PC 2002 03 05CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 5, 2002
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet and
Bruce Feik
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior
Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Steven Lillehaug 1441 Heron Drive
George & Connie St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Tom Schmall 2224 Stone Creek Drive
OLD BUSINESS:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT
AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT,
LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY, REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
DISTRICT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION, LAKE LUCY RIDGE, NOECKER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Caughron
Tedd Mattke
Ronald Noecker
Eric Rivkin
6560 Devonshire Drive
Mattke Surveying & Engineering
8315 Pleasant View Drive
1695 Steller Court
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, before we start I just want to make a comment. We have seen
this twice before us so in an effort to kind of move it forward, I would hope we could kind of focus on
changes that have been made to the plans that we've seen, and not try to rehash what's been before us.
And let's just make sure that we save our comments for the comment period and let's clear up any
questions we have right now about changes that we've seen since the last application. So with that, do we
have any questions for staff'?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. To follow Alison's comments, I'm wondering if you could review just briefly
what changes have occurred since we saw this last.
A1-Jaff: Sure. The initial application that appeared before you had 22 lots. We started with 22 lots. Now
we're down to 17 lots. The average lot size was approximately 16,000. I need to look that up. The
average lot size when we first started was 18,114 square feet, which included wetland areas. The plan
before you today is at 23,000. The buildable area, or useable area on each lot was minimal. One of the
concerns that staff had was, there were no yards. The revised plan that is before you provides quite a bit of
yard around each house pad. So there has been improvements as far as the layout of the lots. What we're,
oh one of the other conditions that initially staff had was moving Lucy Ridge Lane 80 feet to the west. To
the east. The applicant has moved the road 45 feet, and again it provides some yards. We have lost
additional vegetation, additional trees than the first one that you saw, and again as I mentioned earlier, Matt
has some conditions. He reviewed the grading on this portion of the site and believes that some of the big
trees can be saved.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sidney: One more question for staff, and this has to do with the sewer line that would be stubbed in. Is
this unusual in this kind of development, is this development premature if we're talking about we're really
wanting to have the second phase of Ashling Meadow development, sewer services you know to this plat
or parcel, and yet we're going to do something different in the meantime. Could you address that Matt?
Saam: Sure. Let's see, where should I begin? I don't know how unusual this is. It does have sewer
nearby. Of course it needs the sewer to be extended through Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. The applicant
has petitioned the city to extend the sewer lines through Ashling Meadows if they don't develop say by this
summer. We have agreed, one of the conditions through is to, was for him to submit this and to have it
receive preliminary plat approval before we go ahead with designing the sewer line, incur those types of
costs so. We don't believe it's a big issue. If this receives approval from the City Council, then we'll go
ahead with the petition to extend the sewer line. We've had discussions with the development owners to the
west, Lundgren Brothers. Made them aware of it. So we don't believe from an engineering standpoint it's
a big issue.
Sidney: So it's not premature?
Saam: No, we don't believe so.
Sidney: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Questions, go ahead.
Slagle: Just an update. On page 9, Sharmin you list that the applicant has implemented all of the above
recommendations with the exception of moving Emerald Lane. Looks like they're suggesting 45 feet versus
recommended 80. Is the plan that's on here 80 or 45?
A1-Jaff: 45.
Slagle: Okay. Any thoughts on that from your perspective? It's workable?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
A1-Jaff: I will ask Matt. If we're looking at grading, I would request that Matt answers the question.
Saam: I guess from our opinion we would, or our department had recommended 80 feet. We think that
would be the best situation. We think this can work with the conditions that we implemented so that's
where we stand.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Questions?
Feik: A couple. Staff, in Outlot A. At one time that, where Outlot A is currently, was to be a lot. If this
goes forward, what would be the status of Outlot A going forward in that, would the residents moving into
this development be assured that Outlot A would not be developed in the future?
A1-Jaff: Yes. It's entirely wetland and we're talking about Outlot A.
Feik: That's all wetland now? Okay.
A1-Jaff: Correct. This Outlot A?
Feik: Yes. Because there was a lot that was closer to Lake Lucy before.
A1-Jaff: That's all wetland.
Feik: Also Block 2, the 3 home sites on Block 2. They do not have full basement capabilities at this time?
Saam: No. They do have full basements. I think they're walkouts and lookouts though and we
recommended making them basically a ramble type pad with a full basement. So no walkout availability
from the basement level.
Feik: I see. I wasn't clear on that. Okay, that's it for now. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay, questions.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. A couple questions. Changing the road right-of-way back to 60 feet, will that
affect the building pad area?
A1-Jaff: They should have enough room to adjust. It will be 5 feet on either side. 5 to the north, 5 to the
south and they should be able to meet the minimum requirements.
Kind: So they still get to keep all their lots. This comp plan discussion about large lot subdivisions
needing to approve lots in their neighborhood. I went back to the minutes from our last meeting trying to
get a handle on this and I still don't really understand it and I want to be clear on this. The comp plan says
large lot subdivisions. This is on 12 of the comp plan if anybody wants to follow. Large lot subdivisions
that do not have city sewer or water shall be allowed to remain as is without requiring urban services even
when they are in the MUSA area until the majority of the residents want/request to change their use. And
then later on in that paragraph it says, if at some time the majority of the households/residents, more than
50 percent petition to have their zoning changed and urban services, city sewer and water brought to the
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
property, then they can further subdivide their property. My question is, is this more of a sewer and water
issue and the policy is in there to prohibit one property owner from compelling the rest of the people in the
subdivision to hook up to sewer and water? Is that what it's about? Or is it about getting permission to
subdivide?
Aanenson: We've had requests for large lot subdivisions. For example, in Timberwood when Stone Creek
went through. Some of the people that were on the edge of that, to tie into it. Be able to split their lots, and
that's where this came up. We put that policy in place. Rezoning is a legislative decision. We just put
that in there for some criteria for people that have bought into a rural, large lot. That someone in the
middle of it doesn't try to get access to sewer and change the character. Again the staff's position on this is
the best way to get access to this parcel, while it's a part of that neighborhood, we would agree. It's
topographically separated. You cannot get to it through a driveway off of Lake Lucy. The best way to get
access to this property, whether it's large lot or subdivided is through the development of this piece of
property that's before you tonight. To the outlot.
Kind: And is staff's opinion, in order for the city to grant rezoning we do not get, need to give permission
from the owners?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: To change rezoning. If an individual owner wanted to subdivide it, that would be a scenario where
they need to get permission.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: I think I'm understanding this. Okay. I just, I wanted to really be clear on that and make sure.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, one more thing. There is a consistency with the comp plan that does require,
and there has to be some findings. And again that's the staff's position in the findings is that again it's an
access issue and as you said, sewer and water provide that. But the rezoning should be consistent with the
comprehensive plan or you have to change the comprehensive plan or you have to change the
comprehensive plan with some rationale basis and that's what we were giving you. That basis to make that
decision.
Kind: Great. Another quick question. Page 10 talks about erosion control and it brought to mind this
erosion control area around pond, I don't even know what the number of it is, but it has this section in here
where it left in the applicant left in the question that the Planning Commission and Council can choose
between a 4 foot retaining wall or a buffer with 3 to 1 slope with wildflower seed mix. What's staff's
opinion on that? Last time we said we wanted a 4 foot retaining wall. Where are we at?
A1-Jaff: The Water Resource Engineer and the Park Director sat in my office and had a discussion over
which one would be preferable. Basically what will happen is, assuming that we have a 4 foot retaining
wall, you have a trail and then a retaining wall that drops 4 feet down, and then you will have the edge of
your wetland. The other alternative would be to have a 3 to 1 slope, that's steeper than 3 to 1. But a 3 to 1
slope with native vegetation to the wetland. For safety reasons, staff is leaning towards the 2 to 1 slope
versus a retaining wall. If for any reason someone would fall off the trail, they would fall 4 feet is a long
way.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: And I heard you say native species versus wildflowers which are.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Kind: Okay. So that probably should be a condition if we decide to go forward with this. Oh, on page 12
of the staff report. That's where we talk about the tree preservation and that only .9 acres, about 1 acre is
being saved of the original 6 ½ acres of canopy area. I'm trying to figure out a way to mitigate that
because we were pretty clear about what we wanted the applicant to come back with to preserve more of
that. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding more plantings than what is normally required as a way to
mitigate that?
Aanenson: The ordinance, the landscaping ordinance is in place to reconcile that. That's what we have to
follow. If you're taking trees out, then you have to...
Kind: But in trade-off for the rezoning, could we say you need to go above and beyond that?
Aanenson: Well, as a general rule we don't put mitigation on a rezoning. Either it meets the test or it
doesn't. If you put in a variance or the other, that's why the engineering conditions were such that in order
to mitigate some of that, or try to save some more of those trees, Matt's recommendation was to minimize
some of that grading on the back of that cul-de-sac so I think that's where we're trying to save more of
those trees. At the end of that cul-de-sac.
Kind: Okay. I think that's it.
Saam: IfI can add something. It's just a simple fact with this site, and I've tried to tell Sharmin that, that
with 60 feet of drop on a little site like this, there's going to be grading. There's going to be tree loss.
What we try and do as staff is minimize that so, I know it's tough to, and I know Uli loves mature trees but
there's going to be some loss.
Sacchet: I haven't even said anything yet.
Kind: We're getting to Uli. That's it for my questions. Take it away Uli.
Sacchet: Alright. Yes, Madam Chair, I do have questions. My first question was, has there been any
dialogue with the neighbors that you're aware of?
Aanenson: Have they been informed of the changes?
Sacchet: Yeah. I mean has there been any discussion in terms of trying to address the neighbor's concerns
or?
Slagle: With the applicant.
Sacchet: I guess I'll ask that of the applicant. Gives you a preview of what I'm going to ask you. On page
9. We're really talking about Lake Lucy Ridge, not Emerald Lane that has to move over 80 feet and was
moved 45, correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: I just want to be clear about that. Now, I think it's very commendable that the applicant has
implemented all recommendations with exception of that. Did we really get what we need out of this?
That's the second question. But if we would insist that this road gets moved 80 feet, what would be the
impact and what would be the benefits? That's probably for you Matt.
Saam: Sure. What we were trying to get at last time was additional, let me step up. Yeah the applicant,
last time the road was approximately here. We had asked them to move it over 80 feet. He did 45. What
we were trying to get at was additional room on this side for drainage swales. To stay away from the steep
slopes. Basically if you're dropping 10 feet and you have a wider area to do it, the slope doesn't have to be
a steep, that's what we were trying to get at. To try to match in with the existing topography a little better.
So that's the basis of the recommendation.
Sacchet: So we got some of that?
Saam: Yeah. Yep, we got some of it.
Sacchet: Did we get enough?
Saam: I guess that's for you guys to determine. I would still stand by my 80 foot recommendation, but
that's where we stand.
Sacchet: Okay. Now, that's actually another question in terms of the grading aspect. Because it's pretty
severe grading, and it's basically grading everywhere except in bluff areas, is that a fair statement?
Saam: Basically, yes.
Sacchet: And I mean if somebody wants to grade their lot, that's kind of their business. If they want to
reverse the slope so they can look out the basement in the back, even though the slope goes this way, they
want to look, they're free to do, right? However, at this point it means that they cut literally every single
tree except those in the bluff, is that correct?
Saam: Yes, that's what this plan is showing.
Sacchet: From an engineering viewpoint, does that work? You have a slope like that. You make it steeper
so you go like this so you can look out the back window into the dirt or, I mean is that engineering wise
workable or are you going to have water problems?
Saam: Well let me address that this way. That's what precipitated the conditions that I added this time,
and I'll just touch on those. In this Block 2, all these lots with the exception of Lot 3 here, these two are
lookouts, and yeah the hill coming down here. That's why we recommended making those a flat, rambler
type lot instead of digging into the slope to create a greater slope and more grading, let's try and match in.
Sacchet: How about the ones on the west side of Block 17 Isn't it even more severe in those cases?
Saam: The west side of Block 1. Right here?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: Yeah, I mean those 4 lots. Isn't there the slope even more severe and it's reversed even more
drastically than in those on the bottom in Block 2?
Saam: Yes, yep. But you do have conditions to address this too.
Sacchet: Only one of the 4 lots though isn't it?
Saam: Lot 4.
Sacchet: I think it's Lot 4, right.
Saam: Lot 4, is that the one?
Sacchet: That is the one you asked to mm around.
Saam: I think I also said Lot 3, to change the elevations of that one to match in a little better. I've got the
plan that I sketched on, if you want to show that.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think you did answer my question though. Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. I do have more
questions though. In terms of the tree preservation, I have a couple quick questions. Just to be real clear
what's currently, well it's probably an applicant question. What's currently staked on the lot as tree
preservation does not reflect the current plan I presume. As far as you know that's accurate?
A1-Jaff: That's an accurate statement.
Sacchet: Now, and again they're basically clear-cutting everything except the two bluff areas, is that
correct? And the wetland buffer. There might be some things growing in there.
A1-Jaff: Up to this point.
Sacchet: Okay. Now, in terms of based on our ordinance, we're asking for re-planting at the 1.2 multiplier
rate and it never hit me before, even though I must have seen this several times is that we're asking for 1
tree for more than 1,000 square feet of canopy. Okay. Just, I want everybody to just be very clear about
that. We get 1 little tree, 2 ½ caliper in place of 1,000 square feet of canopy, so I think that's something
we really have to be clear about. And my understanding's correct about that?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. One question I have, with the lot sizes we're actually in pretty good shape relatively
speaking where we were the last time certainly, it's comparable to some of the other developments in that
area like Lake Lucy, Pointe Lake Lucy. Is that one there or White Tail Cove? But what startles me is,
those two developments, there are a lot of trees left. So why is this because, and they're not flat either
there.
A1-Jaff: There was tree loss.
Sacchet: Of course it's tree loss but here they're all going to be down pretty much, except marginally.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Aanenson: It's sloping one direction, this isn't.
A1-Jaff: Correct. It ends with a cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: I'm trying to understand, and I know it might be an unfair question but.
Aanenson: It's a different piece of property.
Sacchet: It's a different piece of property. It's a different developer. It's a different everything.
Aanenson: ... right, it's different. It's not the same, right.
Sacchet: But my question is, if it was possible in those other two developments that aren't flat either, and
had some challenge I would expect, why can't we get anywhere here with this?
Aanenson: You have certain fixed touchdown points. One is coming from Ashling Meadows. That's a
fixed point. You have to meet that point. The other point is coming on Lake Lucy Road. You have to
meet that. The other's going towards the property to the south. Those are 3 points you have to meet at a
certain elevation. Within that you have to maintain certain grades so that herein comes the challenge. Now
you had a different situation. You had one touchdown point coming off of Lake Lucy for the other
subdivision going down.
Sacchet: So thathelped, okay.
Aanenson: Right, you didn't have 3 points you were trying to balance. That's completely different.
Sacchet: Alright. Now there's a real interesting statement in the staff report on page 13. Where we say
the applicant basically meets the tree ordinance, but fails to meet the intent of the ordinance in terms of
preserving natural wooded environments. Soil stabilization. Reducing storm water runoff, wildlife habitat,
quality of life. This development has met ordinance requirements for reforestation replacement and buffer
yard plantings, but staff believes it fails to meet the intent of the ordinance. Could you add a little more to
that? It's a tough one.
A1-Jaff: We have a formula in the ordinance to replace trees that are removed. And it meets the ordinance
requirements.
Sacchet: But apparently there's more to the ordinance. There's an intent that goes beyond.
A1-Jaff: We always try to save as many trees as possible. However in this case, and due to the steep
grades of the site, grading is taking place.
Sacchet: Would it be fair to say that that intent is not just the ordinance, but possibly things that are
anchored in the comp plan? Comprehensive plan. We'll get to that in comments. One last, I think it's my
last question. Or one of the last ones. Now, just to be really clear. In your findings, like we always have a
list of findings, in this case for the subdivision. If I, as a planning commissioner do not agree with one of
those findings, basically that's enough to not go with that proposal, is that correct? We have to agree with
all the findings? I mean one negative finding makes the whole thing go?
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Aanenson: However you want to vote and.., on a rational basis. Whatever you want to base it on.
Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you.
Blackowiak: Rich, questions?
Slagle: Just a couple. Sharmin or Kate. Just want to confirm that the land use plan amendment, the staff's
perspective or position is that we would, you're suggesting a change to it because of access? This would
be in essence landlocked or what not. Now is it also true though, if we did not...on that outlot, or excuse
me that 7 acre, and then I'm just throwing out a number, 6 home sites on the other, you could access those
2 home sites through his development? You could require that, correct?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay, so it's not, so it's a planned use amendment that is not necessarily, if we deny it, it's not
going to mean those, that 7 acres are landlocked? It just means that someone's going to have to come up
with a new development to get to those. So I just want to make sure, is that correct?
Aanenson: Right. Again piece that's part of the Lake Lucy Highlands that's the one outlot, has wetland in
front of it.
Slagle: I'm with you. I'm with you.
Aanenson: Right, so I just want to make sure everybody's clear. That in our opinion instead of filling the
wetland to get to it, the best way to service it would be to come the other direction instead of going
north/south/east/west.
Slagle: I'm with you as long as this remains an individual lot. If you connected it with this other lot and
made a connection road to the street, you could still potentially have the same access on Lake Lucy.
Aanenson: Right. It still could get access that way. It would take a wetland alteration permit, and some
environmental.
Slagle: Exactly. It'd be less homes basically, perhaps.
Aanenson: Or more environmental impact or, right. There's some balance, checks and balances.
Slagle: So I just want to clarify that. The second thing is a question to Matt. If we stayed with the 80 feet
Matt, hypothetically, on Lake Lucy Ridge Lane, what in your opinion would happen to Lot 6 in Block 3. 7
in Block 3 and yeah, 6 and 7 in Block 3 I think. Would those perhaps not be buildable? And maybe that's
a tough question.
Saam: Well another related issue with that 80 feet, or with the last plan I should say that the applicant
submitted. Lucy Ridge Lane was also moved to the west, so all those house pads came up to the west
more. So if you go back to where Lucy Ridge Lane was before, then you'd have the room to move, to keep
the same number of lots that he shows, and move the road over. Do you follow that?
Slagle: Sure, yeah. I'm with you.
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Saam: Okay.
Feik: I don't. Do that again please?
Blackowiak: Net effect, where did we start and where do we?
Saam: Here, let me go over it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. You said he moved west, so there'd be a negative number there and, walk us
through.
Saam: Lucy Ridge Lane, this moved, it used to be approximately here say. It was moved over to the west
now.
Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Would that be iteration 1 or iteration 2? The first one.
Saam: It was the one that was before you the last time.
Blackowiak: So it would be the second one that we saw?
Saam: Yeah.
Blackowiak: So it's moved substantially to the west since we saw it?
Saam: It's moved, I don't know about substantially. It's moved 40 feet maybe. About that. So, if you
move this road back, then you can get the 80 feet here and on my sketch that I did on my desk, you kept the
same number of lots.
Slagle: Just not as deep perhaps?
Saam: Yeah. Some other stuff may have to be moved. The cul-de-sac would be. This was also moved
since the last plan. A lot of little things were tweaked but in essence they all add up to kind of a big change
so, do you follow that? So you keep the same number of lots Rich, if that was your question. It wouldn't
affect them.
Slagle: Okay. And then ifI may the last, just thought for, just to throw out a thought. Uli's question,
Commissioner Sacchet's question about the tree loss. I mean the analogy of the lots, the developments to
the east I think is important because I think it, as an average citizen, if I had seen those parcels before they
developed and see them now, I would tend to think that gosh, they saved some big trees. And to think that
literally almost every single tree in that development, or proposed development that we're looking at today
will be gone, and replaced by small trees. I mean simply put. And so I don't know which way I'm going
on this, but that to me just that visual is interesting to see. So anyway, that's about it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I don't have any questions at this point so would the applicant or their
designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address
for the record.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Randy Noecker: My name's Randy Noecker. I'm the developer.
Blackowiak: Okay you know you can move the mic if you'd like to so we can all hear. Thank you.
Randy Noecker: I've basically, inbetween in our last meeting I came in with a plan with 19 lots and some,
the staff made additional recommendations that I've changed, and we have a plan before us now that was
recommended to achieve by staff, and we've tried to accommodate all of the different aspects that staff had
recommended, with the exception that we've been talking about this 80 feet. And if I may here, if your
down in this area, this part of the road...move 2 feet and 4 feet. And then when you get to the intersection
of Emerald Lane and Lucy Ridge Lane, this area in here, I believe it moved about 55 or 60 feet from the
original. But I may be mistaken on that. And this road over here moved about, approximately 30 to 32
feet, somewhere in there is my recollection. And one of the things that Tedd and I, my engineer, the
difficulties that we had, we looked at these lots over here. Their proximity to the cul-de-sac. We literally
go down about 3 to 1 slope behind the houses to the cul-de-sac and hence I've wiped out a number of trees
that from the first plan we were trying to save. And by moving this road over, I can relate to the desires of
staff but I can remember way back when when Matt made the suggestion. He said Randy, instead of a cul-
de-sac here we really want to have a continuation of Lucy Ridge Lane and so follow the ridge as the
recommendation. In fact that's how I came up with the name. He called it a ridge road so I came up with
Lucy Ridge Lane, you know. Well, what's happened here on this road right in here, when this road was
over here 40 to 50 feet, we were on top of the farm road. We were following the ridge. But when we
moved it out 60 feet or 45 feet or whatever number you want to use, we moved it off the ridge and into the
slope. And when you've got a slope here and when you're putting the road here, and now you move it over
here, this catch up distance between the existing and the 3 to 1 slope, it takes a long time for them two to
meet and so hence what you have is a vast majority of the trees being wiped out here that you had... From
the beginning I've indicated that it's an extremely difficult site to develop. We just.., causes a chain
reaction and it's been difficult, to say the least. I don't know what else to say. We've followed staff
recommendations and I haven't seen the additional report here that you have this evening but as to what we
have before us, I feel it's a very viable plan. It's got what I would refer to as more than adequate sizes to
lots, but I just feel it's a good plan. Yes, it does wipe out a lot of trees, but I think Matt has even indicated
that when you've got a topographical drop of 60 feet and the conditions that you have to pinpoint, it just
creates a site that doesn't give you a lot of ability to move so we just end up wiping out the trees.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?
Slagle: Mr. Noecker if you can answer this for me. When you proposed having that road, which I guess
would be more west than it currently is on the plan. Lake Lucy Ridge. What was the reason given that it
couldn't follow that ridge line? Was it because of the access or the stub to the south? They wanted that
more east? And Matt if you want to chime in, you can. I'm just curious.
Randy Noecker: I need a clarification there. I lost you.
Slagle: Okay. You were saying that the original farm road is where you had your road, correct?
Randy Noecker: In this area, yep.
Slagle: Okay. What I am suggesting is, and help me out for memory sake but why weren't you allowed to
just continue that road south? And make the cul-de-sac as you originally wanted to the south.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Randy Noecker: Staff wanted to have an access point going into the property to the south.
Slagle: And I guess my question, well maybe it's a staff question later. If you want to address it now we
can.
Aanenson: Sure. It's the same question you asked me before of Outlot A. We have to provide access. We
can't landlock somebody. Provide access to a parcel.
Slagle: I'm with you but I guess my question is, could we, and maybe it's too late but could you have had
a stub going south in Ashling Meadows at that, you know further west.
Aanenson: There is one.
Slagle: So that's not enough for the property south?
A1-Jaff: The topography on the parcel to the south requires those two stubs.
Slagle: Okay. Because if you didn't have to have a stub, it actually would improve this development from
just a grading, you know land, wouldn't it? I mean if you could have a cul-de-sac at the end of this road
versus a through street, you could work with these lots I think easier.
A1-Jaff: This road right now is really not requiring that much grading. It matches the existing elevation as
it touches the property to the south.
Slagle: Okay. I guess what I'm saying though, the position of this road, Lake Lucy Ridge Road, either
east or west, which is what we're discussing 45 or 80 feet, is predicated on that being a connector street or
a through street. If it wasn't, is what I'm saying, if it was a cul-de-sac down at that part, it might be easier
but obviously there's nothing we can do at this point. Because at some point the 45 feet or the 80 feet
becomes a question and how that affects the lots becomes a question that we have to decide tonight.
Randy Noecker: Yeah we looked, again Tedd and I looked at the placement of this road and we identified
with staff's recommendation to move it 80, but in our judgment by moving this in the way that we did, it
was a compromise between these houses on both sides of the road. We had to deal with the drop to the cul-
de-sac on this side, and we had to try to keep these houses far enough away from the bank to give us a
drainage issue requirement. So it was kind of like, you know it was a compromise to make both of them
work.
Saam: Rich, if I could just add something. I don't think the issue with the street going to the south is as a
big a determining factor in where the location of that Lucy Ridge Lane is. I don't think it is because he
moved it from the last plan so it's not like that's set in stone and, I think that's what you were getting at.
Slagle: Yeah, and I guess I'm just wondering when I ask the question of those two lots to you earlier, if
you moved that Lake Lucy Ridge Lane further east another 45 feet, what happens to those lots? Could
they in essence be unbuildable?
Randy Noecker: We would likely just make retaining walls down here.
Slagle: Okay.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Randy Noecker: There's no, I don't see a logical reason to move the road. It doesn't generate enough, I
mean I don't know what, how much more a guy would be looking for in the back end of these houses.
We've got plenty of drainage right now.
Slagle: Then I've got to get off this and go to Matt and just say, Matt you're suggesting or hoping or
saying that you would like 80 feet. And I guess I'm just saying, is the 80 feet, you know you're sticking to
that or not.
Saam: Well we didn't make it a condition this time. I would still stand by that as being better so to speak
than this. However, what they did here I added conditions to make that acceptable also. So I guess it's up
to you guys to decide and the council which way we should go. I would stick by the 80 though ifI had.
Randy Noecker: Matt, in sticking by the 80 have you looked on how far that would push these lots to the
cul-de-sac? I don't think the change would be...
Saam: Yeah, I went off the second plan though I think that you submitted, the last one they reviewed. So
like I said, that cul-de-sac moved. Lucy Ridge Lane, the connection to the south moved so it would be a
different plan than what you're showing now. But I think it could work.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions for the applicant? Uli, question?
Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. Noecker. My question I had before to staff. There was no dialogue with the neighbors
or seeing how their concerns played with this or was there an effort made in that context?
Blackowiak: I guess Uli, can I clarify? Since this last plan, is that what you're talking about?
Sacchet: Yes.
Blackowiak: The last, okay.
Sacchet: Since the last plan. Because there were all the concerns.
Randy Noecker: Since the last time I've had a Mr. Sather communicate with me. Lives nearby.
Otherwise I haven't. I've had many conversations with Mr. Rivkin, but I haven't other than those two, and
individuals that I stopped and talked to and introduced myself and shared with them. Those were people
directly on the north side of Lake Lucy and even in the Steller Court area, that I stopped and talk with most
of those neighbors in the beginning so, tried to get different feelings about how they were but, you know.
Sacchet: Okay. One thing that still perplexes me considerably, and I brought this up before with staff.
And I didn't catch this fully, and it probably was the case in the previous plan too. And I didn't see it in
the current plan until I really studied in detail. It's, you have like your Block 1, the lots on the west side,
it's basically a slope that goes one way, and if I'm understanding you made that slope steeper so that you
can have a slope the other way so you can have lookout houses. Is that correct?
Randy Noecker: Well.
Sacchet: I mean I'm over simplifying but.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Randy Noecker: You, more prevalent in those 4 houses in Block 1 is a 40 to 50 foot drop going north.
And so your lookout or your walkout or whatever that might be.
Sacchet: Would be more to the north then?
Randy Noecker: Actually as you're facing the house on the right side or the north, yes.
Sacchet: Right, right.
Randy Noecker: Now keep in mind too, we draw a master plan here but there is, I mean the builders are
going to come in and develop.
Sacchet: Change it, yeah.
Randy Noecker: You mark it a flat lot, they'll make a walkout on, or a lookout on it you know so. And
abide by the grading because in the end they have to conform to drainage and if they can conform to
drainage and get a lookout versus no lookout, they'll grab it.
Sacchet: And I respect your space. I mean how you want to grade it, that's the developer's thing.
Aanenson: Let's be clear on that. We'll call what type of lot it is and we will check to make sure that's the
lot it's going to be. You don't get to make the decision when it comes in. We will tell you what the
elevation's going to be and the type it's going to be, and it gets checked when it comes through.
Sacchet: Those are fixed.
Aanenson: Those are fixed, correct.
Sacchet: I mean, and I don't mean to get involved with that part, but it seems to be that in by somewhat
reversing the slope, how it is, seems to be a major contributing element to having to grade everything so
severely. Is that correct?
Randy Noecker: No. If I'm understanding your question, then it's not. If you have the back, if you have
a slope coming down and this is your main floor elevation, you have to keep the water away from the
house. You don't want the slope to go into the house. So you bring the slope back here and you also slope
away from the house. The water runs down a %wale". So yes, you do need to drop a foot or two or more
or whatever you feel comfortable from the back of the house because you need to keep the water away from
the house.
Sacchet: However the type of house you build has a big influence on that. If you want to make a lookout,
obviously you have to grade more than if you just have regular full basement or even a tuck under. And I
know tuck under's aren't that popular here in this country or this culture but if you have a slope like that,
you build a house and this is where the street is, in Europe when I come from, you make it a tuck under
garage. You don't try to reverse it so they can look out the back into the slope. And I know, maybe I'm
culturally deprived but I have a hard time with that. One more question Mr. Noecker. Just to confirm, I
went out there. Actually went out twice because this is a, I find this a rather tough nut to crack. And I
found a rather large area staked as tree preservation. But when I look at your plan, it obviously seems to
14
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
be much smaller area that's currently staked as bluff area. I'm talking about the southeast comer. Can
you just clarify what is actually staked out there as tree preservation? If you know. Maybe you don't.
Randy Noecker: To my knowledge nothing is staked out there. I haven't staked anything.
Sacchet: You didn't stake that. So it's even before you dealt with it then, because there is a fair amount of
area is very clearly staked with stakes that have little orange ribbons. I mean those pinkish ribbons on it,
and written on the stake tree preservation.
Randy Noecker: Oh yeah. When the surveyor goes through they, depending on the system that they use,
they'll put a stake in and mark the tree and most of the time put a metal tag.
Sacchet: Yeah, saw those two and actually marked some to see where they are. But that, these are wooden
stakes that say tree preservation on them, but you seem not to know what they're about. I don't really have
any wisdom. I'm still startled that a couple hundred yards further east we have those developments like
White Tail Cove and Pointe Lake Lucy, and it seems like they were able to save quite a bit of the trees.
Can you explain, maybe give me a little wisdom how come that in this case it seems really except for the
bluff areas, pretty much everything seems to have to make room.
Randy Noecker: Well, like Kate mentioned, each property is uniquely different and we've, I've never had
a parcel like this where I've had such a severe fall. One of the things, I mean just between the last plan that
I submitted and this plan, if you recall there was an entire set of trees that we saved back behind this area.
But when the road got moved over, the topographical changes did not allow for any of those trees to be
saved because the biggest problem with tree location is it's elevation. If it's 2 feet difference you can't
save it, you know.
Aanenson: Can I just bring up another point? Both those other subdivisions employed private streets.
Sacchet: They had private streets in them.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: And that allowed them to have.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: More sensitive configuration for the environment?
Aanenson: Exactly.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Although this item is not required to be open for a public hearing, I
had a request by one of the neighbors to make a brief statement so at this time if you would like to come
forward and state your name and address for the record please and make your statement.
Eric Rivkin: Thank you very much. My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property is
located adjacent to this area right over here. And I'm also one of the ones that helped draft the petition
15
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
that's in your packet, along with Tamara Sather. She couldn't be here tonight and she said on her behalf of
all the half of the residents on her part of the lake, that I could speak on their behalf as well as the other
petitioners. In response to the changes here. I don't know why we're talking about the trees when we
haven't even seen the forest yet, literally. And the petition, you know still addresses some things that were
not met here. There's not a majority, Mr. Noecker did not have a dialogue with anybody as far as I know.
Not with me and not with anybody after this, during or after this proposal was being done. Okay. And
from what I understand, there has to be a majority of residents to approve any change in the rezoning. But
in essence of that, the intent of that was that we didn't really want any change in the nature or the amenity
that this Outlot A provides. There's a strong line of trees along this ridge, along the slope and that, as our
feeling needs to be preserved. And also the trees along the bluff area need to be preserved and this wetland
area. And the buffer that the trees, major trees along here provide need to be preserved as well. And the
lot sizes, yes. He cut down from 22 to 17. It's headed in the right direction but it is still not enough. It's
still causing an extreme amount of stress on the landform and there's really no need for this. Mr. Noecker
told me in a conversation once that he was a rich man and didn't need to be greedy so okay, relax you
know. Make it 14 lots instead of 17. The petitioners had proposed a, if you can focus in on this a little bit
but, we made a proposal. Thank you very much. That although we're amateurs you know, it shows that
we can still allow development and preserve what it is that we see necessary. The outlot border is right
here. And the trail is here. It follows these lots in here are commensurate with the size of lots in the
neighborhood. The majority of trees are saved. Not, especially along here and all along this ridge,
including the major tree slopes here. There's a huge stand of trees all along this area here, and that would
be all gone. All wiped out and if you've got a view from Lake Lucy Road or from the lake itself or even
from way across the lake itself, you're going to stare into a big hole. This entire Lake Lucy region is a big
bowl of trees, okay. And you can't just cut big, giant holes in it. It just doesn't fit. So this has to fit,
alright and we're saying by petition not one resident, including Prince, okay who's the majority landowner
right on this property right here, not one, we have 100 percent of all the residents in this area telling you
that this has to be preserved. Alright. And the land use amendment is our strength in this and we'd like
you to honor that. The residents would be happy if you went to a lot density about like this. I appreciate
the engineer, city engineer's analysis of moving houses away from here so why not take this road and move
it over a little bit to the east. People along here would I'm sure love the idea of having all these trees you
know in their giant wooded lots overlooking the lake. You wouldn't want to reverse grade anything with
this kind of a plan. Perhaps if you wanted to move the road like this over to here and put two lots over here
instead of one, fine. But it can just show you that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you can
have tree preservation. You can have landform preservation. You don't have to have so much stress and
you can still make a lot of money and have a very nice development. So a little creativity you know goes a
long way, so.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Eric Rivkin: Okay, you're welcome.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing now. Commissioner comments. Who'd like to
start?
Slagle: I'll start, sure. That kind of concept is somewhat along the lines of what I've been thinking and I'd
like to know what doesn't work about that plan, not in a specific manner but just general. And if this is not
the time Madam Chair to ask staff, then I can just sort of make my assumptions why it's not. But that to
me is along the lines of what this property needs, and I do want to make the comment to the applicant that I
believe that the steps are in the right direction. But when I look at those developments to the east and
16
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
White Tail Cove is an example, that is not an easy to build. And there are a lot of trees there. And so what
I would like to let the other commissioners know is, at this point I am not in favor of changing it. I do
believe there is a better plan that can be done, and if that better plan is brought back to this body, I would
be in full support of it, but at this point I'm still not ready to okay this.
Blackowiak: Okay. And just to all commissioners a note, we do need to act on this tonight so I'll just say
that before we continue with our comments so LuAnn, go ahead.
Sidney: Okay. Continue along the line here. I think as I said the first time we had this proposal in front of
us that.., the proposed development requires what I consider excessive grading and requires significant
alteration of the topography. And this is for a residential development. Now with residential developments
we have smaller building pads than we would in commercial or industrial developments that we usually see,
and it would make sense that this should be able to be blended into the topography. Now staff has made
some recommendations to do so, which I think are good recommendations and also there's another problem
I saw in the staff report that's noted that we don't have a street that's to design standards. So we're really
trying to force fit something into the topography as it stands now. I do believe the development tries to
maximize the number of home sites and it is too dense in my opinion for this particular topography, and I
do believe it would cause environmental damage. So because of this and the fact that it does tend to
degrade the quality of the site, I really can't support this application and would recommend denial.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Comments.
Feik: I generally agree with changing land use on this. I think it makes more sense that it not be rural
residential on the east portion. It fits better with the rest of the development going onto the west. I hear the
concerns of the residents and the rest of the council members up here, or the commission members. I have
walked the parcel. It is a beautiful parcel. I'm not going to argue that with anybody who's been through it.
It's absolutely lovely. It is zoned, whether we like it or not, it is zoned as it is. It's going to require the
removal of the majority of the trees if this is developed. I don't see a way around that. Now can we
mitigate it and is this the best plan, I'm not sure. It's a plan that is I think substantially better than the
previous plans we've seen. I think the developer has shown some intent to work with staff and I thank him
for that. Would I like to see larger lots? In a perfect world, yes. On the other hand it is still a private
development and as much as I like large trees, he does meet, as outlined by the staff, he does meet the letter
of the rules and the letter of the law as it relates to tree replacement, and I can't see forcing him to go above
and beyond so to speak. Now if you disagree with the rules, that's one thing. But if he's living up to the
rules, that's another thing and therefore I can't say geez, we need to leave trees just because we need to
leave trees. As much as I would like to do that, I'm not sure this is the best plan but I think it's
significantly better than what we've seen and those are my comments.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I am in favor of changing the land use for a compelling reason. I believe that the
Planning Commission can recommend that change without permission of the neighbors and that that is
within our role. However, it needs to be done for a compelling reason and I don't see it with this plan.
There were two things that this group asked for, and that was to reduce the number of lots and to improve
the environmental impact, I should say, on the site and the applicant did a great job. Reduced he number of
lots by 4, which is great, but I am really concerned that the second aspect was not met. I was hoping that
reducing the number of lots would allow more of the topography to be preserved and more of the trees to be
preserved so I feel like it was halfway met. And since it wasn't totally met I don't think that we have a
17
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
compelling reason to change the land use. In my 3 years on this commission I don't recall ever seeing a
plan come through where it's totally leveled like this. We're always able to save some of the trees in the
back yards at least. I know along the street that's not reasonable, but in the back yards we usually can
save some of the trees so. I understand trees need to be removed for development. I know that that's going
to happen. The neighbors need to prepare for that because they will be coming out, but we should be able
to save some of them. So I feel that in cases where we're being asked to change the land use, that we can
expect a trade-off and I don't see the trade-off so I do not support the land use change.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, do you have anything else to add?
Sacchet: Yes I do Madam Chair. First of all, I do want to commend the applicant for having adjusted the
number of lots. When I first started reading this report I said oh great, we're actually getting somewhere.
And I was disappointed though when I realized that on the environmental side it really didn't improve it at
all. It was still basically force fit, the way I read it, especially when I start reading the grading plan a little
more carefully. When I realize that all the trees on the north side that the neighborhood pointed out, would
be removed except that teeny little bluff piece. And as I said before when I asked you a question Mr.
Noecker, I don't mean to get involved in how this gets graded. I mean that's a developer issue, but I do
believe that it becomes a city issue when it has the impact that this has on the environment. And to address
Commissioner Feik's comment about well, he does meet the letter of the law, and there is this statement in
here that really threw me for a loop when staff made the statement that he meets the ordinance but fails to
meet the intent of the ordinance. And I did a little research. I pulled out our comprehensive plan and if you
bear with me I'd just like to point out a few things from the comprehensive plan out of Chapter 3, which
deals with natural resources. There it says, it starts, the City of Chanhassen recognizes the importance of
it's natural environment to the quality of life for it's citizens and the need to protect and enhance these
resources. It defines what natural features are. Natural features pose specific constraints as well as
development opportunity. They add a set of values which make a specific geographic area unique and
different. Policies can be established to maximize these resources and enhance their benefits to the
community. And I'm just picking, cherry picking out of here. In Chanhassen four large scale features
dominate the landscape. They include lakes, wetlands, creeks, and river corridors and tree cover. A little
further on then it talks about tree cover since that's the main one I've been hammering on here. Some of
Chanhassen's most prominent natural features to this day are the forested areas that exist within the
community. These areas contribute to the open spaces and rural flavor of the community. They are
important determinates of the city's image, health and livability and as such should be preserved. In
addition to the aesthetic and social contribution, tree cover has economic benefits for the city as well. And
it touches on the reduction of pollution and, air pollution and noise, storm water runoff and so forth. Trees
do serve as an indicator of community health and image and have significant and economic impacts.
Chanhassen should strive to create and maintain such sustainable force. And then it goes actually into a
section in the comprehensive plan that deals with policies where it goes just beyond the intent type of
dialogue.
Blackowiak: Okay Uli, should we just add that all, have the.
Sacchet: Well it's only two more sentences.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: On the policies it points out, to preserve natural slopes whenever possible. So that would touch
on the grading. Achieve objectives for a safe, healthy diverse and functional urban forest. Protect
18
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
significant wildlife habitats. Preserve areas by means of development restrictions. So based on that, and
sorry for taking the time to go through this, but based on that, I'm of the opinion that the applicant, even
though he meets the calculations of tree preservation, he does not meet the comprehensive plan framework.
It's, and I would disagree with Commissioner Sidney that at this point I would not say any more that the
applicant is trying to maximize the number of lots because he's shown an effort to minimize the lots. But
the other aspect, and there was a second aspect that we very clearly asked for last time, is that the
development as proposed significantly impacts the features of trees, slopes, vistas and uncluttered open
spaces. That has not been changed at all. In some ways even got a little worst. And therefore I totally
disagree with the subdivision finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will definitely cause excessive
environmental damage and therefore I cannot support this proposal, even though I do believe that that
buffer lot does not necessarily have to stay a buffer lot. The outlot, in order for this to work because these
trees on the southeast comer pretty much buffer this development from being visible from the lake. But it
would definitely cut a hole into it from further up north. So the short of all my speech here is that I still
believe it's better to deny this at this point of time.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sacchet: Based on my understanding of the comprehensive plan.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. My comments will be brief. I agree with Deb in terms of the rezoning of
the outlot, and that's again we look for reasons. We look for compelling reasons. I said it before and I'm
not seeing it. I'm not seeing the benefit that we as a city are getting from this development in terms of
changing the land use. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. If we don't change the land use designation,
this proposal cannot move forward as is. So based on that, I would also recommend denial. So I will ask
for someone to give me a motion and Deb, would you like to?
Kind: If I can find it.
Blackowiak: Page 17.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map
Amendment from the Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands
based on the following paragraph as stated in the staff report dated March 5, 2002.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Blackowiak: All in favor.
Sacchet: Can I make a friendly amendment?
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Sacchet: I would like to strike the last sentence about the maximizing of lots. I don't think that applies
anymore.
Kind: I would accept that.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: And I would like instead to refer to the comprehensive plan in the context of the environmental
features that get impacted. Like we could say, in addition as outlined in the comprehensive plan the
community highly regards, okay?
Kind: Sure. I'd accept that.
Sacchet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded.
Kind moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map
Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy
Highlands based on the following:
The existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has
been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of
the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density.
Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, as outlined in the Comprehensive
Plan, the community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and
uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake
Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The
7.07 acre outlot is regard as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a
future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly
demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only.
Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that conversation of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from
Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Blackowiak: Next motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural
Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the
westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the reasons in the report.
Blackowiak: There's a motion, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning
from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy
Highlands, and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following:
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and
has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
2. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore the proposal cannot proceed.
All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Blackowiak: Bruce, I'll wait til the end to ask you your reasons if you want to put them on the record. So
the motion carries 5-1. Next motion please.
Sidney: I'll make the motion, the Planning Commission, recommend the Planning Commission denies the
preliminary plat of Subdivision #01-10 creating 21, excuse me. That would be 17 lots?
Blackowiak: Correct.
Sidney: 17 lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning
requirements.
Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Sidney moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary
plat for Subdivision #01-10 creating seventeen (17) lots for Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying
with the land use designation and zoning requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: Next motion please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit
#2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision
proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements.
Blackowiak: All in favor signify by saying aye.
Sidney: It needs a second.
Blackowiak: Oh excuse me, second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit
#2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision
proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the
21
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: And Commissioner Feik, if you would like to comment on your reasons for your no votes on
motions 1 and 2 for the record, that would be appropriate.
Feik: My reason may surprise you, believe it or not.
Blackowiak: Surprise us.
Feik: I do believe that the zoning perspective from a land use perspective it makes more sense to go with
the west. I believe additionally though that maybe the western parcel is zoned improperly, and that the
western parcel maybe should have been zoned rural residential. I think it's very tough to get to a, based
upon the existing zoning, to effectively utilize that parcel. And the developer is up against a wall here a
little bit with trying to conform or trying to use that parcel as currently zoned. I think there's an
inconsistency between the two zonings and the topography on the western parcel. I think in a perfect world
the western parcel maybe should have been left zoned rural residential. I think it would have worked better.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you for your comments. This item goes before the City Council on April 8th.
Okay we have a second item. I'm going to take two minutes so commissioners can take a look at the
handouts that we were given before the meeting tonight. There are I think 3 different items to take a look
at. Changing conditions, petitions by residents.
Sidney: Madam Chair.
Rosalie Bass: I just needed to ask. Is it possible, because of time, this is on Pipewood Curve is our
particular redevelopment plan that's happening. We're the ones that actually butt up to it. You've got
mothers here of very young children and the time ran really late. I have a child with pneumonia and she has
a nursing baby and I'm wondering if we could table it until the next time so that we can come back in our
defense. It's sort of a hardship kind of thing. I mean we can stay and it will last for another hour and a
half, but it's not good.
Blackowiak: Kate, did you have any suggestions for me?
Aanenson: Well, the applicant's here. I mean it's published and you know.
Feik: Can we do comments first?
Aanenson: Well you can take the comments first but you know, it's up to the applicant. It's highly
unusual.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I don't.
Feik: We're routinely here til 11:30 anyway.
Aanenson: Even if we tabled it for next time.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Yeah. What I think would be then appropriate in this situation is, since the applicant is here
and we are hoping to move forward with this tonight, if there's no objections from other commissioners, if
you personally or other neighbors would like to make your comments first without hearing the applicant's
presentation, that's your choice and I could certainly do that. Otherwise I really feel it's important to kind
of follow our normal procedure and do the staff report and then have the applicant make their proposal.
But if you would like to go ahead and make your comments first, that would certainly be fine. So I'll leave
that one up to you.
Kind: Do you want her to comment now or do you want us to read a little bit?
Blackowiak: So think about it. I would just like us to be able to take a look. We got some petitions from
the neighbors so I'd just like us to have 2 minutes to take a look at this and think about it. Give me your
decision then.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 20 LOTS,
FOUR OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF
PRIVATE STREETS AND FROM THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT ON 22.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7 AT THE END OF PIPEWOOD CURVE,
MATRIX DEVELOPMENT, LLC, HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Perry Ryan Ryan Engineering, Inc.
Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle
Kris Sittler 6526 Aster Trail
Peter Thomson 4001 Aster Trail
Cindy Gess 4001 Aster Trail
Dan Mclnerny 6550 Aster Trail
Marien Zanyk 6590 Pipewood Curve
Beth Ramsey 4111 Paddock Lane
Greg Lang 6524 Aster Trail
Cindy Ahlm 6381 Aster Trail
Rosalie Bass 6570 Pipewood Curve
Marien Zanyk: .... and it needs to be preserved as it is. And one concern is the connection of this road right
here. There is about 1,000 feet based on information from the other developers, about 1,000 feet here that
is expensive for them to create a road here. There's just wetlands. They can't put homes in.
Aanenson: Focus on the plat. She can focus on the plat.
Marien Zanyk: This works for me.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Aanenson: But if you focus on the plat then they can see...
Marien Zanyk: Okay. Wetlands. House lots, okay. What's the point of putting in just 2 homes right here
that butt up against some neighbors of mine? They don't want to see houses right up against their house.
The expense of putting in a road right here, although the sewer line is there, but that's just a waste and it
also is a deterrent for the animal life that lives in here and believe me there's tons of animals in here. Why
not put a nice neighborhood right here and leave this land alone and leave this neighborhood alone? We
understand that the reasoning behind the road access onto Highway 7, a couple of points there. It's an 8
percent grade within 15 feet of the highway and it's supposedly dangerous. It's not dangerous. A year ago
I asked about that specifically. Ministry of Transport, or MnDot, whatever you call it in the United States.
... Ministry of Transport. They said that there has only been 2 accidents on there. One, somebody hit a
deer and another person fell asleep. There is no accident rating for that. It is non-existent. Non-
significant. We use it all the time. It's a slight grade but any access onto Highway 7 is a little bit of a
trick. You hold your breath in a way, but it's not such an exceptional...entrance. It's not, and there is no
accident rating that would validate cutting off our nice cul-de-sac that is safe for our children. That gives
us a beautiful amenity as it is. Curved entry into our Pipewood Curve with a cul-de-sac safety issue is so
important for our children to be able to play up there. If you put in a road right all the way through, it's a
whole different environment. We do not want to travel through a higher density neighborhood and we do
not want to lose the access, peaceful access that it is now. With regard to property valuations, we have
concerns about that. The hiking trail is a wonderful idea. If we could gain access to that, we're in
complete support of this type of thing. But this section in here, don't go there. You don't need to. We
request that. And this is so much more improved than the multiple, multiple townhomes that we saw before
that this seems like a reasonable development from my side of it. But I'd like to request that the cul-de-sac
be left there. I guess that's about it for my concerns. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question of the speaker. You're not the applicant. I do have a quick
question for you. If MnDot limits us to one access point on Highway 7, would you prefer having, which
entrance access to Highway 7 would you prefer? The new one or your existing one.
Marien Zanyk: Our existing one.
Kind: So you would okay with the new 20 homes coming through your neighborhood to get onto Highway
7?
Marien Zanyk: No. No. That, no.
Kind: That was my question.
Marien Zanyk: Yeah, no. Can't we.
Kind: No, here's my question. You have your choice between one or the other.
Marien Zanyk: Absolutely...
Kind: Absolutely between one or the other.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Marien Zanyk: I understand you don't want another access.
Kind: That's not my, I don't care. It's MnDot who cares.
Marien Zanyk: No, you're right. I would prefer, I suppose we would prefer us going through there.
Kind: Okay, that's my question. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Rosalie Bass: Hi. I'm Rosalie Bass. I live in this lot right here that's connected to the wetlands. Right
here. I have a couple of issues. I have a stream, a hardy stream that runs through my part. I've got quite a
large lot. One of my big concerns is fertilization bleeding into the stream because once you, once you fix
these lots up they're going to of course fertilize their lots to get the grass growing in them, and that
fertilizer has to wash somewhere and it's going to wash where the frogs and the fish that we watch go
through the stream. We have quite a large amount of carp and different fish that go through the stream,
and one of my big concerns is the pollution level. Just to make sure that, you know we're downstream.
We're going to catch whatever happens upstream. I also had a concern about oh, a lot of tons of concrete
had been dumped on this lot. It's been a mess. They put, you know I don't know what they plan on doing
with the concrete. I hope it's not going to be buried in somebody's back yard. I hope it doesn't, if it gets
buried, I hope it doesn't become a snake pit. That wouldn't be good for anyone living around there. I hope
that it's handled in an appropriate manner. Not to be just dumped on somebody with a negative effect.
Another concern is that, you know it sounds like it's almost a, you know it's going to happen whether you
like it or not, which I don't mind them developing because if it was my property I'd want to sell it. I don't
mind developing it. I think this is, it looks like a really nice plan. I feel sorry for this lady though that lives
right here because those houses that are going to be stuck there are just going to be so, they're going to
make a street there so it's going to further, not only give a pathway but it's going to make another
interruption and another I don't know, if you've ever gone down Pipewood, it's like let me give you a
scene. You wake up in the morning, snow's covered everywhere. On top the trees. I mean it's just like a
canopy of snow everywhere. You drive through and it's like a little golf course with tiered trees and a
stream with bridges over it and it's just immaculate driving in and out of Pipewood Curve. During the
spring, which is fixin to happen, you drive through. There's a canopy of lime green leaves over your head.
It's like, it's like very beautifully tailored yards. Flowers over the bridges. They say well no, sorry. You
can't drive through that anymore because you see, we want you to drive this way. We've got this new
development coming in and all these nice brick homes, and I know in 20 years the development will be big
and pretty and you'll get a lot more out of it then. But you know, our lot is almost, not only that it has the
new families living in it like Miss Marien that you spoke with. She lives closer to the street than anyone
almost. But you have a lot of older people. You have a family that's lived on this street and they're in all
the houses that are set back, and they've not had a problem driving off of Pipewood Curve. I mean it's
been just fine. I went and spoke with them personally. They don't feel like they have a choice either. They
feel like it's inevitable. It's going to happen and it's like, it's almost like a right being, taking this beautiful
place away from you and make it go through this other area. So you know I know you've given me a
choice. Have 20 people drive through your serenity. Not 20, 40. Maybe 40 cars. Husband and wife cars.
Maybe teen cars .... peaceful, beautiful area and you're saying well, sorry. We've decided that no longer
can you have this. It's a safety issue. We've never had a safety problem. Never. You're saying well, but
because we're going to stick all of these homes over here, it's a safety problem. Well, you're taking an
awful lot away from us. I guess you know, I don't know what can be done. I hope if whatever gets done is
done really tasteful where if you're going to take a lot away, you've got to give a lot back you know. Make
25
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
it beautiful. Don't make us suffer because you know when you live in a place that you know your country
defends you. Your city defends you. I mean that's what you do, and if it was done to you, you know you'd
be upset too. So I don't know, I've got, see I've got a little one and I had to go and I have to go but, I don't
want to drive through 20 houses. I don't want to drive through, now wetland's nice because of the animals.
We have beautiful animals coming up to the house and in the yard and we love it. But you know, if you
ever just stepped beside the edge of wetland and looked in, it's quite a dump in a way. You know it's not
that pretty. You can't just go oh, look how beautiful. Well that's not the beauty of it all. The beauty of it
all is being set back and in a nature area with the kind of animals and just being still and letting things
happen. And what's going to happen is we're going to have to drive through this area that's wetland to get
to these homes. So this wetland area, although wetlands are nice, it's not very pretty really along the edges
of a wetland. You know there's not a whole lot you can do to wetlands to make it look pretty. It'd be nice
if we had cattails growing and grow healthy all the time but it just doesn't happen. You know right now
it's depleted. It's just rotted looking it's so bad. So I don't know, I know that it looks bad if you were to
drive through it right now. And then to drive to make it worst, to drive through these houses would be even
worst. I have children that play in the wetlands. I love the wetlands. I love the animals. I love the nature.
I love the peacefulness and the quiet and you know, I'm going to leave it really in your guy's hands and I
just hope, I know that you'll do the best you can and thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Kind: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Just before you leave, I want to make a couple comments. This item, regardless of our
decision tonight goes to City Council. That will be at the April 8th meeting, so you know. I'm sure your
neighbors will tell you this too.
Kind: Get a baby sitter.
Rosalie Bass: Let me tell you, we didn't get letters okay. The only person that got a letter was Beth
Ramsey and Marien, the lady that just left, she lives really close. She was in the Caribbean. She didn't get
home until a few seconds before she came here. She had no ideal. I didn't get a letter, okay.
Kind: There's a mailing address label right here.
Rosalie Bass: I didn't get a letter, okay. I didn't. I did not know. I did not know there was a meeting
tonight.
Kind: It kind of looks like junk mail.
Rosalie Bass: I called on the phone and the lady...I called on the phone and the lady told me the meeting
started at 5:00 so I tried to find out. I thought 5:00. It was 4:30 when I called. There was no way I was
prepared. I hurried up and got a couple of my children and brought them up here and rushed up here. I
know that a lot of the other neighbors had no ideal because I walked over to their house today, and they had
no ideal about this meeting. The neighbors exactly next to it. I mean the one that's so close that you know,
I can look in her window almost.
Blackowiak: That's another issue.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Rosalie Bass: But the thing is, to be such an important issue of closing our street down, why aren't other
people brought into this situation because it's going to change their lives. It's going to change their whole
atmosphere and they have no ideal. I mean and they say well yeah, we put it in the paper. Well, I've been
looking for those kind of ads all the time I guess. No, I really don't you know.
Kind: Start to.
Rosalie Bass: Well I guess I'm going to have to. I'm going to have to but anyway, a lot of people don't
know about this and, or probably some of them might have been here that would have wanted to be.
Blackowiak: Okay. And just Kate, one question. Garbage on site, that's the developer's responsibility for
proper disposal, correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Rosalie Bass: But what will they do with it? They need to have a plan because any choice, is it okay to
bury a ton of concrete in wetlands?
Blackowiak: No.
Rosalie Bass: Is it okay to bury a ton of concrete in someone's back yard that they're going to develop?
Blackowiak: I don't think it's okay to bury anything anywhere.
Saam: We'll have them dispose of it off site.
Blackowiak: Yeah, because I noticed couches and dryers and.
Saam: Yeah, there's all kinds of things.
Rosalie Bass: I think if things were handled in an appropriate manner, but I think it's necessary that it be a
mandatory thing and not a hope they do it or it'd be nice if they do it.
Blackowiak: I believe it is. Is a requirement.
Saam: And we have inspections to make sure of that so, it will be taken care of.
Rosalie Bass: And I hope that if they plant trees, that maybe it's sometimes a little more like to put big
ones and some little ones, you know instead of just a strip of a whole bunch of trees all the same size that
looks like someone just did it. I hope that they could find a way to do things in a manner. I mean they're
taking an awful lot away from the other part of the neighborhood. All I'm asking is please don't make it an
eyesore. Or make it look like you know a new development. I don't know if you've seen the senior homes
on 7, I mean I know those seniors are going to be happy because, I mean they've got a house but you know,
if you over develop your land, if you make it to where it's all going to look that way all along the highways,
then you're going to end up losing what you love here. And I'm just hoping that you know, people search
for nice places to live. This is a very nice place to live. It'd almost be better to be taxed more.
Blackowiak: Oooh.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Rosalie Bass: Than to lose what you've got. Sometimes you've got to fight for what you got and I know
everybody wants a piece of the pie and if you give everybody a piece of the pie, then you're going to lose
what you get eventually. Anyway, any other questions?
Blackowiak: No, not now. Thank you so much.
Slagle: Madam Chair I have to address Commissioner Kind's comment on junk mail, because I make my
living with that. But I would throw out as a suggestion for staff, and I'm sure it's oversight but you might
want to seed yourselves on all the mailings that go out because it looks like Scott Botcher was on but got
crossed off. So I don't see any other Chanhassen staff people. That way you would know that you got the
mailing. Or it went out and was received by someone. So just FYI.
Blackowiak: We'll put your name on it.
Slagle: Oh my name too.
Kind: Put Rich's name. Rich gets every one.
Slagle: Trying to help out.
Sacchet: It's how you make a living.
Slagle: That's right. And more postage.
Kind: Okay, I'm sorry.
Blackowiak: Thank you so much. Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing right now with the
understanding I will re-open it later. We're going to start now with our staff report for this item.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this issue.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff.
Slagle: Just a couple. Bob, on Block 6, Lots 1 and 2, the first option, I'll call it option, or outlot. Excuse
me, Option A. Exhibit A. You showed the elimination of a ponding area. Does that necessarily have to
happen? Could they keep that pond there if they wanted to?
Generous: That'd be feasible, sure.
Slagle: Okay. Second question on A-1 you show the impact is 5,200 square feet, similar to A. Is that, I
mean is that correct they're both around 5,200 or one is 4,800 and one is.
Generous: We didn't review the exact impacts on this. We just wanted to show an alternative that would
work and comply with the ordinance. We prefer to avoid wetland impacts where possible.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Slagle: The reason I'm asking, when it's the, what I'll call just an approximation is that on Exhibit B you
then say 1,480 square feet less wetland fill. Excuse me, that goes further into the other road. So it's really
one of these two options and a private street, correct?
Generous: Correct. For Block 6.
Slagle: Okay. How much less does the private street impact the wetland?
Generous: There are no impacts to the wetland with the private street.
Slagle: None whatsoever, okay.
Generous: Correct.
Slagle: Okay, thanks.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Anybody else questions for staff?
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I do have a few quick questions. On page 8 of the report, it is stated that
there's a list of lots and it says the following may not accommodate the proposed 40 foot required setback.
I was looking at that and it's, I couldn't quite see how that was consistent. Could you explain that just a
little bit. It says Block 1, Lot 1, obviously that's a little close with the pad, but and I looked at some and in
some it seemed like to apply and to some it didn't so if you could clarify.
Generous: Right, and part of the problem, if you look on page 3 of 7 in the report, they showed the wetland
buffer area and then the 40 foot setback adjacent to that. But they're all uniform. They don't vary. And if
they can vary that, they can meet the setbacks. For Lot 1 they can actually move the house 20 feet to the
north and they'd be out of that wetland setback. So they can comply with that. As part of our review for
the final plat we would work out all the buffer yard requirements on each lot and incorporate that as a
condition of approval that for instance Lot 1, Block 3 would have a 10 foot buffer yard and Lot 2, Block 2,
or Block, yeah. Lot 2, Block 2 may have a 30 foot, or 20 foot buffer yard. So that we maintain the
average. But they can correct it. It's just if they get it in a uniform manner and it didn't work.
Sacchet: And basically you're saying staff would work with the applicant on that, but what threw me is
that the table in the report didn't match that particular blueprint where that the things are. Now, the other
question I have is the proposed tree preservation is 0 percent. Does that mean we did not include the trees
and the wetland in consideration, correct?
Generous: That's exactly what it means. It's only in the upland area that we calculate the tree removal.
There are significant stands of trees within the wetlands that won't be impacted, that will be preserved but
they're not penalized for that either as, in part of their canopy coverage calculation or in their removal
requirements.
Sacchet: So in other words there will be a significant amount of trees left on the site?
Generous: Yes.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: That's what I'm after. And then two quick questions. In your findings, your findings on page 11,
the private street finding. That obviously applies to Block 6 and not Block 1 and 2?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Because it doesn't say that. And then finding 4 on page 13, the variance for the private street
again that's 6 and not 1 and 2? Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Questions?
Kind: Ah yes Madam Chair. In your meeting with MnDot, did they say we must change it to this new
point or that we have a choice between the two?
Saam: No. We have a choice. We requested the meeting because in discussions with the developer we
saw the opportunity to correct a bad intersection and move it here, so we requested that we sit down with
MnDot. But the fact remains that they'll allow only one so.
Kind: Okay, so I was right on that?
Saam: That's the issue.
Kind: But this commission can make a recommendation as to which one you would recommend keeping
open?
Aanenson: Right. And it's the staff's position is we felt for the integrity of that neighborhood it'd be better
to bring it through the new...
Kind: ...commenting later, isn't it. I'll save that part for later. Let's see what else. Uli touched on the
tree thing because I noticed on the plan there were a lot of trees being saved, so that's good.
Generous: Yes.
Kind: Including the one most significant tree which is a 27 inch oak, that is on the saved list.
Sacchet: Number 58.
Kind: What Uli said. Also on that landscape plan there are some species of trees which in the past the city
forester has not been crazy about as far as the viability. Specifically Colorado Spruce so I'm wondering if
it makes sense going forward to put a condition on there that the city forester should review the hardiness of
trees.
Generous: That would be appropriate, yes.
Kind: Proposed, okay. I think that's it for staff.
Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, questions?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Feik: Yeah Matt... would you please go over the rationale a little bit more deeply as to why there can only
be one access onto Highway 7.
Saam: Well again that's MnDot's ruling. They're trying to limit direct access to the highway. Highways
are meant to keep the cars moving. They don't want every 300 feet an intersection where cars are pulling
out into 55 mile per hour traffic.
Feik: ... if there were to be two accesses now, what would be the approximate distance between them?
Saam: If there were to be the two?
Feik: Yes.
Saam: The proposed one and the existing? Let me check. Approximately, over 1,200 feet. Or about
1,200 to 1,300.
Feik: Have we received anything in writing from MnDot stating that this is a requirement clearly so the
neighborhood to the west.., would like to keep their own access, albeit it may be not...
Saam: We haven't received anything in writing yet. Typically they don't get their comments back to us
until right before the, this goes to council. But verbally they've told us that they definitely agree that that
intersection would be better if moved up here.
Feik: Well I understand better, but I also understand.., but I want to be very clear to the residents that they
absolutely require one access.
Saam: I believe so yeah. I believe once we get the letter from them it will say, keep in mind MnDot's only
going to allow one so I definitely believe that.
Feik: ... okay, thank you. And then, that's it...
Blackowiak: Okay, And I just have I think one or two questions. Private street. How do we ensure
compliance with the city's design standards on a private street? Given that at the last meeting we heard
horror stories about a private street so if indeed we choose to go forward and allow a private street, how
can we ensure we're getting what the residents have paid for.
Saam: Right now we don't inspect, we consider them a driveway basically. A private driveway, a private
street. So we don't inspect driveways that go in at every house. They're not in the public right-of-way so
we don't feel we have a duty to ensure that they're built to acceptable standards.
Aanenson: Can I add a condition? If it is a variance you can ask for a condition if you want.
Blackowiak: I was going to say.
Saam: Maybe add that we inspect it to ensure that it's built.
Blackowiak: Or that the applicant provide borings or tests or something proving that it's done to the 7, is it
a 7 ton specification you're looking for?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Saam: That's correct, yep.
Blackowiak: Okay. So that would be appropriate to add that. Okay. I guess I don't have any more
questions right now, thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? If so, please step up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Perry Ryan: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Perry Ryan
with Ryan Engineering. Currently in 434 Lake Street in Excelsior. I think Mr. Generous did a very nice
job and I'm sure you've all had a chance to read through this lengthy report. I won't bore you with going
through the entire report. I just want to make a couple comments. It is a gorgeous piece of property. I
was going to respond to Mrs. Bass' comments about the Pipewood Curve area. The gorgeous property.
She talked about you know the concrete, the polluting in the storm drainage and the fertilizing the wetlands.
Certainly we're abiding by the design standards set forth by the city on the storm sewer system as well as
the ponding and the city being the LGU on the wetlands. Interesting when you put it the way of what
would you rather see the outlet going through, either Pipewood Curve or the outlet on this project and I do
believe that they would probably agree that it should go through this project. That being said, it won't
really change the character of how many vehicles are going through there. We think this property is also a
great piece of property, as Mr. Generous pointed out. We're looking at the design, if we can flip to here.
We are putting the roadway on the alignment of the sanitary sewer and watermain that was put in in 1973.
The wetland impacts are solely for the construction of the public roadway for the public infrastructure.
The conditions which were suggested as part of conditions of approval for this development, one was the
reorientation of the existing Lots 1 and 2 in this orientation and we did look at that in some detail. Today
we actually at our meeting that we had today with the city staff came forward with proposed contours in
that area and there are a lot of benefits to that and we are in agreement that that should be done. It's a
slightly less impact on a wetlands through this area than the previous location. There are some other
savings. The other condition of approval was the addition of a 5 foot concrete sidewalk on one side of the
street, and access through to the trail corridor to the northwest, and the developer is in agreement with that
as well. I know that was some of the pauses he had I think spoken with at least 2 of the neighbors. Some
of the pauses of providing that access and of course that access would go all the way down to the access
point at the end of Pipewood Curve as it exists now and so those residents would also be able to utilize that
trail. I think generally we had looked at it, they'll be on the north and the west side so that trail will follow
along the northwest side, up through here and give not only these 20 residents access to that trail but also
the residents of Pipewood Curve. I don't really have any further comments. I guess I would stand for any
questions. I think certainly the size of the lots are very representative for what's out there in the area if you
look at the overall picture. We're at 0.9 units per acre gross and 1.86 per acre net as opposed to the
allowable of up to 4 units per acre in the upland so I thought one of the interesting comments that Mr.
Generous made within his report kind of made a cut to the chase. This is a 22 point something acre
development and somewhere in here, and now I'm having trouble finding it. Mr. Generous points out that
it is roughly 8.5 acres of actual, page 2? Thank you. Now I lost page 2. 8.5 acres of lot, 8.5 acres of, oh I
turned it over. That's why I lost it. 8.5 acres of lots. 8.5 acres of wetland. 2.28 acres ofponding and
upland buffer, and 3 acres of roadway right-of-way and so you know we're only developing really 8.5 acres
of this 22 acre parcel. And so I guess I would agree with him. I have seen some of the previous layouts on
this site and we would like to agree with them to say that this is a tremendous improvement and I think
we're really trying to work with the city, trying to work with the natural environmental conditions out there
and the wetlands to put a development together that will work quite nicely so I would stand for any
questions. Mr. Frank Thera with Matrix Development is also here to answer any questions. Thank you.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?
Feik: You answered.., as it relates to the options that have been posed by staff regarding Block 6... being
the short public cul-de-sac.., from a developer's standpoint, where do you, how do you respond to the... ?
Perry Ryan: Well we would obviously like to request, and we have requested that the private, I'll put the
option up here but it be as shown on the larger set of plans that we do a private street in there. There are
no wetland impacts, no additional wetland impacts for those two units. The two, Exhibit A which shows as
Mr. Generous pointed out, Exhibit A-1 which was a cul-de-sac, both have similar wetland impacts. They
are both at 5,200 square feet actually of additional wetland impact. To answer your question previously,
yeah you could probably still keep that pond in there and have the driveways go around it. We would
rather see the private street going in there and no wetland impacts. We simply did this to show that there's,
the land area. When you look at this Exhibit A, I don't know if you can tighten up on that a little bit.
Thank you. When you look at this Exhibit A, the entire portion of this except for this little piece right here
is wetlands so we are really constructing the homes on the non-wetland portion and we are only infringing
on that wetland for the access whether it be the two private driveways, which would be standard driveways
on Exhibit A, or an actual little stub cul-de-sac on Exhibit A-1. And so we think it makes more sense, and
I think we have agreement generally with staff that the private drive is...
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: Madam Chair, to follow up on... Commissioner Kind's comments about, I think we're moving
toward putting in a condition about requiring testing of the private street, and you're okay with that?
Perry Ryan: Yeah, we had discussed that and certainly we would be amenable to adding that. The design
is going to stay the same as all the rest of the public streets. It's just a matter of adding the inspection on
that and we would certainly amenable to acting on as a condition.
Sidney: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay now at this time I am
going to re-open the public hearing so if anyone else would like to get up and speak on this development,
please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Dan Mclnemy: Hi. My name is Dan Mclnemy. I live on Aster Trail which is on the other side of the trail
from this development. I also live on Lake Virginia which will be the place where all the silt will go if the
wetland doesn't do it's job. I was wondering, have all the members of the commission been out to the site
and walked the site?
Sacchet: Twice.
Dan McInemy: Okay. I hope you agree with me, in the northwesterly comer of this site, the far side of the
creek, there is a mature woodland and this whole project.., because the creek is well buffered with trees and
vegetation. I've heard you guys talking about that there were trees being protected. If you look at the
report it looked like there weren't any trees going to be protected. Can somebody tell me where the trees
are going to be protected?
Blackowiak: Okay Bob, would you kind of point that out for everyone please.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Generous: On the inventory list it shows, in the outlot areas there's significant stands of trees. All of these
will be preserved on the east side. There's some, our ordinance requires trees to 12 inches or larger.., to be
shown specifically. Out of those that are smaller, they must highlighted so all of this stuff would be
preserved on the northern side of the northwest comer of the property.
Dan Mclnemy: On the northern boundary of the property, this is mature woodland all up here and.
Generous: That's off site.
Dan Mclnemy: Right. My concern is that if you grade, if you take a bulldozer all the way to the very
edge of the property line, you're going to injure all the trees just on the north side of that property line, and
I'd ask that there'd be some concern for some buffering to protect those trees. My other concern had to do
with the change in the site as far as the increase of the, increase in impervious surfaces and the fact that this
creek, when there is a thunderstorm or a big snow melt, carries a lot of water. And to the extent that you
increase the impervious surfaces, you're going to increase the surge and you're going to increase the
erosion potential. I'm wondering if somebody can tell me beyond satisfying the city, what other agencies
will have to pass on this project as far as what it's doing with the creek and the wetland and the watershed.
Is it, will the Watershed District have to pass on it?
Blackowiak: Yes I do believe so. Kate, do you want to kind of give a list of the general agencies that are
contacted.
Aanenson: Sure. The Watershed District and also the DNR as far as the creek.
Dan McInemy: I'm concerned that the typical.., plastic buffer sheeting wouldn't be sufficient there
because my understanding is there's going to be, the creek bed is going to be dug up and a road is going to
go across it and sewer and water is going to have to be re-routed across it and while that is going on, if
there's a substantial storm, there's going to be a whole lot of sediment and mud washed down that creek
and it's going to end up in Lake Virginia, and it's also going to cover the creek farther down where both
game fish and rough fish spawn.
Blackowiak: Okay Matt, do you want to address that right now while we're?
Saam: Sure. We'll ensure that silt fence and not just silt fence but Type III erosion control, which is silt
fence with heavy duty steel posts, chicken wire in back of it plus straw hay bales are put in, along side any
existing water body. That's part of the city code. So that will have to be installed before they start any
work.
Dan McInemy: What I'm saying is when they're digging up, going across the creek digging up the bank,
they're probably going to need some sort of a damming of the creek area and the work area because if
there's a storm, it's going to go right down the creek.
Saam: Yep, sure.
Dan McInemy: ... around the wetland isn't going to help that.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Saam: They'll have to make accommodations for when they build this road going to the north, northwest
here. I think that's what you're talking about, and they cross the creek, they'll have to make
accommodations for that to keep the water going through either by pumping it or putting in a temporary
culvert somewhere and diverting it.
Dan Mclnerny: My only other comment would be that, I think the natural amenity of this site is the creek
area itself and the mature woodland and I really hope that when the development is done, that that amenity
hasn't been destroyed by trying to put as many lots as you can in here. That's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay thank you.
Dan McInerny: Oh I want to commend the members of the commission too. I was once on a planning
commission, and I commend your patience. I hear ya.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Greg Greenwood: Hi, my name is Greg Greenwood. I'm actually 6501 Kirkwood Circle. Right now I
basically look over the woodlands that pretty much everyone's been talking about so, I'm actually right
there. With this road coming in right here, I'm wondering if any idea of noise and pollution, cars reving
engines, accidents and what not in this area. We had a horrific accident last week down by Greenbriar, and
is there mm lanes? What not. Even up on Minnewashta and Church, in that area it goes from 2 lane to no
mm lane right in that area. I'm just concerned because right now we have semi's that come through which
are fine. We live with that. We expect that but having a car come in and just gun their car as fast as they
can to get up to 55-60, I'm just wondering if any consideration in noise pollution, pollution itself from the
cars has been taken into effect.
Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, can you talk a little bit about the proposed reconstruction of Highway 7?
Saam: Sure. Yeah, a left turn lane will be put in there, and a right turn lane.
Greg Greenwood: So right down the middle?
Saam: West. In Highway 7, yes. It will make accommodations for that. As far as noise, I don't know if
anything's going to be done to mitigate noise. I mean you've got a highway there right now.
Greg Greenwood: Oh yeah, but now we're going to have.
Saam: I don't, I just wouldn't bet that they're going to put a noise wall or anything in there.
Greg Greenwood: Right. I've spoken with MnDot as well too. And what they're basically saying is
they're just widening the shoulder. They didn't say anything about a turn lane in the middle, as far as last
week I talked to them, but it sounds like you guys talked to them today.
Saam: Yep, we had a meeting today. Currently their plans don't show this. That was the point of the
meeting today to sit down with the developer and MnDot. New plans are going to be drawn up and
incorporated into the Highway 7 plans so, that may be why you got the just the widening of the shoulder.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Greg Greenwood: Right. Okay, because they weren't aware of this whole development area last week at
all when I talked to them. Secondly it's like occasionally we get the 4 wheel drive truck going through with
headlights coming in our windows, which that's fine. I don't care, but this is going to be every single
person coming out too. I mean they're turning onto 7 this way. Our neighbors right here, they'll be getting
lights going this way as well too. Right now we just have the woodlands that just we look over and that's
it. So I'm just wondering about that light pollution as well.
Saam: Again, I don't think, I don't foresee anything being done because of that. It does look like you guys
are a lot higher though than the highway. Do you overlook it?
Greg Greenwood: We overlook it a little bit but if, for instance if they're coming up and I don't know how
level this was going to be. I remember hearing an 8 percent grade.
Saam: Yeah, not in there. It will be relatively level. Very slight.
Aanenson: We can check on that grade and get back to them. Get back to you on that elevation...
Greg Greenwood: Also, would that be MnDot that would do the noise wall? I mean there's noise wall
right down here, a very nice one that I've heard rumors of them constructing as well.
Saam: Yes, if it's in their right-of-way that would be something they would do, yep.
Greg Greenwood: Okay. That wouldn't be city oriented?
Saam: No.
Greg Greenwood: Okay.
Saam: That's something we can bring up with them. I just wouldn't plan on it.
Greg Greenwood: That would be great because everybody right here is going to be affected by this one
road coming in now.
Saam: Sure. That's something we can bring up with them.
Blackowiak: Well and I would also suggest that you should probably pursue it as well because the more
people that mention it I think, the more weight it might carry so.
Greg Greenwood: You bet. Okay, thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Greg Lang: Good evening. My name is Greg Lang. I'm actually a resident of the city of Victoria but I'm
within 500 feet. I live on the other side of the trail. My address is 6524 Aster Circle. My concerns are
with the water, the creek and also the trees and area expressed concern about preserving the forest and the
community and I'm not, and I drive by this site on Highway 7 but I've never walked across it but I go down
the trail all the time. I use the trail like many people do and I think that at this, I believe where this
development is going in, it's well forested right on the trail. But small? Well it looks like a forest from the
36
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
trail. It looks all green in the summer time but, I think that, hopefully we're not going to be staring into the
bedrooms of the houses that are being constructed here. When I look at the plan I think it looks like a good
plan. I was here a year ago when Jasper Development presented their other plan and it was not well
received by a lot of the people and this plan certainly looks like it addresses a lot of other concerns, but
preservation of the trees is an issue with me, just as I believe it is with you. And the water issue with the
creek, I think the construction process is probably the biggest danger, and there's a drop in elevation as it
goes from this piece of land down to the lake so that the movement of the water, if there is a storm, is really
dramatic. Last, to give an example, last spring the, where the water goes through the culvert under the
trail, the water was moving so fast it actually blew a hole through the old culvert right up through the
middle of the trail. A lot of, sometimes there's a lot of water moving and so you'll probably have to be out
there on the site watching it. Those are my comments. Thank you.
Cindy Gess: Hi. My name is Cindy Gess. I'm at 4001 Aster Trail so I am this piece of property right
here. And some of the concerns I have, I'm wondering what watershed district does it involve?
Generous: Minehaha.
Cindy Gess: I've talked to some people that are involved with Minehaha and they weren't aware of any
involvement at all yet. So are they involved? Have they been talked to and if who?
Saam: Before this site can be final platted, we'll require that the developer obtain a permit from Minehaha
Creek. Now they may not have applied yet. They want to make sure they get through preliminary plat first
possibly, I don't know.
Cindy Gess: Yeah, they are not aware of it as of 2 days ago.
Saam: Okay, yeah. I would assume the applicant hasn't applied with the watershed district yet.
Blackowiak: And that's not unusual is what you're saying.
Saam: No.
Blackowiak: Yeah so I mean, generally people want to come through and make sure that it's okay with the
city first before they go and spend money and time to get permits.
Aanenson: Can I just make one other clarification is that we are the LGU. We do the permitting for the
wetland so that's done internally.
Blackowiak: Which means, LGU is the license.
Aanenson: Local Governmental Unit.
Blackowiak: Local Governmental Unit.
Aanenson: Right, which we have approval from the watershed district to do the wetland permitting, but
they still need another, a permit for the grading. That has to go through the watershed. And generally they
will not approve it til the city's approved it. So that's the process.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Cindy Gess: I'm also curious about what vegetation will be left along the creek. The creek does come
through my property here and so I'm just curious, you know along the rest of it, what is going to be left. I
know we're going to continue to preserve what is on our property and do what we can for the creek itself
and the animal life that's there.
Saam: Is that a question for me?
Blackowiak: I think it's a question. I don't know who'd like to tackle that one.
Saam: I can handle it. I was just looking for the silt fence line. The only place that it appears they will be
removing the vegetation along the creek is where this road is going through. Or where this road is proposed
to go through. If you look on.
Cindy Gess: Up in this area here?
Saam: Yep.
Cindy Gess: So none of this area will be disturbed?
Saam: No.
Sacchet: That's wetland.
Aanenson: That's wetland.
Saam: No, other than where they are creating wetland, and I'm assuming that's an upland anyway so.
Cindy Gess: You know the other concern I have, I know there's the houses do have to go somewhere and
they are very concentrated on our property line and I'm wondering about the buffers along there and what
compensation for the north side, even though it's just a one individual resident, if there's going to be any
compensation for that.
Blackowiak: Kate, I think maybe you should handle that question.
Aanenson: The way our ordinance is set up is low density next to low density, there is not a buffer
requirement. There's a setback requirement from the property line but you have a large lot that's kind of
built in as the buffer. Most people when they move in will put additional landscaping in, but the ordinance
the way it's set up right now, if it's low density next to low density, there's not a buffer requirement.
Cindy Gess: And how far back do you have to stay from the actual line?
Aanenson: For the rear setback? It would be, if it's at your rear yard it would be, depending on the
orientation, that'd be a side yard possibly.
Kind: They're side I think.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Aanenson: Yeah, 10 feet.
Generous: For the ones on the road that goes to the north to her property, it would be a side setback.
That's 10 feet. For the ones in the Block 1 and 2, or Block 2, those are rear yard so that'd be at least 30
feet.
Feik: But that road's being stubbed in for future development potential right?
Generous: Yes, for her property.
Cindy Gess: And that was another question I had. We really have no intention of developing and I
understand that people always say that. We don't plan to develop and eventually do. My concern is, if the
city chooses that there is for the good of the rest of the public, that our land is condemned so that that road
can come through.
Blackowiak: That's I believe highly unlikely but again Kate, or Bob.
Aanenson: Well it would be for a public purpose and as a general rule the city doesn't do subdivisions for
a public purpose.
Cindy Gess: Well my concern is if Highway 7 were, they needed to close additional accesses so that these
people would have to come through up to Aster Trail or access over to Church or Cartway, especially if
there was other developments in some of the other areas.
Saam: I'll just add something. Something MnDot said today. The only thing they would do is put a
median in Highway 7 if they would upgrade it to 4 lanes so they wouldn't take out this access, but it
wouldn't be a full one. It would be a right-in/right-out, if you follow that. So they have no plans to close
this. What they would do is limit it.
Aanenson: Similar to what they've done further, if you go further east on Highway 7. They put the median
in for safety reasons. That would be what they would do here so.
Saam: And that could be 20 years out. You know 15. 30. They don't have plans on it.
Cindy Gess: And then also the last question I have is with the trail and it having access through this area.
With it being such a steep grade there, I'm wondering what type of access onto the trail it would be.
Blackowiak: Okay Matt, do you want to?
Saam: Yeah. We looked at it quick today with the developer's engineer, Perry. We're going to put it in a
spot where the grade's aren't that steep so I wouldn't expect they would be anything over 8 to 10 percent
would be the max.
Cindy Gess: And so, would it be more than likely stairs or it would be just a?
Saam: No. I don't believe it would be stairs. Perry, have you looked at that?
Perry Ryan: No...
39
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Cindy Gess: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm not seeing anyone else jumping up so I will close the public
hearing. Commissioners, it's time for comments. Do you want to start?
Sacchet: Sure, I'll start. First of all I want to thank the applicant because it looks like you work very well
with staff. I appreciate that you agree with the suggestions of staff with that cul-de-sac moving for Block 1
and 2. That you think that sidewalk connection is a good thing. I do understand the concerns of the
neighbors. I however do believe that many of these concerns are not as severe as they may appear at first.
I mean I don't think that it's going to impact property values. It may even increase the property values of
those houses that are already there. It's a wonderful neighborhood. It's like fairy tale land. With the
traffic actually not going through there anymore, I believe it's going to be better protected and safety will
be increased in that area because you have less cars going through there. I do agree with staff, and
MnDot's assessment that that intersection getting onto Highway 7 is not ideal. It definitely will be better,
better sight and also grade wise. Traffic issues for the neighborhood will be better therefore. The noise
and privacy, well there will be more privacy in that existing neighborhood. So I think it's going to be
actually to the benefit of that existing neighborhood on Pipewood to do what's proposed here. I would like
to be very clear in the findings that we are talking about Block 6 when we talk private road. I think that's
the way to go because it has no impact on the wetlands. I do believe this proposal is sensitive to the trees.
I did a quick calculation based on the tree inventory to answer the gentleman's concern about trees. What I
read and I might be off by one or so in the count, there are about 40 of the significant trees saved and only
17 lost. And I always look at the real significant ones, the real big ones. Of the real big ones, 6 are saved
and only 2 are lost. And I think that's a very reasonable proportion in terms of being sensitive to the
environment. And therefore I think it's, I support this proposal. I would however change the finding. I
wouldn't say it has no environmental damage. I would say the proposed subdivision causes some
environmental damage which however is reasonably minimized. I do support this proposal. I think it's
well balanced. I do want to thank staff for putting the Uli condition in there. That the silt fence is not just
put in, but also put out. Even though in one place it still needs to be added. I would like to be very specific
that that cul-de-sac that's being moved and put in to the northwest side is public street, and I would like to
also add a few additional conditions. One, that the developer will work with staff to save significant trees
as planned, and specifically I would like to ask that that oak tree number 58, which is sort of on the south
of the property. It's not a huge oak but it's a great oak. It's about what, 27 inch. I mean it's big enough.
I want to put specific request that that gets taken care of because it's a little bit at the edge of the grading
lines and I think it needs some attention to survive because oaks are sensitive. In terms of the concerns of
the neighbors, I would like to have a condition in there that the applicant will work with staff to properly
dispose of all the garbage and debris that is currently on this site. And I haven't really worded that one yet
because I was focusing on the discussions but a condition to ensure that when that road that goes across the
creek is put in, that there is proper temporary culvert or whatever is necessary to not impede the drainage
of the creek. That's where I'm at.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Go ahead Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'll go. I am comfortable with this plan as proposed with a couple little tweaky
things. The preservation of the wetland and the creek I'm comfortable that our staff will make sure that
that silt problem does not become a problem for people downstream. I'm confident of that. I like the trail
access to the Luce Line. I think that will be a nice service for the neighbors all along Pipewood Curve.
The new people and the existing people. My, oh and then public, or not the public street. The access onto
40
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
7. I heard kind of even feelings about that from people who spoke, as to whether it should be moved or not
and I think the tide goes to the safer intersection by staff's point of view which would be the new access
point from the new neighborhood and closing off the existing one. I'm open to other people's comments on
that, but that's where I'm coming down on that. The private street question is still up in the air for me.
These Exhibit A, with the two driveways coming off the public street. I think that's a viable option,
especially if we can keep that pond there. I wish the neighbor who lived next to that part, that Block 6 was
here tonight to just speak to that. I'm trying to put myself in their position. I would prefer, if I lived there,
to have homes facing that public street versus homes facing my back yard. And so I hate to put my point
of view on that, but I lean towards the public street option, Exhibit A that was in our packet. And not
doing the private street way.
Sacchet: A was the driveways?
Kind: Right. With the driveways and keeping that pond there. I don't think that little ponding area needs
to be eliminated. I guess that's it for my comments.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Comments down here.
Feik: Yes. Point of clarification though Ms Kind. When you, Block 6, was this the one you're talking
about?
Kind: No, not the cul-de-sac. The one with the driveways.
Feik: The ones with the driveway next to a public street.
Kind: That could keep the little pond in the area there.
Feik: I very much like the project. I particularly like the change that happened up in Block 2. In light of
the last speaker though I'm wondering what the rationale is of stubbing that street in. They have no
intention of developing and if she's willing to give up her potential development opportunity in the future
dead ending that street, it seems to me that makes some sense.
Aanenson: Well, the parcel really has limited, you know without Cartway Path going through, it's our
obligation to provide other alternatives, not to landlock somebody's property. We don't' want her to
subdivide until she wants to subdivide, if that never happens, but it is our obligation to provide access.
Feik: Well she has access off Cartway right?
Aanenson: For a private drive, but it'd have to be a public street in order to get access. That street would
have to be upgraded. So you'd have to take it all the way in and.
Feik: Well, what is the difference had this lot not been developed? She would have, be in the same position
she is today. Would be going forward if this was a cul-de-sac in that we are not necessarily limiting, if she
doesn't need it and it looks like this could be stubbed for a number of years. I know we have a general
policy against dead end roads. You know forever and a day dead end roads.
Aanenson: And also it's again city ordinance to landlock a piece of property, correct.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Feik: She's not landlocked. She's got access.
Aanenson: She has a private driveway but in order to develop the property and subdivide in the future, it
needs to have access.
Saam: I think it's just good future planning and that's what we try to do at city staff. Say MnDot does
come through and put that median down the middle of Highway 7. That would mean everybody in this
development then, to go east, would have to make a right hand mm, go down Highway 7. Flip around
somewhere. Do a U mm or something, to go back east. Versus this street which would go up through
Cartway and then come down to Minnewashta Parkway sometime in the future.
Feik: Versus even a temporary cul-de-sac? You'd rather have the dead end versus.
Aanenson: Well it would be.
Saam: Oh we'll have them put in a temporary mm around there definitely. Oh yeah.
Aanenson: Right. And again we're looking long term. It may be 20 years but we can give you examples
of mistakes that that didn't occur.
Feik: I'm looking at this thinking it's a dead end.
Aanenson: Yeah, and it may be for the next 20 years, right. It may be that way for a long time.
Feik: Okay. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments?
Sidney: I feel comfortable with this development...I guess it's Block 1 and 2. That's been resolved. I can
support the idea of a private street for Block 6, and I guess it goes back to the basic tenant that if we can
minimize the impacts to the wetland, I'm in favor of that. Especially because we have that complex
scenario with wetlands and creek and such things that to minimize that impact I think we should go that
route... Otherwise I agree with the comments that were made and would like to see this go forward.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Slagle: Just a couple things. With respect to the private driveways. I am in support of that, and you're
certainly within your right to develop Block 6, but ideally I wish we would not have seen any development
on those two lots. But given that, so be it. I do have a question on the condition number 24. We're asking
for a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk. Am I to assume, I heard a comment that that would be on the north
side, which is fine. Am I to assume that that will go from the east. Excuse me, west to east. Across the
wetland. It will then go north to connect to the trail. Will there also be a sidewalk on the north side of
Pipewood Curve from basically 7 going north westward to that cul-de-sac as well?
Generous: Yes.
Slagle: With that said then I think it's great.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. I didn't hear Rich, which, are you in favor of the private drive
or?
Slagle: I'm in favor of it as the last option. I actually wish they had not developed that.
Kind: okay so you prefer the private drive as proposed versus Exhibit A.
Slagle: With no wetland, exactly. A or A-I, correct.
Kind: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. No actually it's closed so sorry. We're just making our comments. I agree I guess
with my fellow commissioners. I do like the project. I do agree with Rich that in a perfect world Block 6
wouldn't even be there but it is there and I believe that the private street with the wetlands being preserved
is probably the best option. I would have to see a condition added or a little more added onto number 22
saying the applicant must provide certification that the private street meets all city requirements. So that
would just be a given for me. However, if I were to talk to the neighbor, if that was directly impacted by
that and that neighbor felt strongly about using some type of private, or an actual driveway, I think Exhibit
A would be a good alternative so I mean I guess I don't have a real strong feeling that way if the neighbor
would prefer it. I'd kind of go that way. Otherwise I think it's a well thought out proposal and I do feel
that the easterly access to Highway 7 does preserve the existing Pipewood neighborhood a little bit better
and that, you're going to be getting the people that are in those, in the newer development driving in there
and staying there. So basically you will be driving through their neighborhood to get to your existing
neighborhood so I don't see any additional traffic generated in the existing neighborhood by the easterly
access. Whereas the westerly access would have existing traffic plus new development traffic so I feel that
from an existing neighborhood standpoint, the eastern access is best. So I hope I didn't totally confuse
everyone on that but, I'd like to have a motion. I think we need two separate motions on this?
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates creating 20 lots, 4 outlots and street right-
of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans as prepared by
Ryan Engineering dated 12/14/01, revised 2/1/02, subject to the following conditions 1 through 34 with the
following fixes.
Blackowiak: 35.
Feik: 35 with the new addition.
Sacchet: 35. Oh, there was the extra one. 35. Okay. And I would like to modify 22 as just suggested
with the additional sentence. The applicant will provide certification of, did what we say, the quality of the
private street construction?
Blackowiak: The private street meets all city requirements.
Sacchet: That the private street meets all city requirement. Alright. And number 23 I would like to say
move the cul-de-sac public street, to make sure we understand this is a public street. And then I would like
to add a condition 36. Developer will work with city staff to save significant trees as much as possible,
especially Oak number 28. 58. Number 58 on the tree inventory. Then a condition number 37, applicant
43
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
will work with staff to properly dispose of garbage and debris currently on the site. Condition number 38.
The applicant will work with city staff to ensure uninterrupted creek drainage during construction. Would
that express what we're after? Okay.
Blackowiak: I think that's the intent.
Sacchet: Yeah, but it may need a little word-smithing. And then of course, oh now this isn't the wetland.
Alright, that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Slagle: Mr. Sacchet would you be interested in making 24 more specific on the sidewalks? I just want to
make sure that we all understand that it is on the north side of Pipewood Curve from the eastern most part
to the development western boundary and then up the north of that cul-de-sac. I just want to make sure
that.
Sacchet: So we would say something like install a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of all public
streets. All public streets.
Slagle: I just want to make sure.
Saam: That's what it says. On all public streets.
Sacchet: You feel we have to say more than all?
Slagle: Well no, but I'm watching staff.
Sacchet: So we certainly express our intent that we mean all because it says all.
Slagle: Yes. And I'm thinking there's a sidewalk because you now are adding a lot of traffic and you're
connecting to each other. Two reasons for a sidewalk. Trail access and safety.
Sacchet: I accept the amendment that we mean all when we say all.
Kind: Madam Chair, I also have a friendly amendment.
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Kind: Was that accepted, yes?
Sacchet: Yes, absolutely.
Kind: Okay. Condition number 2. Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private
street accessing Block 6. Not just in the cul-de-sac area. I just want to put that in there for clarification.
Sacchet: I accept it.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: Number 4. The from of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat.
Because one of them doesn't really quite face southwest.
Sacchet: Yeah actually I wondered whether staff actually meant it should be turned a little bit.
Generous: No. Our intent was as shown on the plan.
Sacchet: Okay, let's say that then.
Generous: I got confused with the orientation of the lots.
Sacchet: As shown on the plat. Accepted.
Kind: I'm sure there's another one. This is called the Deb condition. I would like to add a condition that
says, the applicant shall post a sign stating this street may be extended in the future at the dead end street
on the north property line. Emphasis on may.
Aanenson: Yeah, give a friendly amendment to that too. Going back to Rich's, or maybe it was Bruce's
comment that for the neighbor that is right behind that, that will look like a cul-de-sac, or hammer head so
it doesn't go right to their property line. It will have some sort of a temporary cul-de-sac look to it.
Kind: So I'll add that to this condition that a temporary cul-de-sac will be installed at the end of that dead
end street.
Sacchet: So that'd be number 39.
Kind: Whatever we're up to.
Sacchet: Yep, 39.
Kind: I would like to add a sentence to condition number 32. Right now it says applicant shall resubmit
for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. Add, the City Forester shall review the plan to
insure hardiness of the plant species.
Sacchet: That's accepted. Basically that translates and probably no Colorado Blue Spruce.
Kind: That is true. And that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second.
Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates, creating 20 lots, four outlots and
street right-of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans
prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 12/14/01, revised 2/1/02, subject to the following conditions:
45
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
3.
4.
5.
10.
11
12.
The lot configuration for Block 6 shall be revised so that there is a minimum of 100 feet of lot width for
each lot at the westem property line.
Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private street accessing Block 6.
A 50-foot structure setback shall be maintained from Highway 7.
The front of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat.
Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the lots for Lots 1 and 2, Block
6 for the use and maintenance of the private street.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must
sign all plans.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. The
proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater
calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development. All of the ponds are required to be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will
need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum utility
easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that
Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands, adjacent to all wetland fill areas,
areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A
75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed
during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or
sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and
reestablishment of vegetation.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time
of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21
22.
23.
24.
25.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
Carver County, etc.
A registered structural engineer must design any retaining walls in excess of four feet in height.
Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Show the location of the outlet control structures for all ponds.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10-
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
In areas where the existing utility lines have been abandoned/removed, the existing utility
easements must be vacated.
Upon construction of the new access: the existing Pipewood Curve intersection shall be closed, the
pavement removed to the edge of the TH 7 right-of-way, and a cul-de-sac turnaround installed at
the southwest end of Pipewood Curve.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 31-foot back-to-back
pavement width, a 60-foot right-of-way radius, and a 45.5-foot pavement radius for the cul-de-sac.
The proposed private street must be built to a 7-ton design and enclosed within a minimum 30-foot
wide cross-access easement. The developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the
private street.
Move the cul-de-sac public street accessing Blocks 1 and 2 to the northeast, approximately 100-
feet, eliminate the 90-degree curve, and place the cul-de-sac or turnaround portion of the public
street at the northwestern property line.
Install 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on one side of all the public streets. The sidewalk shall be
on the north and west side of the streets.
On the utility plan:
Add storm sewer schedule.
1. Show the proposed utilities sewer length, slope, type and class.
2. Show storm and sanitary manholes rim and invert elevations.
3. Combine the pond inlets to the southern pond to have just one apron entering the pond.
4. Keep the hydrants on the same side of the street as the watermain.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
26. On the grading plan:
1. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
2. Revise Lot 2, Block 5 first floor elevation from 43.0 to 53.0.
3. Show all pond contour elevations.
4. Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
34.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1.
All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland
buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas and storm water ponds.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 8.5 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are $6,800; the water quantity fees are approximately $16,830. The applicant
will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site.
This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $23,630.
The applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. The City
Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species.
The applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the buffer yard
along the south property line. The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in depth rather
than all at the property line.
Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way.
Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development.
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW)
of the creek between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia.
The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree 58.
The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, furniture
and appliances on site properly.
The developer shall work with staff to insure uninterrupted stream flows.
The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in
the future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
Kind: Madam Chair, I'd like to add a comment for the public record. That if the neighbor next to Block 6
has issues with the home orientations or that private drive, I would like the City Council to consider the
public street option, Exhibit A. With the caveat that I think the pond, the ponding area can stay.
Feik: To that end do you want them noticed again prior to City Council?
Aanenson: Yeah, we were going to do that. We'll contact her. We did speak to her today but we'll make
sure that she understands she has a choice.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Next motion please.
Sidney: I'll make the motion. Make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1 to grade and fill within wetlands subject to the following conditions,
and that's conditions 1 through 13.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Blackowiak: Moved and seconded.
Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Number 6. The silt fence will not just be put there, it will also be removed
upon completion of construction.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is that accepted?
Sidney: Yep.
Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit #2002-1, to grade and fill within wetlands subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the
replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The
applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts
occurring.
The applicant shall demonstrate that a wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum
average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around the entire perimeter of existing wetlands and
proposed wetland mitigation areas, except in areas where a stormwater pond abuts a wetland.
Wetland buffers should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
3. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no
wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland.
The buffer widths and setbacks shown in the drawing should be consistent with the buffers and setbacks
proposed in the table. The large pond on Lots 1-5, Block 5 should be moved north to accommodate the
increased buffers.
5. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas and storm water ponds.
Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence shall be
removed upon completion of construction.
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket
or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, A1Tny Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
10. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
11. Payment of full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication or construction.
12. Payment of full trail fees in lieu of construction of any section of the city's comprehensive trail plan.
13.
Provide for a sidewalk connection from Hidden Creek Estates to the Hennepin County Regional
Railroad Authority/Three Rivers Park District Light Rail Transit route multi-use trail, including
procurement/transfer of all applicable easements and permits."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: This item does go before City Council, as I said, on April 8th. Thank you everyone who came
and spoke this evening.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS
PUD TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING AREA
50
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 41,522 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING
BUILDING ON 9.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED PUD, LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK
VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, 8201 MAIN STREET, OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION
CORP, ST. HUBERT'S CATHOLIC COMMUNITY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Ron Slominski
Dave Bangasser
Randy Kling
Jeff Walker
Frank Sherwood
2280 Hunter Drive
8321 View Lane
8481 Cortland
4088 West 135th, Savage
18393 Tristram Way
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions?
Slagle: Madam Chair. Bob, I'm trying to understand the whole numbers thing, as you might expect that
was going to come from me. Conceptually with the church's request, I'm fine with that. I get these letters,
or copies of these letters from a law firm asking for some, one might say additional say in what happens.
And then I get a copy of a letter from Lotus claiming that the numbers are different. If you're tracking with
me. I'm just trying to paraphrase what I'm seeing here and help me out. I mean where are we on this?
Generous: Well Madam Chair. As a part of St. Hubert's submittal, they requested that the, an
institutional square footages go up 135,000. Their site plan is less than that and as, or Lotus doesn't want
to allocate that additional square footages if they don't have to. AUSMAR as the underlying owner wants
to have the final authority to sign off on that. However, they do have that because any amendment to the
PUD would be, first have to be approved by the City, and then secondly it would have to be executed by
the property owners before we could record it and before it takes effect. So in essence they have that
authority. If they decide not to sign it, then the expansion can only be up to 127,000 square feet.
Slagle: Okay. So, in essence AUSMAR is certainly within their right to raise concerns and request
something.
Generous: Yes.
Slagle: Lotus, for whatever reason, don't know if it's great, good or indifferent, is requesting some
limitation. My question to staff would be, we seem to have worked with Lotus on this development over
the last, at least my tenure, is that safe to say that we've been working with them to sort of change and
modify and what not?
Aanenson: Yes.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, thanks. That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sidney: One question I guess, and I'll probably think of some more. The way I understand the basic
concept... I guess one concern I have is that, and I understand is we're reducing in essence the number of
the square footage of commercial that will be available. How much are we actually losing in this process?
Is it 1, 5, 10 percent of commercial that we're.
Generous: Percentage? Well it's 1,900 square feet out of 174 so 1,900 square feet out of 174,000.
Blackowiak: Like 1 ½ percent.
Sidney: Okay, so that is not a significant amount.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Mine dove tails off of Commissioner Sidney's. Conceptually I think it's a good
plan and I support the church, all that, but I want to have my cake and eat it too. I want to keep the tax
revenue we can get from the commercial site, and when I saw that we would be losing 10,000 square feet I
kind of though oooh, let's figure out a way to do both. But now I'm hearing you say it's 1,900 really
because.
Generous: That's the net number.
Kind: That's the net number because we would, the PUD agreement allows for 27,000 to be reallocated?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: So that gives me a new way to think about it I guess. Because it's really only 1,900.
Generous: And 6.
Kind: And 6. I guess we're being precise aren't we. So that was my initial concern so that helps me.
Thank you.
Blackowiak: Any questions Uli?
Sacchet: Yes I do. And just to expand on this topic we're on. I didn't catch it actually until it was brought
to my attention. We're saying that the remainder of the development will proceed as originally planned. At
first when I read this I was great, so it has no impact. Therefore it's no issue. But then I started
wondering. I mean the remainder of the development hasn't necessarily been planned out.
Aanenson: Let's talk about that for a second. When Lotus approached the city we spent a lot of time to go
through these sectors and look at what's been allocated. Where they are on the plan because obviously we
know that it's very important, and as Commissioner Kind has indicated, that one of the implications of the
decision. Certainly there's a lot of synergy that's derived from the traffic flow that the church and the
school, that's good. That's kind of the community base that we anticipated with this development but to go
back and say what was our original intent and what are the implications of those decisions. And we went
back and went through the entire PUD project. What's outstanding? What do we know that's still in the
works or in the development and say are we still got ourselves in the position to make all those things
52
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
happen and we're comfortable with that recommendation that we're still on track with the other buildings
that are you know going to come forward.
Sacchet: So we're not really limiting? We don't think this is going to become a limiting factor moving
forward there?
Generous: This can exceed that total but if they do, they'd have to go back and review the EAW.
Sacchet: They have to come back...
Generous: Because they'd exceed the overall threshold.
Sacchet: Yeah, considering it's 1,900 square feet, that's really more digestible. Now there is a letter
attached in the package that says that the church may possibly only go with 9 instead of 18 additional
classrooms. Do we know where they're at with that at this point?
Generous: You'd have to.
Sacchet: Ask the applicant? Okay. And if they would want to go 9, we don't know where they would cut
the building? That's an applicant question too? Alright. Then there's a little bit of fill happening on the
southeast comer. And do we have any idea whether or to what extent that affects the trees below there
towards the trail? Actually the answer is no. I already talked to Jill. A rhetoric question just to be on the
record.
Blackowiak: Okay then let's not, that's a comment thing.
Sacchet: Yeah, it's a comment. Alright. One thing that's a math question. I looked at this plan and it
looked like the sewer stub was under the new fellowship hall. And that kind of just got, oh.
Saam: Oh, at the south end of the building?
Sacchet: Yeah, at the north end. Where they're making the fellowship. It kind of startled me because there
was a wording on it.
Saam: Right here?
Sacchet: No, no. On the fellowship hall. On the middle of the fellowship hall. It seems like, there is, it's
on one of the blueprints that we got a copy of. And I just wondered whether that's a concern or not. I'd be
happy to hear it's not a concern.
Saam: This roofdrain?
Sacchet: No, it's not a roof drain.
David Bangasser: Just a planned extension from the existing building...
Aanenson: Did you hear that? It's a planned extension of that sewer line.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: Yeah, I'd be happy to leave the details with you guys. It's just something that kind of startled
me.
Saam: Yeah, I don't see it as an issue.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks. In terms of, since they're losing 5 parking spaces, are they still meeting parking
requirements?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: And since they're increasing buildings, are they still within the impervious framework?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: They're showing a retaining wall on the southeast comer. It says 42 inch so that would not need
engineering, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Just under that. Oh, this is kind of a silly question. Forgive me. What's a sand pipe connection?
Saam: I'm not too in tune with that but it's something with, this is a fire. It was Greg Hayes' conditions.
Aanenson: It's stand pipe, isn't it?
Sacchet: Oh stand pipe. Stand pipe.
Saam: That's where the water goes through the building so they can connect to it I think with hoses inside
the building.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. I believe that's all my questions for right now, thank you.
Blackowiak: I only have one question. Trip generation. We're okay with any changes in.
Saam: I would assume so. This is planned, right Bob?
Generous: We're still under the thresholds that were established with the last...
Blackowiak: Okay. So institutional is less than retail?
Generous: Yes, less in generation. Also as far as the use goes, the school doesn't use hardly any of their
parking spaces. You know if you ever go down there, you can see most of the parking lot is empty. It's
mostly the church use that needs the common space that will be provided with Presbyterian Homes and a
future development to the north.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alright.
Feik: May I ask a question?
54
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Sure.
Feik: Dove tailing back to that. I agree the school itself doesn't need a lot of parking but if they cut back
the number of classrooms, and they utilize those rooms in a different fashion, what would be the impact on
parking at that point? Have you looked at that at all? Parking's not...
Aanenson: Are you talking about a change in use of the building?
Feik: Well yeah.
Aanenson: Then we'd have to go back and examine that. Right now it's being permitted just as what it is.
As a school. Yep, they'd have to come back and we'd have to re-examine that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation?
If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser. I'm representing the St. Hubert's Building Committee. And we, I
think you've had a long enough evening that we don't need to keep you with a presentation. I think the
staff report and Bob's presentation probably is adequate but we do have other members of our building
committee here. Frank Sherwood and Ron Slominski, as well as two representatives from Opus. Our
Project Manager, Jeff Walker and our design architect Randy Kling, so we are here to answer any
questions that you might have. I did just have a couple of very quick comments. One, your question on the
number of classrooms. We do intend to build the 18 classrooms. At one point a couple months back we
were looking at the possibility of taking the middle school and doing something on a more regional basis. A
decision has been made that.., okay with AUSMAR's request to limit the PUD amendment to what we're
actually building. Just go around. We were rounding it up a little bit just to give us a little bit of cushion
and so we don't have a problem with that. We are in agreement with the staff's report and the staff
conditions. Particularly the part recommending approval.
Blackowiak: A little levity is good at this time of the evening.
Dave Bangasser: I was also happy to see that the silt fence is going to be removed. I don't know if that
was going to be a concern here.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Dave Bangasser: Seriously, I do only have one condition that I would like to ask the commission to
consider waiving and that is, I think it's item number 12 relative to the 3 to 1 slope. I think that is in that
area on the southeast comer of the property that you were referring to that some grading is taking place
because of the sanitary sewer. We are extending that south. We always master planned this site for pretty
much all of this development. Although there is a little bit more development and we are going a little bit
further south than we had planned 5-6 years ago. As a result of that we need to relocate that sanitary sewer
line and that's the reason for the grading on that slope. When we did bring our original development plans
before the Planning Commission and City Council, we discussed 3 to 1 versus 2 to 1, and that slope was
approved as a 2 to 1 slope. In fact that slope all the way along our south property line near the ballfield is
all constructed at 2 to 1. And so we would like to request that we be allowed to rebuild that space once we
disturb it for the sanitary sewer, that we be allowed to rebuild it in the present condition of 2 to 1. We
55
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
think that it's a very safe condition. We don't intend to mow it. That area was left to go natural. It's not
something that gets a lot of drainage. In fact with our building addition there, with interior roof drains we
really aren't going to have any storm water to speak of. It's running over that slope so, we would like to
ask your consideration in allowing us to do the 2 to 1 slope. If we went 3 to 1, we'd have 1 of 2 things.
One, either we'd extend that slope further south which would eliminate some trees, which nobody wants to
do. Or we'd have to add an expensive retaining wall which we really don't want to do. So again, it was
something that was considered in our original site plan submittal and was approved at 2 to 1 and we'd like
your consideration on that.
Sidney: I guess one comment about that. It's included isn't it in this...that we have 3 to 1 max.
Dave Bangasser: That's the condition that's on here now. What I'm asking for is.
Sidney: 2 to 1 is okay?
Dave Bangasser: No.
Blackowiak: 2 to 1 is steeper.
Sidney: Oh.
Sacchet: Was that part of, do you recall?
Generous: Yes, as part of the original development they did permit a 2 to 1 slope. We did have them put
fencing at the top of it.
Dave Bangasser: We actually didn't put the fencing there immediately. We put it there afterwards because
that area that was nice and flat for this building addition turned out to be a real nice playground area so the
balls were going, were rolling down there and so we did come back and put a fence at the top to prevent
that. Our building addition is going to remove that playground area and kind of shift that over, but that is
something that we could do as well if need be.
Blackowiak: I'm sorry, can you clarify or I guess I'm, I missed there. So will there be a fence? Right,
will there be a fence there? You're saying that you're going to move some of the playground area. Will
fence be put back there if you're at 2 to 1 still?
Dave Bangasser: Our plan would not have put a fence there and the reason is because the playground will
no longer be there and there's really no activity that will be at that end of the building. You know the
building's going to come up pretty much to the top of the slope and there's not a lot of area there for kids to
play in and so forth. So we hadn't contemplated reconstructing that fence. It certainly is something that
we'd consider rather than the expensive retaining wall, if that was something we felt was important.
Blackowiak: Okay. I don't know that it is but, if there's no playground, but there still may be kids.
Sacchet: Are we on questions yet?
Blackowiak: Pardon?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Sacchet: I have a question.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sacchet: If you would do that 2 to 1, would you then not need that retaining wall that's currently on the
blueprint?
Dave Bangasser: Correct.
Sacchet: ... at least on the landscaping version of it, you have that retaining wall in that comer showing.
Dave Bangasser: Oh, I think we were referring to the grading plan. I think.
Sacchet: Yeah, on the grading plan it's not on it. That's why I wanted to ask you about is it on or not?
Dave Bangasser: Right. We had actually only intended, and I'm not sure if that was a miscommunication
with our landscape architect that we talked about some retaining walls at that kind of outdoor classroom
area and I don't know exactly what happened with the retaining wall being shown on the landscaping plan.
But the grading plan is what we had intended, which is not to install a retaining wall in that area. It was
basically to rebuild it in the present form.
Sacchet: Okay.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: I have a few more.
Blackowiak: Do you? Okay.
Sacchet: Yeah I do. In terms of the building has these square accent bricks, or blocks between the two
stories. I don't think the plan shows them to be on the south side. I think would they be carried around?
And the same with the little sprinkle on top by the roof line, it has that accent stuff.
Dave Bangasser: On the classroom addition?
Sacchet: Yes. On the south side.
Dave Bangasser: The intention would be to match what's on the existing...
Sacchet: To carry it all around, okay. Just want to be real clear about that. And so your intent is to not
impact the trees on that southeast comer?
Dave Bangasser: That's correct.
Sacchet: I believe that's all my questions for you, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Would anybody else from your group like to make a presentation?
No? Okay. I will open this item up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to speak on this item, please
57
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the
public hearing. Commissioners, comments please.
Sacchet: Want me to start?
Blackowiak: Go ahead.
Sacchet: Alright. I'm glad to hear that we're not limiting what we don't know yet what it's going to be.
That was a definite concern that threw me a little bit. I would like to ensure that we don't impact those
trees on that southeast comer because that's relatively sensitive, because it's on the bottom of that really
steep slope and it's buffering that trail. I think there are some significant trees down there. Not right at the
slope but depending what happens, they could be get impacted. I would like to ask that these accent things
get carried consistently all around the building. Because currently the south end does not have those
accents and on the drawings, they're not necessarily there and I'm talking about the square blocks between
the first and second story, as well as these sprinkle things on top by the roof. Is that clear?
Kind: Sprinkle things?
Sacchet: Sprinkle things. Yeah, you know like these couple of bricks that are lighter, okay. Sprinkle
things. Let's see what else I have. Generally I think it's a good thing. I don't have a problem allowing
them the 2 to 1 slope because apparently that's something that was approved previously and plus in
addition we have a good reason because it's not going to impact the trees as much so I think it makes good
sense to allow them that. And maybe then we would want to ask for no retaining wall. I don't know if we
want to go that far and be specific about that. I would like to be consistently asking for the silt fence to be
removed. One place it is, one place it isn't. Condition 22 needs an edit. It's an additional overstory, not
an addition overstory tree. And I would like to put conditions in for these accents to go in and to have them
work with staff to minimize the impact on those trees below on the southeast comer. That's where I'm at.
That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
Kind: Madam Chair, I can go. I think this is a great plan. I think it's really exciting that the school's so
successful that you need to add on. It's certainly a nice part of our community, and I know people who
have been on that waiting list for a long time who will appreciate having more classroom space, so I think
that's good. Initially I was concerned at the loss of tax revenue generating retail space when I thought it
was 10,000 square feet. That was a big concern to me but now when I realize that it's more than 700. Or
700. 7,000 would have been allowed and it's more like 1,900, that's much more in keeping with what I
could accept. Initially I was going to try and figure out a way to give both but I think the 1,900 is okay.
So yeah, the site plan looks good. I really like, especially the appearance on the north side. Hiding the big
box of the gym. Kind of softening that a bit. I think that's a nice improvement. I would like to see a fence
at the top of that slope, even though the playground is going away. There's still lots of kids that just are
going to be around because it's a school and there's going to be messing around going on so I think it
probably is a good idea to put a fence at the top, but I'm okay with the 2 to 1 slope. That's all. Looks
good.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments?
58
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Feik: I like the plan. I agree with Deb. I would like to see a fence at the top of the hill as well. I'm not too
particular about the kind of fence. Personally I don't think it needs to be a chainlink or anything but I think
something to keep the kids from pushing each other down the hill. Having small kids, it happens. Other
than that, the project looks nice.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Sidney: I feel comfortable with the plan. The reallocation. I think this is going to cause minimal impact...
I guess I would, that's what I was leading up to, tax base loss...but I think the enhancements to the St.
Hubert's will be really, really great and will help that whole complex of buildings. I guess I'm fine with the
2 to 1 slope. I think it might...
Blackowiak: It's late. You can't expect to do geometry at this hour.
Sidney: So, and I guess the fence sounds like a very good idea because.., small children. Other than that,
the site plan looks really fabulous. It will only enhance that place.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, anything?
Slagle: No.
Blackowiak: That's fine.
Slagle: I was going to throw out, you know as an attendee at Westwood, I was trying to think of something
funny and in the spirit but I'll just leave it.
Blackowiak: Okay. Probably a wise idea. And I really don't have much more to add. I think it looks like
a good plan, and I too had a concern about allocation of retail to institutional but I guess I'm much more
comfortable now after hearing the revised figures so that makes me feel a little bit better. With that I'll
need two motions please.
Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends site approve, approval of site
plan #96-11, File 2, plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers, Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject to
the following conditions 1 through 23.
Kind: Madam Chair, can I interrupt? Should we be doing the different motion first?
Blackowiak: I don't know that order makes a difference.
Sacchet: Oh I jumped one.
Blackowiak: That's okay. Why don't you just continue on and then Deb, we'll let you do the other one.
Sacchet: Oh I'm sorry...
Kind: We probably should because we can't.
Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you do the other one.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: Okay. Madam Chair, i move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the Planned Unit Development standards for Villages on the Ponds, amending Section D as
follows, with Bob's new numbers. Specifically the Sector i, Commercial/Retail. Should be 104,764 and
that Sector iii should be, Institutional should be 133,574 and then new totals, which i don't know what
they are.
Blackowiak: There's been a motion, i think the numbers are different, i think it's actually 105 on that
first number, i re-added. Can you just double check?
Generous: 104, 760. Or 764. Because it's 414 square feet is added back in..
Blackowiak: Okay, so why the difference between, if you're taking off 14.
Kind: Because we would have allowed 27,000 to be reallocated which is about 7,000.
Generous: 7320 i believe.
Blackowiak: Okay you know what, I'm just not going to quibble tonight. Let's just.
Kind: Bob's new numbers.
Slagle: Where's Vernelle when you need her.
Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second please?
Feik: i'll second.
Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment
to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds, amending section (d) as
follows:
1. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses:
Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelline TOTAL
Retail (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) Units Square Feet
Sector I 104,764 83,500 0 160 188,264
Sector II 60,000 14,000 0 0 74,000
Sector iii 0 0 133,574 0 133,574
Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0
TOTAL 164,764 97,500 133,574 322 395,838
Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the
Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The following factors shall be used
in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses:
60
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) units.
1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) units.
1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service.
1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail.
1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional.
950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional.
300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service
290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional.
In no instance shall additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to
the PUD.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: Uli, why don't you jump right in.
Sacchet: Alright, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-11, File 2,
plans prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject to the following
conditions. It surely goes faster when you say it the second time. And that's conditions 1 through 23 with
the following fixes. 11. The silt fence will be removed after completion, as well as put there. Number 12.
The slope will be a maximum of 2 to 1 with a fence on the top. I guess that's specific enough. Number 22.
An additional overstory tree. Number 24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting
elements will be carried all around. Is that clear enough? All around the additions.
Feik: The school addition.
Sacchet: The school addition. Well it's actually on the north side too. All around. I think that's clear and
that's the intent is certainly clear. And then 25. Applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on
trees below the southeast comer.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Slagle: Second.
Kind: Madam Chair, I have one friendly amendment.
Blackowiak: I'm trying to zip through that but I just.
Kind: I know you are. This is something that was in the staff report that I thought should be a condition
and that is, the applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading is
necessary.
Sacchet: 26. Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay, so that's accepted then?
Sacchet: Yep.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Been a motion and a second.
Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#96-11, File 2, plans prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject
to the following conditions:
1. A 20 foot wide utility easement over the proposed sewer line and watermain shall be prepared and
submitted to the City prior to beginning construction.
2. The applicant will also be required to provide the necessary financial security in the form of a cash
escrow or letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public utilities.
3. Provide the City with a copy of the MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit and Department of
Health watermain permit.
4. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002,2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 5300.
5. Show all existing utilities.
6. Show the proposed sewer pipe type, class, slope, invert and rim elevations.
7. Silt fence Type III must be used and removed when construction is completed.
8. Revise the north sign arrow to point in the correct direction.
9. Vacate existing utility easements.
10. Add a benchmark to the plans.
11. Type III silt fence must be used and extended around the excavated area to prevent any migration
of the excavated material and an erosion control blanket should be installed within two weeks of
completion of the sloped area. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction.
12. Slope should be 2:1 maximum with a fence on top of the slope.
13. Design calculations will need to be submitted for the additional site drainage.
14. Eliminate proposed manhole No. 101 and connect to existing manhole No. 6 as shown on the
City's as-builts.
15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
16. The overhead doors shall be similar in color to the surrounding brick.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
17. The standpipe connections in the existing school portion of the building must be extended into the
new school addition. The standpipes were an accepted alternate means of protection in lieu of
providing access roads around the building.
18. The additions are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
19. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
20. The proposed Fellowship Hall must be a minimum of Type II-I HR construction and must be
separated from existing Buildings A & B by area separation walls.
21. The roof/canopy at the drop off area on the north side of the building must be constructed of non-
combustible materials.
22. An additional overstory tree shall be added to the northerly landscape boulevard island.
23. The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all transplanted material for one year past the date of
installation final acceptance of site landscaping.
24. Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all
around.
25. Applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on trees below the southeast corner.
26. The applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading
is necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0.
Blackowiak: This items goes before the City Council on the 8th of April. Thank you all for staying so late.
We have interviews yet tonight for Planning Commission members. Let's move.
Sacchet: We need to note the minutes.
Blackowiak: Yes. Let's move quickly through the remaining items so we can get onto those interviews.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
February 19, 2002 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: I will be putting something out to you regarding the April 18th joint meeting with City Council.
Blackowiak: April 18th or March 18th?
Aanenson: Excuse me, March 18th. Sorry.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Aanenson: Then also your next meeting we have 3 items on that meeting.
Blackowiak: March 19th you mean?
Aanenson: Correct. And we also have just now, just only one item for the April 3rd.
Blackowiak: And that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. And I'd like to add onto that, April or
excuse me, March 18th meeting, it's a joint meeting with the City Council. It's at 8:00. It's going to be
here, is that correct?
Aanenson: Council chambers. I mean courtyard conference room.
Blackowiak: 8:00 Courtyard Conference Room. 1 hour. Planning Commission's going to take the first
half hour so if you guys have any ideas on items that you would like to discussion with City Council, issues
that you think that we'd like direction on. Do we want to do them? Not do them? Whatever. Please e-
mail Kate or me or call one of us and let us know so we can kind of get an idea of what we're going to talk
about because the first half hour we're going to talk. The second half hour the council will be able to kind
of respond to our ideas and give us some feedback as well so that's the plan for that.
Kind: And you say courtyard conference room?
Blackowiak: Courtyard conference room, 8:00 on the 18th.
Aanenson: I'll send everybody out a notice to remind them.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Sidney: And Madam Chair, I guess if we could have an updated list of e-mail addresses too.
Aanenson: Yes, I was going to get that out to you too.
Sidney: And telephone numbers...
Aanenson: Yes. Yes, I will do that when I send out that other.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate you also said that people have signed up for the upcoming.
Aanenson: Yes, I have everybody registered for, some of you are going to different ones. There's three
different conferences but you are all registered and I did use your e-mails also as a confirmation so you
should get something.
Kind: So we'll get lots of junk mail now.
Aanenson: The confirmation should go back to you is what I'm saying.
Blackowiak: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other items commissioners want to bring up right now?
64
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I miss having our little project update in there, and I think it'd just be especially
timely to have something before our joint meeting. Could you pop something in the mail or e-mail or?
Aanenson: Yes, it is going to be part of your agenda. I think you've done last year's accomplishments.
Kind: Right. Thank you.
Aanenson: It's supposed to be in every other one.
Slagle: I have one comment.
Blackowiak: Sure.
Slagle: Congratulations on your perseverance and patience on some other project, no name mentioned.
Aanenson: Thank you.
Feik: And I had a question. When we were looking at the other church.
Kind: Westwood.
Feik: Westwood. I was told that, by someone, that it was not the agenda of Planning Commission to
discuss or whether or not something was being taken off the tax rolls or not, and that was something for the
council. It was not an issue before us. Can you clarify that for me?
Aanenson: Well generally the Planning Commission looks at land use. Tax consequences is typically more
legislative or a council issue. I'll just leave it at that. Obviously as residents, it's going to come in to
probably some of your consideration but as a general rule, that's what you're looking at. Does it make
sense land use wise. And since there was a PUD, you know we put that together, it may have been a bit...
to the discussion. Because we were doing an amendment but you're right. Typically it's a legislative
discussion of the council.
Sacchet: There are lots of opinions what we're supposed to look at and what we're not supposed to look
at.
Feik: Well I just wondered because I asked that question when we were taking significant acreage out of
the tax rolls and this was very minor in comparison. And the question.., twice.
Aanenson: Yeah, but I think the context was, what does it do to the rest of the development, and that's
where we spent a lot of time as a staff too. Bob actually spent the time, what does that do? Are we
maintaining the integrity of that development, the PUD and making sure we're not doing something to take
away what, the direction we're going with it so.
Kind: And that was part of the intent of putting it in there.
Aanenson: Right, and that's why, that's what my understanding of your discussion was. Are we still going
to be able to achieve the goals that we want?
65
Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002
Kind: Exactly.
Aanenson: The right mix.
Sidney: And I'm thinking too, we might be able to get some guidance from council in our meeting on the
18th.
Blackowiak: Yes. Okay. Well, I'm going to adjourn the meeting.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
66