael Dully: Thank you John for your presentation. Members of the commission, as
you've heard from Mr. Dielrich's presentation, this preliminary plat cor~.lies with...with all
staff report... There are a number of things however, and conditions that the staff has set forth
that are not requirem~ts sot forth in the subdivision ordinance which I'd like to go over at
this time. The first one of these set forth is numlmr 1 on page 23. This is the condition ltmt
the staff has put with respect to approval of the plat. This is in respect to incorp~g
design components for the proposed Bluff Creek wamrshed plan. It's Heritage's position that
simply put, it's Heritage's position that it is ~nable for Heritage to have to comply with
a watershed plan that is not yet enacted. It's unreasonable. We do not know what the
watershed plan is so for us to agree to comply with this plan would be unreaso~le. We do
not know what the plan is. It does not exLst and in fact would be retroactive. In effect
requiting us to comply with this would be retroactive app~on of law. Another cxmdition
I'd like to refer you to is condition number 12 on the next page. This is in respect to the
condition that the staff has asked for that more property be dedicated for park purposes. At
this time as Mr. Dietrich has explained, the plat as it has been submitl~l to you does conq)ly
with subdivision ordinanc~...ordinances such that Ordinance 18-790). The formula there
when you apply that formula it requires that there be 1.92 acres of dedication in _this
subdivision. As Mr. Dietrich has explained, there are 2 acres that have already been
dedicated. If the city so desires to buy the pwpeny that the staff has recomm~__ded be
dedicated, there is nothing that Heritage can do to stop the city's powers of eminent domain
but Heritage will not agree to dedicate any more than what is required by the park dedication
ordinance. I'd like to turn your attention lastly to condition number 32. This is a condition
51
Chanhnssen Planning Commission - Oc~ 19, 1994
that stnt~s that the developer and any property owners will waive any and aH procedtmd and
substantive objections in respect to special assessrne~ts for the city's public improvement
project #93-26, including claims that the as _sessnm_nt exceeds the benefit to the pr~.
Heritage is willing to pay it's fair shn~. Fair and equitable sha~ with resl~C~ to these
asse~nents but is unwilling and is nnreasonnble without know~g what these ~ses~cie~ts are,
to waive rights, especially when those assessments may exceed the benefits to the property.
In this case this is unacceptable to Heritage. In sum, these 3 conditions that I talked about
are conditions that are not requ/red by the subdivision ordinance. They do not have a
rationaL_with ~ to approving the plat that is before you today. What we ask that you
'do this evening is approve the plat as submitted in accordance with the comments that both
Mr. Dietrich and I have made. We hope that you're prepared to approve the plat tonight as it
has been submitted. The one thing that we ultimately ask is that this not be tabled this
evening. You have a couple of proposals in front of you. You have a proposal with
conditions from the staff. You've heard our comments in respect to the staff conditions and
the way we would like it approved. And we hope, I think that's enough inforlBation for you
tonight...and we respectfully request that you would make a decis/on this evening. If you
have any further questions, I have nothing ftmher. Thank you.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: I have a couple questions, unless somebody else does first. To Bob. It must be
getting late... Explain to me again, and I'm looking on sheet 2 of 7. Do you have that in
front of you? Okay. I see in the eastern, n~ corner it says park dedication, 2 acres.
And it's also Ouflot C also?
Generous: No.
Mancino: Would you take a few minutes and explain to me where this strip goes and what
Outlot C is? Outlot C becomes a NURP pond?
Generous: Yeah, that's a ponding, storm water pond.
Mancino: Okay. And the park dedication stnns at the northern tip of the roadway and comes
all the way around to, it ends at, between Lot 11 and Lot 1. Correct7 Lot 11 of Block 1 and
Lot 1 of Block 2.
Generous: No, it actually ends at the western ~ line in the southeast comer.
Mancino: Oh okay. But you can access it between those two lots.
52
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: Between 11 and 1, yes.
Mancino: And how wide is that? Again is it.
Generous: I don't know.
John Dietrich: It's a minimum of 20 feet.
Mancino: Thank you. Make sure I understood that. Thank you very much.
Scott: Any other questions or connnents?
Ledvina: As it relates to rneas~ts of EMF from the NSP line, has there been any effort
to do that or can you comment on concerns that you would have as it relates to the power
John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs, Director of Development for Heritage. I have...we'll
probably do it in the course of...extremely high tension lines that we've asked for and
received a number of issues from NSP supporting that but we'll probably do it subject to the
people who will consider moving there...We'll probably do it as part of the mar~§...
Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the voltage that's going through those lines, what are you
looking at there for voltage?
John Dobbs: I have no idea what the voltage that hms through that particular set of lines. I
know that the...from 345,000 volts...and also they had a number of different levels of lines
that go back. The amount of voltage is not neces~y a geometric ratio to the amount of
EMF that comes out of that~
Ledvina: It's the current essentially.
John Dobbs: Height and as well the cummt...
John Dietrich: ff I may add comnfi.ssioner. The lm.ger, I'm going to say the larger
transmission lines, the ones that have holes that mn along the tracks, comes to the site and
then heads south, north of the tracks is a much lower voltage line. It is on wood poles,
double standards that come all the way up to Highway 5. So I know the larger ones carry
much higher, greater number of lines but the ones along the western line are of lower caliber.
53
Chanhassen Pla~n~r~g Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Anything else? Would anybody from the development team wish to add anything
else? Okay. This is an item for public hearing. Is anybody here from the general public
wish to speak about this project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public
hearing please.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the pub#c be~n~ An voted in hvor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was openaL
Ledvina moved, Ma~cino seconded to dose the public hearing. Ail voted in fllvor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed.
Farmakes: I missed the meeting where this was at before. Can you explain to me in regards
to the park why that particular site was considered the 2 acres up above. I believe it was 2
acres for the park. To the exclusion of the wooded area down below by the wefland...the
south end.
Generous: Because the applicant wants those wooded siies for home sites...
Fammkes: So this is the area that we're considering?
Generous: Thc city would have the wooded land. He wants to dedicate the land along the
wetland.
Farmakes: Is that discussion at a state of m~_-~ty or are you positionin~ here?
Generous: Well the Parks Commission wants to have mare land.
Farmakes: Okay. So is the city's position aggmssh, e in pursuing that, I guess that's my
question.
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Can I follow up on that? Is it a trade off between the uails or that other wooded
area to the south? Is that what we're looldng at? I mean could you say.
Generous: Well that's what we were looldng at. That traiL..roadway alignment as proposed
in this plat...and we would do the dedication of the parkland in the southeast corner.
Ledvina: But as it exists now, they're dedicating that strip as, and that's where the tntil is
going to go, is that correct?
Chanh~sen Planning Commission - Ocw~ 19, 1994
Generous: Yes. That's, they're dedica~g that for their 2 acre requi_.-e~ne~...
Ledvina: Okay. But we could say that area is not acceptable and not have the trail in there
and then get the 9_ acres in that southerly portion. Is that the other option? I mean would
that, I ~ we have a question of the ordinance here in terms of the amount of dedication.
Am I making sense?
Generous: Yes. I don't know how to Shower. I don't know if, we would like to have an
easement for that on top of the drainage and u 'tdifies. .. so we can have our trail sysmn down
around the wetland corridor and into...
Ledvina: Okay, so what we're req~g that the developer do is not dedicate that strip
along thc corridor as a park but get us an easement to build us a trail in that area.
Ledvina: Okay.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: That was my concern too. Is the difference between easement for a trail and a pazk
and I see what you're saying. So this is not as aggressive as we would like to be to develop
Ledvina: But if we did it that way, then we would, the city would be in accc~hnce with
their ordinance in terms of the park dedication. But at the same dine we have the ability to
have them provide an easement for that trail. Okay.
Scott: Do you have a question for the development team?
Fmmak~: I still have another question in regards to the parle Does this encompass all of
Block 2 or is this a portion of Block 2?
Generous: It's just those lots. The area where those 4 lots are.
Fammkes: That would be Lots 8, 9, 11 and 107
Scott: 9, 10 and 11.
55
Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Just east of the mad.
Generous: No, along the east side of the road. 8, 9, 10 and 11. And we would require,
Farmakca: Okay. Then so, in looking at the pads then for everything to the west of the road,
rhea they would follow, those flees would be removed thell, ~
Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: There isn't a distribution of quality of the trees in the report that are on the
schematic here. It doesn't talk about percentage is oak or elm. Not being a foresm', the
quality of the woodland there.
Generous: Is very good.
Farmakes: It's very good or are we talking mom oak than box eider then? I would
encourage thc city to pursue that to fall in line with what's going on with Bluff Creek and
I'm not sure, not having benefitted from the presentation of the developer in the past
meeting...making judgments based on the staff report, other than the issue of pazkland. I'H
pass on the rest.
Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I guess some of my questions with regards to the park dedication have been
answered. Is the city aMe m, listening to the developer's comments, I'm not sure if I he. md
them saying that the maximum they are required to give up by ordinance is 2 acres?
Generous: Yes. 1.92.
Nutting: And what is the Lots 8 fln'u 11 encompass7
Generous: I believe the park...is 2.7 in that area.
Nutting: $o the city is proposing that they would purchase the additional .7 thru whatever
means. Condemnation if necessary. Okay. I'm not sure, in terms of the issues that the
applicant is not in favor of in staff reconm~'nd~ons number 1. Incorporating the design for
the proposed Bluff Creel Again, I'm a little bit of a novice of this game but I've listened
to us incorporate this as it relates to the Highway 5 corridor. As it relates to Bluff Creek. As
it relates to numerous other issues that are in progress. I don't know the legalities of that but
56
Planning Camm~sion - October 19, 1994
I don't think I would depart from our present approach in terms of making sure that we have
developments that doesn't incorporate the future planning that's going on right now. Number
28. I don't know Bob, I'm hearing the developer say that they had originally propo~ a
priva~ driveway concept which staff was not in favor of. And now staff has tamed arotmd
and said give us a privale driveway. Where does that all fall?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioner, maybe I can address that. That came out of my
staff report. I don't think it's the ssme, exact location or the same nnmber of lots being
serviced by the cul-de-sac. I do leX, all trying put the...~ously but I think _this is a different
scenario. This has two of the lots, the house pads back into the wooded areas which results
in ue.e loss. My thought is to try and eliminate the tree loss as well as help reduce cost.., the
developer, some of them prefer actually the private driveway versus the public ~reet as well
so it provides some diversity out there on those lots. I thought it was a ~ solution
but maybe I'm not hearing that from what the developer is saying so I guess I'm open just
from the standpoint that this is the...save us some additional trees and pulling those house
pads down from the wooded...
Generous: ...this vicinity. The other one the housing...
Nutting: I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to touch number 32. Where that one goes. I
guess I'd like to listen to the comments of the other members before pnlling together my final
thoughts.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, in your report on page 2 you have a couple of
sentences that I'm res_ding here. Paragraph 2, senUmce number one. This plat meets
minimum code requirements for a single family development but falls short of ordinance
requirements for the preservation of sile characteristic~ including topography, creeks and
scenic views. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Generous: That's part of thc conditions. The 100 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as a
buffer area. With the reco~ons in thc stuff report.. .that' s primarily what we were
looking at.
Mancino: And are we doing mass grading on this?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
57
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: And how are we preserving topography? If we're doing mass grading and
especially in the northern pan where there's ~ slopes.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, I'd be happy to address that one. The variety in
elevations...balance earth work to develop house pad elevations. And also provide streets that
meet our city code for street...Or provide a bench for a house to go on and...
Man~o: But if we have said in our ordinances that we're preserving and prot~ing...those
areas, shouldn't be less densely developed? I~n't that how you ~e and protect7
Hempel: That would be one altm'nafive to it I guess.
Mancino: Is there any other altm'nafive7
Hempel: By trying to reconfigure the street allot tim~gh there would be one me,od
but again...increase the grade elevations.
Man~o: And haven't we §one to 10% street grades for special areas like this7
Hen'q~l: In some areas we have. I haven't felt the need to do that to this road. To maintain
a variety of slope...grs_ding pla~ they are still flying to reproduce the rolling ~ ffffect that
you have out there today. Not to the extent that you have out there...
Mancino: Would that northern cul-de-sac do less grading if it were a privs~? I mean if it
were a smaller. Would that help at all Dave? Because that's where you have some of the
steep slopes on that northern area.
Hempel: The driveway grade, or I should say the street grade already is proposed at
approximately 7%. 10% street grade..Jittle bit of elevation off the top of the hill there but I
don't know if it would be si~onificant enough to wammt a private driveway.
Mancino: Okay. Secondly Bob, oh I'm sorry. I have another question. Bob on that same
paragraph. You said while staff believes that the road ali~t for the project should be
adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home
buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership. Is that still the ~hin~ng of stuff7
That is the prcf~ route? That is still the preferr~ route, okay.
Generous: We are comp~m~s~§ to get this to move forward.
Mancino: So we're compromising really where we want the road just to move it forward?
58
Clmnlmisen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: And take a good look. We also want to work it out so, the developer's agreeable
for our parkland dedication area.
Mancino: But the developer isn't.
Generous: We'll find out.
Mancino: But according to what I see in from of me the developer isn't.
C~nerous: What you see in front of you and what the conditions of approval are aren't the
same thing.
Mancino: Okay. My lazt few points, questions are, when we saw this before on page 3 of
the staff report we asked for 4 things. Or the Planning Commission denied it. h was just I
think the sketch plan. On 4 points and I just want to bring those up again. Number 4 was,
we wanted them to minimize glo_ding. Topographicad disruptions and worldng with and
maintaining some of thc steep slopes. Number 5, provide a lrans/tion from Timberwo~ to
Heritage. We were concerned about lot size directing abutting Tfmb~'wood. 6, we were
concerned about thc overall density of thc development and we were also concerned about
rolnimizin§ tree loss. And I have concerns about all 4 of those and a~ually whether they've
been done with this new plan. The Winimi~ing ~ lOSS, W~ have a road going through the
only place where we have trees. Matm~ trees. And we have lots going in there and I think
_this is pret~ much what we saw the first time that we looked at it so I don't see a big
hnpmvement on that area. Overall density. Bob, what has that done?
Generous: What did we do? I don't remember what it was the last time. Under the concept
plan for the PUD they were able to go down to 11,000 square feet and average 15. They are
averaging 21,000 now so.
Mancino: So that has happened.
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Good, good. And the lots that abut Timbetwo~ have those also ~ in
size?
Generous: We believe so. They have the flare now back sides on the cul-de-sac.
Mancino: Okay. Those are all my que~ons. Thank you.
59
Chanhassen Plsnning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina: On the plan, let's see sheet 2.' Looking at Lot 1, Block 1. We have 100 foot
setback from the creek and I see the line and it essentially cuts right through a buildable area
on that lot and I'm wondering can we still get a house pad in that area?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So you can get in a 60 x 60 foot area inw that?
Generous: At this time...about 4,000 square feec
Ledvina: 4,000 square feet within thc triangle? But peoplc don't build houses in a triangular
form.
Generous: They can make it L shape. They also don't have to build a 60 x 60 house.
Ledvina: No. That's true but that's the standard for providing the house pad. Okay. So
you're satisfied that we can meet the requirements and also provide a buildable area in that
lot. Okay. I guess I would like to hear from the developer specifically as it relates to the
park situation. You mentioned you were anxious to make a comment and 1'11 let you do that
now John if it's okay with the Chairman here.
John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. In regards to the park dedication area, we are
proposing we'll meet the intent of, we will meet the code requirements of the 2 acres which
will essentially be a rrgnirllum of a 20 foot buffer strip running along the entire eastern side
of this development to provide access up to the ea,~dwest roadway and then run along Bluff
Creek to the southern portion of the site and then west along the southern boundary of this
development towards the underp~s. Go to your comprehen~ve trail plan, which is stated,
your frail would be in conformance with the compre_~en~ive trail plan. That is the area that
we proposed for park dedication and we feel meets the most closely intent for the comp plan.
Secondly in terms of, if I may address a couple of the other issues that were also brought up
in terms of this private drive. We will propo~ to maintain the public drive access in order to
have ~ frontage and acce~ that would be of a public natm~ We feel it would be best
for all citizens and homeowners in this area to have public driveways, Or public cul-de-sacs.
The .50 and 100 foot setback is met on every lot north and south in terms of grading within
50 feet of the creek and the ~ setback within 100 feet. In order to preserve the
topography of this site we are not gro_rling alone the entire northern area of the site where the
steep slopes are along Bluff Creek. We anticipate there would not be any gr~_rlln§ within this
area so that steep corridor will be maintained in a steep nature and present condition. The
slope will be projected out along this area and we will mainu~ the elevations along the
entire rear of the property. In terms of transitions to Timberwood, the existing plant material
Chanha~en Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
will provide a buffer that is already on the site and would be stepping down. We will have a
uansition so that the homes will not be right back up against the property line. With the NSP
easement of 40 feet, we will be at a mininmm of 40 feet. Most cases mare than 40 feet off
of that property line.
Ledvina: Thank you. The area along that north high point, have we evaluated those areas in
relation to the bluff ordinance and do they need any requirements there?
Generous: The closest point is in the noxth~ comer of the lot along the trees.
Ledvin~ Okay. Okay. I did want to speak to som~ of the issues that were raised as plgt of
the conditiona I guess number 1. Condition number 1. Generally I feel that we want the
developer to deal with those elements of the design but I can _de~ni~y see their point in
tea'ms of making them accept something that doesn't exist and I guess I wouldn't support
condition number 1 as it reads in the staff report. Maybe we can soften that to say the
applicant shall attempt to incorporate design components. I don't think we should make it a
deirmite condition and I think the developers have wod~i to provide some amenities and be
sensitive to the Bluff Creek in their design as it exists right now. Bspecially with the
setbacks. I thini~ fl~at they've demonstrated that so I don't know that we shonld hold their
feet to the fire as it relates to that. So I see some nodding heads over there that that maybe is
a way to §o with that.
Mancino: Matt, what if we put a date on it and said that in the next month ar two, if this
plan is done with and they're still in the preliminary going to the final, they could incarporate
it. And have it some way.
Ledvina: Well, if there's something that we have as a standard and that we can look at and
compare it to the plan that we have, then I would say yes. But I don't like these interim kind
of things. I realize that that's a transition but I don't think that that works for me. I feel
that that trail should be looked at in terms of an easement and I believe that the dty is
justified in that perspective. And the specific parkland dedication should be as the staff has
indicated in terms of that southerly area so I won_Id support that. Going w, let's see there
was another here as it related to the assessments. Can you speak to that Dave in termu of
asking them to waive their due process on something that doesn't exist yet.
Hempel: The project has actually been petitioned by the pwpeny owners. Feasibility study's
been looked at and I was going to touch on that a little bit...Without the extension of the
trunk sanitary sewer lines the development doesn't have sewer cspability so we've left it
optional far the developer. If he wishes to proceed extending this trunk sanitary sewer line to
the development, then we'd rdmburse him the cost of the lateral ]ine and the trunk line. The
61
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
city has to put it in. We have to go through...public hearing and ordering the project, calling
for plans and specs and ordering and so-forth. What happens in the process, the ~ gets
platted. It gets 40 some lots out here. You've got 40 some potential owners that could be
closing on the property at the time we're holding the assessment heating and where the
language comes from is from thc attorney's office. All these new property owners weren't
notified of the public improvement project before and...problem with the public hearing
process and the appeals and so forth that would occur from it. The project would not proceed
ahead without a feasibih'~ study that laid out the assessments for these ~ The
assessments may vary but they can only vary at a rate of 10%...So that would probably clm'if~
what...
Ledvina: Well essentially it's for the develop~'s good, fight7 To benefit in terms of k~eping
things moving.
Hempel: Yes. From that approach, yeah...I think this came from the hearing standpoint...
Ledvina: Alright- That's the extent of my cormnents at this time.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Bob, tell me about the transition between 'Cunberwood and Heritage. ...Last time we
talked about what's the transition. We're concerned with it and I see all the vegetation and
the landscape plan going on the road. I don't see anything going between the two areas so
obviously you must feel that we don't need a transition. That's taken care of. I don't-..
Generous: Except...for all the additional landscaping...
Conrad: And we don't have that7 We don't know what that ia
Generous: We don't know...
Conrad: So we're moving from 8 houses in ~ood as I count to 14 houses in Heritage
that they abut each other, and I guess that's okay. But I am specifically concerned about
houses that are close. I see a couple close houses in Timberwood that I'd be concerned with
and I just don't know that we really got a good buffering plan. Maybe it is Bob. Maybe in
the future it ia I don't see it fight now. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. We
talked about gading and that was a concern we had and it looks to me like we're really
doing a lot of grading here. Balancing the site. Dave says that that's what we've got to do
to make it usable. Boy. Bob, what's the Bluff Creek watershed plan? What is it and where
is it?
52
Chanhassen Planning Commhsion - October 19, 19o~
Generous: It's still in the process.
Conrad: And who's doing it7
Generous: The city...We lost out on the grant money to pay for...
Conrad: So it's not even close to being done?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
Conrad: What could the potential impact of that plan be on this?
Generous: Larger setbacks. Maybe they'd say 200...We don't know.
Conrad: So it's really we don't know. Okay, then if we're not even close. Usually
devel~ers that we work with are usually ~, even though we're doing things in the furore
we want them to support what we're doing and if, you know I think it's just a good
cooperative spirit. I didn't notice that when you were talking. But on the other hand if we're
not close, there's nothing that you can pay attention to so I guess I have to take number I out
and that's not what I thought I was going to do. But if we're not close, I'm not going to, I'll
test this plan on other issues and not waiting for son, thin§ that's really not close to
finsli=ofion. The difference really from the concept stage to the sketch stage is, we've
reduced some houses and we've curved the street and staff is hopeful that we'll get a park out
of the thinE. Do we know what trees are going down? We don't know what trees have to be
cut at this point in time, do we. We know what trees are there but.
Generous: Approximaw. Jy. We estimated lt..reduce their building pads in that wooded area...
Conrad: So how sensitive is this plan to the trees that we have there? Is this the only plan
that will work Bob?
Generous: Thc aliEnment of the road in the southern end... Then the rest of the site...there's a
stand of trees in the middle. Whether or not they can or can't save those. Even under the
PUD we want to show...
Conrad: Nancy, I agree with all your commen~ I don't know, I don't think our comments
from the first go around have been really inc~ and maybe we were just sort of being
real nice and philosop~ Practi~y speaking there's got to be a wad going through there.
Scott: Where do you think that road should go?
63
Chanhassen Planning Comr~sion - October 19, 1994
Conrad: Well, I don't know. There's Iree~ down there and you've got to bring a road
through and I just don't ~ee any solution.
Scott: I'm thinking once it gets to the point when it's the wooded areah and I was quite taken
by the initial kind of thumbnail sketch of having that road go along the Bluff Creek area and
then having the grading effect of that road be very dose to the 100 foot setback. Something
in that. Roads are rarely ameni~ But if they can be placed in proximity to a natural
resource. So you do have the views and it pedorms it's traffic fimction and a trail can be
incorporated. I mean that was kind of what my vision was of this partioflar piece. And now
it's...
Mancino: It's kind of like going down Lake Lucy Road and being able to see the view
because of the wetlands. You know one...going from C-alpin east and then the closer when
you get to Powers. One of the nice parts about that is that you have some wetland views.
And this is such a gorgeous area.
Scott: I'm not going to speak for the Parks Department, parks group, lust a thought that
there seems to be a lot of push and pull at the parkland dedication as a trail And maybe one
of the points we could discuss, not at this forum. Okay, if it's going to be 2 acres, talk about
relocating the road and then have that dedication fight along side the road and they'H have
their, they'll be able to develop the hi~ buck lots down in the wooded area. The roadway
I think would, that would be pretty spectacular and even as a thought process but I was, you
~ire a look at where the road is now and I'm kind of going, well We can do much better.
Mancino: Which is what staff came up originally.
Scott: Yeah. So that's my. What do the other commi.,tsioners think about the road position?
Nutting: I gue~ I'm just trying to resolve staff getting from the original proposal to where
we are now. I hear staff saying, or in the report it says to co .mpmmi~ to obtain the easement
for the trail. Is that.
Mancino: For the paddand.
Generous: Park dedication.
Nutting: But then staff says in the next sentence they're going to, that parkland is it
regardless. Whatever means is necessary.
Chanhassen Planning Commis.qion - October 19, 1994
C-enerous: We looked at the idea, we can't get... We want our 2 acres in the woods. Let's
push the road back over. The developer is not willin§ W work with the city. Then we have
our public access for the...roadway ali~nment and the sidewalk going along there. But they
were willing to compromise that and let him get his walkout in the Bluff Creek corridor...
Nutting: The only other comment I have is I would amend my original commeats with
regards to number 1. Perhaps it's the hour but as I sit and think about the Highway 5
corridor, we at least had a document which had some direction. It wasn't finsll _~d_ It has
been approved by Council and I guess L sitting and lismfin§ to Matt and I. add, I'm saying
yeah. I mean I don't see how I can suggest that we put resection number 1 in this
document.
Conrad: What's our vision of Bluff Creelc? It's a, who knows. What is Bluff Creek? I
don't know what it is. I honestly done. h's too bad. h's hiud to tell whether the plan's
good or bad when you don't know what the... The amenity is that you're trying to pre. serve
and what you're trying to do with it and I don't know what that is. You know if Bluff
Creek, we're just §oin§ to have a trail down there. I really wish we had a view, a vision d
this or maybe somebody, I wish I had it. I don't. Theref~ it's hard for me to preserve
something that I don't have that vision for.
Farmakes: Some of that is covered though Ladd in the preservation ordinance...
Conrad: Tell me what Bluff Creek is? Do you envision Bluff Creek as a public walkway?
Farmakes: Probably a part of that is presentation when we're talking about that. We're
talking about trails §oing to the north/south. The creek goes down to the ]Vlinnesota bluff
Conrad: Do you envision it as an isolated experience or one with Uaffic next to it?
Farmakes: Well as I understood it, with thc lrail going through it, obviously there's public
access to it. And again, that lrail system coming up from the south cross/nS over TH 5 and
coming into the north. It's been a while since we went over that stuff. As I underswod it,
the slide show was brought in here and they went tlxwugh the tre~s and so on and the locale
and obviously it gets wilder as it ~ down wwards the river. But at some point in time it
seems to me that that is where the trail is.
Conrad: And who endorses this concept? Is that Park and Rec? Is that their vision right
now?
65
Chanhass~ Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Farmakes: Well it's MnDot's vis/on. We've got a connect/on going under the highway
Mancino: A wonderful Ixidge culvert
Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any fluthcr but I'm looking for, so Park and Rec
basically said they want a trail going through there. They didn't say th~ cared if there was a
road next to it or not.
Mancino: And the roadway I can see, you know I don't know what happens down south but
it meanders and it can come close to it at times and other ~ you know...so it's more of a
trail in the woods effect.
Famutk~: From what I've seen in some of the more wild areas of that creek, some of it you
never can put a mad next to it. Some of it just goes down verfic~ for a considerable ways
SO.
Conrad: Okay. I'm having a tough time dealing with it because I don't know if it's an
isolated experience where you try to get somebody away or you're just having a trail next to
a little stream so I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to stop talking. I guess I don't have a
real good feel for this project. It looks like moving a lot of earth around. It didn't seem like
we were real sensitive to the environment. Thc developer on the other hand has reduced the
number of lot~ My only issue fight now, I think in roms of the staff report. Number l's
got to be out. Number 32, which the developer had some problems with. I don't have a clue
how to handle that one. Again, it seems l/ke something that, if I were them, I'd want it out.
I don't know how they can nm their business with the way that was worded. Maybe there's
a better way to express it. My biggest concern is transition from T~ood. I don't know
what it looks like. How it's done. I don't know how certain houses are protected. I think
somebody should know that.
Mancino: Do you want to see it back again?
Conrad: For that one issue, I don't know. I guess if there are other issues. For that one
issue, I might be able to say send it to City Council with a staff recornmends_tion or a reporc
If it's just that one issue. If there are issues tagged on to that that we're concerned with.
Road aligmnent maybe. Park. Maybe we want to see how the park works or something else.
Maybe if there are other issues, then we should table it and bring it back. We haven't passed
anything wnight yet. I see no reason to change it. lust work until 2:00 in 2 weeks. If there
are other issues, then it should probably come back.
Chanha.ssen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Yeah, I think there's some specific issues. I mean I don't see compwmising the
road alignment. I'd like to see it come back and move thc road alignment. What the staff
had originally asked for. And it would be meandering and follow the bluff line. And also I
share Ladd's comments, which I kind of brought up earlier too about the Timberwood
transition. And I'd like to see also ff that can rninimi~e some grading.
Scott: Can we have a motion?
Conrad: Joe, where are you at on the su'eet? I don't want to send g~;~xlethlng back and
screwing around with if we're not going to move it somep~.
Scott: My major issue was the road allot. And I was, there's intent of ordinances with
regards to park dedication and then there's the ~ and my thought is that, I think when
most people think of a park dedication, they're thinking of something that is not swaw
shaped. I think when the Park and Rec or when that ordinauce was put together, I think we
were thinking of something kind of liim a sqo_sre. Something that was contained so I mean
that to me looks like a by the, very by the book inm'premtion of our parkland dedication
ordinance. Which is perfectly legal. Perfectly legal But to me that doesn't seem like that's
the intent. I think what the Park and Rec people were looking for is more the intent. It's au
ameniW and it's very nice to see them as, they've moved I think in the last two years I think
that I've personally been working with them, moved from thinking of parks as au active
scheduled, flat situation and now they're looking very seriously at doing what we see here as
preservation of wooded areas and so forth. And I think that's the intent of that pm~ular
ordinance. So I'm looking at those two things are my major issues. Then also too, we were
just looking at our bluff ordinance. In the two pages that I see here, I don't see anything in
here that says 30% slope over 25 feet.
Ledvina: Because that's the old version.
Scott: This is the old version, okay. Well that makes sense. So I took a look at a couple of
areas up here on the bill and there's a number of areas in a 25 foot star~ There are 8 foot
changes and I'm just, I'm looking here at the topographic map. The thing thai; was Yeti'
striking to me was to see that 3 dimensional view and so yeah, I have a lot of...what I believe
from looking at the topographic map. From doing the measurements and using the scale
provided me and using the bluff ordimmce, there are bluff areas in the northern part of this
thing and somebody's going to have to prove that I'm inc~ before I'm going to move off
of that point. So that's where I'm coming from. And we've got another 2 hours tonight so.
That's where I'm at. ...that based upon our bluff ordinance, cannot be graded. Plain and
simple.
67
Chanhassen P/arming Commission - October 19, 1994
Nutting: V~aen are we going to move this forward? I mean your comments about the pazk.
Staff has made recommendations which are saxpporfive of your ~om It comes down to
the issue of the road, is the biggest one I'm heating which throws this whole thing back to
the drawing board basically.
Scott: My major concern is the major topographic changes up on the north side and I think
that some of those areas are protected by ordinance.
Nutting: But staff, Bob you said you have looked at that?
Crenerous: Yes. When I was using the 30% and 25...elevation change.
Scott: Yeah, I was doing the same. I was using an S foot change in a 25 foot span sna I
Generous: You've got to have a 25 foot change in...
Scott: No, I was just using the 25 foot span and the S foot change. So it's basically 33% or
32%.
Generous: That's not far enough down. It's not a large enough change that way. h has to
be a total of 25 feet in...
Scott: Alright.
Nutting: So if that addresses the bluff issue, then we're down to the road.
Mancino: Well and transition between Timberwood. I move that we table.
Michael Duffy: Excuse me. I'm sorry to speak out of mxler.
Scorn Excuse me. Public ~g is closed. We're considering a motion so.
Mancino: We can say no to it.
Scott: Yeah, which we can say no to. $o, it's been moved that we table this. h the~ a
second?
Farmakes: I'll second.
68
Chanhasse~ Plaonlng Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded thai we table. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, the road issue. Nancy, what would you crpe~ back?
Mancino: I would expect back to see a different road ali~t and one that meanders with
the bluff, the natural topography and it's something that I think the staff has and the app~
talked about, meanda/ng through here and seeing what kind of development proceeds from
that. Actually L..on page 2 of what the staff has written for the advantages to that
Com'ad: So you would ask the developer to move the road next w?
Mancino: I haven't seen it, yeah. I mean I'm sure that they have done some of this. While
the slaff believes road alignments of the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek con/dor in
order to provide the comnmnity and the future home buyers in this devel~t a shared
sense of owncrship of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland con,lex.
I think the only, the sense I got from Bob was the only reason that they were still bc_hind this
and still think it's thc best road ali~ment.
Scott: Then also too, I think that road alignment in conjunction with the park dedication
along that wad alignment, I think it would be a good trade off versus having the dedication
of the wooded area plus having the city buy 7/10ths,
Nutting: So you're saying give up the south area then?
Scott: I think that would be.
Ledvina: I wouldn't support that. I would like to see that ~ incorlx~a~ as a park. I
think that's hopormnt for this development. Just my thoughts on the road is, as I look at the
road, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to change the charac~ of the road. We do
· have ordinances as it relates to the maximum grades and such that we have to deal with here
so I don't think that there are a lot of options with this road. I know we want to be _sensitive
to wpography in that instance but if you're going to put a road through it, you're going to
have to grade it.
Mancino: But don't you have to where it is now too?
Lcdvina: Pardon?
Mancino: You're saying there would be a diffcrence between putting it along here versus
where it is?
69
Chanhas~n P]apn~ng Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina: Not much of a difference.
Mancino: Okay. Grading wise.
Ledvina: That's what I'm seeing from some of the topography that I'm looking at here.
Mancino: So it couldn't change fairly easily.
Ledvina: No.
Mancino: Ohl
Ledvina: It can be changed but you're still going to have the gro__ding to meet the slope
req~t. So the value.
Mancino: It's more of a community value.
Ledvina: Yeah, fight. That's the kind of thing you're looking at. It's not an and or, it's not
a real clear cut option in ~ of put the road down here and you don't grade this area.
That's not the trade off. So I guess it gets back w, what does the road do in this area. I
~ does it provide a scenic view off to the east of the bluff area which is quite, goes quite
steeply down and then steeply back up so what do you see. I mean I don't know. You don't
see that much. In terms of being able to view the whole bluff. I mean I don't, it's not, it
doesn't have a real good visual for me right now in terms of seeing exactly how .the road.
Driving along this road in it's easterly position is going to be such a huge amenity.
Mancino: It won't have a natural mnenity to it. I ~ much like you would.
Ledvina: Well the area from the other side of the, the areas on the other side of the bluff
won't be developed.
Mancino: But again, that will be 100 feet away so you have a couple hundred.
Ledvina: Yeah, 200 feet a~_~lly. Right, but you're not going to have a vista type of
situation.
Mancino: It won't go on and on.
~ Right. So I guess I see the trail as providing that experience with the bluff area
and the Bluff Creek area and I don't know. As I look at the site, I see that the position of
7O
Chantmssen PlanninE Commission - October 19, 1994
the road as ~le. In terms of that view amenity or whatever we're considering there.
So that's my thought on it.
Nutting: Unless you've got views of substance that are coming from that road, it's going to
be a local ameniw as opposed to one that's an attraction. You know that's going to
bring...the trail or the road I guess is where I'm coming at it. I think if we've got the trail, ff
we have the trail and we also have that park down to the south. The trail through the
easement with the staff's conditions. I guess I'm not having as much of a problem with that
as maybe some of the other membem Maybe...
Scott: We've got a motion on the floor. Discussing a motion. Do you want to?
Conrad: Yeah. Well this is important because if we don't know where we're going with this
road, then there's no point pnlling it bnck. Thc developer doesn't want to change it.
Obviously he's not going to. If we had that vis/on of what we wanted, then we could stick to
it. Joe you're concerned with bluffs and grading. Was that tempet~i by anything or are you
still concerned with the bluffs and grs_rling at the north end of the project7
Scott: It concerns me. I think that's, if there's anything I think we're real clear on is
preservation of features, topographic and vegetation and that's a concern. However you have
to...that the developer and staff have worked hard enough to come up with the best possible
solution so what we can do, why don't we vote on the motion and see where that goes and.
Conrad: Well again, I'm trying to understand if we have some real valid things that we can
send staff back to do. I know they cnn show us, and the developer can show us the transition
stuff. We need that. I don't know, you're working next to the biggest area subdivision
we've got. I don't know why this place isn't packed. They've been packed for every other
thing that we've done close to them. They've been here. They're not here tonight so maybe
it's because it's 10 after 12:00 but again.
Mancino: Was there a neighborhood meeting7
Conrad: I'm just ama2xxi that they're not concerned and maybe they've worn me down after
all the public ~gs but you know, I think that's significant and maybe this is just fine but
we don't know right now. I don't have a clue on it.
Ledvina: Can I just say something to that7 I think one of the _things with the grading in this
nrea is that you tnke the pnd elevations down and the Timberwood people nre seeing well
over these roofs and it's not nffecting them.
71
Chanhassen Plann/ng Commission - October 19, 1994
Conrad: Yeah, see I think that's mu:. I think the~'s some iai validity to that, but I don't
know. Again that's one of those, I don't know.
Ledvina: And also, with the NSP line in there, I think that creates a buffer. It's a suangc
buffer but.
Conrad: lust don't walk under the power lines.
Ledvina: Yeah.' Well it's there and there is that easeznent and it does ~ a separation.
Mancino: Matt, how do we know that7 How do we know that they can't see because these
things go up 35 feet? 20 feel
Ledvina: The houses? Two levels is what?
Mancino: Yeah, but most pe_~s of the roofs have...so I don't know what Timberwood is.
Ledvina: Well okay. Most of these buildings are at 950 or roughly. The northern one haft
of this lot in here and well, we can be looking at probably 930. I don't know. I guess you're
fight You can't really say but you know that there's 20 feet of difference and if you have 20
feet, that's quite a bit in terms of providing a vistlal btlffer and also a physical buffer too.
Combined with NSP. I don't know. I just feel that the separation issue is there. It's been
Ledvinm That's my thoughts.
Conrad: Yeah, might be. I don't have a clue. I see some houses that are real close. And
here they've got 2 1/2 acres and we've got a house going up to, 2 or 3 in fact abutting that.
So Joe you're still concerned about the bluff grading. That's still a valid issue. You want
Bob m be going back and looking at that?
Scott: Yeah.
Conrad: And then street wise, you want a di~t plan7
Scott: Well I think in my mind that would be preferable to have a different street location.
Conrad: Putting it next to thc creek?
72
Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
5eom Yeah.
Conrad: Your intent is not to reduce the number of house~ Your intent is to move.
Scott~ No, I don't have a problem with the density at all Especially because they've got
larger square footage lots on the western side. But we have a motion on the floor to table
and let's vote on that.
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commls~m table the Rezoning,
Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Heritage First Addition. All
voted in favor, except Ledvinn who opposed, and the motion cnrried with a vote of $ to
1.
Scott: The development is tabled. Now specific directions for staff and the developer.
Zeroing in on the ~ransition plan. Very specifically what do you want to see?
Conrad: I just want to see the transition between the two areas. How they show it
Scott: What about when Byerly's was in they showed the wp of the Byerly's building. The
development behind. Something like that.
Conrad: We need some kind of schematic.
Scott: Yeah, cross section to say here's the houses in T~ood. The dose. st house, how's
it going to line up. Because that's, something like that's a quick view.
Nutting: From my perspective that's the issue from my support of tabling, that's the one
issue that I guess I could come to terms with is saying we're giving that a lot of consideration
for other developments that are coming through. I think it's only appropriate that we give it
the same here.
Scorn Yeah. My major concern is the grodlng on the north ride. You talked about private
drives and so forth but that seems to be cuswm Ers_ding private drives are about the only tools
that we have.
Mancino: S~ grades.
Scott: Which as far ns the cul-de-sacs, I know that, of course it's mostly the south cul-de-
sacs or streets that nm north and south, we're more willing to allow steeper grades because in
73
Cl~hassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
thc winter and so forth. The way this pmpe~ is set up, I don't think we qttim have that
opportunity so.
Mancino: I think we we~ all in consensus on parkland. We really f~l that that area should
bc incorporated into it.
cared about. Point n~ 1. It just shouldn't be there when this comes back un, ss thor's
somcthin§ on thc horizon. Number 32 should be taken care of.
Scot~ Now if there's somcthin§ with thc Bluff Crock group that is to thc form that thc
Highway ~ document was, that was somcthin§ that people could usc very, very easily but if
it's not there, it doesn't make sense.
REZONE 37,92 ACRF8 OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RF~IDENTIAL TO
RgF~ RF. SmENTIAI. SINGLE FAMII.Y, PRRI.IMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRgS INTO 47 SINGLF. FAMII.Y LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PE~ LOCATe. r) AT T~. INTERSECrlON OF (~ALPlN B01J'LEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKR LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 (~ALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RII~E.
Staff Present:
Name Address
Martin Kuder
$crornc Carlson
Pct~ Davis
Sam Mancino
Tom Owens
Bill Engelhardt
6831 Gal~ Blvd.
c, atp mvd.
6640 Oalpin BlvcL
6620 Galpin Blvd.
Minnea~lis
Enge, lhardt and Associates
Bob Gen~ presented the staff report on this item-
Scott: Now do we have another grading plan that was submitted today?
Generous: Yes. The applicant's en~neer provided that...We did hire Bill Engelhardt to
review this...
74
Chanlu~en Planning Conunission - Octo~ 19, 1994
Scott: Did hc review, have a chance to review flxis?
Generous: He reviewed thc previous plan and this one...
Scott: I'm sorry. Has he reviewed the one, October 17th?
Generous: Yeah, the one you have tonight
Scott: Good. I'd like to note far the public record that Cowmi~sioner Mancino is stepping
down and will not be participating in, as a Planning Commigsioner on this particular item.
Thank you. I don't know, I'd be real intar, sted in heating Bill Engelhardt, if he's still here.
I'd like to hear your comments and appreciate the cut and fill drawing that you did for us was
very, very helpful. But unfortunately that doesn't apply to this plan I understand so.
Bill Engelhardt~ Just briefly, for Planning Commissioners that don't know me. I'm Bill
Engelhardt. I have an office over in Chaska and do some work with the city and we also do
private development work. The City asked me to take a look at this. They had three basic
questions that they asked. They wanted to know how did the site balance. How did the cuts
and fill... They wanted to see a rough sketch of how the ~ could possibly be laid out in
a different fashion...gradin§ and then the balance of the...so what we did is we prepared the
drawing that you have with the residue contours on it. And what that does is it takes the
grading plan that Mr. Charles Plowe, their en~neer or designer developed, and accenmam
the cut areas and the fill areas. The fill areas are shown in blue, The number inside the
contour line, that number is basically the amount of fill_ The elevation and the amount of fill
that would be going in those areas and the contour line~..amount of cut in the axeau So when
you look at the plan that was originally I~-pared, they have...various fill_ One was called the
northeast cul-de-sac. Southeast cul-de-sac and a line along their north/south wad and the
very southerly edge where you see. the blue contours, that was fill. And then their major filh
were along the south side of the Lake Lucy alignment to just south of their Outlot B. The cut
areas are shown in read. There's some knobs here. Some fill that are on the property and
they were using that as their... The first plan that I reviewed and that you were looking at for
the last month or so, reaflly bahncxxt the site. In other words, tried to equal the cuts and fills
and thc amounts of material Our cadculations came up that they were over 100,000 yards
short of material There's two ways of dealing with thaL One is that you can adjust the
grade of the site by lowering it. Lowering the amount of fi]! required and lowering the cut
areas. The other way that you can adjust the site is to...grade it. The later one is a very
expensive proposition when you're talking about those kinds of... We did receive on Monday,
we received another grading plan where they had done adjustments to thc grades and we went
through and did the same analysis on that one that we had done on the first plan and that
particular plan did balance. They had dropped down so if you want to ~ plans, where
75
Chanhassen Planning Commission - Octol~ 19, 1994
in the let's say Ssmes Court or the northeast cul-de-sac, that particular location the maximum
fill was 16 feet. The new plan and the maximum fi~ is 10 feet so they reduced that. Thru if
you go down to the very south portion of the ~ and the red contours whe~ they're
cutting, they're mass cutting that arem..and now the maximum cut is 20 feet so you can see
how you could balance the site. You drop it a little from here and put a little over there...
over the site. They're still moving 140,000 yards of malm'iaL.. As far as how could you look
at this piece of property in a different fashion to reduce those cuts and fill~ We did a rough
sketch plan and I think you've got that. I didn't do a gl'S_ding plan. You've got to understand
this is a very limillxt review or very limited skl~hing of this piece of propei~. It's a
difficult site. It would have taken a lot more time and a lot more effort to §et a real good
plan but I think what I did do was to show you you could develop the site. Pull your roads
up in the gr_u_ding plan and then using the natural lxmain as your walkouts. My plan's not
100% perfect...roadway which probably wonldn't work real welL The bottom line is that you
could make this site work a little bit better from the grading standpoint if you could use the
existing contours a little bit better and you would lose lots. That's the bottom line. If you
try to maximize the site, try to generate as many lots as possible, we've got to do the grading
and that's reagly simply the nuts and bolts of this. And the approach they took was they're
§oing to get as many lots as they can on it. When you do that, you have to grade. They're
showing their Lake Lucy aligmnent farther to the north. I did the original feasibility study
for the city on Lak~ Lucy Road. I always wanted to keep it south. But we left enough
come up with a plan for their property, that flexibility was there so I_sire Lucy Road could be
moved north or south. It could work both ways. My preference in my feasibili~ study was
to stay south. So what I also did is where Lake Lucy Road connects into the west into the
Gestach-Paulson property, that's where the steetmr slope is and what I did in that particular
area on my plan kept Lake Lucy Road south. And these large lots...the slope area, intended
to keep the house on the top of the slope and using the private drive on top of the slope
coming... It does not work to come off of Lake Lucy Road and go up into those sites with a
cul-de-sac. There's going to be just as much grading that way... ~ than that I'll be happy
to answer any questions. You will see another drawing. The brown line is the zero line and
the zero line gets a little bit crazy in some areas... The red...that does show you where the
cuts are and where the fills and it tells you how much to do.
Sco~ Good. Any questions?
Conngt: Who's is this?
Bill Engclhardt: That's mine.
Conrad: That one's your's, okay.
76
Chanhassen Plaoning Cornmhsion - October 19, 1994
Bill Engelhardt: We also took the liberty of doing everybody's ~ around it.
Conrad: Why not. It's easy to put the lines down there~
Bill Engelhardl: That's exactly right and you have to n~ndersland, it's very easy to put the
lines on. What we fried to do is just see how things would fit and approximately how many
lots would we get.
Conrad: Yeah, I like your plan very much.
Sco~ Bill, let me ask you. This is mare of a co .re!rater related question. This, far me is
extremely helpful. I can visualize exactly whaI's happen_ ing to it. My guess is that, how
prevalent or how widely installed, or first of all Which software package does your finn use
to generate this?
Bill Engelhardl: Well we have an auto cad system that does the drawing work and then
inside the auto cad is a civil en~neering program that's calle/L..Softdesk but I know it as
BCA. And I think Chuck uses the same...same capability. In order to do this kind of stuff
you have to have the earth work module of the BCA and nnless you're doing a lot of dirt
projects, it's very expensive to buy that module. So to do some of these things, you may
have the BCA program but you've got to buy the extra module to give you...
Scott: Yeah, I was just trying to get a handle on how widely inslallext _this is because if it's
something that developem who regularly do _this kind of work would have, this might be
something, and I'm thinking from a potential ordinance ~int. We talked about the
visuals and so forth. I would like to, and I think everybody else would concur, that I'd like
to direct staff to at least do a little bit more investigation to see how often this tool is
available and I think this would cut the time that some of our developers spend in front of us
if we could see something like this that shows exactly what happens~ T~is would be very
helpful so, you may be the only engineer that has it.
Bill Engelhardt~ Oh there's quite a few. This is not...relatively fast. We did do it faster the
second time because Charles gave us a disk that we loaded right into our system here and
was compatible. But the first time around and we actually had to digitize the contours and
that lakes a lot of time. I like this from a design slandpoint. I don't want to keep you too
late but from a design standpoint, we use it to delermine how to balance our sites, Where
we're getting out of lille as far as cuts and fills, So we run this out on all of our Ers_ding
plans and then we look at them and say, oh geez. This doesn't look too good. We've got a
20 fill. Maybe we'd bet~ adjust it, but we know where to adjust it. Charles can do the
77
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Okay, good. Questions, comments. This is not technically a public ~g but I
think I'm going to take the lead of our City Council This was not a public hearing at the
last City Council meeting either and what I'd like to do is if each, if we could have a
representative from the applicant speak for, how much time would you like to speak? I'm
just trying to balance this off so we can.
Charles Plowe: It will be fairly brief.
Sco~ Okay, 10-15 minutes. Is that going to work? And more with questions. Okay.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, before you do, I have to leave. I've got a meeting in about 5 hours
so I'm just not going to stick. Just want to make some conm~nts and I don't think we're
voting on anything tonight but just for the record and maybe the City Council person that's
here. My position really hasn't changecL Lake Lucy Road should still be where it is. Where
we asked it to be, to the south. I think we're tampering. This development is not a good
devclolm~nt as it stands. It's real clear. As we take a real beautiful piece of Chanhassen,
and this is one of the prettier pieces. I think we're really tampering with it. I think our
ordinances support not allowing it to be graded to the extent that we're seeing in the plans. I
said that before and I'm just as committed and convinced of that. We've talked about some
marginal other areas tonight but this one is just an exlremely pretty area and I don't think the
plan has taken into consideration the natural amenities. So I'm going to leave on that note.
I'd sure, you know the plan that Bill showed us, sure it doesn't give as many units but it sure
treats the land the way it should and definitely the part to the north somehow should be
connected to the Mancino's development or protx:ny for future development. $o anyway,
those are my conunents but I'm real, I wanted to leave you with those and hopefully this
doesn't come back to us agsln. I think we've seen it enough. I think we were pretty clear
the last time. It's more doqnltion to what we're seeing in terms of gl'a_dlng but bottom line is,
_things haven't changecL
Scott: Okay. We'll wrap _this at 1:00 so if you'd like to pass on some new information and
then we'll have new information and go from there.
Chuck Howe: Mr. Chair, manb~ of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Plowe.
Project Engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. Most of you have seen this plan enough where I
don't have to go into a lot of dets_ il. Everyone that's here today has seen the plan before.
Was present at the last... As you know we've adjusted Lake Lucy Road a number of times
and we're here to try and work with this topography and to wc~k with the tree line and so on.
And the thing that wasn't on the plan the last time that you had seen it. We shifted it an
additional 30 feet to provide us a wide bench for the collector road boulevard, and to give us
a comfortable 3:1 slope up to the uee line stopping short of the tree line. In doing that you
78
Challhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
also had to adjust _this cul-de-sac street that was there for pushing it southerly to the point
where it became too tight with the edge of the wetland. So working with staff we came up
with the 4 lot private drive system there taking out one of the lots in the cul-de-sac. I believe
in addition to that we moved this private drive down out of the tree~ The tree area which we
had ~ously showed it in the tree area. It's been revie~ and agreed by staff that the
southerly alignment versus the northerly alignment with the cul-de-sac or private drive
scenario as we're showing it, the northerly alignment is preferred and they in fact have
recormmmded approval of this alignment based on a number of conditions. I've mentioned
this before and I guess I could mention it again about the alignment of Lake Lucy Road
having some gradual curvav, ge to it. I feel it does provide actually a safer road as far as
speed is concerned. Thi,~ is a long ways from here to there and a straight wide road does
tend to make the drivers speed. It will tend to happen frequently. I'm sure you've probably
done it yourself. This does tend to alleviate that a little bit so potentially it's a safer roadway
as well. We've done a number of things to mainta~ the sloping character of this site with
the design in grinding. For instance the use of private ckive~ Increasing the slope here with
the private drive to reduce the fill~ And also placing Lake Lucy Road where you see it
rather than pushing it further north, you get more mom and more lots. We've pretty much
resigned to the fact that thi.~ is the best alternative allowed this area..~normal fiat area would
probably amount to four lots you know but it's an ouflot. 'It's not going to be developed and
we realize that and we think it's a good plan. We did maximize the grades on the stre~ to
reduce the fill.~ which I'm trying to accommodate the existing topography as much as
possible. I just want to...the plan that you're looking at that Bill presented. It's been
previously discuS. The Ryan's are really not interested in waiting for another development
to happen before they develop their land and they are interested in developing, noC..piece of
property. So the plan that's you know the sketch plan that was done does not really not fit in
with what they're proposing. It includes the large lots which is you know not con~tent with
what the Ryan's want or is not consistent with the city's land use plan for this area. And
we've got to keep in mind wo that the grading of Lake Lucy Road is going to, Lake Lucy
Road will be constructed whether the Ryan's develop or not and the grs~dlng of Lake Lucy
Road along with the other plan that you were loo_iring at, the grading of Lake Lucy Road does
involve a big pan of the total site gro~tling. If you look at the cut fill plan that Bill had
prepared, there are 16. Is this the current one Bill7 There are 16+ foot cuts going through
the high ground on Lake Lucy Road. So you can see that the cuts and filh you're looking at
are involved in the Lake Lucy Road alignment and that we're looking...a good part of the
grading of the site happens with Lake Lucy Road. I guess if the Ryan's are going to receive
a collector street through their entire plat, which is the long way, you know whether they
want it or not, it's going to happen. So I guess they kind of feel that they have the right to
utilize that street with the plat that meets all the requirements and that's a sens/ble plat and I
think we have worked hard with staff to come up with a plan that are actually over sized lots
that equally.., plan. The concept that Mr. Engelhardt prepared really I guess I don't feel that
79
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
it works. With or without th~ Ildjli/l~t pl/t dgl/~Jopillg with it~ th~ E iOllE pl'o~ Th~
lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road would require a variance, which we were denied the
variance. The lots fronting on the county road would not be allowed ~ the county does
not allow that if there's an alternative and they'll want one access... I know Mr. Engelhardt
hasn't spent a lot of time in detailing all that stuff out but the~ are things that obviously we
looked at the plan fight away. The existing house doesn't have a lot of...but that's just a
note. Thc cul-de-sac street on the north ~ line that goes up the hill; that would be a
~nporary cul-de-sac until... That would be just, there's no grading that's been caknlA__ted on
this plan so but in looking at that, that's the highest pan of the site so it will be difficult for
that slreet to be consmicted without some substantial grading and also some loss of
substantial trees in that same area. I guess I don't feel that we've maximized the lots on
here. Like I said, we could have narrower lots. We could have a lot more lots on it. We
have most of them are well above the winimurn ale, A so we workexi with th~ topography and
we've worked with the area the best as we can and we have a lot of open space. We've got
a lot of separation between homes and I think we've done well as far as keeping the plan
together that we best utilize thc pwpa~ and definitely did not maximize the lot counts. I
guess I didn't recall Mr. Engelhardt talking about the, one of the things thai he was going to
look at for the city was ali~nrnent of Lake Lucy Road up here versus staying down here and
using the same scenario that we...plan in developing _this parti~lar area. But his ~indings
were such that the roadway being down here did not work. Having cul-de-sacs go to the
north... I guess I really don't have any other cornmen_ ts. FA, did you have any comments?
Are there any questions of me first?
Scott: I was just going to toss something out. It seems like a lot of the major ill! that goes
on is probably caused by the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac. I'm just looking at ~ames Court
and Alcove and so forth. ~ust it appears that you've used private drive very effectively to
service 4 homes off of what, I don't know if that used to be called Mary Bay, no. I'm sony.
Chuck Plowe: This one?
Scorn Yeah.
Chuck Plowe: C-w~ol~ Court.
Scott: Does it make any sense at all to do the same son of a ~t on the other cul-de-
sac serving the 4 lots at the end? Or do we get into public safety concerns about having turn
arounds. I'm just thinking~ it seems like that's where the big filling is going on and it may
be caused in pan by the grading necessary to put a cul-de-sac turn around. And I don't know
if we're causing ourselves problems, or I'm causing problems by suggesting this but it seems
8O
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 199~
like we can put 4 homes off a private drive. Private drives ~ to have less impact from a
grading standpoint.
Chuck Plowe: I think if you look at the, we've reduced the t~l! in this area from the previous
plan. That's one of the big things we did too.
Scot~ Yeah, see I'm looking at th~ otlmr one.
Chuck Howe: Yeah, so you don't know what we did as far as how much less filL.Is this the
correct one?
Scott: That's down 6 feet.
Chuck Howe: ...so we've tried to accomplish some of the same things that were of the
concern, along with the balancing of the site. As Mr. Engelhardt has pointed out, we were
sort of material. I was aware of that but to the extent that we were sh~rt, I guess I wasn't
quite aware of that.
Scott: And then you just balance that by cutting more.
Chuck Howe: Essentially the bi, est change in the balance was reducing the fill here and
reducing the fill here and actually I see your com?uter, I have to plot one of those out in
black and white. I don't have the nice color. Showed a large cut over here and there's a
glitch in it somehow so...but it shows like at the 24 there...but anyway, we did really i .mlm)ve
the situation here from what was on the previous plan and the glitch we had.., has been
reduced by 6 feet. Actually we exceed the maximum grade which is allowable.
Scott: Okay, good thanks. I just thought...
Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan. I'm the owner of the ~. My wife Mary is here
tonight and I guess I'll be very brief because I know that we've all been working hard
tonight. I just want to make a very brief comment and that is that when we subsequently
worked with Bob and Kate and subsequent to our City Coundl meeting, they instructed us to
try to clarify, try to identify the project better so you wouM have a better u~ndersmnding and
so would the Council We received a call that said, why don't you hold up on it. We're
going to have Bill take a look at the plan in detail, and which you have before you today.
The in--on from Kate was specific. It stated that the layout, the two alternative layouts.
The southern alignment that you saw before and the northerly alignment should be compared
looking at the southern alignment with the cul-de-sacs. Then we should make a comparison
with the grading. Also look at the grading issue from our preliminsty plat to see what kind
81
Chanhassen Planning ~ommission - October 19, 1994
of irn~ovements we can make. And from that.let's look at the sitr in terms of balance and
see what kind of balance exists and if there are inequalities, let's make sure that's addressed.
The first issue was addressed and Bill reco?i-ed that the northern alignment is pre~erred. Is
bett~ than thc southern ali~ment. He stated that. Is that unclear to anyone here?
Planning Commission: Yes.
Ed Ryau: Okay. Bill looked specifically at the southern alignng~ with nonhero cul-de-sacs
and found, as thc staff did, that our allot is preferable. Is that not true?
Bill Engclhardt: No. That's not,..
Ed Ryan: Okay. Let mc go to thc script then because, I'll go back to the, I have copies of
all the script and the findings from what Bill has completed is that, from an engineering
standpoint the proposed devclopmem prepared for thc Ryan's is a feasible alternative.
Meaning whe~ Bili looked at that comparison with the southern alignn~nt to the nortbem cul-
de-sacs, it didn't work as well. Am I wrong? That's what you specifically stated in the
meeting that the staff meeting that was held several days ago. Am I?
Chuck Howe: I think number 3 Ed.
Ed Ryan: Yes. The extension of the roadway to the north from the southerly alignment does
not work to preserve thc dopes. That was the conclusion you ~.
Bill Engelhardt: If you put cul-de-sacs in there.
Bill Bugelhardt: You have to understand Bd that what I'm saying is you're going to lose
some lots and that's the bottom line as far as my analysis goes. I like the southern aligmmmt
with large lots on the slope with no distur~ to the slope. When the question was asked,
does the southern alignment work with cul-de-mcs to the north, I answered no and the reason
for that is because instead of filling that slope, you would now be cutting the slope. So it's
got to be...so you're kind of twisting around a little bit where I'm saying the northern
alignment is preferable. I'm not saying that at all I'm saying the southern alignment is what
is preferable to me with some other concept on how you do the lots to the northerly
Ed Ryan: Well, I'll certainly apologize if I'm misstated you Bill beca~ I certainly wouldn't
want to give that.
82
Chanhas,sen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Bill Bngelhardt: I just told you is exactly what I said.
Ed Ryan: Okay. So I guess my reading of the study that was done by staff and Bill was
that, when they flipped the situation around, they found that our northern alignment was
pr~erred and I think that's true because the cul-d~sacs don't work. But Bill is saying, I still
like the southern alignnm~t because of larger lots. Is that ~7
Bill Engelhardt: I'm saying I like the southern alignment with a diff~nt concept for the lots
to the north. How you do that, I'm not the designer of the plat. I'm not going to deign
your plat.
Ed Ryan: Okay. You're not going to design it.
Bill Engelhardt: I like the southern alignment. If you can do something with the lots to the
north to preserve the slope.
Ed Ryan: Okay. Specific~y returning to what Kate had indicated that Bill should look at. I
guess we were surprised to find that there was a new design for our development. That
included the Mancino ~ and the Carlson ~. I guess that was something that was
a surprise to us in that we were not aware of this kind of a development being considered
where the 3 of our parties would be as one. And this is something that Mary and I have
never even considered because our primary concern was to develop a plat that would work
with the road aliEnment and be pleasing from a neighborhood perspective. And I guess that's
what I believe we've accomplished. So I guess those are the comments I wanted to make and
I'm certainly happy, or Chuck is certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. I
know we want to keep it very brief but I felt it was important to share that. Thank you.
Scott: Sure. Questions or cornnvmts? Pick one person and.
Tom Owens: Commission members, my name is Tom Owens. I'm a real estate Law
specialist from Minneapolis and I'm appearing tonight on behalf of 6 of the neighboring
property owners. As an initial point of arder, you indical~ a few minutes ago that we would
only be going until 1:00 and I need at least a couple more minulE8.
Scott: Yeah, I think why don't you just take like 15 so we can kind of balance the time out a
little bit, like we're trying to balauce the cubic ymxh of dirt.
Tom Owens: Thank you. I trust that will include sotne time for questions.
Scott: Sure.
83
Chanhassen Plmaning Commission - October 19, 1994
Tom Owens: Sure... I'm here tonight representing 6 property owners, They are 1erome and
Linda Carlson, Peter and Mary Davis and Sam and Nancy Mancino. Usually in this position
I'm representing d~velope~ or people who want to intunsify or altur tim u~ of their land.
I'm taking a night off from that and representing some honest, hard wofldng people. Your
citizens and utxpayers.
Scott: Well I'll pass on that comngnt. Not that I disagree but I don't think it...very well for
the Ryan's so, I'll let that go.
Tom Owens: Alright. A very serious disadvantage that was just demonstrated by the little
contact that you had with the applicant. The applicant has very simply failed to heed the
information about the impact on the topography and landform that his plans will provide. In
fact, in just the last 48 hours, although now it's getting later enough that we're dosing in on
72 hours, that it is that the applicants came forward with a brand new grading plan which we
haven't even seen yet. This one magically ¢~ a 111,000 cubic yard shortage or
imbalance in soils that otherwise had it not been discovered by Mr. Engelhardt and c~
in the last couple of days, would have required the purchase off site and trucidng them on
site. I understand that at l0 yards per track, that would have required many thousand of
trucks to bring on site. I can't match the wizardry of these corrections that they've just made
but I do have a few conunents about Shamrock Ridge and then we'll be happy to answer
your questions. I've got a letter I'd like to distribute to you. And two things shoRld come as
no surprise to you tonight. One is the thoughtful and principled nature of the opposition of
my clients that you have before you tonight. The second is the great number of non technical
legal grounds that you have for mc. omm~__ ding to the City Council to deny the preliminm'y
plat before you. I'd like to take you on a brief tour of those grounds, and if you will look at
page 1 of my letter at the botwm you will see, paragraph number 1. The very first reason for
denial is that this subdivision simply does not con~ly with the city ordinances because of the
mass grading and destruction of topography that it wreaks. At the wp of the second page,
I've pointed out 4 very specific city ordinances that would be viohted by this plat. These are
4 of the 7 necessary fi~dings that the City Coundl must make in order to approve a plat.
Now the city staff has worked very long and very hard on this project for many weeks
generating a multitude of reports and revisions reviewing a myriad of documents and
revisions from the developer. They've really walked a tight wire here in trying to respond to
these ever changing plans but at every tm~ in every report, the staff has ultimately crificiz~
and reco~ed against this plat because of it's hnpact on the topography and landforrr~
And I'd like to quote to you from the very latest revision of the city staff report That is
from page 19, and I just want to review a couple of sentences. Sect/on 18-60(d) of the City
Code requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenifie~ such as vegetation, wetlands,
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
additional protection of nay. ual resotuces, the proposal has been revised to lessen the impacts
of the development on the site. That's hardly a recommendation. A liUle bit ~ down in
the page you find this sentence. The steep slopes on the western half of the development
make the development of this area problematic at best, based on the development pmtmsal,
due to thc sev~ dopes. That conunent has never changed throughout the course of this plat
and winding it's way from thc staff to the Council to the Planning Commission and back
again. Let me also remind you thai these terms that we've becn...~t, topography and steep
sl~ appear several times in the city code and thai they are usually relami to their
preservation. In thc last plat before you, you had a lively discussion about this so I won't
spend any more time there. But I would like to remind you that the City Code instructs the
Planning Commission and the City Council and in order to approve a plat, all of the
applicable City, County and regional plans must be corn?lied with. Not just some of them.
And that all of the ? findings must be made. Not just some of them or substantially all or
that the developer must come close. At the botwm of page 2 of my ~ I cited a few key
provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. The~ goals and policy statements arc why the
city has a more sophisticated and detailed set of requirements in it's city ordinance than many
other cities. Thc reason simply is to satisfy thc desire of thc citizens for a more aestheti~y
pleasing commnnlty. Taken together the com,r~ehensive plan and the city ordinances make it
very clear that the old fashion subdivision method of mass grs~ding is a thing of the past in
the city of Chanhas~ On the next page of my letter I've indicated that the third reason for
denial of this plat in it's present form, and it's one that I have considerable profesdonal
experience with. I've stated approval of the plat in it's present form would set a dangerous
precedent for future subdivisions. If this plat is approved in it's present farm, it will come_
back to haunt you. You will have other lawyers like me. You will have my colleagues in
front of you citing this plat 6 months, 12 months, 3 years fwm now as precedent for that
lawyer's and his client's plat, which ravages steep slopes and does not comply with the city
ordinances. I could almost guarantee you of this result. That's one of the jobs of a real
estate lawyer in representing a developer that's investigating the actions of the Planning
Commission or Council over the last couple of years to see what precedents have been
established. And the precedent clearly will be don't worry about steep slopes. The City's
already indicated that it's not dealing to preserving that.. Now I made a couple of other
points there, items 4 and 5, indicating thai this applicant could have asked far a variance or
could have gone through the PUD process. Perhaps it was a mistake. Hind sight is always
better than fore sight but frankly this maximization of the intensity of development of the site
has been thc choice of thc developer from the be~nning. There were other avenues. It could
have been developed less intensely. It could have gone through the PUD process. A
vll/iilllce could have begll requ~slgd from the very Stal~C Those things wer~ not done, My last
reason for denial is that this proposed plat aligns the ~ Lucy Road cxten~on contrary to
the comprehensive plan where you will find the maps drawing it in the southerly alignment,
as well as the recommendations of the City's consultants and staff. If you care to stay a bit
Chanhassen P/aoning Commission - October 19, 1994
longer, we have a sketch that we could show you. An air, native design for a southerly
alignrrumt that reduces the inmnsity a little bit. We also have a couple of other props and
we'll be happy to show them to you, depending on how much time you want to spend and
your questions. One of them is a model that Sam Mancino has spent a tremendous amount of
time on and I think you'll, I hope you'll appreciate it as a very p~insmking effort to do
something that this applicant has never done, and that is m demonstmt~ the actual hnpact of
this plat upon the land. Sam's model shows in cross sections and with a variety of colors,
exactly what is going to be cut out and what is going to be filled. I'll s~dmit there's one little
problem with his model. He didn't have time to make a new one that shows exactly what the
new gro_ding plan, which we haven't even seen yet, does. This is pretty dramatic. My guess
is that the new grading plan, while nicking a couple feet out of here and sddlng a couple feet
there, is not going to change very much. This is still a project in the old fashion, mass
grading, don't leave a cind of dirt unturned, style. Let me conclude by reminding you of our
two jobs tonight. I hope I've done mine by showing you that my clients are not just a bunch
of crazy nimby's running around saying no, no, no. There can't be any development. Had a
proposal come forward for 30 or 35 or 40 lots in a sensible configuration, they certainly
would have gone over it carefully and fine tooth combed it and undoubt~y had some
comments. But that's not what happened. I hope I've indicated to you that my clients
objections to the plat in it's present form are thoughtfuL, reasonable, based in law, and that
they're very strongly committnd to them. The second job is your's and that's the most
difficult one. I hope and u'ust that you will recommend to the City Council that it deny this
plat because it's your job to enforce the city ordinances and because this plat is not what the
future of Chanhassen is about. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you everybody.
Nutting: Mr. Chairman, what is our direction in t~am of this tonight? I'm reading this page
here saying that rather than a denial, the Council would like specific planning for approval or
denial of the Planning Commission recommendation. So we're voting again to approve or
deny?
Scott: Yeah.
Nutting: And then detail reasons why.
Scott: Yeah, I was at the City Council meeting where this came out of and they're basically,
there were two things. One was a feeling on the part of the City Council that they d_i0n't
have the tools in front of them to rnak~ a deie~ination one way or the other. There were a
lot of concerns. Some of the same concerns that we have. And then also, because we had
86
Clumhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
just basically a quorum that day, they wanted to get input from the other commissioners. Off
the wp of my head, all I can say is I was there. Matt was there. I think.
Fro'makes: I was not there.
Nutting: Jeff and Diane were not.
Scott: Okay, and you were there. So I guess as a part of our charge to the City Council,
let's maybe start with some of your thoughts being in abstention the last t/me we ~eviewed
Faunak~: Are we ending thc public hearing?
Sco~ This is not a public hearing. But it was, and it wasn't a public hearing at the City
Council but they chose to let them make comments.
Farmakes: My comments are, I waliwA the property. I decided readily apparent what was
going on here according to the city. The issue here to me is, the be~nning issue is where
does Lake Lucy Road continue. And from there then comes the rest of this. The grading and
the site design. I agree with the city sm/f recommendations as I've read it. Hearing there's
different interpretations of this but as I interpret it, the southerly alignment, it makes sense all
around for this site based on both the City's existing criteria and I think our past practices, to
the greatest extent possible. And I'm going to vote to deny that and I'm going to vote to, as
far as information goes, tell them that I think that the southerly alignment of would it be
proposed on that property, for that road, is where it should go for a host of reasons. And I
think they've been listed here so far, and have been listed in the past. It was just a situation
that I think similar w the daycare situation. We've listed that out somehow that there's a
point in negotiation here where we communicate and the fact is, it _m__lre_,s two to commnnic-n_~.
If you have a situation where you're discussing your concerns and the other ~ chooses not
to respond, they choose not to respond. So it seems to me as a commission you can point
those out, and then vote to deny it, as we did before. And pass it on. Not to pass it on
without information but it seems to me that the crux of thi.s thing is the alignment of Lake
Lucy Road. And from there the rest of it falls into place. That's the end of my commen~
Scot~ Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I can't say anything has changed from the first time. The last meeting. My
~ts at that time dealt with the inconsistency of the devel~t with the surrounding
area and pan and parcel of that was the topography. It boils down to lrying to maximize the
density. I think if this plan, I also agreed with the southerly alignment. Yeah, it's not going
87
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
to work with the southerly ali~t and the cul-de-sacs. I think that's beea laid out here
from the grading but again, we're not trying to, I'm not trying to design it for them but if
we've got the southerly alignment as the preferred, the~ the question is, what works with this
side and what can you do. It would appear that it's driving the denaity down and the lot aize
up, which then makes it more c, on~istent with the sulzoullding devolopment and it deals with
the issues of city code that have been addressed here in a more legal form but were brought
up very clearly in our last session so I can't change my conclusions ~nn last time. I would
vote for denial and would be the exact same reasons. Now I'm looking at this ~ saying
the Council is looking for recommendations on Lak~ Lucy Road aliglunent and proposed
pavement width. 36 versus 32. I don't recall a discussion on the width.
Scott: That was brought up I believe by Councilman Wing at the Council meeting.
Nutting: I'm aware of that. The question is, did we discuss that at all?
Sco~ No.
Fm'make~: There were earlier discussions on the leg of Lak~ Lucy Road that's currently
completed, that it was over built.
Sco~ And that was how the discussion actually ended up at the Council meeting.
Farmakes: Yeah. That may be some hold over from that discussion.
Scott: Okay.
Nutting: So as it's presently laid out, is it at a 36 foot width?
Bill En§elhardc I can answer that. It's being bid and laid out as a 36 foot width to meet the
State Aid standards. There was some comment at thc Council meeting about some other
roadways that were state aid roads but at a lesser width but the difference between this
pardodar project and those particular projects is the area that we're going through. Whereas
the existing area, existing houses, existing fxont yards, the state aid will allow you to bring
your road width down. Where you're going through open fields basically, then you have to
stay up to your 36. The other thing is that when you're looking at traffic volumes, I think
you can see very easily that 34 or 32 foot width is going to work today. It may work 5 years
from now. But it's a 20 year design life and in 20 years, that's where your traffic projections
get up to their design leveis and that's why you design your 36 foot road. C)the~wi~ you'd
be going and rebuilding the road.
88
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: So that's rely not an option to reduce the width of the road?
Bill Engelhardt: No.
Nutting: Okay. So then the grading plan of the site, the amount of gra_cllng and including a
better visual presentation to assist in reviewing the pmt~sed grade changes, So either we are
to come up with a betler visual presentation or request that frmn thc developer. Is that7
Scott: Yeah, it was requested and it came fxom a different source but.
Nutting: Okay. So the only thing we have t~ pass on fight now is not something from the
developer. Do we deny but, you know and then it's up to the developer to come up with a
visual thing to, when it goes back up to Council?
Sc, om I'm not concerned about the source of that tool, just as long as it's ~ and I think it
is.
Farwa~ea: We got into this with that daycare center. Do we sit down and grab a pencil and
redesign it to achieve.
Nutting: Yeah, I don't see myself as playing that role. I shouldn't be playing that role.
That's not my, certainly not my training either so I don't want to venture into that. And then
the subdivision design rehfive to the natural featm~ of the site. I think that's. I thought that
came through in thc last meeting in terms of thc natural featm~ and thc grading issue and
that's still coming through here wnight, although I can't say that I can completely evaluate
this last plan that came in, which balances but what I'm understanding in tcrr~ of the
balances, it's reducexl one place and increased another so that thc bahnce occurs. But it stitl
a~ that the gra~dlng is extensive so it's just a question of does that change anything and
for me at this point it doesn't. So I'm just uying to read through and say what is Coundl
looking for and what can we give them to make their job easier. So that's the extent of mine.
Scot~ Matt.
Ledvina: I would agree with the comments of the other commissioners and would offer a
motion. I would move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Shamrock
Ridge Subdivision for reasons as noted. The subdivision as proposed does not meet the
requirements of Ordinance No. 18-60(d) which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and
protect the natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, with emphasis, water
89
Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
courses and historic areas~ Additionally, the subdivision does not meet the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Based on starts contained in thc comprehem~¢ plan which
mention that variable topography, topographic diversity and roiling topography are essential
characteristics of Chanhassem The City's expressed goal is to help assure ~ut future
developments are designed so that they are _sensitive to natural featm~. The City of
Chanhasseo will discourage the alteration of steep slopes ond bluff~ In addition, the
proposed plat does not follow the pref~ed southerly alignment far the Lake Lucy Road
extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was proposed and as well as
throughout this entire process.
Scott: Okay. Is fl~-re a second?
Nutting: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the subdivision. Is there any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Phuming Comndssio~ recommend denial of
the Shamrock Ridge Subdivision for the following reasons:
Xe
The subdivision as .proposed does not meet the requirements of Ordimmce No. 18-60(d)
which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect the natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep dopes, with _emphasis, water courses and hisWric areas.
e
Thc subdivision does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. Based on statements
contained in the comprehensive plan which mention that variable topography, topo~hic
diversity and roiling Wpography ate essential chamcte~ of Chanhassen. The City's
expressed goal is to help assure that furore developments are designed so that they are
sensitive to natural feamre~. The City of Chanlmzsen will discourage the al~ration of
steep dopes and bluffs.
Thc proposed plat does not follow the preferred southerly alignn~nt for the Lake Lucy
Road extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was pwpo~ and as well
as throughout this entire process,
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: There is a solution to develop this property. We just haven't seen it yet. But take it
through thc process. Thank you all very much far staying up. For all your work and see you
later.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. AH voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:2~ a.m.
Submitted by' Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
91