1992 07 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY i5, 1992
Acting Chairwoman Ahrens called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Joan Ahrens and Jeff
Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, 'Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Kate Aanenson, Planner
Il
PUBLIC HEARING:
NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR SUNNY SLOPE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION~
Public Present:
Name
Dick Nelson
Jeff Nelson
.Alan Dirks
Kyle Tidstrom
Ken Wolter
Joy Tanner
Eunice Kottke
360 Deerfoo~ Trail
300 Deerfoot Trail
9203 Lake Riley Blvd.
340 Deerfoot Trail
341Deerfoot Trail
9243 Lake Riley Blvd.
9421 Lake Riley Blvd.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
·
Ahrens: Does anyone have any questions of staff before we get started with
the public hearing?
Ledvina: I do. Kate, has anything changes since 1988 when, that was the
last time that the Association requested ~ variance and they were turned
down. Has anything changed?
Aanenson: As far as the level of use?
Ledvina: Well, in terms of any of the issues that surround this request.
Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. The Association may have some other
information but to my knowledge, no.
Ledvina: So there's no new information or?
Ahrens: Okay. Is the applicant here to address the Commission?
Ken Wolter: My name is Ken Wolter. I reside at 341 Deerfoot Trail-in
Chanhassen. I'm the current President of the'Association and there are a
number of things in the report that I'd like to bring attention or call
attention to in response. The application ! did fill out at the time did
state, you know when I confirmed what' was i.n 1981, does state that there
was a dock there. I didn't state in here that it was out on the water. At
Planning Commission Heeting
Suly 15, 1992 - Page 2
the ~ime in 1981 there was only one person, one house in the association of
12. And there's a letter also attached, if that was read by the Planning
Commission, from a Mr. Steve Burke. And he is no longer a member of the
association. He lives on the other side of the lake and he wrote a letter
for us stating that there was a dock there on the land. He never put it
out at the time that he was there because of the fact that he didn't have a
boat at the time. But the reason he did purchase the property there and
build was because there was the opportunity. Also should be in the same
package, showing how Sunny Slope Association was being represented and
being sold in the city of Chanhassen as to having beach rights, dock
rights, and all the normal boating rights, that any'other association would
have. If that letter, if you'd like to have me read it for the public?
Ahrens: I think that's okay. We all have copies in our packets so we've
read the letter.
Ken Wolter: Okay. But I just wanted to clarify to that point that. the
application I did fill out for what was back in 1981 does show that there
was a dock as per the letter from Mr. Burke. Also on the Court Finding by
the District Court, one thing I'd like to also bring up, there was
significant information that we'wanted to bring into the court system and I
have to say, back at that time we had some problems with a person we had
representing us. And he told us we could just hold off until the time of
Court date. And with that information it was representing what was
happening.in the city'at the time. As to who had docks on smaller
lakeshore lots than us, and obviously that's what this whole process was
for now that you're going through with all the associations that are non-
conforming but we still as an association feel we have the right to a dock
because there was a dock there. We feel there is no additional burden to
the lake or should cause no problem. We have our plans in effect to have a
dock there and 3 boats is what we'd like to have. That's all we're asking
for. We're not trying to overuse anything. We currently do pass through
the Eden Prairie park when we do launch our boats so useage 'on the lake, we
are already using it in that manner. We're just looking for the final,
what we feel is the right of the association as how it was represented
throughout the entire life of the association.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question?
Ken Wolter: Sure.
Farmakes: Mr. Burke's letter says that they were the only-family in the
association. Does that mean in the association or does that mean in the
development?
Ken Wolter: In the development.- He was the only house there at that time'.
Farmakes: So I add 2 1/2 years onto June of 198i, is that correct?
Ken Wolter: Approximately that, yes. I was not there-at the time. This
is the information that I gathered from what I could f~om Steve Burke and
any documentation in the association that I have. That I currently have.
Ahrens: Are there any boats in the water now?
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992 - Page 3
Ken Wolter: No. No, we've been trying to abide with it but when the City
sent the letter for non-conforming beachlots we felt this was our
opportunity to bring the evidence that we tried to bring into court and
basically the court decision was through default because we couldn't submit
the information. We feel that the court sided on the city because the
information was not there so it was a default.
Ahrens: Did you appeal the decision?
Ken Nolter: The lawyer that we had at that time didn't want to do it and
basically we were told it wouldn't do any good at that time. Unless we go
through the whole process of going to the City Council and the Planning
Commission and the whole avenue like that and basically, from what I was
told, the Judge didn't' even want to hear about it until it went through all
of that procedure again. Us to introduce it into the.
Farmakes: Why wasn't the builder aware at that time of the issue that was
before the City on non-conforming beachlots? How much before '81 was this
development? In the planning stage.
Ken Wolter: Well, I believe the association was approved in 1977. At some
point here he did buy the lot as a lakeshore lot.
Farmakes: Correct me if I'm wrong but you said that there wasn't anybody
living in the development until 3une of 1981, is that correct?
Ken Wolter: Steve Burke, no. He bought.
Emmings: Late 70's you mean?
Kyle Tidstrom: Late 1980.
Emmings: Oh, 19807 Oh, okay.
Kyle Tidstrom: August or September of 1980 was when the house went up.
When Steve moved in, I don't know.
Ahrens: Excuse me. Could you give your name.
Kyle Tidstrom: Kyle Tidstrom. I live-at 340 Deerfoot Trail...
Farmakes: In the second paragraph of his letter he says, we bought the
house at 340 Deerfoot Trail, Sunny Slope ASsociation. So I'm confusing I
guess the issue of lakeshore association with the development itself. Is
that just an error that he made or'should that have been development
instead of association or what?
Ken Wolter: I guess it should be development. Sunny Slope development is
12 homes and are associated property, that's a commons area for that.
association.
Farmakes: How could you be an association if there wasn't anybody in the
development? That's what I'm asking, in '777 Wasn't there somebody living
in the development?
Planning Commission Meeting
July i5, i992 - Page 4
Ahrens: The association is created at the time of the development and it's
usually a creation in the By-laws.
Farmakes: Okay, so it's in the By-laws but there's nobody actually in the
association except for the owners.
Ken Wolter: The owners and the developer of the Property, correct.
Ahrens: Anything further?
Ken Wolter: I think I have covered everything. Is there anything you
wanted to ask Al? It's just the recap of what I've stated and wanted to
present here. What we feel is stuff, information that should be brought
and if there's any questions about it, we feel that that should be taken
into consideration.
Ahrens: Okay. We may have some questions later but we'll address those
when they arrive. Would anyone else like to address the Commission at this
time? Step up to the podium please and give your name and address for the
record.
Alan Dirks: My name is Alan Dirks and I used to live, I was the second
home that came in there. Steve Burke's home was actually, now I live..just
on Shore Acres there across the street but just to give a little insight. I
was the first home to actually come to Alan Gray, who was the developer at
the time, because Steve Burke's house was the actual model home which was
going to be a retirement thing I think was the original By-laws. It was
going to be a development for retirement and it kind of went the other
direction when we came in and Steve there. Steve had a young family and I
did as well and Alan Gray definitely protrayed that.this Nas a completely
useable beachlot to us and had docking rights and boating rights. So then
at the time I did call the City when I went to make application and just
said, is this a useable lot...? And I think part of the problem with this
whole set-up is that it's become a real emotional issue. I've worked with
Kate on a few things and I think she's a terrific gal and she's tried to
.
get some insight on what she can dig up on this whole thing and there's
been some misinformation along the Nay and I don't think a lot of it is,
the rules were in place. Did it go into place actually in '817
Aanenson: The beachlot ordinance was adopted in 1982. Sanuary.
Alan Dirks: Because when I first started building in '$3. We completed in
'84 and this was in the spring of '83 when I called the City and at the
time they still were saying to us, go ahead and make...use of the lot.
Then when in '88 when the Court issue actually ~ame up. When the Court
issue actually came up, I was still living there and at the time there was
a lot of interest in keeping the reduction on the use of'Lake Riley. And
on the Eden Prairie side of Lake Riley where they have the boat access,
they had a limited number of stalls'that you could park your boats at and
it was all really confined. And I think that was ~art of the emotional
side of keeping the boats off of this and the dockage off of this lot. cut
since then Eden Prairie's found that that was illegal in essence to
restrict the number of boats they could launch over there as well. $o I
think the time that this actually went to Court, there was a lot of emotion
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 5
running high about Lake Riley. And I'd just like to say that as a
lakeshore owner now, I think that you're not going to, I think there's a
lot of inconsistency to go' ahead and not allow these 12 homes .that,
especially in the early development stages, were not allowed or were told
that they'd be able to have a boat and have dockage and have rights and
then come back at this late stage, open up the east side of the lake with
the Eden Prairie side and let all the boat access go onto the lake from
people that aren't on or contributing in any way to the lake. Whereas
these folks are certainly lakeshore owners and paying their taxes and
contributing to those lake associations.
Farmakes: Can I ask you a question?
Alan Dirks: Sure. Go ahead.
Farmakes: Will you define for me at the'time that you bought'your house,
.
what you believed at the time' is full use of the property?
Alan Dirks: There was no question in my mind that, I mean at the time I
couldn't afford lakeshore and so it was the best option for.me, at the time
and that, they said that we could launch boats across as well as have a
dock and storage overnight. And so that was our full intent.
Farmakes: Did the City say that or the developer did?
Alan Dirks: Well the developer said that and I called the City to confirm
it but I never got it in writing or anything because'all the stuff that he
was handing out, you know I guess maybe I should have gone further with it
but at the time there was no question in my mind that I'd be able to use it
as a, actually we knew that there'd be some restrictions and that we might.
have to rotate as more homes came in. Because I believe he was telling us
there were 4 boats could be had at the time. Now Ken said 3. That was
news to me but at the time Alan Gray was saying 4. Well I was just the
second house so that wasn't a problem.
Farmakes: So at that time you contacted the City. That was '847 83?
Alan Dirks: It would have been the spring of
Farmakes: Thanks.
Ahrens: You know this is a tough situation for us too. We're not trying
to create any hardship for anyone. I think the problem is a lot of people
may have, you're not the only association that we've seen this happen to. I
think there are probably a lot of causes of action out there against
developers who told people they had rights that they didn't have and the
City now is not trying to take away any rights from anyone. We're just
.trying to establish what rights people did have. What rights the
Associations had back in 1981' and enforce those rights.
Alan Dirks: I think you hit the pivotal-thing in here is that in 1981 it
seems to me there was a timeframe where, whether there was a dock actually
in the water or not. And it seems to me that whether or not the dock was
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 6
in the water shouldn't have that much bearing. It should be what the
rights the people had in 1981.
Ahrens: Right but as far as we know, there were no rights for your
association because we certainly don't have anything documented. And what
we're trying to establish is the use of the lake, not whether or .not there
was a dock in the water. Whether or not there were boats in the water' is
what's important to us.
Alan Dirks: Kate, how did they determine that-again in '81 though? As far
as whether or not it was being used as a full boat dockage.
Aanenson: I wasn't here. It's my understanding the staff person who did
it went out and took, documented the length of the dock and then that there
was canoe racks, the number of boats and that was all documented. For this
beachlot the notation said, no dock in water. No boats. No canoe racks.
Alan Dirks: So that was the c~iteria that she.went by, or they went by at
the time?
Aanenson: Whoever did it, yes.
Alan Dirks: Was whether or not it was in the water? It seems to me it
should be more the issue of what the intent of the lot was. Just thought
I'd.
Ahrens: Thank you for your comments.
Would you like to step up please.
Does anyone else'have anything?
3oy Tanner: I'm 3oy Tanner. I l'i've at 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. and :I'm
directly, I have Lots 38 and 39, Shore Acres. There's some clarification I
could make on some of these issues because I've been here longer than any
of them.
Ahrens: When did you move in?
3oy Tanner: My home was built in the summer and fall of '79 and actually I
bought my lot, started the initial investigation, say with the City before
the lot was bought in early '78. Okay at that time Alan Stay had, as you
see from your records, had applied for a conditional use permit and so
forth for the development. Due to the negative response in the
neighborhood, he withdrew the petition at that time. Th~ request. That
was kind of the start of things and every few years, not for a while but
every few years we've gone through this same thing. They .didn't show in'
case summary but I think I was probably, I can't tell you how many times
this has been before the Planning Commission. It was Withdrawn each time,
probably until when was it that the City tur~ed it down?
Aa ne nso n: ' 86.
Joy Tanner: '867 Okay, whatever. There was a dock on the lland. That's
for sure when we moved in in December of '79. Sometime.
Ahrens: Was the dock on the land?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 7
Joy Tanner: There was a dock laying in the.grass until '84 when I was
separated, my husband mowed that grass in the summer because the lot was
there and the weeds were growing. Sometime, either late in '81 or during
the summer of '$2, the person living in the, the tacky cabin on Lot 36,
picked the dock up, took it over to his house and nailed it on the house
for a deck. So the dock was gone. [ mean theTe was no dock you know at
that point in time. It stayed there until Paul Olson bought the property
and at that point when we was tearing down the cabin to rebuild, that was
the point that Steve Burke did give Paul the dock. Okay, he.didn't give it
to him to put into the lake so it was kind of a round about thing. Things
haven't changed. The Sunny Slope families have been using it as a swimming
beach and maintaining it and they're nice neighbors'for swimming. I would
not like to see a dock and 12 families with water, skiing and all the
intense use. I don't dislike people. People are fine. It's a difficult
situation but nothing truly has changed much. I guess that's it. I can't
think of what else.
Ahrens: Thank you Hrs. Tanner. Anyone else like to speak on this issue?
Kyle Tidstrom: My name is Kyle Tidstrom. I do live at 340 Deerfoot Trail
now and I guess I'd just like to say that we do ski and we won't be skiing
in the bay. You can't ski in the bay. And we pull in there and sit during
the day and that isn't going to change by having a dock. I appreciate Joy
mentioning that that dock was laying on the land because it seems like the
decision on this was all made on was there a dock there and was there
intent to have a dock there and there was and I'd just like people to look
at that and make a decision based on that information that wasn't in 'the
Court case that came up due to one reason .or another.
Ahrens: Alright, thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to'close the public hearing. Oil voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: Well I've taken a look at the information that's been provided
and I don't see that anything has really.substantially changed in the last
4 years since this issue was brought before the City Council when 'the
variance request was denied. And I don't see any reason at this point to
allow this site to be grandfathered in~ 'That's it for my comments. I
think that the continued use of a swimming beach is fine. That seems to be
an acceptable practice for this outlot. That's it.
Ahrens: Okay, Seff.
Farmakes: We've heard several associations here and we keep on hearing the
same thing over and over again. I wish there was some sort of Truth in
Housing I guess type Act in regards to this type of thing. It seems to me
that there's something inherently wrong when people are out selling things
that they don't necessarily have the right to sell to people and using, it
as an enticement to sell property. If you look at when the ordt.nance was
going in and when this met, they sort of. 3ust, they're by the edge. One
is, if you take a cut off date, one is on one side of the cut off and one'
is on the other and I can understand your frustration. But they have to
pick a date and the date that they picked was '82. January and it seems to
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 8
me, if I look at Mr. Burke's letter, that he is the only person in the
development and he doesn't, he didn't use the dock. He didn't have a boat
in the water and if you're going to use that as a cut off date in the
ordinance for grandfathering, you missed the boat. Not to make a pun but
that's what's happened. It seems to me that I have really no choice here
but to go along with the staff's recommendation because to do so, to make
an exception for this would be to undermine the ordinance inrelationship to
all these other people who have been in here. It would be nice to pull
something out of a hat and say it's okay but again, with ordinances, you
have a real problem doing that because if you make an exception for one,
then they all come and then the ordinance really serves no purpose.
Ahrens: Thanks Jeff. Steve.
Emmings: I think the prior, I basically agree with the comments that have
been made so far. I think that the Findings bY the City Council in '$8 and
the subsequent Court case, the Findings in that are.determined upon this
issue because if they had rights that existed prior 'to the beachlot
ordinance being enacted, they would have grandfather rights and those would
have been a defense in a Court case. So I think those things are
determinative and we have to go with what was actually there in '$1 which
we're using as a baseline and in '81 they didn't have a dock and they
weren't docking boats and I don't see how we can give it to them.
Ahrens: Okay. I agree also with the comments that have been made. This
is, to repeat myself. This is tough for us to make these decisions. We've
been listening to the applications from several associations for the last
couple of months and we're trying to be consistent. We"re trying to follow
any information whatsoever we have to support a decision to follow the 1981
baseline and in this case, some of the best documentation we have is from a
next door neighbor who says there was no dock in the lake in 1981. In
fact, the dock was used as a deck for'at least a couple years after that.
I'm going to have to go along with the staff recommendation on this.
Again, the City Council will be considering this after we make our
recommendation and I suggest that, when will that come up?
Aanenson: August lOth.
Ahrens: August lOth. I suggest you follow it if you care to do so. Do we
have a motion?
Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that the non-conforming recreational beachlot permit application for Sunny
Slope be denied.
Ahrens: Is there a second?
Ledvina: Second.
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning commission recommend
denial of the Non-conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit application for
Sunny Slope Homeowners Association-. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 9
Krauss: Excuse me Chairman. We just noticed that, we were just made aware
that there was an erroneous publication put in the paper on Minnewashta
Heights Homeowners Association to install a chemical toilet. Are we
familiar enough with it?
Aanenson: Yeah, we can do it. That's fine.
Krauss: There are a number of people apparently here who came out on this
information. I don't know, was mail notice sent out too? No? Possibly,
it's kind of unusual but maybe you can-get some input from the folks here
so they don't waste their evening.
Emmings: Well, would it have to come up on another agenda?
Ahrens: Yeah.
Krauss: You would have to make, not take an action on it but we could log
in the comments for the record I suppose.
Ahrens: But we'd have to have another public hearing on it.
Lauren Huntington: It was in the paper. I' mean it was in the paper.
That's the reason.
Farmakes: We don't have any information on it.
Aanenson: Mi nnewashta Heights, you just heard that beachlot recently. I
think it was the last one you did.
Emmings: It's the one near my house and they've had a chemical toilet down
there for several years.
Lauren Huntington: ...unless we can get a condition to put one in while,
until you discuss it next.
Ahrens: It would be on the agenda until November probably. 'I'm just
kidding.
Lauren Huntington: Little cold.
Krauss: Well I mean this is kind of unusual. I don't have a great answer.
for you but ! thought that this one was kind of straight forward.
Emmings: If you put it on another a~enda, you've got to advertise it again
because it will be a public hearing.
Krauss: Right.
Lauren Huntington: $o what else is needed besides this? I mean like.
Emmings: We don't have any information in our packets. We don't have the
application. Wouldn't there have to be mailed notice to the neighbors and
things too?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 10
Krauss: Well possible we could start proceeding with the apartment project
and if you'll hold tight, I just want to check. Sharmin Al-Jarl I think
was working on this and I think she's meeting with the Senior Commission
next door.
Emmings: Well what do you want to do?
Krauss: I don't know. If you're uncomfortable dealing w~th it, I ~uess
we'll have to.
Ahrens: It's not that I think we're so uncomfortable. It's just do we
have to have another public hearing after this? I'd hate to devote two
meetings to the chemical toilet.
Lauren Huntington: For us it's two nights. We have babysitters and I
mean.
Ahrens: Yeah, I don't know why it wasn't included in our packet but we
don't have any information on this at all...public hearing, I think we
should wait.
Krauss: Well, I mean legal notice apparently has been published.
Emmings: Yeah but we don't have any, .taking information on something when
we don't know any of the background doesn't seem to. make sense and we can't
ask the people questions. We don't know what the issues are. I don't
think it makes sense to do it.
Krauss:
Ahrens:
I have to apologize for this and we'll get it on the next meeting.
I think that they're si~ting behind you.
Krauss: We have to apologize for this.
Lauren Huntington: So when is the next meeting?
Aanenson: It's August 4th.
Lauren Huntington:
I mean we can only have the chemical toilet until...
-.
Emmings: Let me ask Paul. Do you have sufficient power to do this
administratively pending approval?
Lauren Huntington: And if we put one in and then if it's not approved,
we'll take it right out?
Krauss: I guess given the circumstances, I think we ought to do this on an
interim basis at least.
Ahrens: I think that's a good idea. Sorry about that.
Lauren Huntington:
have a problem.
That's okay. I know the neighbors on both sides won't
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 11
Krauss: Sure. We'll acknowledge 'that.
Emmings: If the neighbors don't have a problem with it on either side, if
they would. If they don't come in and complain, that's great. Even better
if they sign something that 'says they don't have any complaints. '
Ahrens: The City may want a contact number amd call them.
Emmings: That's real 'persuasive to us.
Lauren Huntington: Okay. $o it's okay to go ahead and put one in and then
take it out if it.
Emmings: Talk to him about that.
Ahrens: Arrange that with Paul or Sharm~n.
Emmings: It'd get something in writing too you know from him.
Krauss: Well this being government, I'm going on vacation tomorrow
morning. I'll have her take care of it.
Lauren Huntington: Okay, sO we can go or do I need to stay?
Aanenson.: Yeah, that's fine.
Lauren Huntington: Okay. My name's on that paper.
Aa henson: Yep, we'll call you in the morning.
Ahrens: Anybody else who's here for the Minnewashta Homeowners, is it the
Homeowners Association?
Aanenson: Heights.
Ahrens: We're not discussing it. Okay, staff report, on the Oak Hills.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONCEPT REVIEW OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 3 (16 UN~TS E~CH RENTAL)
BUILDINGS, 9 (8 UNIT OWNER OCCUPIED) BUILDINGS ~ND.A CLUBHOUSE/QFFICE ON
25.29 ACRES AND REZONING OF PROPERTY ZONED R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESI~NTIAL
To pup AND ~OCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREETj BETWEEN KERBER AND POWERS
80UkEVARD, OAK PONDS/OAK H~LL, ~OTU$ REALTY/OAKS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Addres~
Brad Johnson
Arvid Ellness
Kirk Willette
Mike & Mary Henke
Randy Swatfager
Lotus Realty
Arvid Ellness Architects
Arvid Ellness Architects
7560 Canyon Curve
7511 Canyon Curve
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 12
Name
Mark Schallock
Joe Perttu
Sreg & Cindy Hromatka
Randy & Michelle Erickson
7501 Canyon Curve
790 Santa Vera Drive
7580 Canyon Curve
7491 Canyon Curve
Gregg & Shelly Geske
Karen Bramow
Dave & Jane Callister
3ack Thien
Christy Kuckler
Tim & Mary Anderson
Bob & K. Dianne Bohara
Doug Kuni n
Michael Lindelien
James A. Russ
Terry Wooymeerten
Lynn Lord
John Linforth
7530 Canyon Curve
7490 Canyon Curve
7540 Canyon Curve
7570 Canyon Curve
7550 Canyon Curve
7550 Canyon Curve
7510 Canyon Curve
Temple of Eck
7610 Canyon Curve
7521 Canyon Curve
7461 Canyon Curve
7531 Canyon Curve
7471 Canyon Curve
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Ahrens: Okay, thanks Kate. Before we get started', maybe you could .explain
to the folks here the stage we're at in the review of this Proposal,.
Tonight we are reviewing the, what we call the conceptual site plan. Maybe
you could explain how that fits into the review of this whole development.
The stage we're at.
Krauss: If I could possibly respond to that. As a PUD, it goes through
three steps. There's the concept plan, a-preliminary plat, a final
development stage. The concept plan basically says, this is as far as it's
been taken now. Give us the issues to work with and we raised a lot of
issues. We expect the neighbors to raise some and you to raise some and
the City Council. They're then asked to go back and refine those issues.
Come through with a formal public hearing on that and then come through
with the final development stage. This is more of a fact finding process I
suppose at this point. As I say, we've raised a number of questions in our
staff report. We think that these things are normal and 'can generally be
addressed but we pointed the direction for things that need to be resolved.
So this is an informal point in the process.
Ahrens: Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the staff before we get
going? No. Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this
point?
Brad Johnson: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name
is 8tad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. I represent Lotus Realty
Services who is the managing partner'of this particular project. I have
with me two representatives of Arvid Ellness. Architects who will be
speaking as part of my presentation. One of the reasons I wanted to be
involved in this project was that I, when we did Market Square'i was the
one after this one and so I was going home around 4:00 every morning if you
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 13
recall when this was going through the first time around. And I sat
through and listened to all the things that I perceived just done Wrong as
part of the project. I do run through that area in the mornings and I've
gotten to know the land fairly 'well and so the issues that I perceive'that
we, as developers of this particular site had to address, first of all is
the past. And then secondly was the things that are probably priority.
One is, when this went through originally there was no neighborhood to look
at it. We now have a neighborhood. The homes have been built up on the
north side but previously they were not there. So we had to deal with that
issue and try to conceal as much as we could the project itself: Thus we
went to a smaller builder than originally planned. We were concerned about
the TH 5 corridor because I sit through those meetings also and I think you
guys just went through one and we know that this particular stand of oak
trees is important to that particular corridor. As to what the project
will ultimately look like from the-TH 5 when the whole thing is built and
that type of thing. We were concerned about the trees and trying to
preserve as many trees as we could and by using the unit style that we have
and the mix that we have, I think we've done that and then in addition to
that, we added a park like type of thing in the' middle of the project to
save the stand that happens to be in the middl-e. And so it worked out
quite nice as far as the project is concerned. As far as grading is
concerned, we had a number of proposals which would have just about leveled
the whole site. We now have buildings that we can move up and down a~d use
as walkouts and so basically we don't perceive that we'll have to do an
extreme amount of grading on the site. There was a concern that we're just
going to have to carry it all the way and put it down Charlie 3ames' and
over to Mr. Burdick's site but I don't think we have to do that. So those
are the 4 things that we have been trying to be sensitive to and try to
meet the particular needs of the neighborhood, the TH 5 corridor,
preserving the trees and providing minimum amount of grading and we've
worked with the staff. To that we've also introduced a couple' of new types
of rental units that are not currently being built her~ but built largely
on the East Coast that take care of that type of site. .I'd like then to
introduce Arvid Ellness from Arvid Ellness Associates. We've brought
aboard a firm that's done 15,000 housing units and we perceive they know
and are sensitive to both neighborhood and community needs as well as
.planning and so Arvid will come up. introduce part of the project from his
point of view and then also Kirk Willette who is the project manager for
this will address some of the concerns that we've'heard already from the
neighbors. As we say, as we pick these concerns up, we're trying to make
the changes that are necessary to make it a good project for everybody.
Thank you. Arvid.
Arvid Ellness: Okay, we will introduce some new information. Some new
sketches. Two new perspectives of them for sale unit and a conceptual
sketch for the rental unit as well as a site plan that has been revised to
reflect some of the comments of the staff. Brad, in asking me to speak
tonight, hoped that I would mention some of my experiences with Chanhassen.
We were the architects of the conceptual development of downtown'. In the
years past here we did the Park Square building and the Heritage Apartments
there and also the professional building, but not the intersection in front
of it. The other projects that we've 'done throughout the city and other
communities have been of all varieties and certainly we're familiar with
this building type. All Trammel Crow residential communities and the Gates
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992 - Page 14
at Carlson Park and Chasewood and Devonshire as well as many other
communities. We're working in about a dozen,. 15 communities 'today. Our
work is housing and so we'd like to invite the input of not only the
Planning Commission but the residents and for reasons that we're at that
conceptual stage. Now I'm going to, if I understand the technology of this
room, I'll put these two sketches up here. If the camera can find those
and focus in on them we'll give you a little better indication if you watch
the monitor. Otherwise I can sort of turn them around too-. The idea on
the for sale unit is that this is a model that's basically been a very
popular one through the whole metro area. It's sold real well. It's
patterned after developments that I've seen in Roseville and many
communities and something even somewhat similar down TH $ here east of
Chanhassen. It's a for sale unit that seems to fit the best on flat site
which gaves us a great deal of difficulty when we tried to consider the
possibility of placing on the embankment side of the site. tt seems to
blend and fit very comfortably on the high end of the site where the
topography is relatively even and offers an end view of the-highway
corridor to the south. They're relatively attractive from the highway Side
or the end view and that particular rendering is much more developed and
more of a fix in the minds of the developer at this point as to what the
product will be. The one that we're working with as architects and iD
order to design to fit the topography and to fit this particular site is
the rental units and that particular perspective is less developed at this
point but it does reflect an idea that we're-trying to do a unit type in
which the, where we can park and keep all the cars on the protected side or
internal side of the site and to do what we can do is essentially a split
building where there's a walkout on the downhill side and an approach from
the uphill side. Then conceal all the parking within the internal areas of
the site. And when we use that type of a unit, which is actually a smaller
mass than the for sale unit, we're able to sort of snake it through the
site taking into account that t-here's ravines and existing trees and blend
it and coordinate it into the site topography much easier and we think very
successfully. With the standing trees that exist along the embankment
there, we think that that will not only provide a certain amount of
shielding to the existing neighborhood but also allow the community to sort
of co-exist you might say with the surrounding area. The wetlands that
you've shown up there are primarily on the property of the developer.
Caution and care will be taken to preserve those and work with those as
appropriate. The community center is central to the whole community and we
hope it will be used not only by the rental community but by the for sale
buyers as well. The materials that we've talked about using on the
building will be year round permanent materials. We've talked about
different types of siding from vinyl to metal siding and most of the units
in fact, probably all of the units have balconies overlooking the ravine
for what is visible-through the trees. The. revisions to the plan which
we'll bring up next, most the work in accommodating the comments that we've
heard so far have been coordinated on this plan that we're now going to
present and Kirk Willette from my office has been working in detail. And
they include such things as'the alignment of the road' and the reduction of
the mass of some of the buildings into smaller components as well as
actually eliminating 8 of the units that we have shown previously to the
staff in order to accommodate the required parking that was brought up in
that report. $o we're in the process of evolving this development and this
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 15
plan and we're trying to take into account the sensitivity that we
understand to date. $o with that I'll bring Kirk.up.
Ahrens: Which one did you eliminate?
Arvid 511ness: Ne eliminated that upper building. If you could point to
it on the overhead, and the new site plan will address it. Yes, that one.
We didn't eliminate it. Ne actually made it two small buildings. I'll
just let Kirk make that adjustment and explanation.
Ahrens: This is your new site plan?
Kirk Nillette: This is the new site plan, yes. After having, some
discussion with the staff and then taking the report and understanding some
of the comments that the neighbors have from the site, we started working
with the site and with the individual buildings. The first comment that we
had heard about, in speaking with staff was the concern about ~e have two
large buildings. One here and one sitting here-. Each 16 units.and so we
broke those down to 8 unit buildings here and curving around with the trees
and topography and the~ a 12 unit building here. The other thing that
that did, that changed the building that sat over here between how this
pushed the parking and how the buildings were reconfigur'ed and also the
amount of parking that we, our original parking was 2 to 1 and after our
staff meeting, we found that we needed additional guest parking. And so
that added approximately 40 cars that we needed to provide. $o on all,
between the parking and reconfiguring this part of the site, we went from
168 units to 160 units of rental.
~hrens: So you just have, it looks like just one building left with
units in it?
Kirk Nillette: We have one 16 unit building and that's back On.this side.
The other comments that we've looked at,' we did show a trail along Powers
on this side. The recommendation was a 60 foot easement instead of 50 feet
with the sidewalk on both sides and we can accommodate that along the
dedicated street. We're maintaining all of this area. the plan is, the
natural curve of the topography and the trees on the south side of the
trees, is to maintain that tree line and not do anything north of that tree
line other than this trail. $o that's the whole idea of how the whole site
design was originally laid out. Nas to keep the tree line ahd to follow
the natural grades on the site. I think that's it.
Ahrens: Okay, do you want to turn that around so people can see it.
Kirk Nillette: Oh, I'm sorry. Ne realigned this road from that original
plan so that it...
Resident: Did you say there was only one 16 unit building? ...there's
still one way up in the corner like two 16 unit buildings... Right there.
Kirk Nillette: Those are 12 unit buildings.
Ahrens: The only 16 unit building is the one, he's pointing to it right
now. The other ones are 12 units.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 16
Kirk Willette: There's one comment, the 40 foot height that was mentioned.
That is the very peak of the roof. The building on the back side would.
actually be the same as a 3 story house with a walkout. $o the height on
the back is no different than a two story building. Or two story house
that has a walkout.
Ahrens: Would anyone else like to address?
Brad Johnson: Perhaps you might point out how far the buildings are from
the houses to the north.
Kirk Willette: From the lot line to any point, this is the nearest point.
This is 200 feet from the property line to thi~ point here.
Resident: But how close are your buildiHgs actually to the tree line
itself? How tight are you bunching yourself into the trees?
Kirk Willette: We're not going beyond the drip line of the trees. That's
what this represents is the drip line of the trees. $o we're Staying
outside of that drip line.
Resident: By how far is what I'm asking.
Kirk Willette:' In some cases in here, we would be up to the drip line.
here we would be up to the drip line. These are pulled back slightly.
In
Resident: And you can do your grading and everything like that without
taking out any of those trees or damaging those trees?
Kit k Wi 1 lette:
As long as we stay outside of that drip line.
Resident: What's the drip line?
Kirk Willette: That's how far the trees extend out.
Resident: So you're saying an oak tree of that age, it's roots would not
go out beyond where the drip line' is?
Kirk Willette: Generally yes.
Resident: Generally or they will?
Kirk Willette: That's what landscape architects and landscape designers go
by is the drip line. They stay outside of the drip line.
Resident: Because I would think trees of that age would have a root system
rooting out, especially having..'.
Ahrens: Do you want to, we'll ask for questions. We'll open this up for a
public hearing and if the applicant doesn't have any more presentation. Do
you have any further presentation to make?
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion. )
Planning Commission Heating
July 15, 1992 - Page 17
Randy Swatfager: ...an apartment that's got a .rental sig~ up al-ready. Do
we need it? That's the whole thing. And before I get into more questions,
we should address that.
..
Ahrens: Okay. I can't answer that. I don't k~ow what the rental market
is right now in Chanhassen.
Brad Johnson: Right now the rental market is zero vacancy... Bight now a
normal city has about 20~ to 2S~ of their units rented.
Randy Swatfager: The units right next to yours have a rental sign that's
been up there for months.
Brad 3ohnson: We have a sign up there at all times. In general...
Randy Swatfager: But is the other one full? The one you're going to be
building next to?
Brad 3ohnson couldn't be heard from the back of the room.
Randy Swatfager: So you're going to draw a population, is not going to be
drawn from the Chanhassen population. It's going to be drawn from the
outside to fill these units then?
Brad 3ohnson: Yes.
Ahrens: Okay, anybody else?
Tim Anderson: Hi, my name is Tim Anderson. I also live in th~ Saddlebrook
subdivision. The farthest west pond or the end to the north of this'
project. I have some concerns on the layout of the project. I still, as I
understand in proper land use planning is that you go from-the most dense
development into gradually going into a more less dense development.
Downtown, 78th Street's going to be, is commercially zoned. I've believe
the next step would be apartments, then a townhouse type units then the R-4
or the single family residential of Saddlebrook. This development does not
follow that. It seems like for the convenience of the developer, they're
saying well, we'll put these units, the townhouse type units are easier to
put in on the south end. It makes more sense to me-for them to possibly do
some redesign on the owner occupied units and put them on the north end.
I'd feel more comfortable with non-rental property abutting by property.
There's some pride in ownership. I lived in an apartment for a long time.
I'm not against apartments in general but I don't like them abutting single
family residences. As a definition of a PUO, one of the things that a
PUD's supposed to address is a sensitive transitional areas. I think this
project does not address that very well. My second point is the trail on
the north side of the development adjacent to the wetland areas. If you
ask the developer or if you have ever walked along or looked at those oak
trees, basically the slope of it, those two ponds are artificial ponds.
They were developed by constructing harms across a previous wetland and the
water rose and meets a slope that's from 20~ to 30~ and if they're going to
put an 8 foot trail on there, it's going ko cause a cut into the slope and
also construction of the retaining walls to stabilize the slopes. There
are oak trees probably within 20 feet of the pond and if they're planning
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992- Page ~8
to put those paths between the oak trees and the pond, ! ~.hink the oak
trees are going to lose from what I've seen of' construction 'around oak'
trees and other places. So I'll put i~ on the record that I'm against the
trail. And I don't believe it provides any service to the community
because there will be two east/west connections between Kerber and Powers
Boulevard. One being Saddlebrook Curve which has a sidewalk and second is
the street that's being constructed as part of this project which, as Kate
was saying, will have two 6 foot sidewalks on each side of the road which
will provide a transportation corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians
between the two boulevards. The second item I'd like to, or third item I'd
like to address is the storm water management of this area. I'd request it
as a condition that the developer and/or the city develop a comprehensive
storm water plan for this drainage area.- There really is, as I understand
there has not been a plan done for this. There was a small plan included
in your packet and in the staff report but it was non-conclusive. It
really didn't say anything. And since they're going to drain 40~ of this
project into those two ponds, I think that some reconstruction of, let me
back up. First of all the two ponds, as I.understand it were designed only
for the Saddlebrook development. I've lived in my house for 2 years and
the farthest east pond has had the outlot wash out twice in 2 years. The
pond I live on, which is part of the west pond, the outlet has plugged 2 or
3 times and has overtopped the berm. $o I think this shows that those
ponds need first of all some type of more high quality outlet structures to
them and I'd like to see that done before any more water is put in those
ponds. And second of all-, I do not wish for those ponds to be enlarged in
any way, either by raising the berms or by excavation. There's no room for
excavation. If and when the person does plan to go out there so some
careful studies are going to have to be required in this area. Also in
storm water drainage. I would like to see any outfalls, storm, water
outfalls conveyed in storm sewer all the way to the ponds or wetlands. - To
the normal levels so that no erosion occurs along the slope. And also
adequate energy disipation in these storm sewers are in place to mitigate
any type of erosion that could occur in the ponds. Any...suspension of
sediment. Because that slope is very steep where those oak trees are. It's
at 20~, maybe 30~ at some points and the slopes should be preserved by
proper management and a lot of thought should be put into it before
approval is made of this project on this storm water for this site. That's
all I have to say.
Ahrens: Thanks. You brought up some good issues. Do-you want to address
any of those storm water concerns he had?
· Krauss: They echo concerns that we've raised with .the applicant. Ne don't
ask to have all the i's dotted and t's crossed at this point. Ne will ask
when they ask for any formal approval to do that. Chanhassen we think has
a pretty good reputation in the Twin Cities for first of all being one of
the first communities to protect wetlands. Ne were doing it 8 years before
the rest of the State was. And secondly, we've adopted water quality
protection standards that nobody, well Eagan has but virtually nobody else
has to date either which we make the development conform to. Ns'ye got
similar concerns with the flood balance on those things. There doesn't
seem to be a whole lot of room. They have to engineer the system. Ne do
not allow overland discharge on sites... ~e haven't done that in my memory
and we certainly wouldn't do it on a hill like that. Plus, when we have
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 19
pipe discharges over a hill like that, we'll make sure that the pipe is
sized in such a way that they don't take out a corr-idor of trees to do it
which is the other part of... So while we have raised all these questions
to the applicant, they're aware of the concerns, t4e don't have any
questions yet. I mean we've pretty confident they can be handled. The
City...requires mandates that you deal with your water quality and water
storage issues on the site. So they have that obli~;ation.
Tim Anderson: And...trail itself and an $ foot trail can be wide...
Krauss: That is true. I mean we don't want to sound like we punt on some
issues but recreational aspects of the project are really sort of under
their purview and they' are going to discuss that.
Ahrens: They haven't looked at this proposal yet?
Krauss: No. And a lot of trails that they've been putting in are not
necessarily asphalt trails... TheY're valid concerns certainly and they're
certainly going to be considered by the_Park 8card and we'd encourage you
to...
Ahrens: Anyone else like to come up to the podium?
Joe Perttu: Hello. My name is Joe Perttu and I live across from the
development here on Santa Vera and Kerber at 790 and I'm concerned about
the road that goes from Powers 81vd. over to Kerber and then straight back
to, I believe it's Laredo. I believe that this is a convenient way for
people to cut across.
Ahrens: Which road are you talking about?
Joe Perttu: There's a road that goes.
Aanenson: Santa Vera would be this street.
Joe Perttu: Yeah, this would be Santa Vera.
then you can take Santa Vera back to Laredo.
It goes to Santa Vera and
Krauss: The north end of the city...
3ce Perttu: Right. Right. I'm concerned about the ease of. access. While
the amount of transportation that can get, conveniently get through this
development and then past my house. I'd like that to be taken into
consideration and rerouting that road so that it does not com~ up to Santa
Vera because I'm concerned about the traffic and. ease of getti.ng from
Powers Blvd. over to Kerber and then back into the Chanhassen development
via Santa Vera.
Emmings: What would you propose?
·
3ce Perttu: The initial plan talked about putting the road I think down by
that 12 unit development. Yeah right there.
Emmings: Okay. You'd prefer that option?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 20
3ge Perttu: I would prefer that option. If not,.some serious speed bumps
or something like that so that people can't be racing through there.
Farmakes:
to?
If they were going past your place, where would they be ~oing
3ge Perttu: There's the, you can take Santa Vera back into Laredo and then
from Laredo you can get back to anywhere in Chanhassen and back of Lotus
Lake.
Farmakes: So you're saying that's a shortcut to TH 101 'or what?
Joe Perttu: Well I'm saying that there's plenty of people that -live back
there and I'm saying that if they drive this way, they can coDveniently
pass through this area and back into the back of Chanhassen by and back of '
Lotus Lake.
Farmakes: So are you saying that the people from the development .would be
driving towards Lotus Lake or people living around Lotus Lake would be
driving away from Lotus Lake past yo~r place?
3ge Perttu: Both.
Ahrens: Well this side is likely to develop some way or another and it's-
highly likely that they'll have increased traffic one way or another by
your house.
3ge Perttu: Well not if they place the road where they're intending to
right now.
Ahrens: But that would impact those oak trees there'right? If they put
the road down there.
Krauss: Yeah. There are some sort of signature oak trees there that, you
know maybe there's a way around it. One of the things that we've been
looking at on this project. Frankly, this is something that didn't come to
mind when we were...but we were going to ask the applicant to check in to
have the city's traffic consultant do some detailed design and' traffic
analysis on the Powers Blvd. curb cut. They're familiar with the traffic
flow in and around Chanhassen and I think they could probably tell us if
they feel it's a concern that's valid or not. What they do is do an
analysis of what's the quickest way to get...would short circuit the
neighborhood.
3ge Perttu: Well, rather than going down CR 17 or Powers Blvd. and then,
or going around it, I think going back into the downtown and then taking
Kerber Blvd. back where the intended traffic flow is sup~>osed to be, I
think somebody could make a convenient short cut right across this
development. Right up Santa Vera and into Laredo. ~nd if' I'm not
mistaken, there;s paths back on Santa Vera that go directly to the school.
It's an intended walkway for kids back' to the school and it's going to
increase traffic in that area and I think it should be taken into
consideration.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 -'Page 21
Ahrens: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to address the-Commission at
this time?
Dave Callister: My name is Dave Catlister and I live at 7540 Canyon Curve.
I've got a number of comments and a few guestions or clarifications on this
particular proposal. The main issue, and a lot of these have been brought
forward but I'd like to emphasize these again. The concern with the height
of the proposal and I guess I want to'clarify. In-the staff report it says
30. It says the top or the peak was 40 so what'is the real height of that?
Aanenson: From the average rate it'd be 35 feet. That would be the high
and the low end.
Krauss: If I could clarify that. City ordinance defines building height
different than the peak. It's kind of the mid point on the-roof but I
· think the architect's indication that from the back it's no different than
a two story walkout house.
Dave Callister: But what we have to look at is 40 feet high? At the
highest part.
Krauss: Which you'd look at with a single.
Dave Callister: Which is what the neighborhood would look at? Okay.
Obviously screening is going to be. something that, as we go along in the
process, that's going to be a concern to many of us. Screening with
regards to the buildings and screening with regards to lighting,, car
lights, parking lots, that sort of thing. I think those things will have
to be addressed on this particular proposal.
Ahrens: That's in our packet. .The city's concerned about that also.
Dave Callister: Also, I want to clear up some, maybe some misconception or
something on the part of some of these drawings here. I don't know if you
can get a good picture. If you take a.look at this drawing. There's a
substantial stand of oak trees that is located in green right here. I
don't think it's accurately reflected on this map. I've taken a snap shot
right out my back yard and as you'll see, there:s not a substantial stand
of trees there. $o that...concern and t guess I'd like to see that
updated.
Farmakes: Where would that be on the map?
Dave Callister: That would be, my back yard is right here. $o it'd be
going this way.
Ahrens: I guess 'I don't understand. You're saying that they're showing
too many trees?
Dave Callister: Well they're showing a solid block of trees and what I'm
saying is, they're not solid black.
Ahrens: So this goes back to your concern about screening?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 22
Dave Callister: Screening. Adequate screening in that particular area and
that should be reflected in the plan.
Ahrens: Okay. We can't see you anymore.
Dave Callister: The other one, I just had a questto'n and I know the
topography is awful steep on the south side of the site. Has there been
any investigation about accessing 78th Street?
Krauss: Not specifically with this plan. From time %o time that's been
looked at. There's a pretty substantial grade change coming down there.
We're also looking at a commercial site. I mean 7$th Street is essentially
downtown out to Powers Blvd. and the similar concern that you have with,
you know or that people have with multi-family traffic or high density
traffic coming through a single family neighborhood. We also share the
concern of having commercial traffic coming through this neighborhood and
we're concerned that if we did that, that would be the results. There's
also not a real good place to drop down on 7$th Street. All that land is
privately owned and there's no way. ..
Dave Callister: So as of now that does not look like that's feasible?
Krauss: No. We don't even think so. We looked at it about a year ago.
Dave Callister: Okay. Another concern would be the possibility, the
project is phased over 4 years and I think a concern of myself .as well as
other residents in that area is 4 straight years ot= construction. I know
hear from my house right now I hear the grocery story and shopping center.
I hear the construction equipment from there and that's quite a ways away.
So I guess that would be a concern too and I'don't know what can be done to
mitigate the dust or the noise but I think that that has to be taken into
consideration as well.
Ahrens: Paul, did you want to address that?
Krauss: Well yeah. It is a valid concern. I don't think you can do a
whole lot about the beeping of the trucks as they back up but we could do
things to respond to that in terms of establishing hours of operation that
they can work. We could require that they install a little landscaping in
the first phase so it is started growing before that phase is built. And
as far as dust control goes, we can certainly put conditions in there.
Require watering of the site and whatever else to keep that...
Dave Callister: I guess I would be in favor of getting the landscaping in
immediately so that could be taken care of. The last concern I have here
and it's been touched on a little bit but I'd like to touch on it a little
bit more. It's the walking path that leads nowhere. We've got sidewalks,
two sidewalks on the new road. We've got, as mentioned before, Saddlebrook
Curve that goes across there. We're going to have a walking path on the
east side of Powers Blvd. which I have no problem with. I do think trails
are important-but just like everything else, I think they need to be done-
in moderation. I think that you can't 'cross every wetland or every
wildlife area with a path because you're placing an impervious surface
there. You're relocating wildlife because there's definitely going to be a
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992 - Page 23
lot of traffic, foot, bike, everything going through there and you're going
to displace a lot of wildlife and it's just not, I don't believe we should
have paths put everywhere. I think as referring to, I think it's page 6 of
the staff memo, under landscaping and tree preservation: The second
..
paragraph beginning with the northern portion. It says the northern
portion of the site which includes the storm water ponds and the wetlands
should be left in it's natural state. I agree 100~ with that comment. In
addition, on page $, under planned unit developments are to encoura~;e the
following. Preservation of desireable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features including steep slopes,
mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes, and scenic views. I would like to
see that the development is looked at in those particular areas.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question?
Dave Callister: Sure.
Farmakes:' Do you own the property that's adjacent to the pond area or the
slope area? '
Dave Callister: Right.
Farmakes: Were you aware when you purchased the home of what the opposing
property was zoned?
Dave Callister: Yes.
Ahrens: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Greg Hrometka: My name is Greg Hrometka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve.
would be the lot at the very top of the proposal there. Not touching the
pond but right adjacent with the area. We bump into Kerber as well as
Saddlebrook. Or Canyon Curve. What I'd like to understand is just the
clarification, this natural. What's the definition of a park? Does that
have to be developed with swings or just a natural area? -Is that also a
park consideration?
It
Aanenson: I'm not sure what you're asking.
. .
Greg Hrometka: What is the definition of a parkland?
Ahrens: I think what he's asking is when we identify, and correct me if
I'm wrong. We identified the property as parkland, do we automatically see
that as a developed, ballpark?
Aanenson: No. We saw that on Stone Creek. We did a subdivision just
recently where we left it natural. There's a bluff area and passive.
Greg Hrometka: Okay. That brings me back then to something I heard in the
issue before this. This gentleman over here talked about the tr'utb. I
know when we purchased, we had the understanding that there was land
purchased directly to the south of us which involves the trees, the bluff,
and that area there that was in the process or was going to be designated
as parkland. Land was purchased for the purpose of being park and park as
Planning Commission Meeting
July i5, i992 - Page 24
I see as a natural habitat. Can be now. $o I just want to know that
people all bought in this area with that truth being known. That I assume
most people did you know that this land to our south was for that. The
other thing would be then, and related to that too 'is the need then of this
volume of space and buildings. I guess Mr. 3ohnson's figures for the
occupancy of rental space needed, t don't see, I would like to see the
need, if it could be scaled down to still incorporate the.truth of having
this parkland that was here. There's an area that's on the board, the
triangle space...that encompasses right here you know. That's the main
area of my concern solely all the way through. You know. I mean do they
need to put more rental units in that area or they could scale it down.
There's all the factors with the congestion for schools, etc. that you've
heard and are going to hear. That's the issue thing. And on an
emotionally charged thing, we received last week notification from the
Lotus Realty that stated the number of units and a map'of the area
involved. Without being too pointed, I think there's, this form that you
all had. This area, this triangle is not addressed at'all. Three 16
units. Nine 8 unit owner occupied. This just seems like total deception I
think in a way of swaying or disswayin~ t .he ~ubtic to showing up and
expressing their concerns. That's all. Do you understand?
Resident: I think what he's trying 'to say, the realty company did not...
Aanenson: The staff put that notice out so he had nothing to do with that.
The Planning Department secretary put that out and it Nas an error.
Resident: It doesn't matter who put it out right? I mean that's just a
message that...
Greg Hrometka: I think if it were more clear, you'd have more people here
voicing.their disapproval.
Resident:
Aanenson:
It only shows half the units...
It gives the total unit count doesn't it?
Greg Hrometka: No.
Resident: Three 16 units. That's 48. 9 x 8, that's 72. 48 and 72.
Resident: Plus, it...third of the property too.
Emmings: Well, there wtll be another public bearing.
Aanenson: Yes, there will.
Krauss: Certainly this is, again. This is not the official public
hearing. There's another notice that goes out when that happens. We also
require posting of signs on the property. 'There's also notices in the
newspaper. We also mail notice to everybody within 500 feet. Obviously
it's not a perfect system and it needs to be refined but we do our best to
notify everybody of everything that's going on.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 25
Ahrens: This isn't the last time we'll see it either. This is, this plan
is going to change 100 times before it's finalized I'm sure. Those of you
concerned with the trails and the parks, I suggest that you attend the Park
and Rec Commission meetings when 'they review this proposal. They haven't
looked at any of this yet.
Resident: Will there be a mailer on that?
Ahrens: ! don't know. Paul, will there be a maitin~ on the Park and Rec
Commission?
Aanenson: I can tell you the date right now. It's July 28th.
Ahrens: July 28th.
Krauss: Actually, I think they...doing that about a year ago. When is
that?
Aanenson: July 28th.
Resident: Can we request a mailing on that?
Aanenson: Certainly.
Ahrens: It's also in the Villager.-
Resident: Yeah but the Villager...
Krauss: Yeah, we' 11 get the notice out.
Mike Henke: My name is Mike Henke.. I live down on Canyon Curve also. The
gentleman on the end, when he asked if were we aware what that was zoned on
the other side of this? I believe yes, we all were but I believe we were
all told the wetlands and the hillside would stay as they were with nothing
ever happening to them. The only construction that would ever take place
is on the other side of these trees...
Farmakes: When you're referring, we were told. AYe you talking about the
developer? The realty agent who was selling.
Mike Henke: My realtor...
Farmakes: The City? So you came in and talked to the City.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Ahrens: As Steve's pointing out, there's no development except for the
possibility of a trail on the other side of the oak trees.
Farmakes: So you're referring to the trail itself?
Ahrens: Alright. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Otherwise we'll close the public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 26
Christy Kuckler: I'd like to read my letter.
Ahrens: I think we have your letter. Are you.
Christy Kuckler: Christy Kuckler. Oear Kate Aanenson. My name is Christy
Kuckler. I'm 9 years old and I am writing to you because I 'am worried
about where you're going to put the apartments. I live right next to the
Oak Hill Ponds. We see deer almost every .night and' we think they live in
the pr ickley ash bush. There is a'doe and a fawn' If you put the
apartments there, they will die because you might cut down the food they
eat and that might be the last of the food. i do not like where you are
going to put them because I don't like other kids on.my property unless I
know them and I am with them and I think I speak for my neighbors too. Do
you know that old farm? Why can't you knock it down and put the apartments
there because there is plenty of room for them to build there. If you were
a fawn, I don't think you would like it if some big giant came and picked
up your house and moved it 3 miles away-from where you lived so that he
could live there and put in a store. Sincerely, Christy Kuckler.
Ahrens: Christy. This is a great letter and you did something very
important tonight by comin~ here and telling us all about your concerns.
Thank you.
Jack Thien: Hi. My name is Jack Thten and I live at 7570 Canyon Curve.
One of the things I wanted to bring up was that prior to my wife and I
purchasi'ng the land that we now own, we asked around and I did not go to
the City itself to ask what was going to be done behind there but I was
told by a couple realtors, one of which is my friend, that it was
designated as parkland area and that there would not be any building up
there on that hill, particularly where that wedge is here.
Ahrens: Can I stop you just a second?
Jack Thien: Yeah.
Ahrens: I don't think there is going to be any development on tkst hill.
Jack Thien: There isn't?
Residents: Three buildings.
Ahrens: Okay. I thought you meant on the north of the Oaks.
Resident: No. There's 5 buildings in this triangle section.
Jack Thien: Yeah. And my .land or my house faces directly in that
direction and I'll have, actually out' of my deck I'll be staring at two
large buildings that will be facing there and there will not be any large
oak trees to screen those two large buildings. Another thins I could
probably bring up right now too is that when I first got this notice,
perhaps not unlike some of the other people here, looking at this where it
says Chanhassen Park, it is difficult to see that there's a little arrow
there that points to the park across Kerber. And when I read three 16 unit
rental buildings and nine 8 unit owner occupied, I thought ~ell you know
Planning Commission Meeting
July i5, i992 - Page 27
it's not any real big deal. I already had plans for another meeting
tonight somewhere else but when we got to talking to some of the other
neighbors and some of the agenda that was to follow, I think it is a big
deal. That's why I'm here tonight. I don't know if anybody here can
address some of these questions I might have but on page 3, second
paragraph where it starts. The second major deviation comes in the area of
park dedication. The original Cenvesco proposal did not incorporate public
park dedication. However, during the course of the review, the Park and
Recreation Commission ultimately determined that park dedication would be
appropriate and additional land-was acquired for that particular purpose.
And it goes on to say that it covers approximately 3 ac~es located in the
northern edge of the Oak Ponds/Oak Hilt project area. A little further
down it says, in lieu of this the City would be perhap~ accepting a cash
dedication as opposed to that parkland. I personally am opposed to that. I
don't know how other people feel about that in here but I think in the
future, in the next meeting you'll probably hear more about that.
Aanenson: Can we give some clarification on that issue?
Ahrens: Yeah. Could I just also say that, this Commission, we don't deal
with the park dedication. That's something the Park and Recreation
Commission. We're different unions.
Jack Thien: No, I understand that but I'm saying, that's my concern is
that originally it looked at though this was going to be purchased as park,
or was purchased as parkland area and that's where the assumption that when
I, before I moved in here, when I talked to people, that was the assumption
that that was going to be left parkland area 'and there was ~ot ~otng to be
any buildings there. Had I known that, I probably would not be here
tonight talking about this or owning that particular piece of property
which I paid a great deal of money for.
Ahrens: Okay. I think Paul wants to address your concern here.
Krauss: Yeah, I think we need to set the record straight.. Three years ago
there was a series of proposals by a different developer for what was
frankly a pretty bad project. That project had apartment buildings with
drive under garages. Your typical 3 story apartment b~ilding. They had
buildings that were much larger than this. The ones being proposed here
and it flatten most of the trees on the site. At that time, on that
proposal, the City was going to take parkland dedication in the area that
you outlined. In fact, we included that in the packet. This project was
never approved and we don't typically buy the property. We get it for free
on the platting process. We never got it because the project died. But it
was a horrendous project that was, yes. tt had park but it trashed the
site at the same time. This is a different project. It's at-a lower
density. It's providing private recreational facilities in terms of a pool
and a totlot and a community building .that the other one never even thought
of. It's saving all the oak trees on the site which I think is everybody's
mutual goal. And you know, if the Park Board agrees to it, it's going to
pump $150,000.00 into the park fund to develop parks that are used by .the
neighborhoods. This is, whether or no% this park here is ultimately the
Park Board's call but they note that this area is in the service area of 5
city parks. Now the city can always take another park if it so chooses ~t
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 28
again, it was never approved. We never got the property and it was a
horrendous project that it was associated with and I don't think you would
have been any too comfortable with it had that taken place.
Jack Thien: Well and I also probably would not have purchased the' land in
that case either because that would have been prior to me.
Krauss: Right. But when your realtor friend told you about the park, he
should have also told you that that was the project it was associated with
because that was on the drawing board at that time.
Jack Thien: Yeah. Well you know, it's interesting because some of the
things I've had to work with the city about, talking to some of the staff
that I wish I would have gotten a few more things in writing. And there is
one question that arises to me now. Perhaps I can ask Kate. I don't know.
I had talked to you yesterday. Called you on the phone about designating
or that particular two ponds being part of the wetlands, Can you address
that at this time?
Aanenson: It's a really complicated issue. We do have a storm water
management committee and we're relooking at the way we've classified
wetlands in the past. In the past when we've required that a retention be
built, even though it was not historically a wetland, it may take on
wetland characteristics. Therefore, we called it a wetland. I think it's
been brought up in the discussion today. Those ponds were created to hold
water. Storm retention ponds. It's my understanding that we've treated
those as wetlands and told people they have to maintain that 75 foot
setback and I think I told you that we're in the process of relooking at
how we classify wetlands. We're rewriting our whole wetland ordinance.
And as far as what we call ponds, we may treat differently than what we
classify as wetlands and that kind of plays into that.
Jack Thien: Okay, so right now it is or isn't a wetlands?
Krauss: Right now they are.
Ahrens: You mean tonight?
Krauss: Actually, I mean this is the same situation as it is in Curry
Farms. What you had there is you have an area that is legitimately a
wetland and undoubtedly would be qualified as a wetland under the new City
ordinance and under State law. Then you have these two ponds which were
constructed in the low areas but they were constructed with a specific
purpose of ponding storm water. The fact of the matter is, you pond storm
water long enough, cattails grow up and you cad interpret that as being a
wetland and that's what the City Council did at that time. Our staff
opinion, because that's all it is right now and the opinion of the
committee that's working on the ordinance, is that puts a pretty severe hit
on the property owners in terms of setback requirements and probably is not
appropriate. But that is what we're looking at putting through in the new
ordinance which has not been'adopted yet. So right now, yes. It is still
defined as a wetland.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 29
Aanenson: 'And the reason is,' probably for .the same reason you maybe have
called the City is the people that build next to storm retention ponds have
the problem with the 75 foot setback. When-they ~o to ~ut a deck on or
those sort of issues. And some of you may have had that experience so
that's why we're trying to separate'~>nds from wetlands. So people that do
want to put decks on or swimming pool aren't faced with that burden of
maintaining the 75 foot setback.
Sack Thien: Okay.
Resident: So it all just depends...when you decide to buy land...
Krauss: This is an ordinance that's been in place for $ years and it
hasn't changed during that time.
Emmings: But he's right. Definitions of things do change and have changed
and they change pretty dynamically here because we're a rapidly growing
community. But you're right. Things not only change from day to day but
they go back and forth. !'ye been here long enough to have seen things go,
be called something this year. Something else next year and go back to
this a year later. It's very dynamic. It may not make sense but that-'$
the way it's going.
Resident: And you can justify that?
Emmings: I don't have to justify that. I'm telling you that's what it is.
We do the best job we can at.the time and we Qet more information. We ~et
different problems and we could take a position that gee, we made this
decision. Let's stick with it forever. Or we can say, in light of new
information, we've got to change what we did. It was wrong so we change.
3ack Thien: Okay, if ! can continue. We had a short meeting last ni~;ht
and some of the concerns that were brought up, one thing was the increased
traffic near the school. And if anybody can explain to me what this TIM
is that's in the proposal?
KTauss: Well I can do that. TIF is an acronym for Tax Increment Financing.
The city has several tax increment financing districts. It's a toot that
communities use to induce, either induce development to occur or get better
quality development compared to what we would have gotten otherwise. It
allows you to do things like build streets and utilities and absorb some of
those costs. The applicant has indicated that he intends to apply to the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. That's who administers the program
for financing support. Underneath that, there have been no discussions or
commitments or anything that's taken place on that score and frankly the
HRA hasn't seen it yet so that's something that the applicant's going to
have to make a pitch for in front of them. It was used on the other
apartment project. It is being used on Market Square. It's' being used in
the industrial parks.
3ack Thien: Who does that particular, I'll say help out or benefit?
Krauss: Well it does a couple things. First of all it's predicated, well
I could digress a little bit ab<>ut what it's suppled to 0%o. If you have a
Planning Commission Heeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 30
site that's generating $100.00 in taxes a year and if you put a
development, like development X and it's going to generate $1,000.00 in
taxes a year, you've got an increment of $900.00 a year. $o the City's
getting more tax revenue off the site-. The TIF program, as allowed by the
State, lets you take the revenue, sell bonds and do improvements. Now the
improvements are supposed to, well there's a whole list of things that you
can do with it but you can promote employment. You can promote housing
diversity. You can take care of hazardous waste. You can b~ild utilities.
Those kinds of things. The City has also been using tax increment
financing to demand better quality development than we might otherwise_be
able to get. I mean our City ordinances establish a lot of minimum
criteria and the TIF financing allows the city to demand going the extra
mile beyond the ordinance. Again, it's ~ot in any way a done deal. The
HRA doesn't even know about it yet and we, I mean staff has not talked to
them about it. We haven't'had sets of conversation.
Ahrens: Just a concept.
Krauss: Right.
3ack Thien: Another issue that was brought up last night was, if anyone
might want to make a comment on the decrease in the property values because
of rental units being so close to the Saddlebrook subdivision.
Ahrens: I certainly can't .address that tonight and I don't-think anyone
can. The County Auditor would have to come in' and be wouldn't haqe an
answer either.
Krauss: No, it's a very, obviously a .very emotional subject. I mean I've
seen most of the data that I've seen says, it doesn't make any difference .
in the long run. But you know, it wouldn't be, if this project was built 3
years ago before the homes were built down below, it wouldn't be an issue.
I'm not sure how to address it.
Resident: No. If this would have been done 3 years ago, that would all be
parkland there. We'd still be looking at natural habitat or parkland. We
wouldn't be looking at apartment buildings...
Krauss: Well depending, I don't know how %he site plan would have laid out
but you would have been looking at a higher density development.
Resident: It wouldn't be on top of the hill.
Krauss: It is up on top of the hill.
Resident: No. There are 5 buildings... Those are the 5 buildings that...
Resident: Paul, I'd like to invite you to my home to look out of that
window so you can see exactly what we will be looking at because .it's
very...
Krauss: Well we'd sure take you up on that. I know that Kate and I are
both in the neighborhood a lot and sort of walk back there.
Planning Commission Meeting
JuIy 15, 1992 - Page 31
Emmings: They iike cookies so you've got to offer them that.
Resident: Another thing I was going to mention is that these 40 feet tall
structures are going to be put on a hill at a fist of at least 30 or 40
feet high so it's not 30-40 feet. It's going to be 60 to 80 feet above our
property. That's definitely going to be a wall.
Resident: The+e's a big difference between a two story walkout home and...
Ahrens: If you'd like to address the Commission, come up to the Podium and
give your name. $o she can have it for the record. You have the floor, do
you want to continue.
3ack Thien: One thing I do want to mention about being so close to the two
ponds. I think it was a week and a half or even 2 weeks ago that we had a
rather large storm that came through and it rained quite a bit. I just
want to kind of reiterate that when that water does come through, it does
not only come through like off the street and into the pond. It also comes
from the somewhat impervious surfaces. Whether it's got grass or weeds or
whatever might be on there and it filled up that pond in a hurry and it
went up above the large outlet pipe. Okay. And in particular it has done
that more recently since that one berm that was moved back towards Kerber a
little bit closer. There was more water that rushes down through there and
there's a sizeable gully is starting in-my backyard already from that. $o
I hope that you take that into further consideration also.
Ahrens: I think Kate and Paul said earlier that that's something they're
going to be studying.
3ack Thien: I don't know, I'd like to invite anybody else that has a
comment up here. I mean it's-scarey but come on up.
Ahrens: We're not so scarey. Does anyone have anything different or
additional or that we haven't discussed yet tonight?
Cindy Hrometka:' Hi. My name is Cindy Hrometka. I live at 7580 Canyon
Curve. I just have one thing I want to point out. In 1989 there was a
proposal on the table and we've got copies of that too and I know there
were a number, a list of major concerns with that proposal and I'd like [o
go through a couple of them and kind of address them. The first one was
density. In the old proposal there was, it was going to be 200 units at a
density of 9.6 units per acre. The new proposal is 240 units with a
density of 11.5 units per acre. So the density has increased. It has not
decreased so that concern is still there. If it was a concern then, I
wonder why it's not now. I think it should be. The next one was
impervious surface. The old proposal had an impervious surface, average or
whatever, of 35~. The new proposal has an impervious surface of 38~ and
that's before you increase the road. Before you add sidewalks. Before you
increase the parking so the impervious surface is going to go up more than
38~. So I'd like to .know why, if that was a big concern then and this
proposal didn't go through, it should still be a concern now and I think we
should continue to look at it. The other one, the next concern on their
list was parkland. And the old proposal did dedicate that 5 acres for
parkland. This proposal doesn't dedicate any parkland. They do have a
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 32
totlot that's going to be used by'the residents but it doesn't dedicate any
other parkland so I'm concerned about that. Access points off of their
lane, that's all different so I can't address that. I don't know if it's
better or worse. Emergency access, I don't know if that's better or worse.
The landscaping does appear to be better in this proposal but it's hard to
tell because we don't know what size those trees are they're going to be
putting in. And the oak stand that they're talking about, I am concerned
about how many of those oaks will survive the construction. You know you
say the drip line is going to protect them. AS long as you're outside the
drip line but it is a concern that those oak trees will stay there. The
old proposal also, if you'll notice, did keep that whole oak stand. The
dark green oak stand that they have been discussing. The old proposal got
rid of most of the oak trees up on top of the hill. So it lost ll of the
trees that this one's keeping. This is better obviously but the oak stand
remained in that old proposal so it's not like. they were going to come in
and get rid of everything and then start from scratch. And the concept
plans. These look like nice buildings but I can't compare the concept plan
to the old one or the new one. My concern is, I don't think this proposal
is that much better and in many cases it's worse than the old one. The old
one got shot down and there was many comments throughout here that staff
didn't like it and that there's no reason to give any kind of leeway to the
developer because the plan was not good. If that plan wasn't good, I don't
think this one is either.
Ahrens: I think the biggest difference was that the old plan had large
apartment buildings of 30 units apiece or something.
Krauss: Well actually, I can't read my, it was a 60 or 90 unit building so
that was, where you see that big green swath over there, that apartment
building sat at the bottom of that.
Cindy Hrometka: According to the map, I think it showed that the apartment
building was going to be up on top and that would come...
Krauss: No. No.
Cindy Hrometka: That's the one I'm looking at. The apartment building's
up here'and that was.., the rest of this was townhome. I don't think the
old one was a good plan either and I'm not advocating that plan except that
that plan did stay up on top of the hill and I think for all the residents
of Saddlebrook, as long as the development took place on top of the hill,
behind the oak trees we would not have as big a concern. 8ut since it's
coming down the hill right into our backyards, it's a big concern for us
and I'd like to see some of those things addressed because they were
problems then. I think they should be now. I would like to go on the
record with the tax increment financing. I-know it sounds like'you guys
don't address that but I don't see why we should have to have our real
estate taxes paying for land improvements for something that we probably, I
don't think Chanhassen, being the growing community we are, that we need to
provide tax increment financing to attract people here. Obviously we're
growing and that's going to happen. That's something we can probably
address with the HRA but I can't see why we should be giving tax increment
financing for this. It looks like, this will provide, bring in 500 more
people is kind of the guidelines that I've been hearing and what we
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 33
figured. $o I am concerned that there's that many people in such a dense
number of people in that small area. .Which brings me to a third point
here. The school is right across the street from this area and if you have -
500 additional people in this small area, you're going to have a big
increase in traffic and I think some other people did address that but
that's going to be a big concern with our kids walkin, g-to and from school.
There's going to be a big, busy intersection and there's going to be a lot
more traffic and a lot of kids going to and from school. Everybody in this
development I'm sure will walk to school so we're going to have a problem
with getting across Kerber and across this new intersection that-they're
'talking about. So I'm concerned about that and I'd like to have that 'on
record. That that is, I think will be a problem. I think that's it.
Ahrens: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Is there a motion to close the
public hearing?
Diane Bohara: Hi. My name is Diane Bohara. I live at 7510 Canyon Curve
and my husband and I have lived in the area, it will be 3 years this fall
and our house was built and lived in prior to us living there. But it was
touched on the times for building. The time restrictions.' Eckankar is
directly behind our house and while it's a nice area. It's a very nice
building and everything. Nobody knocks on my door. Nobody bothers me now
that it's in. When it was going in, it was a real hassle for us. They
would start with bulldozers, earthmovers at 5:00 in the morning and while I
didn't mind that so much during the week, it really bothered me on the'
weekend and being there was no restrictions, the police could not do
anything the couple weekends I called, until I called and harrassed the
city. And I don't want to have to deal with that again.
Ahrens: We do have an ordinance that says that the construction has to
take place Monday thru Saturday between the hours of 7:00 and 5:00?
Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's 6:00 or 7:00.-
Ahrens: I'm living right now across the street from a large construction
project and I monitor that very closely. AS a matter of fact, this morning
there were trucks out there at 6:00 a.m. but that's something I'll take up
with the city later. But I agree with you but there is an ordinance on our
books that does regulate that.
Cindy Hrometka: Okay. Well, thank you.
Ahrens: Anyone else?
Randy Swatfager: I was the first one up so, if you remember me. I think
with all the experience of the Planning Director and the vast experience in
the back of the room here, addressing this property values should have, I
mean in your past experience, what has it done to the property values
adjoining your developments?
Brad Johnson: Property values?
Randy Swatfager: Yes. The private homes.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 34
Brad 3ohnson: Historically it's remained the same.
Randy Swatfager: Historically? I mean just lately or?
Brad Johnson: Again, I'm also a realtor...significant decrease in any
properties.
Randy $watfager: What'.s significant?
Brad 3ohnson: 5~.
Randy Swatfager: 5~ of $150,000.00 home?
Brad 3ohnson: I'm just saying, I don't think...I can't say. You're
welcome to look...but I'm just saying...
Randy Swatfager: Well I'm just looking for a general.
Brad 3ohnson' ...any realtor that in general, a well planned project.
Your lot,...aware from the very beginning that there'would be a high
density project...
Randy Swatfager: Would there be a reassessment if, taken into
consideration at 5~?
Ahrens: He doesn't have any idea.
Randy Swatfager: I'm just asking on his past experience with his
developments.
Ahrens: He wouldn't have any idea, yeah. You'd have to call the County
Auditor. What's his name?
Aanenson: Assessor? .
Krauss: Orlin $chafer.
Ahrens: Orlin $chafer.
Randy Swatfager: How about the planners? Do they have any past experience
with this situation?
Krauss: Well again, I mean what Brad's told you I've heard throughout the
years. That it doesn't have any substantial effect. I know you're not
going to believe me and I don't have any data to show you but' that's what
I've heard and that's over the course of 15 years. Now if you happen to'
share an alley with a lousy apartment project in South Minneapolis, yeah.
You've got a serious problem.
Randy Swatfager: The onl~ way we're going to find that out is when we sell
our home, is that right?
Krauss: There's an apartment development in downtown Chanbassen that backs
up to single family homes. I don't know that it's had any impact. I've
Planning Commission Meeting'
July 15, 1992 - Page 35
certainly never heard of any.
Randy Swatfager: Will there be study done on that?
Krauss: No. It's impossible to do one. How can you do a study of
something that hasn't existed yet? I don~t know Brad, if the realtor's
association has ever done anything like that but I'm not even aware how
you'd come by the data.
Brad 3ohnson: You're talking about value and assessed valuation. The
assessed valuation is basedlUpOn the next sale in the neighborhood.
Randy Swatfager: Exactly. $o we won't find out until after these sales.
Brad 3ohnson: ...that particular issue...when we did all. of downtown. You
guys probably don't remember downtown used to look like. Home value have
actually gone up...because we did a nice Job...
Randy Swatfager: According to your calcuations and according to you.
Brad 3ohnson: No...
Randy Swatfager: I guess that's what we want to maintain here so we're
just looking for a little foresight from everybody.
Brad Johnson: I live here...
Randy Swatfager: ...I'd just like to invite the Planning Commission...and
it looks like one up there. Like I said, it's going to be very emotional
and being part of it, it;s going to continue on so I'd just invite you come
down and actually take a look at it, if you haven't. Anybody involved, I'm
sure they have. I don't know if the Planning Commission has.
Ahrens: I've seen it.
Farmakes: I've driven by it for maybe 12-13 years.
Randy Swatfager: Does it look like that?
Farmakes: Does it look like that?
-.
Ahrens: Well that looks like a leech.
Farmakes: No, I'd Say the density ground cover is probably a little bit
less than what it's showing there but that's an artist's interpretation.
It's probably made from an overhead aerial view which sometimes when
they're shooting the pictures, the shadows on the tree get a little hard to
discern where the shadow is and where the tree starts. It's a heavily
forested area as far as what the City terms as heavily forested. And a lot
of the underlying brush was all beat out at one time. Eat out or whatever
because a farmer used to run cows through there. The cows used to come in
before they put all that berming in there and actually come underneath the
road there in the culvert pipe and they pretty much, they were like
lawnmowers. Pretty much eat out everything underneath there but it's kind
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 36
of grown back in the past a little bit and it's a nice stl~nd of trees.
There's no doubt about it.
Randy Swatfager: Okay, thank you.
Ahrens: Thanks. Okay, anybody else?
Shelly Geske: My name is Shelly Geske and we're currently building on 7530
Canyon Curve. We're not even in our new home yet. My question is, the
area that you're proposing to develop, who now owns that land? Is-it
privately held? It is. What about on the north side? The big slope 'and
down into the pond. Does the City of Chanhassen own that land or that is
also privately held?
Brad 3ohnson: Take a good look at the.map. We own, ~r the partnership
owns all of this. The wetlands, ~ost of the water~..property that we
currently use...as they pointed out, because they classified it as
wetlands, the developer who's involved in the project agreed with the city
that this would be a non-developable pond... I guess the trail...that.'s my
idea. Because I run through there and I always wanted to run along that
creek. I'm not saying that's a good idea...
Shelly Geske: But certainly you can understand our feeling as far as that
hill is concerned. I didn't say that you did have a problem with it. I'm
just pointing this out.
Brad Johnson: Right now...an issue I don't think the developer...
Shelly Geske: How long, since as of wha~ date'have you owned that
particular property?
Brad Johnson: That property there?
Shelly Seske: Yeah.
Brad 3ohnson: The group has owned it for 4 years.
Shelly Geske: Now I can say that when I bought that lot, we bought it from
an older couple that had purchased it several years. Nell we actually
bought the lot in 1990 from an older gentleman. _
Farmakes: The lot at your home?
Shelly Seske: The lot that we are currently under constructi6n with. And
I did call the City of Chanhassen. In fact I came into City Hall and I
believe that I spoke with Kate. I walked into someone's office and I said,
well can you tell me who owns that particular grove of trees and down into
the wetland areas and it was my understanding that the City of Chanhassen
owned that area. Now am I wrong?
Ahrens: You're wrong.
Shelly Geske: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting
Suly 15, 1992 - Page 37
Ahrens: You may have been given that impression because there wouldn't be
any development in a wetland area.
Shelly Geske: Yeah, 'I mean I was under the impression that the City of
Chanhassen owned it. It was dedicated as parkland and okay.
(Brad Johnson was speaking from the back of the room and it was hard to
pick up what he was saying on the tape.)
Brad Johnson: Yeah, I can speak to that...present it. I'm not a realtor.
Emmings: You are too.
Brad Johnson: ...unbuildable is immediately classified as...city owns it.
And it was presented I think way back when we started selling homes back
there that that was an unbuildable area.
Shelly Geske: Well certainly I can almost quote my realtor saying, yes.
The City owns 5 acres of oak trees and it will never be built upon.
Ahrens: You're not alone in this.
Resident: That's what we were told when...realtors.
Shelly Geske: And unfortunately it's their-misrepresentation that we're
paying for now.
Brad 3ohnson: There is 5 acres that will 'not be built on.
Shelly Geske: Right. Okay.
Brad Johnson: ...the path, like I said is my idea and it doesn't have to
go any farther than that as far as the developer is concerned.
Ahrens: But like we said tonight, this is a conceptual plan. They're just
bringing the idea out for the first time and we're just hasing over all
these ideas and nothing is written in concrete. That's for sure.
Brad Johnson: ...we're just trying to do a good job... One thing we can't
do is not do anything.
Ahrens: We have somebody else with the floor up here okay? '
Shelly Geske: I would just like to say that, you are Mr. 3ohnson?.
Brad 3ohnson: Yeah.
Shelly Geske: That obviously you realize why we're opposin~ this but you
know that it's not that we're against you or we're against this
development. But I mean obv'iously there's concerns.
Brad 3ohnson:
Planning Commission Heeting
Suly 15, 1992 - Page 38
Ahrens: Again, the issue of the trail should be brought up with the Park
and Recs.
Shelly Geske: With the Parks Department. Alright, thanks.
Ahrens: Okay thank you. Anybody else?
Bob Bohara: I'm Bob Bohara. I live at 7510 Canyon Curve. They're saying
that that's unbuildable land there.
Ahrens: Where the wetlands are?
Bob Bohara: Where the oak is. Where t6% wetlands .are and you talked.
earlier that you're talking about redefining what wetlands are. Does that
mean that this company can come in later./the~ and build on that land if you
redefine what a wetland is?
Krauss: No. If this project proceeds forward, any project proceeds
forward, we treat the area the same way. What we'r.e going to do is we
define a conservation area. Tree conservation area and you can never cut
through them so that privately held property, this project would own it but
the City would have the authority to make sure that nobody ever goes in
there and chops it down. It's not a buildable area. We do the same thing
with all the low wet areas. We take conservation easements over them.
Wetland or not wetland...it doesn't matter. $o at that point, what you
heard from your realtors would come to pass. That this area would be...
Aanenson: It would be recorded as part of the development agreement and
recorded at the County Recorder's Office. ~ -
Resident: Is there currently a conservation easement there?
.
Krauss: If there is, it may be on the back of your-properties because
that's the only area that was platted.
8ob 8ohara: So what does that say? That he can then because there isn't
anything. Right?
Aanenson: That area hasn't been platted so I wouldn't assume there was.
Bob Bohara: So what we're saying is that that's not necessarily
unbuildable. At this point tonight.
Krauss:
Aanenson:
NO.
We're recommending that it'not be built on.
That's part of our.
Bob Bohara: I would also recommend that too.
Krauss: There's also a substantial amount of water there. Part of it is,
the bigger part is a protected wetlands protected by City Ordinance and
State law. The retention pond, theoretically maybe. While they're still
defined as wetlands, but maybe they could be moved but then the developer
Planning Commission Meeting
Suly 15, 1992 - Page 39
has the obligation to move the water someplace else on the property and has
no place else to put it. So practically it's necessary.
Emmings: Also, a bulldozer can build anything anywhere. And so yeah,
we're trying to save some features of this property because we know we
can't save the whole thing.
Bob Bohara: As I understand the only outlet for those ponds are the
wetlands. So if you do anything to the ponds, it will affect the wetlands
because that's the only outlet.
Aanenson: But those ponds are supposed to be pretreating, holding
sedimentation so when water goes into the water is treated. I mean into
the wetland is treated.
Bob Bohara: Okay. The other concern I have is in the construction of
this. They've talked repeatedly about the.
Ahrens: Would you hoid it down back there Brad.
Bob Bohara: The difficulty of building on these and they phased it so that
the most difficult part is built last, as I understand. Well, I'm not
saying that's the reason. I'm just saying that's the way it turned out in
your plan which means what they can do for putting the dirt. What they can
do for the construction equipment and stuff, becomes more limited in that
area. And then they're building the largest, highest buildings on the
steepest slope. And they're coming right down to the drip line of the oak
trees. Okay. You stop construction right there at the oak trees but that
dirt on this high slope isn't going to stop there. You're going to lose
some of those oak trees. Probably not then but later. And they haven't
talked about erosion control. A lot of construction. Not at the top of
the hill but starting to come down because they're coming down on that
steep slope there. They don't talk about what'they're going to do to that.
That's going to all run down into the wetlands and into the holding ponds
too. So those are my additional concerns.
Ahrens: Thank you.
Terry Woogmeester: My name is Terry Woogmeester. I live at 7461 Canyon
Curve. My biggest concern, and I understand from listening to you, 'is the
oak trees. May I recommend that maybe we put. an incentive or the City
place an incentive on, you know you can't replace it and it's value is lost
but maybe if you put an incentive there, there will be Peace so that they
will avoid them because I have watched large equipment, and I don't believe
avoiding from the drip line will stop it because you will crush the roots
that move out and it will take a year or two but you'll lose them.
Ahrens: Yeah, I agree with you.
Terry Woogmeester: So I think maybe if you put an incentive on the trees
so that whoever is doing the development has to pay for the loss of any
trees, you might incent them to avoid that and they might do a setback.
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992'- Page 40
Aanenson: That's standard in the development contract. That they would
have to put a surety up for that.
Emmings: They're also required to fence, put up a fence and I don't know
where the fence goes but to avoid the problem of backing equipment up under
that drip line during the construction, we have them fence these trees.
Krauss: And typically it is the drip line. However, we often call on Alan
Olson who's the DNR Forester to come out and walk sites with us and
establish where those no cut lines ought to be.
Ahrens: Does he come out and check once the construction's started too to
make sure that that's being maintained?
Krauss: At that point, unless there's a question that's arisen, it's
usually our engineering department that's out there.
Terry Woogmeester: But if there's an economic value tied to it so that it
maybe makes the development non-profitable should they take out that nice
section of oak trees, you might avoid a disaster before it happens.
Ahrens: Okay, thank you. Anybody else?
Mary Anderson: I'd like to speak as a mother.
Ahrens: Name.
Mary Anderson: My name is Mary Anderson,-7550 Canyon Curve. Aside from
all of the technical things, I'd like to speak as a mother with young
-children and a lot of young children in the area watching the wildlife and
the nature in that area. As you can see, there is a big concern with all
the residents of that going away. Those trees go away. The brush goes
away. The path near the wetland. Ponds. Wetlands. Whatever you want to
call them. I think the core group of residents are very wildlife, nature
lovers, if that's what you want to say and most of the people bought houses
in that area because of that. And the. threat of that all leaving kind of
crushes your dream of what you have in store for your children and-yourself
and I think that should be a really big consideration.
Ahrens: Thank you. Anybody else? No? Going once. Okay, is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Has closed.
Farmakes: First of all I want to say that I'm glad everybody showed up
here tonight. That's what it's for. This is a preliminary meeting. The
concept to help the persons who are developing the property to also
understand what your concerns are. We've certainly heard them here
tonight. This is how that process works and in particular with the PUD.
We've been playing with thts~ the City has for quite some time and I think
this is kind of a good example and it's a good experience for me because I
haven't been on here that long to see how this works. I was not on the
commission when the previous development came in. It seems to me that this
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 41
is a good use for PUD. It allows some leeway with the developer to make
accommodations for some of the property that you're talking about. The
trees. The wetlands and so on. Going back to a little bit of'history into
this property. I happened to be here the night in the early 80's when
former Mayor, Mr. Hamilton and the previous City Council dealt with the
rezonement for the farms that your houses are presently on. And at that
night there were people who came in and complained that' those farms were
going to be developed into houses and there's sort of a natural process
that you see on how these things go. Everybody has' their own dream and the
problem with the City, particularly when a lot of people come out in a
short period of time, to try and deal with these different dreams.
Sometimes it gets a little tough because you have to make a decision one
way or the other. On the property Chat you have in Saddlebrook is on, on
that night, originally it was proposed that that be medium density
property. The entire piece because of how Chaparrel was developed. There
was a big argument. The single family neighborhoods didn't want that to-be
that way. So there was sort of a horse deal cut that it would be medium
density, single family. Sort of like how Chaparral Nas but the area below
the pond would remain to be high'density. And that's the way it stands
today. This was several years before, from what'I'm hearing right, several
years before many of you moved out to that particular area. As far as I
know, it always has been since then. And they hit a peat bog in the area
where Saddlebrook is and they brought in some buffer area of non-single
family homes that border Chaparre.1. It went down 20 some feet into the
ground so they put in that little lake there. Anyway, originally there was
supposed to be, similar to Chaparral, a buffer on that night is how they
sort of described that. There's supposed to be a buffer there. A buffer.
There were some comments made about a buffer between the high density area
and the single family homes. Well obviously the economics of the
developer, they sort of figured out well, we can sell. It's a nice'area.
It's a nice trees. Nice ponds. We can get more money for this land. And
consequently the buffer didn't show up. Single family went all the way to
area that abuts the high density property. And consequently you've got a
problem. And we've got a problem here to'night so what happened years back
has now led us up to tonight. I think a lot of the concerns that you made
about the issue of the trail, which I don't think is a big issue here. I
think that's just a thrown in thing and I don't think that .that
particularly benefits this particular development. I think it was thrown
in maybe as a part of the trail system that the city has been dealing with
because CR 17 and Kerber and considered conduit traffic type roads. On the
elevation point, you're right. The elevation shows that there's about,
maybe a 20 feet drop over the hill. Some of these buildings but... And as
far as the traffic goes, I don't think there's enough information here. I
don't think it's been to that point where we can make a determination.as to
where that goes but I think it's a legitimate concern and I think i'm
taking up too much time so I'll pass on.
Ahrens: Thanks Jeff. Steve.
Emmings: I think there were a lot of important comments from the
neighbors. I've just got a few comments and questions of my own here. If
the road goes out to Kerber, I think it s'hould definitely line up with,
what is it? Santa Vera. I think if the road drops down, I don't know if
they moved those buildings. It looks like they might have moved those
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 42
buildings down that are up there a little bit and I think that was a good
change. The buildings most to the right in the upper part. I think that
changing that 16 Unit building into two 8's and then the next one into a 12
is an improvement. Overall, I was here. I think I was here when
Saddlebrook was platted and I think I was here, I know I was here when the
Cenvesco thing came in. I think it's a big impr. ovement over what we saw
before in the style of the buildings and everything else. I don't think
it's going to be nearly as objectionable as the other one was. I thought
the comment about transition from commercial to single family then to
rental. Or not single family but townhouses then to rental and then to
single family was a very appropriate comment. We do try to do things the
other way around. We do try to go from less intense to more intense and
I'm a little curious about that. On the other hand, it seems to kind of
fit the site in a way.. I don't know, I thought that was a good comment.
I'm always troubled by these, I know this' is only concept approval but now
we have one plan in front of us and we've got another plan in the back of
the room and you're shooting at a moving target and it's very hard to get
your comments down because things are changing while you're talking and
that's always a little discomforting to me. I have a couple of questions.
Looking at the units that are for sale, they showed us a typical building
and that was also up here on the small sheet. And that typical building
has 4 garages across the front of it. But I take 'it that these buildings
that are shown on here that would be for sale are smaller than that. Is
that right?
Kirk Willette: No...there are 4 garages. A double car garage here. Two
double cars in front...
Emmings: Okay. Why, on these drawings, I don't understand this drawing
because there seems to be a little street. Look at the area between the
second unit, FS2 and the third unit F$3. Just, let's use that as an
example. You pull in off of the new street and why does it show, what are
those little dents in the side of the building there?
Kirk Willette: Oh, right in here? These are the entrances.
Emmings: $o there are two entrances in each side?
Kirk Willette: . Well actually...green 'space between the garages. The
other's not shown on this plan. There are', this is a private entrance to
one unit. There are a pair of entrances...and then there's another
entrance...
Emmings: So what's drawn here is isn't what it will look like?
Kirk Willette: There should be another green space. This. driveway...
Emmings: No, he's saying there's 4 garages across there.
Kirk Willette: If you look at the rendering, that's correct. The
rendering is correct.
Emmings: Okay. And so if somebody in one of these. $o there's 4 garages
facing 4 garages across the little street between F$2 and F$3. Is that
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992 - Page 43
correct?
Kirk Willette: Yes.
Emmings: And if people have guests Over or want to have a party at their
house, where do people park?
Kirk Willette: Right now there will be parking in front of the garages.
There are some buildings that have.
Emmings: No. I'm talking about F$2 and FS3.
Kirk Willette: Okay. On those particular ones, there is nothing. There
is 2 spaces in front of their garage.
Emmings: So assuming I can get both my cars ~n the garage, I can have 2
carloads of people over and beyond that, where do folks park?
Kirk Willette: It would have to be on the street.
Emmings: What street?
Kirk Willette: On the...
Emmings: Alright. Are we going to allow that?
Aanenson: No. We recommended, in our meeting with them that they provide
more visitor parking. They had it all on the western edge and we
recommended that that was inappropriate and they needed a space between the
single families because of, that won't work.
Emmings: No. There shouldn't be parking on the newly dedicated.street
and I would say that if that probably 2 of those units in the row from F$1
to F$6 to me shouldn't be there. I think 2 of those units ought to come
out because they need a lot of extra parking. I think they. need more
space between them. I think they're too jammed in there. Let's see.
These places don't have basements any of them do they? This is all built-
on slab and that goes for the for sale units?
Kirk Willette: The for sale...basements.
Emmings: Okay, in our packet it says everything was on a slab. I think,
what do we have in place that would prevent people from turning a garage
into a living space? Anything?
Aanenson: We have an ordinance that says they could do that only if they
had another garage so I don't think they could do it.
Emmings: Alright. $o we've got that covered here. What do we have on the
books that would prevent outside storage .of any kind, including things like
vehicles and boats and things like that?
Aanenson.' That's already in the ordinance but if you want to put something
specifically in the development contract, we could do that too.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 44
Emmings: You know, if they're going to develop this site -this densely, I
think we've got to have something like that in there because otherwise
we're going to wind up with stuff all over the Place and there's nothing
that will make it look trashy faster than stuff stored all over the place.
Aanenson: Or recommend they provide an area fenced in for that sort of
thing.
Emmings: I wouldn't even do that. I think they ought to store their stuff
inside. I even think, we've never done this before but I know we've had
problems in neighborhoods where people have inadequate storage space. They
wind up using their garage for storage space and always leave their cars
outside. I've got some of that in my neighborhood. I know this
neighborhood over here behind McDonald's, there's been complaints over
there about that and I think the potential for it here is enormous.
Brad Johnson: The thing is, they're all the same.
Emmings: Well it may be endemic to all development. I 'don't know. But I
think if, I almost think we ought to have an ordinance. I just thought
about with connecting this project. That people be able to demonstrate at
all times that they have the ability to park their cars in their garage.
If a garage isn't a garage for the storage of vehicles, I don't know what
it is anymore. And on a project like this, I think it's particularly
important. Let's see. There are two pieces of property involved in here?
Are they all under, are there two different pieces of property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Emmings: Do they need to replat to get it all into one or don't we require
that if it's a PUD?
Krauss: Well a'replat is going to be required to combine the properties to
plat the public right-of-way and then I assume they're going to do
condominization around the for sale units.
Emmings: So that will come later?
Krauss: Yes. Oh, and by the way in the plat too, that's where the
easements are conveyed over the...
Emmings: Yeah. There was a note in here that all units are to be
sprinklered and I supposed that again is something that will come later in
the...design because there wasn't anything in the conditions here.
Krauss: It really doesn't need to be. It trips it in the Building Code.
It's automatic.
Emmings: Okay. There was a note in here that Cenvesco, somebody was
billed for the reviewing fee on the Cenvesco development of $3,171.76 and
that, a bill has been sent on that and it's never been paid. Now I take it
that, was the owner of the property equally responsible for that bill as
Cenvesco, the proposed developer?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 45
Krauss: They were one and the same'on that project.
Emmings: They were? Who owed that?
Krauss: Dean Johnson.
Emmings: Why hasn't it been paid?
Brad 3ohnson: I did ask him that the other day. He has had...work out an
arrangement with your financial people that he wasn't going to have to pay
it... Nobody's saying that he shouldn't pay for it. That's why it wasn't
paid...He has said he will pay for it but that's just why it wasn't paid.
He'll pay for it when the project, when we can get a project approved.
(There was a tape change at this point in the' discussion.)
Aanenson: ...forward any further until it is paid.
Brad 3ohnson: My problem with that is, he was told by somebody in the
finance it was an erroneously billed. So at that point I said well,
we'll...
Emmings: Alright; So I completely'agree. This shouldn't get any more
consideration until that bill is paid to the City. I think that's all I've
got. Except to say generally that as a concept plan, I don't think this is
a bad one. I agree with a lot of Jeff's comments. I can't tell you the
number of times we have a group of people in here like you. I can't tell
you the number of times we've heard that the developer or the real estate
people said that the land across the street would never be developed. It
was a park. It's fraud folks you know and you're getting an education and
it's just too damn bad and I don't 'know what to tell you. If you knew, and
I guess I learned it coming on here. I didn't have, fortunately I didn't ·
have your bad experience but I would never bu~ a piece of property in the
city without going in. Had you come into the city and looked at the maps,
looked at the zoning maps, you would have seen this land zoned as just what
it is. For a high density project, it is, I was here when we looked at
this property. I've always thought and I still think it's a real good and
appropriate place, just looking at the city in a general way without
thinking of who's looking at it. It's a real good place for multi building
development. The plan's an improvement. I think they've got really too
many buildings on the south site is my biggest problem right now. The for
sale units are just packed in too tight.
.o
Ahrens: Are you done Steve?
Emmings: Yeah.
Ahrens: Kate or Paul, maybe you can answer this. As Jeff and Steve were
talking, what are we approving tonight? We can't approve.this conceptual
plan because this is not, this has changed a whole lot. And yet there
isn't one conceptual plan that's been presented to us that incorporates all
the changes that have been discussed tonight.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 46
Emmings: I think we'd have to approve this one with conditions that will
wind up being.
Aanenson: Modified even more than this.
Emmings: And then beyond that.
Ahrenm: Okay. Are you going to make that motion?
Emmings: Well I don't know who's going to make the motion but I think
that's the only, that's the way to handle it is to do it based on what
We 'Te . . .
Farmakes: Open ended recommendations?
Emmings: See we get to see all this again when.the preliminary plat comes
in.
Aanenson: It will go to Council for a conceptual there too.
Ahrens: Okay, let's keep going here. Matt
Ledvina: Well I just, I don't want to be redundant. I think there's been
a lot of good issues that have been flushed out by the public and the staff
and my fellow commissioners here. But I will say that I think that the
trail along the north side of the property should be strongly reconsidered.
I know the root systems of those trees are very sensitive and we shouldn't
encroach on that at all if there's a possibility of some problems there.
Other than that I went out to the property today to take a look around up
there and it is a beautiful piece of property. I think the developer has
been sensitive to many of the site conditions. I wasn't here when the'
original proposals came in but I can see that there's been a strong effort
to work with the piece of property as much as possible. But I think that
through this process we can hammer out a proposal or a PUD that will be
acceptable to all of us.
Ahrens: Okay. I agree with most everybody's comments up here tonight.
And I do want to thank all of you for coming in tonight. This is the way
we get good proposals in the city. I think that there were a lot of real
valid issues brought up tonight. I would like the developer to rethink or
to explain better why the lower density housing is on the south side and
the higher density on the north side. And I know there was 'some reference
to it fitting in better and there'd be less grading required. I'm-not sure
that we got a real good answer to that. And' I don't expect you to address
it tonight but at some point I think that needs to be revisited. A concern
that wasn't talked about up here yet is, I noticed throughout the staff
report the reference to the exteriors of the building and that they look
real nice on the concept plan and they're going to have vinyl siding and
asphalt shingles and gable roofs. How do we assure that? You know a lot
of developers come in here and they say, we've got a great plan. This is
going to look terrific and then as soon as the development starts, they
say. Whoops, we ran out of money and they're going to be, they're going to
look a whole lot different from what we ever thought they were going to
look like. And all of a sudden our backs are up against the wall because
Planning Commission Meeting
3uly 15, 1992 - Page 47
we can't require them to do anything. I mean it's happened a couple of .
times in the city.
Krauss: It happened a number of years ago. I know when I came on board 3
years ago there was some questions and developers will try to do what
they'll try to do. There were some questions as I recall about the hotel~
where I was asked to approve construction plans that deviated from the
plan~ that were approved. I refused to do that. I guess I also had the
foresight to call the Mayor up before they did to let him know that this
was going to happen and we made them come back through the City Council.
The City Council and you. 'In fact the Planning Commission I think we
brought it to. Most of the changes that had been requested were denied and
they were required to build the building that way. I should also say too
that, one of the unsung benefits of a PUD is a PUD's a contract. .Either
the developer builds exactly what they committed to build or they're in
violation of the contract. Right now we have a site up there that's zoned
R-12. Any proposal that meets the R-12 criteria in the zoning ordinance
would, I mean if we tried to deny a proposal that met the R-12 criteria,
we'd probably be sued and we'd probably lose.
Emmings: And what would be the maximum potential density in the R-127
Krauss: 12 units an acre.
Emmings: $o they could raise it to 12 units per acre.
Krauss: You know these zoned properties are a little bit of a loose
cannon. You're never quite sure what's going to land on it and I have a
great deal of preference for the PUD. I mean strictly speaking, contract
zoning as such is illegal but PUD zoning which is dependent on a contract
is fully legal. I'm not the attorney and I can't explain it but it seems a
little congruous but that's the fact.
Ahrens: Okay so these people don't have'to worry that once a plan is
finalized and they say they're going to build what they're going to build
design wise, that that's what they're going to see.
Aanenson: One of the conditions of the PUD is any'major change and that
would be a major change. It would have to come back through this process '.
and public hearings.
Ahrens: Alright. I don't have anything else at this time. Why don't we
deal with the rezoning first. Does somebody have a motion on that?
Aanenson: What we're really looking at, we don't want to rezone it yet
until we've gone through, we really should'come with a preliminary so let's
not consider the rezoning. Let's just look at the conceptual at this point
and we'll put the rezoning on when we're ready to approve a'preliminary
plat. I think that's premature at this point.
Krauss: So any motion should just be for a concept. A PUD concept review.
Ahrens: Okay, does anybody have a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 48
Emmings: I want to ask something. If we recommend approval of the
concept, we're not tying ourselves down to location of buildings, size of
buildings or number of buildings as drawn on the plan?
Krauss: Well, first of all you have to modify that with your conditions as
you wish. Secondly, conceptual reviews are non-binding on either party.
It's not as though you've approved a preliminary plat and you're pretty
well obligated to approving final plat.
Ahrens: What are we obligated to?
Krauss: Nothing.
Ahrens: Absolutely nothing?
Emmings: I like that
Farmakes: So what are you subtracting there, .167 Two 8 units?
Emmings: I didn't hear any other support for that but..
Ahrens: For what? I think the motion should include, I don't know how you
feel about it.
.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify the PUD? What it says under the concept is
that it shall not obligate the city tQ approve any final plan-or to rezone
any property within that district. $o by approving the concept you're not
binding yourself.
Emmings: And if this is done and then the City Council also approved the
concept plan, the next time we get to see this is at what point?
Krauss: It will come back in for the preliminary plat. Preliminary PUD,
rezoning approvals. The official public hearings for those are held before
you.
Emmings: And at that point in time, then we do bind ourselves to a plan?
Krauss: Yes.
Emmings: Okay. So now this is, okay. No, I think I've got it.
Ahrens: So can you be as vague i~ the motion? You're not approving the
exact location or number of buildings?
Emmings: I think we're just not.
Krauss: Well if there's an intent section that you would care to add in
terms of guidance, the whole point of this is to give.the developer and
staff and whoever else is participating your guidance as to how this should
proceed.
Emmings: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 49
Farmakes: Did it list those?
Emmings: I'm going to move the Planning Commission recommend conceptual
approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans dated June 15,
1992 subject to all of the conditions contained in the staff report and'
also subject to consideration by the developer of all the comments made by
the public that was here and Planning Commission-members. I-think that
ought to cover it. If it's going to be big and broad, let's make it big
and broad.
Ahrens: Is there a second?
Farmakes: Second·
Ahrens: Okay, discussion. You said subject to ail the conditions in the
staff report plus subject to all of the.
Emmings: Subject to, what I'm saying to the developer i's you'd better read
the Minutes of this meeting. There are verbatim Minutes of'this meeting
typed up so, maybe you folks don't know that. And so the developer can see
what everybody had to say and I guess what I'm saying is, when they come
back, we're going to read the~old Minutes and they'd better be prepared to
address the issues that have been raised.
Ahrens: I'm comfortable with that.
Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning commission recommend
conceptual approval of Site Plan Review #92-3 as shown on the plans
dated June 15, 1992 subject to consideration by the developer of all the
comments made by the public and Planning Commission members, and subject to
the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with.the City
and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to
guarantee proper installation of the public improvements and
compliance with the conditions of approval.
·
The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting
agencies, i.e.'Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, Carver
County Public Works.
·
The developer shall dedicate and construct the utilities and streets
within the public right-of-ways or easements to City standards and
dedicate upon completion and acceptance to the City for permanent
ownership. The remaining building utilities outside of the easements
or right-of-way shall be privately owned and maintained.
·
·
Detailed construction plans and specifications including sizing for
the utility improvements shall be submitted for approval b9 the City.
As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
Appropriate No Parking restrictions shall be placed on the private
service drives accordingly.
Planning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 50
6. The final plat shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for. the proposed
east/west connecto~ street. A 96 foot wide urban street shall be
constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
standards.
7. It is recommended that concrete sidewalks be placed on both sides.of
the proposed main east/west collector street. The sidewalks should be
6 feet in width.
8. A detailed erosion control plan shall be incorporated into the grading
plan and submitted for approval with the construction plans and
specifications.
9. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all fees incurred with the
previous and current review and development o'f this project. A cash
escrow account of $7,000. should be provided by the applicant to
insure payment.
10. Apply for a wetland alteration permit for the location of the trails
and possible location of sedimentation pond before preliminary plat
approval.
11. Implement the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation for parks
and trails.
12. Construction plans for the storm sewers will be ~equired with the
construction plans and specifications submittal prior to preliminary
approval.
13. Parking spaces must meet the parking standards as required by the
zoning ordinance.
The landscaping plan shall be modified to include streetscape along
Powers and Kerber Boulevards. In addition, conifers shall be placed'
south of the oak trees to provide additional buffering.
15. The 16 unit rental building, which is oriented to the most northerly
portion of the site, should be moved and an 8 unit building put in its
place, to minimize the impact to the single family homes to the north.
16. Fencing shall be placed around the oak trees to minimize impact during
construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ahrens: The timing on this, I have no idea. What are we looking at here
as far as, well we already know the Park and Rec Commission's going to look
at this July 28th. HRA?
Krauss: HRA is not scheduled.
Ahrens: Not scheduled, okay.
Pianning Commission Meeting
July 15, 1992 - Page 51
Krauss: This is slated, to go to the Council on August loth. However,
given the range of comments that were raised. Given the fact that the
design is in a little bit of a state of flux, given'the fact that the
developers had intended to meet with the neighbors and really hadn't had a
chance to, I've just spoken to them and I think it would be appropriate for
a meeting to be held with the residents and the developer. Try to iron the
kinks out of this thing a little bit more before it goes to Council.
Ahrens: Good idea.
Krauss: Therefore, we will notify you all of'the appropriate City Council
meeting. I don't believe it's going to be on the 10th because by the time
you arrange your meeting and then we get a revised plan back, it would
probably be pretty tough to turn it around. In any case, we will send a
mailed notice of the Council meeting. I guess you'll get some mailed
notice from the developer as to when.they'd like to schedule a meeting with
you.
Resident: Could we ask that the mailings show the current...?
Ahrens: Okay, thank you everyone for coming.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairwoman Ahrens noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated July l, 1992 as presented.
Emmings moved, Ledvina seconded to adJourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting Nas adJourned at 10:30 p.m..
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim