PC 2003 05 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
RF~ULAR MEETING
MAY 20, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Craig
Claybaugh, Kun Papke, and Bethany Tjomhom
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director;, Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, Mak Sweidan,
Engineer, Angle Auseth, Planner.
PUBLIC PRF~ENT:
Name Address
Bob Mastad
Jason Osberg
Peter MacDonagh
Kathy & Larry Schroeder
Andy Kayati
Tim Moore
Linda Peterson
Doug Schroeder
Jori Turner
Sue Surer
Carl F. McNut~
Ella & Herb Kask
Scot~ Pharis
Brian Carney
Mary Frey
Carrie Krych
Chris & Leslie Erickson
Dennis & Ann Baker
Eric Theship Rosaies
Tom Cook
C. Hicks
K.H. Brackelsberg
Troy Pappas
Bill Jensen
Maria Strand
Lois Degler
Kent Ludford
Brian Grundhofer
Deb Lloyd
Ann Nasset
Mike Solheim
Sathre-Berquist
Tollefson Development Inc.
7720 Frontier Trail
8715 Valley View Place
1812 Valley Ridge Trail
8748 Valley View Place
8743 Valley View Place
1361 Stmridge Court
2051 Boulder Road
9221 Lake Riley Boulevard
185 Pleasant View Road
115 Pleasant View Road
1815 Valley Ridge Trail
6566 Shadow Lane
1822 Valley Ridge Trail No.
2127 Boulder Road
1831 Sunridge Court
9219 l. ake Riley Boulevard
9201 Audubon Road
2037 Boulder Road
1941 ~ew Circle
1961 Crestview Circle
1961 Crestview Circle
Town & Comm'y Homes
8631 Valley View Court
1630 Lyman Boulevard
8615 Valley View Court
185 Pleasant View Road
7302 Lalvlto
1RS/1780 Hillshire lane
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
CONSIDER A RFA)UEST FOR A LA KF..~HORF~ SIDE YARD~ ~T ~ ~T
~~ A~ ~ S~A~ ~~GE V~~ ON PRO~~ ~~
~F~ ~~E~ S~GLE F~.Y~ ~CA~ AT ~1 ~~ RH~
BO~EV~ TOM ~ ~ ~
~e A~& p~~ ~e ~ ~~ on ~ i~
S~t: ~ons ~m ~.
L~e~ug: I c~ s~. S~ ~e e~ ~ ~ ~ 2.4 f~t now, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~
~ ex~ng ~e 11.5 f~t ~~ of ~ ho~ ~e Z4 f~ ~?
A~: The 2.4 ~ gong to go ~k m 3.3, ~ ~ ~e 11 ~ ~ go m 3.3 ~ we~. ~ ~ ~
wi~ go ~ ~ ~.
Li~eMug: So ~y'm m~ ~ g~?
A~: J~t ~e ~v~ ~ ~ g~.
S~h~: ~y o~ q~~ ~m ~
S~le: I j~t w~t a c~~. ~ i~om s~ ~ we w~ w~ ~ ~ w~
w~ for my.
Au~: W s 35 ~t.
S~le: No, wMt w~ it ~f~7 ~ ~ ~~ we w~ ~
Au~: 34.9 ~~
Shgle: O~y.
S~hen ~e ~~fl w~7
A~: It's 6 ~ ~
S~chet: It w~ ov~ ~ ~t ~.
A~: Oh ~m s~. ~e ~~7
S~het: Y~.
Aum~: Fm so~, it w~ 41 ~. I a~lo~.
Clay~u~: I Mve a ~le q~~ h~. ~'s ~ ~. You i~fi~ ~ we'~ ~ m
· e ~v~ f~ ~e ~t~. ~ ~e exit of ~ ~v~, w~ it w~ 1 ~ 2 f~ ov~, ~
Au~: ~ ~e g~.
~ay~u~: ~ &e g~ f~~t ~y c1~7
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Auseth: The foo~t is 1 foot in from the eaves.
Claybaugh: Okay. Is that what it currently is and what is proposed for that seaback? What I'm
trying to determine is if the eaves have been shorten up but the footprint is still closer to the
property line.
Auseth: We did not address the eav~ last ~ so.
Claybaugh: I'll address that to the applicant. Secondly there was a handout hem for us when we
got to the meeting here from Kestrel Design and I'm not sure if I should address this to the
applicant but I'll give it a try Imm with staff. It says that the, due to the hard surface
intensification above the city standard of 25 percent, we'd identified that they were 35 percent
over the hard surface coverage and I was just trying to corre~ that 25 pexcem figure on this
report wondering, the applicant as well. Alfight, that's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Bruce, any questions?
Feik: Yes I have a few. Page 7. The top. First line in the first paragraph you talk about thi~ is
enhancing the structure. That's really sort of a misnomer. It's really a new structure is it not?
Auseth: Yes but the garage is existing so it's an existing lot of record.
Feik: But what we are, the proposal envisions raising the entire existing residence, is that
correct?
Au,seth: Correct.
Feik: Also on page 7, the second paragraph. The second to last line we talk about the applicant is
proposing to decrease the east side yard setback. Do you really mean, are we, let's see.
Decreatsing the variance or are we increasing the setback?
Auseth: It was at 3 foot 3 currently.
Feik: And it will be going to 5.
Auseth: It will be going to.
Feik: So we'd be decreasing the variance.
Auseth: Decreas~g the variance.
Feikc Or increasing the setback.
Auseth: Decreatsing the variance. As well as the
Feik: Increasing the setback.
Auseth: Oh sorry, yes. Sorry.
Sacchet: The good thing. It's getting better.
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Feik: And then we spoke today. Would you please summarize, ff you would, our brief
conversation regarding the eaves and the setback req~ and how the eaves can and cannot
project in that setback please.
Auseth: Sure. When the house was built, the eaves could, even though there's a variance, the
eaves could encroach 2 ½ feet into the setback. Ourently as the code reads, Section 20-908, if
there is a variance granted eaves cannot encroach inw the setback, which is why we are
measuring all setbacks from the eaves rather than the fool~int
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Papke: Yeah I have a question about the hard cover. We're down to 35 pmx:enc Do we care
where on the lot that hard cover is? It seems as if by moving the house back away from the lake,
the pervious area is now closer to the lake. Does this make any difference in our cons~on?
Auseth: It's beneficial to have the impervious surface away f:wm the lake.
Papke: Okay. So from that aspect, beyond just the number, we also are i~ving where the
impervious surface is located?
Auseth: Correct.
Aanenson: That's where the staff came down for the favorable recommend~tiom
Sacchet: Any questions Bethany? Just to be real clear. It appeam to me like the applicant's
n~ddressed all the concerns we had when this came in front of us and actually i ,mlmaved all, and
dramatically improved the i ,ml~wious surface and i .ml~oved also the other ones. Is that a
reasonable statement to make?
Au,seth: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions. Thank you.
commission, make a presentation, please come forward.
record please. Please speak into the microphone.
If the applicant wants to address the
State your name and address for the
Tom Suter: Yeah, Tom Suter and I've got a couple other people here, if you could come up.
Peter MacDonagh and Dale Mulfin~. Dale was the arc~ on the project. Peter's the
environmen~ design landscape architect that's on the proj~ that we've since add_e~l to the team
At the last meeting this handout that I provided tried to sunm~'ize the key issues that the
committee brought up at the last meeting from a summary perspective and let me try to.address
those. Hard cover. We reduced the hard cover from the prior request of 41 percent to a 35
percent level which is what the existing hard cover is. We changed the, and the way we did that
is we changed the patio area nearest the lake to become a pervious surface. Now we're going to
address some other materials but Peter will address that. We changed the walkway to the lake
making it impervious with possible exception of the stair steps. We do that for safety masons so
we don't have some safety issues there, and we're changing th~ walkway from tbe garage to be a
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
partial pervious surface as well. On the lakescaping and landscaping, which was also brought up
at the meeting, we have since submitted a letter as part of the packet which you have which
addresses our interest and desire to deal with a lakescaping strategy and to develop both the in
water as well as out of water buffer zones to ~ddw.,.ss that. We've since then also retained Peter
and the Kestrel Design Group which has extensive experience with wetland, lake and restoration
projects and design characteristics. We've dealt with the tree issue which was raised next to us to
the southwest, which was on the Hamilton side. We've had 3 separate arbofism show up. Give
us opinions on that. We've also solicited input from lill, the city arbofist and we've come away
with a final conclusion at this point is that several of the trees need to be trimmed and pruned.
They'll all be retained at this point until we stake the yard, and stake the house at which point
between lim and Laura Hamilton and Sue and myseff will come up with a lxoper cletermination
of how to deal with it- At the tim~ we met with Jill, because of the nature of the trees, the type of
trees, Jill's recommendation was acuiaHy that they could be probably removed. They're not a
good tree. We could replace it with something of better quality but since we don't own those
trees, that would not be a ~ recommendation since that was not written into the roport
Setbacks and overhangs, all the current plans currently identify the overhangs and their i .mpact on
setbacks because of the request. Churent setbacks have been changed and it's referenced in the
staff report We do have to go back beyond the current garage smlclxa~ for transitional area for
support and some other interior characteristics which Dale can cetlaJnly ~d4ress, and thea we
bring it in off of that previous setback to i .reprove the imemffication on the southwest side.
We've also brought in from the east side, from the Bak~ side and brought it in and tried to
minimize the impact over there. The overall height of the structure which wasn't brought up at
the meeting but needed to be addressed, aff~ doing the illustrations Dale's group came back and
our feedback right now is that we're at 29 feet 6 inches, me. azm~ the way the city wants it
measured against I think the standard or the n~lximum's 315 feet. So we're well within thaL The
other side note that we want to make here, which I think is i .mportant to understand is that our
desire is to not just take the home, demolish it and turn it into the landfill, l:rfll material. My wife
along with others are working on a demolition strategy that is incorporating support from the
Green Institute, from a recycling perspective so that we can recycle and reclaim as much of the
current structure as we can so that it's just not going in and being trashed in a landfill, and we're
quite a ways down the path on that. At that point I'd like Peier to address his handout that he put
together for us which starts to address the landscape, the ~ping issues at a high level and
some of the things that we've at least in concept have agreed to. Since we've only been in a
contractual relationship with Peter's organization for about 2 weeks now, we don't have that
much finely detailed but we can talk about the concepts that we plan on using.
Peter MacDonagh: Peter MacDonagh. Hello commissioners. With the KesUel Design Group.
Adjunct faculty of the University of Minnesota Landscape Architecture Dqmrtment. The four
issues that we addressed in terms of the hard surface and trying to mitigate those was using
infiltration, evaporation, detention and retention of the runoff. The first item that we looked at
was mitigating some of the roof runoff and we plan to harvest some of that with cisterns. As it
says here in the report, that would be inc~ into the architecuim, so it would be screened
and that would be used for gardening pm'poses. Rain gardens, so downspouts. Some of the water
that will be harvested from there will be in rain gardens. Rain gardens are very shallow retention
basins for lack of a better ~ but they're only about 6 inches tall and they typically dissipate the
water within 72 hours so it's not a mosquito breeding deal. Then the access path to Lake Riley. I
have to mention that- What we have in mind is an organic substmte. Something that again has a
high infiltration rate. Higher than turf grass and as Tom mentioned, the steps for safety purposes
would need to be a hard surface. And then the other two, or other three items, side yard,
sidewalks and back yard patio. We are currently investigating Ecostone which is a pervious
pavement is another word for it. Ecostone just ha~ to be a proprietary product and it will
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
mitigate it's runoff for about 70 percent of storm events. It's a higher infiltration rate than tuff
grass. R will mitigate. It will take a 1 inch to 2 ½ inch rain event. That's a long term number. In
the front end it's going to take a lot more than that before the bed gets saumm~ So it's
outwardly appearing as a hard surface but it's serf mitigate. And the other items that we're going
to be looking at is lakescaping. ~fly there is no buffer on the lalm, and we are planning, the
owner is planning to put buffer where none currently exists, and in~ into the buffer, we
also will have some of these rain gardens. They'll be an appropriate landscape solution. Not a
wild land look but more of a biomorphic garden look- And so as I said, that will be above the
ordinary high water level so it will mitigate more runoff from the lot. And then the last part is
that the owner is willing to have the house function as a demonsUation site for some of these
techniques and as a person who promotes these in our work, this is an unusual thing and we are
very glad that he's willing to do tha~ and that's an opportunity I think for Chanhassen to use it
first as a lakescaping demonstration area. For the lake in general and Chanhassen in particular.
Or in general rather. And then the other item is some of ~ infiltratioll measures th~ I've
outlined. Any questions?
Papke: Could you define biomorphic for me? Excuse my ignorance.
Peter MacDonagh: It'sorganicshapesratherthanaBuclidiangeomeuy. How'dido? okaY.
Saechet: Any other questions from the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I just wanted to address something in the report here. Let's see he~, with the
second paragraph down. It says surface intensification above the city standard of 25 percent and I
was just trying to correlate those figures. I had 35 percent in the staff report that we were over.
Tom Sutec. My understanding is that the city standard is 25 percem and since we knew that
going in that we were over the current, we're 10 percent over I think on the existing ~, we
felt that it was important that we went maybe beyond what would be ordinary and customary
from the landscaping perspective. That's why we brought ~1 Group in to help deal with the
fact that we are over 25 percent limit. Did that?
Claybaugh: Yes. The cisterns, are those above grade or below grade?
Peter MacDonagh: They're above grade.
Claybaugh: They're above grade. What type application are you considering for that?
Peter MacDonagh: The most common retrofit is a rain barrel but these, they're someth~g like
that. They have a spigot on them and gravity flow.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Anything else from the applicant? Actually I have a question.
Now just to be clear, you pointed out that the partially pervious/i~om surface they were
actually calculated as i~ous for the calculations. Or how did that work? Really more a
question for staff but I think you ira?lied that even though they were partially pervious, they were
still calculated into the figures for i~ous? ~?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: And then the other that's more an architect question. You're actually changing the roof
of the garage or you're just taking off the part of the eave or what are you going to do there?
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Dale Mulfinger: I'm Dale Mulfinger with Saul Architects and also the University of MinnesoUc
What we're trying to do is create a look of a story and a half house as viewed from the street and
a one story with walkout as viewed from the lake side. So to the extent that the house rises, if
you will, 3 floors. By that I mean basement, first and second, that only occurs if you will in the
middle of the house and neither from the lake nor from the street will you see the highest portion
of the roof. Getting back to your specific question regarding the garage. Yes, we're taking the
low roof off the garage and we're prating a habitable roof, by that I mean the equivalency of a
storage truss, over the garage so it' s living in the roof. It's not litmmlly a one full floor.
Sac. chex: $o he gets a new roof and you ~ it more functional in the process.
Dale Mulfingec. Yes.
Sacchet: That answers the question.
Tom Suten And then shrinldng the overhang...
Sacchet: To bring it in, got it.
Clayhaugh: As long as we're ~sing arehitectu~ details. Coming back to the overhang. A~
staff stated previously, I just wanted to clarify as we're measuring to the eaves previously, that
wasn't the requirement. I'm curious as to where the foot~nt on the exis~g building is in
relation to the lot line. How is that changing?
Tom Suter: The garage is staying where it's at because of the foundation.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand that.
Tom Suter:. We're salvaging that. In the previous t~rt it was written that it was a 4.4 foot
setback. R was then brought to the a_n__enfion that the eaves had to count against that which is why
the number became 2.4 because it's 2 foot cave on the house today. But if you take the...out of
the picture for a minute begause there's some comeusion with thaL
Claybaugh: But is the footprint any closer to the lot line is what we're trying to clear up.
Tom Sutec. The back end of the garage we're having an extension piece of somewhere between 9
and 11 feet and then at that point we're coming in a foot to a foot and a half further than what In
the past, in the previous it was going to be a straight line, if you will all the way down. Now we
bring it in a foot to a foot and a half down that side. So we tried to minimize the inteus~on
which was raised at the prior meeting.
Claybaugh: Right.
Tom Suter. But without, if we bring it in much further you preuy much compromise the stmctme
internally with having it usable.
Claybaugh: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: ff there are no fixrther questions, do you have anything more to add? Thank you very
much. Now this is not a public hearing, since it's an old item of business but if anybody from the
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
public would want to ~s this item, please come forward at this point. State your name and
address. Please sir, if you want to. Yeah, from up there please, if you don't mind. If you want to
state your name and address for the record please.
Dennis Baker. My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 h&e Riley Boulevard which is on
the east side of the subject property. All I'd really like to say is Fve talked to the Suter's and feel
that what they plan to do is definitely an i .mprov~t in the property. The property presently is
too close to the lake, which is the most i .mportant thing. To the point whewe you can almost fish
off their deck. And they're going to i .reprove that. They're going to i .reprove the lakeshore and
the design of the house is very appealing and my wife and I have 50450 feet between our house
and the property line on the east side of the subject property, which is plenty of buffer. So I'd just
like to say I hope you approve it for him,
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak to this item? Doesn't appear to be
so I'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments? Discussion. How about we start with you
Craig.
Claybaugh: First off I'd like to complirmnt the applicont by addressing the issues that we raised
so thoroughly, comprehensively. It would always be nice to see more progress but ~y
given the effort that you've put into it I feel that I can support it. I still struggle with the square
footage on the property, having gone to a two story. But at this stage I am prepared to support it.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Fwst offFd like to say that I don't think Fve ever seen an applicant put as much detail and
work and effort into their plan. ff it looks as if, the renderin~ that we saw last time looks, it's
going to be gorgeous. But I would like to go thro~ the staff report a little bit as it relates to the
findings because I'm having some difficulty. Is them a hardship? Well, the ~ already has
reasonable use. I go down to number C. Does it increase the value of the ~? Absolutely.
Go down to number D. It is serf ~. I look at thi~ as if a new constmcfion~ Would we
approve this if this was a new consuuctiom We are raising the entire existing habitable stmctm~
and I don't think we would approve thig if it was a new sUucture. I think it's too much on too
little land and I can't support it as it is. I think it's gorgeous. I think: I'd love to live there. I said
that last time but I think it's too much on too small of a piece of dirt so I cannot support it as
presented.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve.
Lillehaug: I agree with Bruce. The applicant's increasing the house size right now, like
Commissioner Feik said. They do have reasonable use of that property based on the existing size
of the house. As indicated, they are trying to minimize the intensity on the west side, but you're
still increasing the intensity of the non-conformance on the west side. No matter how we look at
it, it's increasing the non-conformance and that goes against the cgdinance and I do not support it.
It's awfully close to that property line. You indicated that you want to use this as demonstration
purposes, which is great but I don't want to use it as a demous~on purpose to show how we go
in direct conflict with non-conformances and increasing them. I do not suppc~ it. And I hit on
this last time also. When I looked through thi~ report there's a table in here indicating adjacent
properties and their non-conformances. By looking at that table I don't know ff they were
variances that were granted with the property when it was developed or if they were afl. er the fact
variances so that's why I have a hard time s_~s_ching ~ afire' the fact variances for the non-
conforming lot with this ~ because ff we grant these variances that are already due to the
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
non-conformances on the size of the lot, then we're kind of ~ting a standaxd here that it really
doesn't indicate. Give us any indication of were those variances attached when the propezty was
developed or are they after the fact because I don't, maybe Roger our dty attorney would
disagree with me but I won't support granting those after the fact variances in there. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich.
Slagle: I just have a couple thoughts. First and foremost, I would comment the applicant and his
team for their thorough work, with the exception of the side yard setbacks, I would like to use it if
we could as a model bee__au~ I do think the sensitivities of the lake are being taken into
consideration. The setback from the water. The i ,mprovement if you will of that I think is really
what's driving me to support this, along with in tandem the concerted effort, I mean really almost
beyond what I've seen before of this applicant and his team so I'm prepared to support staff's
recommendation.
Saccbet: Thanks Rich. Kurt.
Papke: Beautiful project. I just have one question. I'm not quite clear on the historical
precedence here. Have there been any other ~es along Lake Riley Boulevard ~ere that
have been tear downs and re-builds to this extent? I'm just not quite clear. I'm very sensitive to
the precedence issue but I just want to make sure I'm clear being a new commissioner here
tonight as to what you know, has there been a previous precedent of a similar nature.
Aanenson: Sharmeen's worked probably on most of those variances so her indication is, they've
either been additions or tear down's. It's similar to some of the ones in Carver Beach that are
the lake.
Papke: Okay, so in the table here all of the...issue, this would not be setting a new precedent of
that nature?
Aanenson: That's an opinion you could form, sure.
Papke: That's it.
Saccbet: Bethany, do you have something to add?
Tjomhorn: Well I'm coming on the tail end of this. I was here actually for the first presentation
so I remember a little bit of what happened and I just think it's au i ,mprovement to the
community. I think it's an old property and I like what you're doing with iL I like making things
better. I like that you've paid so much attention to the lakeshom and the natural habitat around it
and so I'm inclined to support staff s recommendatiom
Sacchet: The concerns that were raised by Bruce and Steve, the hardship, the self ~ I
would interpret those to be pm-existing. And I would agree with you Bruce that if this would be
a new applicant we would not be able to approve it. However, the situation is pre-e~fing. It's a
hardship that it's a non-conforming lot. It's a non-conforming ~ and I would argue that
the non-conformance is reduced because I think the most sensitive non-conformance is the lake
setbaclc I mean the main concern for the city is the distance to the lake. I mean that's the most
critical thing and that's dramatically i .iT.tutored and consi~ that every other one of the non-
conformances have been to some extent mitigated with the revision of the plan, I'm definitely in
support of this proposal. Yes, it does increase the value of the tn'opezty but I would argue that if
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
changes are not made for the prime purpose of incre~ing the value, I mean the owner is doing
that to live there. To improve the ~ to live there. Not to i ,reprove it to get a monetary gaim
And I do want to commend the applicant for really addressing all the concerns we brought up last
time. I mean that in itseff is exemplary and needs to be commended so I'm in very strong favor
of passing this. So with that I am willing to take any more discussion.
Feik: Well I guess I'm wondering what is, what's the ~lling reason here? We're bringing
the house back from the lake. That's a good thing.
Sacchet: Definitely.
Feilc Every other variance is increasing. Every other variance is increasing. I don't see any
compelling reason here.
Sacchet: I wouldn't agree that the other ones are increasing.
Feik: The side yard setbacks are getting smaller. The foottn'int of the ~ is get~g larger. I
don't see quite frankly the compelling reason to go forward.
Sacchex: Maybe I missed something.
Feik: And please help me out here because Pm having a tough time with this one.
Sacchet: Let's address this.
Lillehaug: If I can add too.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: We had a resident to the east say that his buffer and setback was increasing between
the houses. I wish we would have heard from the resident on the west because it's the opposite
for that house.
Feik: Yes it is.
Lillehaug: So with my concern is the non-conformance is increasing on that side of the ~
is that property owner, you're increasing the length of the house on that side and increasing the
intensity of that non-conformance on that one side of the prope~ line. So yes, I agree that it's
great to move this house away from the shoreline, but you're adversely affecting that direct
adjacent property and that's one of my, that's my main concern.
Feik: I would prefer to see the applicant buy 10 feet from the neighbor to make it work.
Sacchet: I don't know whether 10 feet helps the other side frankly.
Feik: This is 10 feet.
Sacchet: I would argue that the setback is not really intensified in terms of how much setback
there is. It's intensified over how long a stretch there is a closer setback. Is that an acan'ate
statement to make? And that was one thing that was held against the applicant last time when
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
this was in front of us, and I do believe that the applicant made a sincere effort to reduce that
encroachment.
Feilc Oh I don't disagree with the effort.
Sacchet: In that sense I think there is a balance between the intem~cation and the mitigation.
And that weighed against the big plus with taking the house back that I think that's where I'm
balancing. Craig, do you want to add something?
Claybaugh: Yeah I'd like to just direct the commissioners to page 4. Come back to the permitted
use. One of the things that we spent a little time on at the first meeting, and haven't covered thia
meeting was what the definition of standards for single family dwelling are in 2003 versus what
they were in 1951 when this smacmre was built. Okay, time hasn't stood still. The standards
haven't remained the same so to say that the applicant has reasonable use by today's standards,
that point can be argued. Granted, it is a single family dwelling. So on and so fotth~ It has
different attributes for a single family dwelling, and the benefit but are they of today's standards?
Okay. The house was built in 1951. It's reasonable to think that something is going to have to
happen to that struc~ in the near future. It's not going to remain as is. We nm into thi~
situation around Carver Beach fairly frequently. It's just they are undemiz_~ lots. It's a difficult
situation to address. We struggle with these each time but that's the point that carries the most
weight with me is that by today's stan~ it's reasonable for them to want to place a new
structure on there with increased square footage. I identified that, I struggled with the ~ of
the square footage. Having it be a two story with the size of footprint, but I do assign a lot of
weight to the upper and the mitigating factors that the applicant has inuoduced to the project and
for me it balances out.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig.
Feik: One quick comment and then I'H be quiet.
Sacche~ You can always vote against it.
Peik: Sust for a rebuttal for what you're saying is, our ordinance says what is acceptab~ is 600
square feet and they clearly have 837 in the existing ~ so I would state that it certainly
does have a reasonable use.
Claybaugh: But that's 600 square feet for a two story, 960 for a rambler.
Feik: With that, thank you.
Sacchet: You can stand on your point I appreciate that. Any other points? With that I would
like to have a motion if possible.
Claybaugh: Make a motioxz
Sacchet: Please.
Claybaugh: Make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance g2003-7 for the 13,535
square foot variance. It encompas~ the first paragraph with conditions 1 through 6.
Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second?
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Siagle: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion and a second.
Slagle: I have a point of clarification.
Sacchet: Need clarification, okay.
Slagle: With that change of eaves from the 4.4 to 2.4, is that taken into consideration in this first
paragraph? So we're not missing anything.
Sacchet: Good point.
Aanenson: You referenced the plans dated in the staff report. They would reflect the correct
dimension if you want to reference those in the motion for clarity.
Sacchet: Okay, so it refers to the right plan. Okay.
Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning ComminsJon approves Variance
g2003-7 for a 13,535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; ~
foot variance from the ndnimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the
90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for
the first 113 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to ~ feet for the eaves; a 4-$
foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot vltrinnv~ ~ tile 75
foot ahoreland setback for the reconslzncflon of a Mngle filmily home on an existing 6,465
square foot lot based upon the findings in the staff report and based upon the following
conditions:
A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the
variance shall become null and void.
,
The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape
architect and shall include: a north arrow; show a 12 inch or greater trees on the site and
along the neighboring pmtnm3t lines; and the existing shed to the east.
No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type III silt fence
must be provided during demolition and during comtmction on the lake side. Type I silt
fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when
the con--on is complete and the site has been revegetated.
1
As part of the building peamait submi~ a grading, drainage and exx~sion control plan
must be prepared for city review and approval.
The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the
western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A
landscape plan must be prepared for city review.
6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan.
All voted in favor, except Feik and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 2.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Itl~QUF~T FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN EX~ OF 1~000
CUBIC YARDS~ 1916 CRESTVIEW DRIVF_~ BRIAN CARNEY.
Matt Sanm presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Any questions from staff?
Claybaugh: I just wanted Matt to cover the ugnaround again. Was that something
proposed or is that something that they are in fact.
Saam: No. Yeah, that wasn't on what I just handed out. We just came up with that tonight. If
you look at this, we don't want cars having to back all the way down onto Galpin and.
Slagle: Did you say back down or back up?
Saam: Alright, it would be back up. That's another good point.
Claybaugh: We don't want anybody backing off the cliff Matt.
Saam: So the thing is just, as a condition just make sure there's sufficient turn around area for
cars to turn around and pull forward out towards Galpim
Claybaugh: Is that something the applicant is prepared to do, was my question. Considering you
have sight line issues.
Saam: We'll need to ask him yeah~ I never talked to him about that issue. That just came up
tonight.
Feilc One quick one. In the handout you gave us tonight, you mentioned aligning this driveway
up with the adjacent driveway across the road, would that move this drive notch or south? Much
or?
Saam: No it wouldn't. I looked at it. This drawing that I have right here is not to scale. But I
took a quick measurexxmnt. It appears that where he's proposed the new driveway, it lines up
fairly close with the existing one. That's something that we'll guarallt~ on the building permit.
We'll just make sure that that happens.
Vei : Okay.
Saan~ So, but I did want to bring that up for safety sake. We want to line up those driveways.
Don't want to have them offset.
Feik: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve.
Lillehaug: Yes I have a question. This is an interim use permit only for the fill, so thig permit is
approved, does this ever come in fi'ont of us again?
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Saam: No. ff you approve it tonight it will go to council and if they would approve iL Well
whether you approve or deny tonight it will go to council. If they approve it, you won't see this
again. Unless you would request some type of variance or.
Lillehaug: ...any further development on it though we won't see it again then.
Saam: No.
Lillehaug: Okay. Then I have a couple questions. The tiered retaining walls, I hit on this
previously. He has two 4 foot tiered retaining walls. I would probably make an argument that
that lower retaining wall needs to be higher than 4 feet, but regardless of that, in my mind a tiered
retaining wall needs to be looked at as one retaining wall. So does the city agree that this would
be a retaining wall that would need to be engineered?
Saam: I believe it does. Or the building department already looks at tiered retaining walls as one.
I guess I didn't verify that but I believe that is the case.
Lillehaug: Okay. As far as an as-built survey, would that be required upon completion of
bringing this fill in?
Saam: I don't believe so. I believe it's required not, it's not required until after the building
permit. After the house is installed. We could, yep you should could sure add a condition to do
that, yeah.
Lillehaug: Yep, that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich~
Slagle: Yeah a couple questions. Matt, can you give me your opinion on the concept of planting,
if I remember right, shrubs or trees along the edge of the driveway. I mean would those really
stop a car slipping down the driveway, potentially going off of this double retaining wall?
Saarm I guess after 2, say after 2 weeks installation, no. They're not going to stop it but I would
think in the long term, yeah they would.
Slagle: Let me ask you this. There is a house south of here of this property on Gal~ I believe
it's the owners who used to own the land that Longacr~ is built on. They have a long ddveway
to the north of Jerome Carlsom Excuse me, to the south. And they have a long driveway which
just recently they installed guaxdra~ along their sections of their driveway because of drop off,'s.
And I'll almost guarantee you their drop off's aren't like these drop off's. So I mean do we have
any perspective of what Fll call protective measures for si_mafions like this?
Saarm When you say perspective, do you mean.
Slagle: Guardrails. Anything that would be safety related versus whether one to delineate a road,
or a driveway which is what is here, or, I mean I'm looking for protection from cars. I mean let's
just say this gentlemen doesn't throw salt on his driveway one day and it ices up and the Jones'
come over for supper and down they go. I mean I'm just saying is there anything that we take
into account?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Saam: I believe for retaining walls that are over 4 feet in height, a fence is required. We don't
typically require guardmils fencing along driveways. None that I know of.
Aanenson: Clarify that. It is an interim use. You may attach any cxmditions that you believe are
reasonable.
Slagle: I'm just trying to understand what reasonable is in this sense of staff. I will say to the rest
of the commissioners that I will be prepared to add as a condition.
Sacehet: Well let's wait with comments please. Any more questions?
Claybaugh: What is the slope coming off that road7 Both to the north and to the south. I mean
you've identified it as a cliff and.
Saam: Oh, coming off the driveway.
Claybaugh: Very negative images, yeah. What is the actual slope?
Saam: On the north side it's approximately 5 to 1. Over along the east side here and in this area
it's 4 to 1. On the south side of the driveway it gets up to 3 to 1 and that's the mmximum slope.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Saam: Or the steepest point.
Claybaugh: And then really the trees that you're looking at putting in, for the first 10 years
they're just going to be markers to help identify...
Saam: I guess you could ask the applicant but that's what I was envisioning 2 inch trees.
Claybaugh: It's not going to stop any ears but it will serve as a marker.
S~am: That's why maybe a shrub and working with the City Fca. mm, maybe a shrub.
Something that would get bigger would he better.
Claybaugh: That's all I have.
Papke: I have another naive, new commissioner question here for staff. Sust on the code here,
The bottom line is there's a variance being asked for in excess of a thousand yards of fill on this
lot. Is there any latitude for the size of the lot or is that, is the code fixed regardless of the size of
the lot?
Saam: Is your question regarding is there a msximum amount of fill he can bring in? In relation
to the size of the lot-
Papke: IS it at all propc~onal to the size of the lot or if this was a 10 acre lot, would there still
have to be a variance is my question?
Saam: Yes. I didn't touch on that. The reason he needs to come before yourselves and the City
Council is because he's requesting to bring in over 1,000 cubic yards. Whether that's 5,000 or
15
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
1,100, he needs to come to you. If it was under 1,000 cubic yards, staff could administratively
approve it.
Papke: Right, but the flip side of my question was that limit is fixed regardless of the size of the
lot.
Aanenson: There's no proportionality.
Papke: There's no proportionality.
Saam: Yep.
Papke: I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks.
Sacchet: Thank you very much~ So all the questions. With that, if the applicant wants to come
forward and address the commission, please do so. State your name and sdtlress for the record.
And particularly interested to hear what's changed since you were here last time.
Brian Carney: My name is Brian Carney. I live on 6566 Shadow Lane. About a half mile up the
road. We have not gotten anywhere as far as negotiations on what we're going to do with the
neighbors. If they're going to gain me access through their ~ or not. There was also talk
about them possibly wanting to purchase a piece of land from me. We have a meeting set up for
next Saturday at 9:00, but at this point I'd like to just ~ with the phm of developing the lot
into a single family home. Not knowing what, you know what lies in the future with our talks or
meetings or whatever. I also would consider putting some type of femee, you know strong fence
or guardrail along the driveway to help, you know for safety reasons. I don't think bushes are
going to do any good. I don't think trees are going to do mm:h good for the first :5 or 10 yeasts so
I guess I would be willing to put something along the driveway that would fit, you know look
decent and be of use to safety. The reason why the walls are the height they are because I didn't
want to get them engineered. I kept them at the level of 4 feet so I didn't have to get into the
engineering part. I believe that if the walls were done correctly I think they would adequately
hold the soil because of the soil that I'm bringing in is very eompaemble. And as far as the turn
around in the driveway, I have every intention of having a mm around as a part of the driveway.
I would never expect anybody to have to back all the way to Galpin on a driveway so. With that
I'd just, I just want to keep moving forward with this and.
Sacchet: Any questions fi'om the applicant? Thank you very mu~h. Again this is an old item of
business. It's not formally a public heating but if anybody wants to come forward, ~ddress the
commission on this item, please do so now. S~te your name and address for the record please.
Charlie Hicks: C_vood evening. I'm Charlie I-~:~. I'm at 1941 Crestview Circle. I'm one of the
properties that is contiguous with the property that is in question and I'm to the east. Unlike last
time I was here I believe I referred to it as the west. My intention is to start a dialogue with Mr.
Carney. We're meeting Saturday morning and once we finigh our discussion on bimorphs, we'll
talk about the property itself. I just thought I would FYI you on that. That's our intentions.
Sacchet: So you're intending to come to some sort of an agreement?
Charlie Hicks: We'll start a dialogue, yes.
Sacchet: Dialogue, okay.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Charlie Hicks: We'll hopefully come to, I'm not council so I can't be as ambiguous as I'd like.
Sacchet: You're ambiguous enough. Okay.
Charlie Hicks: Thank you all.
Sacchet: Thank you very muck Anybody else wants to address this item? Please do so now.
State your name and address for the record please.
Troy Pappas: I'm Troy Pappas at 1961 ~ew and a follow-up to Charlie, I am part of the
meeting. We are going to try to come to an agreement on the ~. Our intention is to not
have anything go from that ~ so if we can come to an agreement, to get this matter
resolved. Get the dirt that's there out of there and back to nam~ resources. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? ff not I'll bring it back to commission. Comments,
discussion. Steve, you want to start please?
Lillehaug: Yep. I hope your meeting goes well. This is a tough driveway. Are we over stepping
our bounds by attaching some conditions that typically wouldn't be attached to a landowner and
his development of this property? In my opinion we're not over stepping ic Rauling in 1,000
yards is a significant measure. It's my intentions to look out for the safety and well being of the
new property owner. That property does have a for sale sign on it. That tells me there's going to
be an unknown owner there so what Fll be doing is attac~ a few conditions. One will be
regarding the wall that I hit on before. That it needs to be engineered. I'll be ntts¢~ing a
condition requiring an as-built survey. I'll also be a_tmchin~ a condition requirin~ the first 15 foot
directly adjacent to the county highway to be at a maximum grade of 2 p~'cent, which will not
allow a car during the winter to not try to race up that driveway so it doesn't have to stop right at
the highway so it doesn't just continue moving rather than not stopping. I'll also be _~t__~chin~ a
condition to revise the grading plan fight near the house pad because the driveway there, if my
calculations are fight it shows the driveway kind of askewed there at a cross slope of about 20
percent~ That's excessive. And then we're fillin~ about 20 plus feet I think in the little wetland
ravine there. I ~ink I'd also like to attach a condition that the applicant provide a suitable source
of material and let the City review where the source of material is coming from so no poor...also
be attaching a condition requiring soils testing be submiU~ to the city insuring that ~
densities are obtained and that's probably enough conditions out of me, thanks.
Sacchet: It's a good share, yeah. Rich.
Slagle: Well I'll just add that I will request, and Mr. Chair I don't know if now is the time to be
adding a condition bm it will be the safety fence. And I want to commend the applicant for
making that gesture that he would be open to that but more i .mportanfly I think just the fact that
the folks are getting together and talking thi~ coming week is maybe the fruits of our efforts from
2 weeks ago so thanks to all.
Sacchet: Kurt any comments?
Papke: No comments.
Sac. chex: Bethany?
17
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Sac, chex: So we have 5 to 2. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
Tjomhom: I have two, and I'm agreeing again so if staff could answer a question for me. When
I look at the plat I see the property and then I also see 1, 2, 3, 4 other properties on Galpin Lake,
is that correct? How do they access it? Do they have driveways?
Saam: This property which is directly to the south of the property in question has a driveway
onto Galpin. The ~ to the north of the one we're loolcing at accesses onto Ov. stview. This
one on the other side I believe has two accesses. This is the one that does have a driveway onto
Galpin directly across the street from our's but I believe it also has one onto Crestview Drive.
I'm not positive but, and then 6640 which is kitty corner from our site accesses onto Cralpin.
Tjomhorn: So it does have other accesses then from lots?
Tjomhom: Okay. That's all I was wondering. And I have one more question. Not for staff but
just a comment. About the road and the incline and oncoming cars. Sometimes people use
mirro~ on the driveway so they can look and see what is coming before they do make a turn, and
maybe that's a useful suggestion also as to solving that problem of traffic and acci~.
Saarrc That could be a condition.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce.
Feik: Sure. Getting back to when we saw this a couple weeks ago. I just want to remind the
commissioners that we cannot deny them access to their ~. We have to give them access
so now the question is what is reasonable access and I certainly believe'that the retaining walls
should probably be engineered. Some guardrails or something for safety perspective but I just
want to remain the commissioners that we need to somehow figure out a way to legally get them
access. The reason this is in front of us is because of the amount of fill more than anything else
so I would certainly agree with Steve's comme~ earlier in particular and approve.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I think Steve hit on most of the key points, specifically the 2 percent grade
coming out onto Galpin so cars just don't come on down the driveway at an accel~ rate
spilling out onto G-alpin. The soil testing, it's something I would like to see. I haven't m~de up
my mind whether I would support it being a condition. ~y submitting the fill material to
city staff for approval is a low cost safety measure that can be i ,mlXX~xi. The guardra~ certainly a
good idea. Don't know what form that would take. In terms of en~neering the wall, I think
that's a given. And that being said I'd like to have the applicant look at raising the height of that
wall, being engineered and try and mitigate the slope of that cross slope coming down off the
driveway. And even though staff was uncertain about it, the applicant assmed the commission
that they would incorporate a turn around so that's a positive aspect
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Personally it's very hard for me to reconcile ever filling in the creek.
Environmentally I think that's terrible. Safety wise I have a real issue with this being, these steep
slopes as well as the difficult visibility to the south on Gal~ but unfommamly personal opinion
is totally irrelevant for us sitting up here. We're not here to share personal opinion. We're here
to look at ordinance and code and we cannot prevent this ~ from being accessed. If there's
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
no other access than from Cralpin we have to allow it so therefore as Bruce pointed out, legally
we're obliged to allow that. I think it's appr~ to put conditions on it to mitigate those
concerns, at least the safety concerns as much as possible, and I really would want to encourage
neighbors to find an equitable solution. I think it's going to be for the benefit of the people that
live there. It's going to be for the benefit of the city. ff an alternate solution can be found, either
an alternate access from Crestview Circle or whatever you guys can come up with so I definitely
want to encourage that. With that I would like to have a motion. Who wants to fly? You were
the most prolific there.
Lillehaug: F ve got to find it here. Okay. I make the motion the Planning Commission approves
Interim Use Permit. Am I on the fight one here?
Sacchet: Yeah, I think you're on the right place. Page 10.
Lillehaug: Interim Use Permit ~33-1 with the following conditions. 1 through 18. And someone
tell me if I double up here but I'm going to be 8dding 19. Cmufing will be revised near the garage
and house pad to minimize the slope. Previously it was gradual at 10 percent. Number 20. The
driveway will be revised to have a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacem to
Galpin. I must be on number 20.
Sacchet: It's 21.
Lillehaug: Okay. The retaining walls will be engineered by a design professional.
Sacchet: Do you want to add that to condition 177 There's already one that says something
about the walls, isn't it?
Lillehaug: Okay, add to and revise condition number 17 as such. The next eonditiom Soils
testing will be required and submitted to the city for the fill material. Number
Slagle: That's actually 17Co) I think.
Sacchet: Okay yeah, let's make that 17Co).
Lillehaug: Add it to and revise as such I guess. The next condifio~
Sacchet: 21.
Lillehaug: Submit fill material types and borrow sources to the city for approval. Th~ next
condition 22, ~_dd a turn around to the driveway. And 23, submit an as-built survey to the ci~
upon completion. That'd be it for me, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay. I think we can add one or two more. Anybody want to add?
Slagle: A friendly amendment to add a guardrail that would run on the noi~ and south side of.
Sacchet: Oh wait a second. We need a second first. Excuse me.
Feik: I'll second.
Sacchet: Second, okay. Go ahead Rich.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Slagle: A guardrail that would nm on the north and south side of the driveway and I'll leave it up
to staff as to where it would begin and end.
Sacchet: That's number 23, the guardrail.
Lillehaug: Do we want to specifically say guardrail?
Sacchet: Guardrail, is that the right term? Staff?
Aanenson: It could be fencing.
Saechet: Well I think we want more than a fence.
Aanenson: Barrier.
Papke: I have a question about that. I mean we're not MnDot here. Do we have any cades or
specifications for such a guardrail that we could refer to?
Saam: Yeah, MnDot does have a detail for the guardrail so if you specify that then we'll make
Saecbet: How about work with staff.
Slagle: How about similar to the 101 trail... And then I've got one last question. I don't know if
the guardrail, if it does get approved, if that would make point 18 moot. Condition 18.
Sacchet: I still want trees.
Slagle: Okay, but I'm just saying that you might not be putting the trees where the guardrail
might go.
Sacchet: The way they're spaeeck conect. Work with staff.
Feik: But 18 was from a couple weeks ago.
Slagle: I understand.
Saeehet: I'd like to add one more. Condition 24 to line up the driveway with the opposite, the
one opposite on Galpim That's a lot of them. Probably enough. Anybody else7 Okay, Steve are
those acceptable friendly amendments Steve?
Lillehaug: I'm just having a tough time with guardrail. Is that extensive?
Saechet: How about do you want to msim it work with staff to determine?
Lillehaug: I guess I'll accept it at thi.~ point
Saechet: Accept it as is, okay. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. We have some
additions.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recommends approval of
Interim Use Permit/~03-1, subject to the following conditions:
Ii
The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
$5,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restamfion and compliance with the
Interim Use Permit.
2. Culvert sizing calculations will have to be provided for a 1130 year, 24 hour storm event.
3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval.
4,
If fill is coming from another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be
required for the other tn'operty.
All disturbed areas as a result of conslxu~on are required to be reseeded and mulched
within two weeks of site grading.
6,
The applicant shall pay the City an administration fee of $208 prior to the City signing th~
permit.
7. An erosion control blanket must be installed on the south side of the driveway slope.
8. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey.
,
Comply with the Carver County conditions of approval leUer dated April 11, 2002 for a
driveway access permit to the site.
10.
The applicant shah obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watemhed
District.
11.
The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a
professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been
12.
A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be m-spread on the site as soon as
the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disc mulch seeding shall be implemented
immediately following the completion of excavated areas.
13.
Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA
regulations. If the city delta'mines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be
paid by the applicant.
14.
Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and
prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer deta'mines that traffic conflicts
result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of opa'afion will be appropriately
restricted.
15.
The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck
hauling and construction activities.
21
Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003
16.
The applicant shall consm~ and maintain a rock gravel construction access to the site.
Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only.
17. Building Official conditions:
d.
The retaining wslis must be designed by a professional engineer.
Soil and compaction testing is required on the proposed building site if any fill
will be placed them, the results must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
If city sewer service is not available to the ~, two (2) acceptable on-site
sewage treatment sites must be located by a licensed professional and the
information must be submitted to the Inspections Division. The sites must be
The address for the pmtza'ty shall be 6591 Galpin Boulevard.
18.
The applicant shall plant a minimum of five trees and shrubs and 20 shrubs on the slopes
of the proposed drive to help minimiTe run-off and i .reprove erosion control. The tree
species shall be deciduous and a ~nirrmm 1 inch diameter for the trees. Shrubs shall be
at least 2 feet high when planted. Proposed planting sites and species selection shall be
approved by the city prior to planting.
19. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to minimize the slope.
Oo
The driveway will be revised to have a maximin 2 percent for the first 15 feet
directly adjacent to Galpln.
21. Submit fill material types and borrow sources to the elty for approvaL
22. Add a turn around to the driveway.
23. Submit an as-built survey to the city upon completion-
The applicant wffi work with staff on the installation of a lmrrier along the north
and south side of the driveway.
The driveway shall line up with the driveway on the opposite side of Galpin
Boulevard.
Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: With that I see that we still have our youngest person here so we'll jump to item number
5 on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REAR YARD FF~CE HEIGHT VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII.y~ LOCATED AT 500 AND
516 BIG WOODS BOULEVARD~ (Lllrr STATION #10 SITE)~ CITY OF (~tANHA~2q.
Matt 8aam presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Matt. Questions from staff. Rich.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Slagle: I just have a couple Matt. And I apologize for not having a chance to get out to this
proposal but where are the homes in relationship to this? I mean how close are we talking sight
lines?
Saam: The sight lines, let me get my scale. Maybe the homeowners can speak more to that, but I
can scale some distances off of there for you if you want. The houses are proposed, there's one
going to be going in here.
Sacchet: They're not there yet?
Saam: It may be being built fight now but it's not completed. Nobody's living there yet. I know
this one is under consmmfion, two lots down. And then this one to the north I don't believe is
under construction yet. But again maybe the neighbors eau speak to that.
Slagle: Okay. And then final question. Is there any concern on your part that we would by
approving this, let's say we do, that we're going to have others who live next to lift stations
coming and saying I want a fence around my lift station?
Saam: Yeah, I hope we're not opening a can of worms. I mean this one was different We did a
feasibility study, not just to look at screening for some new lake lots. We did it because the wet
wells weren't sized big enough. Pumping issues. That sort of real engineering type issues that
could flood basements and cause a lot of damage. So I don't foresee people with lift stations in
their back yards corning in and requesting that. If they do I think we'd probably tell them they're
out of luck.
Sacchet: Any more questions? Bruce.
Feik: I have one. Assuming you go with the neighbors proposal, does that give you adeq~
room to do maintenance on the generator in particular? Is it too closes?
Saar~ That's a good question. Two things I want to point out In talking with maintea~m~e staff,
their concern is the wet well is in this area. They're going to want to back their big vactor truck
up here to pump out the wet well so if this wall was built like that, it would have to be hin~m~d or
easily removable. And the same in this area to get to the generator, that scat of thing. The one
thing I haven't checked on is the transformer. It's owned by Xcel Energy. They may require a 5
foot clear zone around that. 4 foot. So this may have to be moved back a bit, but that's the
general layout of how it's going to be.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Have any other questions from staff~
Claybaugh: Yeah, specifically. City staff had commented on what they needed for space to
maintain.
Saam: Yes. Yeah, I checked with our Utility Superintendent and it was in this area and then out
in front of the generator. They're going to need easy access. Whether those sides be hinged or
easily removable.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Clayhaugh: Right. Just in looking at the two proposals there's a lot of room left inbetween the
two of them to expand on the neighbor's proposal and minimize the city's proposal and still not
put yourself in a shoe box. So where, that would be my recommend. I don't know why we'd...
Sacchet: Well let's wait with comments Craig. We're not quite there yet. We're asking
questions.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Any more questions? Yes.
Papke: How tall is the lift station? How much of it is going to appear above this 6 foot fence?
Saam: I believe the genemt~ is the tallest piece of equipment out there, and maybe David can
speak to that. I know he was out there just today but the generator is on a concrete pad right here
and that generator's probably 5 feet high~ So that could possibly be above the fence line, but
there are trees out there in the summer with foliage. I don't think it will be easy to see ~ose.
Tjomhom: I have, is there an existing fence anywhere around a lift station now just to protect
people from getting into it?
Saam: No. We don't typically put fences around them so no, there isn't.
Tjomhorn: Okay.
Sacchet: I have a few questions since you're talking trees, are we actually cutting trees there to
make that fence?
Saam: We're hoping we won't have to cut any trees.
Sacchet: So you're not quite sum, okay.
Saam: Yeah we're not. ff we do have to take any out, we'll replace them at a 1 to 1 ratio.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's part of my question too. Is it normally when somebody else comes in that
is not ourselves we ask for a 1 to 27 Or 2 to 1, whichever way you look at it.
Saam: Yes it is. The City Forester's recommendation is 1 to 1 so.
Sacchet: Okay. Well I would disagree with that but we're not at comments. You're also talking
about additional trees and landscape vegetation will be planted. Do we have a plan for that?
Saam: Well that's going back to our proposal when it was.
Sacchet: Yeah, but I don't see any plantings on there though~
Saam: No, we kind of, I kind of left it ambiguous to leave it up to yourselves, ff you wanted to
attach some additional trees if you saw.
Sacchet: To be determined.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: And then to follow-up on Craig's co~t about that the~ is fair amount of space
between the original proposal and the neighbor's tn'oposal. One thing that also irks me is why
this many angles? Why can't we make it a rectanDe of sorts?
Saarrc On the neighbor's proposal?
Sacchet: Yeah. What's the advantage of having...
Saam~ Maybe you can ask it to them. I'm sure it's to minimize the size of the area, the fence.
Sacchet: We'll ask the applicant That's all the questions then. Thank you very much Matt.
Now this was staff, as well as applicant in one hit. We're being very efficient here. This is a
public hearing so I open the public hearing if anybody from the public wants to come up to
address this item, please come forward at this time. State your name and address and we'll listen
to you.
David Igel: Good evening, my name is David Igel. My ~ddress is 6550 York Avenue South in
Minneapolis but Iarn building the home at 501 Big Woods Boulevard which is to the south of
this property. It's not touching it but I suppose adjacent to the affected propea~des.
Lillehaug: Could you point to that on the map? I want to tmderstand if it was the one directly
next to the driveway or the one that's already under construction.
David Igel: We are, well maybe I can help clear that up a little bit. This is my, where I am,
where we are building our house. It's in construcfiom This is the house that Matt mentioned
might be under construction. It is not but that is where the house will be constructed. The house
on 516 will lightly be construcl~ in thi~ area right in here, just to give you a feel. The lift station
is fight here. Does that clarify it?
Lillehaug: Thanks.
David Igel: Again I sm: we're not applying for the variance. What has been discussed for the
last year or so, or longer is that the city would provide screening because there were some
changes going on with the lift station and such so I'xn not, certainly not opposed to the variance.
I was not necessarily in agreement with the large box and privacy fence that was brought out I
don't want to speak for anyone else but one of the neighbors, Greg Lindsley who's going to be
most impacted by this who couldn't make it tonight, would rather have nothing than that So ff it
was to be betw~n this large box, I think you'd have a lot of neighborhood opposition but again I
can't spea& for anyone else other than Mr. Lindsley and myself. What'we've proposed was
something of a lower impact and all we're trying to do is get it to blend in. We're trying to draw
as little attention. I think it worked out to the advantage of everyone that this, that what we're
asking for, what we would recommend is that it's less expensive. It's less intrusive. The
question was asked on why there's a couple of little in's and out's on that and that's pfinmfily to
save trees. The entire tree survey isn't represented on thi~ plato If you go out there you can
identify that this makes a little more sense, as opposed to building a fence around trees we
thought we'd try to get it in and sneak it in between the items and keep the trees on the outside to
increase the screening of those existing trees and not take any down. Depending on where it
goes, I don't know if anymore trees need to be taken down but there have been a fair amount of
trees' taken down and I assume the city has an inventory of it. I know that as you say they require
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
inventories of trees from private individuals going in. There were a number of trees taken down
behind this so, and that would be part of my request of the cotmcil as a condition of odditional
trees and vegetation be as a condition if this variance is approved. We would go the next step and
offer the assistance to the city I guess as far as installing them ourselves. We've got some of the
equipment down there because we're building homes and things like that. What I would hate to
do is get into a situation where the city would recommend, or an outside contract~ would just go
and plop them in where they thought best where we are spending tons of nx)ney and tons of ou~
own time and at the very least we've like to work very directly with whoever decides where those
trees go. But like I said, if it's of any value to the city we can, you know if you bring a bunch of
rocks and trees down there and say, here. Set it up so it's screened, that would really probably be
our preference on it. The other thing is, thi~ is a bright orange genellRor that' s in with a bunch of
green trees and brown dirt and green vegetatiom There's no question that this needs to be painted
green. That was part of the original discussion so I would also request that that be a condition of
the variance if it's approved. And then like I said, the red~ size fence I think take,8 it fx~m
what become~ something that's a gigantic box and people's eyes are drawn to, to something that
blends in much more which is why we thought we could go with the lattice work which vines
eventually grow and kind of blends in more so. So I appreciate the staff working with us to this
point on it. I tlaink that they've been out there. We've been out there and they've tried to take
our suggestions as much as possible. Those are the few thin~t~s that I mentioned though that we
would really like to see as conditions of it and if you have any questions of me, I'm fairly familiar
with the area. I'd be happy to answer them_ Othea'wi~.
Sacchet: Go Rich.
Slagle: From your observations, your opinion, would the neighborhood recomm~a_stion hide if
you will the generator adequately?
David Igel: Well just in kind of brief comments. I don't know that, part of the problem is that a 6
foot fence, I don't know if it's even going to cover it but if you can see some of the gr~a~ lines
here, everything else is up on a hill. That's why I think the additional trees are going to be
required. It's going to block it from the lake, which is i ,mportanL It's going to block it when
you're standing right next to it, but without any kind of lxees, the houses are going to be looking
fight at it and that's why I was hoping if we could get mm~ txee~ in there I think that's really
going to be the better plan. And that's, part of the reason I think you know we're going from 2(g)
linear feet of 6 foot expensive cedar down to probably 90 feet of linear lattice so there's a great
expense there and what we were hoping to, and that I suppose is up to the city and yourselv~.
Perhaps we could take advantage of some of that cost savings and some s_~a_ifional trees which I
think is better for the whole community and the neighborhood.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Yes Kurt.
Papke: Question for staff. Speaking of painting, is there an intent to paint or stain the fence?
And if so, does the landscaping plan have to take into account space around it to get in there with
a sprayer or something like that?
Saam: Yes, we had plans to stain the fence upon installation. And then yes, we'll take into
account, if we need another foot here or ~ to get in there.
Papke: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
David Igel: Thank you.
Sacchex: Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward at thig time. State your
name and address for the record please.
Andrea Eidsness: Hi. I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live on 630 Carver Beach Road. I am directly
to the north of the property that, thank you. And we're one of the homes that are existing there
and we're up on thc hill. I have two primary concerns with regard to this request. One of them
being the noise level. I know that the council underwent the feas%ility study a while back. I am
not, I've not been made aware, I don't have a copy of that feasibility study and whether or not all
of the items that were reco~ by the people that under'a~k that study were in fact
implemented or if this is just one of the conditions that has been chosen to be implemented.' !
would like the council to review that and rnalre sure that the condition of the current lift station is
sufficient to handle the additional development that is going in. There's 9 new homes that are
going in there and I would hate to have you go through the trouble of installing the fence only to
tear it down a year later because the lift station needs to be i .reproved upon~ I would rather have it
not go in and wait for that irr~. rovement to be made and that lift station. My concern is with
regard to the noise, which is sort of connected to my concern about whether or not the lift station
is adequately functioning. Again over the weekend ~ was a large truck or generator of some
sort that was brought in on wheels. Backed down in there and it was so noisy we had to close up
our entire home and couldn't listen to the television from across the living room~ The noise was
so incredibly loud from that facility that was brought in. It rn~d~ it unbea.mble. We're two lots
away. So whether or not this privacy fence really does anything from really helping to cut down
the noise, again I would recommend that the city consider putting in large trees. Pine trees or
something of that sort that would help to drown out the noise, in addition to providing some
additional screening for that particular lift station.
Sacchet: Thank you. CoUld we just address maybe these concerns. They're both of some
interest here.
Saam: Sure. The first one was the feasibility study. I believe she wants to make sure all the
conditions of that were.
Sacchex: Right, and I remember at one point that lift station was considered not quite up to the
development. I thought it was i .m!goved since, is that correct?
Saarrc Yes. However not all of the recommendations of the feasibility study, the fence being
one, have been implemented to this point. We're going to do it in a phased approach because of
budgetary reasons. And then the other issue that she brought up in regards to the i .mprovements
are, we'd have to rip down the fence if we have to go in there in a year to do more i .mprove~.
We did look at that. The i .mprove~ts will be to the front area where the hinged doors would
be, so we foresee just swinging the doors open to get in there with a backhoe or whatever we'd
need to do to dig in front of the fence and lift station area. The noise issue, I believe they started
the generator up today and what I heard from the maintenance workers was that this new
generator, which is out ~, a permanent one, is much...Ixuck may be backing up and the
emergency noises on the truck or the diesel engine running, but I know they didn't start that
generator up until today. At least it wasn't scheduled to be started until today so it couldn't have
been running this weekend.
Andrea Eidsness: Well whatever went in over the weekend, they brought it in at about 4:00 p.m.
on Saturday afternoon and we put up with it but we finally called the sheriff at 10:30 at night
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
because it was still running and so loud that we couldn't even sleep. So I don't know what that
was but.
Saam: Okay. Yeah, I'm not aware of what was going om I can sure check into that
Sacchet: Is it still on?
Andrea Eidsness: No. Somebody came and took it away Saturday night at about midnight so I
don't know what happened...
Saam: See we used to have a portable generator out at the sita A big yellow one. It was on a
trailer. We took that out to do another well. We got this permanent generator out there now.
That's the one they kicked off starting today.
Sacchet: So today was alright7
Andrea Eidsness: Today it was, well I drove by them on my way home from work prior to
corning to this meeting so.
Sacchet: I would hope that the new generator is not going to create that problem basically.
Andrea Eidsness: So there wouldn't be a need to bri. g in the remote facilities at all in the
future...generator is sufficient to handle.
Saam: Exactly. That was one of the i .mprov~ts reco~ in the feasibility study was to
install a permanent generator on the site.
Slagle: Well just as a point of clarification~ Maybe Matt what she might be referring to is the
truck that vacuumed the...whatever.
Saam: That could be too. Those could come back in the future, yeah. If there is an ~ at
the lift station.
Sacchet: That wouldn't be during the night, Saturday to Sunday though.
Saarn: Whenever that lift station goes down.
Sacchet: Oh, when it goes down it has to be attended to, alright.
Saam: But that's only a temporary thing too in emergency situations.
Andrea Eidsness: But in that case, if that is something that would happen on more of a murine
basis, I assume that if you got more water that's going through the lift station, the frequency with
which that would need to be pumpeA out is probably going to increase versus decrease when
more homes are going in. To that point, if we are going to have remote equipment that goes in
there to do that, causing that large of a noise conslxaint, I would prefer again to see large pine
trees planted in there that would help absorb some of that sound versus a privacy fence, as I think
that the trees will help in the condition that we're dealing with on a infrequent basis mtlu~ than
the constant.
Saam: Staff is not opposed to additional trees.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: Matt could you comment on the actual genemlor. Is that just for a, is that a back-up
generator or is that a generator that.
Saam: Well, whether it's a back-up or a regular, it's a goneramr for when the electricity goes out
at that lif~ station.
Lillehaug: So it's not ~nning, that's what I'm getting at.
Saam: No, no. h only runs if the electricity goes out or if there's some other reason.
Lillehaug: So normal case.
Saam: No, it's just the lit station...
Lillehaug: ...it will be pretty quiet.
Lillehaug: So this is an abnormal case I would think.
Saam: Yeah, if the generator's running there's an unusual circumstance going on.
Slagle: And we have no issues, if I can asL to paint it7
Saam: I guess yes we do. That's something we disagree with. The neighbors spoke on, David.
We're not, we weren't aware of any requirement that they wanted it painted. It came as standard
Caterpillar yellow. That's what comes out. If we would have known beforehand we sure would
have ordered it in green, so I guess there's some disagreeme~ there.
Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you wanted to add7
Andrea Eidsness: No. You can look at the yellow from the ~ just for your infonmtion and
understanding, and I appreciate you hearing my first...thsnk you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item7 Go ahead please.
Mark Johnson: Thank you. My name is Mark Johnson, 16425 Mayfield Drive, Eden Prairie. I
am the owner of the lot located at 516 Big Woods Boulevard, which is directly to the north of the
site and I would just like to encourage the council to not only support the variance for the fence
but also to work with us on painting this thing bec_~ause it really does stand out like a sore thumb
and it does, it's pretty ugly. I know it's a necessity but painting it is a very ~imple solution I
think. And also, I'd also encourage the council and staff to work with the neighbors that are
affected by this to add additional foliage and trees so that it's not visible, not only from the lake
but also from the neighbors since our houses will be located fimtmr up the slope on each one of
those properties. Thank you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this. This is your time. Seeing nobody, I'll
close the public hearing and bring it back to discussion and comments from commissioners.
Want to start?
Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: Sure. I think this is not setting ~ce to put a fence around this li~ station.
There's a lake directly adjacent there. The generator is a huge generator. Typical lift stations
don't have them that large of a generator next to it I think. You can correct me on that. I think
for the most part it's a very large, very large intrusion on that area and a fence is justified. I think
this, either way we do this fence here I think the fence would need to fully encompass the lift
station and the generator. Specifically looking at that lot, directly adjacent to the driveway, if the
fence doesn't encompass that generator and the ~ station in front of the~, they'll have direct
sight line with the generator so ! think whatever we do with the fence ~ it needs to fully
encompass it and provide adequate maintenance room around both the generator and the li~
station as well as the transformer. I support the variance.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Slagle: No comments.
Papke: I think the proposal to put odditional foliage is certainly a good one from a noise
perspective but I think it will be a while before that obviously has much of an i ,mlmct unless
there's pretty substantial trees in there so I, you know I don't know how effective that will be in
the short term, but I think it's a good project.
Sacchet: Bethany?
Tjomhorn: No comments.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Yes. Matt, one of the residents mentioned some trees that were talmn down to the east of
the lift station. Was that done by us or was that done by the builder and was that included in the
builder's tree inventory?
Saam: I'm unaware of who took them down or when it happened. I can investigate that.
Feilc ff it's something from the builder, then it's a different sort of issue.
Saam: Yeah, if we took them down we'll sure replace ~ like I said at 1 to 1. And that's
something I' 11 check with...
Feik: Trend's going against you Matt. Couple things I guess. I would ceaxaiuly like to see the
trees replaced on a 2 to 1. P~inting of the generator, I'd like to caution us regarding painting the
generator. Once you paint the factory paint it's going to be a giant maintenanc~ issue. Long term
you're going to be painting it very often. And Steve, I respectfully disagree on your fully
encompassing the station. I think you're going to have balls and things going in there and kids
trying to climb over to retrieve their balls and Frisbee's so I could see fully encompassing with an
offset opening, like a tennis court, but so that you have access so you're not asking little kids to
crawl up over a 6 foot fence. That's it.
Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I think the City's fence outline was a little too broad. I think that the
neighbors may be a little too restrictive with respect to main~ the lift station. Certainly not
in favor of fencing in trees and saving them for the lift station. I understand that to go with a
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
foliage buffer would be more of a long term commitment but with houses just going in now, I
think within 3 to 5 years that they could start seeing some real benefit and certainly in 8 to 10
years I think the benefit would outweigh that of a cedar lattice fence or otherwise significantly so
it's not one of the proposals but I would be in favor of expan~ the foliage.
Slagle: Mr. Chair, I just have a thought, if I may.
Sacchet: Sure.
Slagle: h might be worth suggesting at least as a con~'omi~ with some of the owners of the
land there, that maybe we can work with the city and the~ could be a shared cost perhaps as
maybe that it's labor or equipment or size of trees. I mean maybe we're talking to get 6 m 8 foot
evergreens. They're pricier than what we normally would do but maybe there's some
compromise that staff can work with the owners on that and you accelerate that growth.
Sacchet: C_rood thought. I don't have too many new thoughts on this conl~xt. I was a little
struggling why do we even have a fence if we don't have fence in other places but it certainly
makes sense that we shield it since it's at the lake. I would be concerned about having to repaint
the generator because of the maintenance aspect. But certainly in favor to shield it with
landscaping and with the fence. I would want to hold us however to the same standard that we
hold everybody else to and do it 2 to 1, if we have to cut trees. And I would, if ~ would be an
applicant I would say work with staff, but on this case I have to say staff work on determining
definitely is more generous in terms of what we need to encase in a fence and I would say the one
of the neighbors is too skimpy. I appreciate your point that you were frying to navigate around
the trees, and I would be in full favor of that but I would like staff to work on that and see what's
the balance in terms of having adequate access to the equi~t and taking into consideration the
trees and everything around it. So with that, does anybody venture a motion please. Who's going
to be daring? Bruce, go ahead.
Feilc Recommend the Planning Commission approves variance 2003-8 to allow the installation
of a 6 foot high fence at Lift Station #10 located at 500 and 516 Big Woods Boulevard based on
the findings of fact in the staff report, with the chan~ that the trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1
ratio. That the location of the fence be such to ~d_,xluately allow work to be pe~~ around the
equipment. And that it be fully screened 360 degrees with access, open access to it. I think you
know where I'm going on that. So that if Frisbee's and footballs and thin~m~ go iii ~ th~ kids
can get them out.
Sacchet: Frisbee retriev~ access, I think we got it. We have a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Slagle: Point of clarification. Are you talking lattice?
Feik: I'm comfortable with what the city staff and the neighbors can work out. If it's amenable
to the neighbors, and it's less expensive, that's fine with me.
Sacchet: One friendly ~ddifion. How about we say the mitigation of trees would have to be pine
trees. Evergreens. Evergreens, just to make the shielding year round.
31
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Slagle: The only question I would have Mr. Chair is if, and again not that they're, if the foliage is
so dense.
Sacchet: Whetl~r it would prosper, yeah.
Feik: Or if it's too low that we're not going to get.
Sacchet: Yeah, there's a significant amount of canopy the way I remember it. So yes, it may not
work so.
Saam: If I could just interject something we could do. If you wanted to do evergreens, a
combination of some landscape, maybe berming where you put them on them to help screem Oet
them up higher to shield from those homes. I mean we can work with the neighbors on that
Sacchet: So basically staff work on th~
Feik: And then anothea- one, staff work with the neighbors as it relates to location of the trees. So
if you want to strategically locate them for their deck or something.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second.
Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commi~don approves variance 2003-8 to
allow the installation of a 6 foot high fence at Llft Station #10 located at S00 and S16 Big
Woods Boulevard based on the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio.
,
The location of the fence be such to adequately allow work to be perf~ around the
equipment, that it be fully screened 360 degrees with open access to it.
3. City staff shah work with the neighbors in the placement of trees.
All voted in favor, except Claybaugh who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6
tol.
Sacchet: Do you want to comment about thia?
Claybaugh: Fd rather see the city and the neighlx~rs get together, and to dove tail what Rich said,
have the neighbors take some little ownership of it and possibly upgrade to more substantial
vegetation. Incorporate that with some berming and make a long team investment because I think
that for years down the line you'll be back here with the color of the generator and the
maintenance on the fence and other issues. I think it would be a good time to make a lollg tgllll
investment. Take the money that would go into the fence and start down that path.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you Craig. With that I propose we take a 5 minute recess.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just make one announcement. Any person aggrieved of a
variance can appeal that decision. This was 6 to 1. The other, we told the applicant, the other did
not pass. It did not have 75 percent because it was 6 to 2. We did inform the applicant of that.
That one does have to be appealed. But I just wanted to make sure that anybody that's hem that
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
is not happy with the decision, because right now the decision stands unless it's appealed. Then it
would go to the City Council.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Did you all get that7 You can appeal. In a nutshell. Alright, we'll take a
5 minute recess and then we continue.
PUBLIC FIFAR~G:
CONS[DER A REQ~ FOR REPLAT OF TWO LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 1,35
ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILy LOT~ WITH VARIANCF~ ON PROPERTY
ZONED RF. SIDENTIAL SIN(~LE FAMILY z~ff) LOC~TI~ AT 185 ~ANT VIEW
ROAD AND 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LAND~ SCHROEDER ADDITION~ LARRY
SCHROEDER~ DOUG SCHROEDER AND I.nVDA PETERSON.
Sharmeen AI.Jaff presented the staff Feport on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff.
Feik: I have one.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
Feilc When this was before us a few monthg ago, I remember diso~sions regarding how low this
parcel is. Do you have any concerns regarding drainage?
Sweidan: What the drainage may be for the proposed lot is going to be concern from the roof of
the new house towards the west and towards the souflz There's an existing hindrance. It looks
like it's a storm sewer...the length and within the eastern portion of the lot. So bm tl~ new
proposal is for, is to accumulate with the mainly with the service drainage in four dh'ecfions and
this storm sewer's connecting to our existing storm sewer too.
Feik: So you're comfortable?
Sweidan: Yes.
Feik: Thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions? I definitely share the same concern because I remember when thi~
was last time in front of us there was definitely concern that it was rather wet, which probably
would be about the garage area of the new house pad the way it's drawn in that area. So that
there would be some build-up for the pad, is that the idea7
Sweidan: Yes, it's approximnmly about oddition about 2 feet build-up for the house pad and
Sacchet: That should solve the drainage aspect. And then the aspect of the access from Pleasant
View to have a driveway off of Pleasant View Road. That there's no concern aborn that7
Sweidan: Because the sight distance is safe and there's..,
Sacchet: Okay. And all the variances are pre-existing, okay. That's the comments I have.
Steve, do you have a question?
33
Planning Commission Meeting -May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: Since we're talking about the drainage. If you look on the pre~ plat here, on
the very east side, in the southwest corner of the house, are those arrows there that are split in the
different directions, does that mean part of the water's going to the northwe~ and then part is
going to the southeast? Is that kind of the divide? Are you kind of following me where we're at?
So there's water going up north and then to the east onto the adjacent property which currently, it
really wasn't directed that way.
Sweidan: Seeing it go to the north?
Sacchet: Steve are you, the arrows on the southwest corner?
Lillehaug: Right in here, yeah. Can I point to them on the map? Right here. Does this wamr go
this way?
Sweidan: Yes. This is the point where there's an existing.
Sacchet: Yeah, let's look at that because we're all definitely concerned about it.
Lillehaug: And then just comment on the concerns. I know previously the adjacent landowner
had concerns with water going onto his ~ and it appears that instead of all the water being
directed more towards the south, it looks like the divide is going to maim it go directly on his
Sacchet: Can you point out where, what we're talking about Mak please.
Sweidan: Okay. You talk about this area here?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sweidan: Okay, now it's shooting or splitting ac. rally at this point here towards the west mainly.
Now maybe you can't see this line here. Here is the existing storm sewer and he is going to
eliminate about 15 feet so he can make the opening here. There's another opening also south of it
where it's going to take or service the southern drainage with that existing here. And then for
storm sewer and is connecting the existing catch basin in the cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much Mak. Okay, this is a public beating. If anybody want to
come forward. Address this item. Please do so now. Or the applicant, excuse me. Thanks. The
applicant please come forward and make a l~resenl~tion. State your name and address for the
Doug Schroeder. Hi, I'm Doug Schroeder. Address is 2181 Majestic Way, which is in no
relationship close to this but my parents live at 6430 Pleasant View Lane. And Sharmeen
covered everything I think just excellent. We're not going to do anything with it. My mom and
dad were just concerned that they didn't want a house built in the back yard while they owned the
property and we thought this was a good solution for both Curly and my parents so I guess that's
where we're at. Any questions?
Sacchet: Any questions of the applicant?
Doug Schroeder: Okay, thank you.
34
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, try again. This is a public hearing so if
anybody wants to ~_daress this item, please come forward. State your name and address for the
record please. This is your turn to address this. Seeing nobody. Yep, there's somebody. Please
Brian Grundhofer: My name is Brian Grundhofer and I reside at 195 Pleasant View Road, which
happens to be fight on the west side of that ~. And I mean I know they're probably not
going to do anything with this so that's not an issue right now but sometime there will be and my
garage is, as you can see, is clearly about a foot from the property line right there. And right now
my foundation on there is pretty much gone due to water damager and I'm still very concerned. I
have a low spot in my driveway as well and I'm just very concerned about them bringing mom
water onto my property. That would be my only real concern because now you're taking away,
you know if you're putting in a hardscape in an area that's already very wet and that would be my
only real concern. Just for future.
Sacchet: And it was a concern that was raised last time that it came in front of us and engineering
assures us that this is mitigated ~asonably, correct? Okay. Thank you for pointing that out.
Anybody else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments.
Discussion on this. We already have discussion over them.
Claybaugh: We were hoping you wouldn't notice.
Feik: No sign of disrespect
Claybaugh: I would like to, Mak to re-address what the neighbor just stated here. Is that catch
basis, is the sizing of that catch basin sufficient?
Sweidan: The existing is not a catch basin. Yeah, it's a storn~.. Could be from a plastic...
Claybaugh: Is it 6 inch? 8 inch? What is it's capacity7
Sweidan: I think it's about 8 inch.
Audience: 12 inch.
Claybaugh: 127 Well my concern was, just to dove tail the gentlerrum's ~ts is that it's in
place right now, correct? And there's still standing water. He still has damage to his foundatiom
Sweidan: And it will help. Overall the...his garage is maybe very flat area and that's why maybe
his like concern about the water being around there. It's a very flat area.
Claybaugh: Yeah, my concern is that what this sizing of w~ it's an inlet or a catch basin or
whatever term you want to use, is not going to be changed.
Sweidan: Oh no.
Claybaugh: Okay. And currently there's cause for concer~ The inu'oduction of a new residence
there and the hard surface coverage is going to intensify that, okay. So it would seem natural to
me that that would be a primary concern to address that and certainly i ,reprove it because it's
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
going to be under a greater burden once a new residence is placed the~. So is them, in your mind
a way to address that?
Sweidan: There's no i .mprovcment to the storm sewer. It's going to stay as it is.
Claybaugh: I know there's nothing proposed on here but just from what you know about the
situation, what would be a reasonable remedy or is them a way to upgrade what's there? Or is
that a substantial endeavor.
Sweidan: There could be a...in front of the garage on the property line. Somehow to raise the
elevation to avoid the water going to his garage. To keep it maintained within the ~ line.
The proposed property line.
Slagle: So is it going to pond then?
Sweidan: As a gathering point but as like a ponding.
Claybaugh: So we haven't looked at what the capacity is for that inlet and what the burden is on
it. Okay. Do you feel that we should be looking at that?
Sweidan: We could look at it.
Claybaugh: I would very much like you to take a look at that.
Sweidan: Yeah, we could look for the calculations to see that...
Claybaugh: That's all my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks.
Feilc Let me follow up on that. We are looking at a proposed replat. Preliminary plat. We're
not looking at a house plan. We're not looking at any i .m!n'ovemenm. To my knowledge at this
point, right?
Aanenson: Correct. The nexus here would be is the~ adequacy of ~ systems
Feik: I understand that. So the grading change that we're lookinog at this plan isn't going to
happen unless, until they build a house.
Aanenson: Correct. But when they come in for a building permit you can attach conditions. If
you want to attach them, as Craig was indicating, if you want the staff to review to make sure
there's adequate drainage or somebody to make sure that there's no ponding.
Feilc I understand that so I guess what I'm just clarifying is, nothing is in front of us now is
going to change the existing conditions.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Feilc Thank you.
Aanenson: But could they build a house tomorrow and change their mind? Yes.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Feik: Yes, understand that. Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Bethany?
Tjomhom: Nothing.
Sacchet: Kurt? Rich? Steve?
Lillehaug: Real quick. Congnaulafions Curly... Maybe a possible solution that we could s~d~d
here is, it appears the low...maybe we could grade a swale back to that point and alleviate that
problem on the west side. Other than that I fully support it, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I don't have much to add. I mean I'm glad to see you fonnd a solution.
I remember when you were here Mr. Curly. Mr. MaNutc Get it straight eventually. Yeah I
remember when you were here last time and we had to turn you down and you found a solution
that I believe works and that's good. I do have a concern about thi~ drainage. I would say
something like applicant work with staff to mitigate and i .reprove the drainage issues to the west
and have it be at that. With that I would like to have a motion please.
Feik: I'll make a motion the Planaing Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for
the subdivision g03-6 for the Schroeder Addition for 3 lots with variances as shown on the plans
received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And an addition
number 14. The applicator shall work with engineering to ensure a_d_equate drainage from the
parcel.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Lillehaug: Second.
Feik moved, l.illehaug seconded that the Planning Comminnlon reeommenda approval of
the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~ for Sehroeder Addition for 3 lots with ~
as shown on the plans received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
consuucfion. Fencing shall protect trees on proposed lots as well as trees in neighboring
properties located next to the grading limits.
.
Any trees lost due to construction that are not shown as such on plans shall be replaced at
a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
Extend silt fence along the east side of Lot 3 toward the north and remove all silt fence
when development is completed.
4. Show City Detail Plate Nos. 5300 and 5301.
5. Add a 75 foot minimum rock consuucfion entrance.
1
All disturbed areas shall be resocl~Oed or reseeded within two weeks of grading
completion.
7. The proposed driveway must be installed with a paved surface.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
.
If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route
plan for approval.
,
The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk
utility hookup charge~ are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per trait for
water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to
building permit issuance and are based on tbe number of SAC units for the new building
addition.
10. Show the existing 2 foot contours.
11. Dedicate typical drainage and utility easements.
12.
The total SWMP fees of $4,451 are due and payable to the City at time of final plat
recording.
13. Building Official condifiom:
Soil reports must be submitted to the inspections Division before building
permits will be issued for any building pad correctly, or if poor soils are
encountered at excavation.
b. Thc new lot must be provid~l with setmmm sewer and water service.
14.
The appHcnnt shnll work with engineering to ensure ndequnte drnlnnge ~ the
parcel
All voted in fnvor nmi the motion cnrrled nnnnimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC FI'~'akR~G:
CQNSmER A (~OMPREI~._NSIVE ~ L~ U~ MAP ~~~~ ~OM
0~CE ~~ ~ ~~' ~~ D~~ ~ ~N~
p~o ~ D~~~ ~OV~ ~R A 4~ ~ ~~O~
PROP~ ON ~ A~ ~~~ ~~ 0F ~ ~ ~ ~
~~~ ~H.RO~ ~T OF L~ BQ~.~~ ~ ~ OF BL~
~KK QN ~Q~~ ~~ AG~~~ ~TA~ D~~ ~
~I.I.~N D~~~~ ~ ~ ~I.~ ~~N.
Bob Generous presented the 8taft report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff.
LiHehaug: Yes I had one. If you could turn to page, let's go to page 3 first Your table at the
bottom there. I don't have a previous table in front of me and it was for the Town and Country
Bemardi property but does this, it seemed to me that the table that was prepared for that pmpe~
was kind of flip flopped and is that an accmme statement? And if it is accurate, would that be
due to the fact that these are based, that this PUD represents basically all residential townhouses
rather than more of a mix?
Aanenson: Well I think it's pretty consistent.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: Oh it is consistent?
Aanenson: Yeah. The townhouses pay more but then what's not being showed is the service cost
and that was the same question that was raised on the other. I think it's consistent.
LiHehaug: Okay. Then my next question would be on page 4. The second paragraph down it
says in doing so we need to assure the land is provided for various land uses rather than
responding to current market, whatever it's supposed to be there. Current market trends.
Darling, whatever is ~. But could you elaborate on that state~t. What says we n__e~l_ to do
this and why? I think that's i~t.
Generous: Well the developer would probably be better at that but the townhouse development is
a hot market right now. Land is expemive. The~'s not a lot of it available for residential
development and so they can bring forward the townhouse project and the absorption rate would
probably be fairly high. We concur with their analysis as far as that is. However our concern is
we're giving up land to do that. Land that could be developed othe~'wise and maintaining a long
term balance in our community. So we get contacts slmost daily about conv~ industrial land
to residential.
Lillehaug: And that's what I'm getting at is why, why is this so i ,mportant to keep it induslxial? I
mean I think I know why. The tax base.
Generous: Well yeah, to keep that balance long term. Generally residential doesn't pay it's own
way. After you hit a ~ price point it does. Office industrial pays in excess of it's tax rate so
especially on the school side. There was a study done in the early 90's that showed residential
cost $1.04 for every dollar of revenue you received. Office industrial and comme~ial cost 40
cents for every dollar in revenue, so it helps to balance out and k~p your tax base reliable. ALso
you don't want to put everything in the same mix as far as maintaining a healthy community.
Just like we don't want to have all estate homes because there's not a long te~m market for that.
You want to have a life cycle type housing.
Lillehaug: So what you're saying is this acreage is significant in the overall Chanhassen goal.
Generous: Right. It represents approxirr~tely 16 percent of our future industrial development.
Lillehaug: So it is significant?
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks.
Slagie: A couple questions. Bob, you mentioned on page 2, after the figures. You noted 183
acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. Can I assume that
that has all been developed inW industrial?
Generous: Yes, office warehouse, showroom space.
Slagle: So we didn't divert any of it to medium density or so forth?
Generous: No.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Slagle: Okay. Next question. Fm not a tra~c person but I guess I just want to know these
figures that you're showing for round trip for 188 a~m_ peak and 231 for medium density
residential. Where do you get those?
Generous: Well it's one of the attac~ts to the report~ I use the Institute of Traffu: Engineers
Trip Generation Sixth Edition Manual and it's based on either the homing type of in this instance
the square footage of the industrial development
Slagle: Okay, so it's using square footage as sort oftbe baseline.
Generous: Right.
Slagle: So really if you had a different type of indusuial office, say less labor intensive, you
might have fewer trips.
Generous: ...it may be less.
Slagle: Okay. Fm still not sure I understand the tax capacity taxes and city share. Completely,
but maybe someone will ask that. If you have a chance to describe that a little latex, that would be
great. And I think the last thing I want to get at is, from staff's perspective we have this many
units being proposed if we were to do a land use change. What do we have for Town and
Country? Ballpark units.
Aanenson: 370. Something like that.
Slagle: Okay. So potentially you could have within a mile, using Audubon as your point to
point, 800 or so units that could be developed if we went ahead with this. It'd be interesting to
think what would happen if this was first and I mean fellow commissioners, it'd be intexesfing to
see how the dialogue would have been over the last 6 months. That's iL
Sacchec Kurt, any questions?
Papke: Yeah. One of the issues is going to be the transition into Chaska here. What's across the
street from the development in essence? Right now it's Crosby Office Park directly across the
street but the last time I drove by there I thought I saw a for sale sign on the ~ just across
from the sub-station in Chaska. What is that zoned for?
Generous: That's office industrial.
Papke: Office industrial, so essentially the whole border along Chaska is all going to be office
industrial eventually?
Generous: C. xaxect.
Papke: Okay. So we do have that issue. One of the things that the letter fi'om the City of Chaska
I just saw for the first time just before the meeting does bring up the issue of when. And I'd just
like to point out, I worked in that Crosby Office Park for 6 years and them used to be an animal
feed manufacturing facility in there that emitted some very intexesfing odors, okay. And this
development will be down wind of that facility. I don't know if that still is in production but that
might be worth checking into. It could be a consideration at some point.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjomhom: I have a question regarding housing. Is ~ is there a need for more housing
or is there a need for more industrial parks?
Generous: There's a need for both. However, based on our comp plan we believe we can
accommodate the housing on land that's guided for residential. But we need to also offset that
with industrial where there's not a lot of land guided for it and the more you give up, it's very
difficult to replace.
Tjomhom: So then would there be another spot this could, this devel~t could go into?
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: Yes.
Papke: Just a question of clarification. When we say need, who is having that need you're
referring to? Are you talking about a demand for housing versus the demand for ~? I
think the developer's perspective is that there's demand, more demand for multi-unit housing
right now as opposed to industrial office park, which tends to have a high vacancy rate. Now
from the city's perspective, what's our need for tax base that you know, maybe it's worth just
clarifying that one. Who's perspective are we stating need?
Aanenson: Sure. Are you asking that as a question?
Sacchet: We are in questions right now.
Papke: Yes.
Aanenson: Well ff you go back to page 3 where the city just completed the Key l:rmancial
Strategies, looking at tax base. Diversification. Trying to maintain that one-fotnth/one4hizd so
part of the complexity is if you take this out, where do you r~place it? And so okay well we
talked about that in the Town and Country one and it kind of goes back to Rich's question. The
absorption and having that much at one intersection. In good faith they waited, waiting to, so if
this went in, would that absorb some of the need for the other piece? I'm assmning that's what
your dynamics and I guess that's the assumption that we maae that this would stay indusuial and
based on that, moving the other piece, advancing that, allowing that one to go forward as the
residential, based on this pace. It adds that complexity because where would you replace this, ff
we wanted to maintain that one-fourth to one-third, or 25 to 30 pewem. Now we're going to go
over here and say well, you're going to change from residential to industrial next to you, it just
adds, it's hard to replace that. That much when we're already trying to replace some of that with
Town and Country. So does that answer your question?
Papke: Yeah. I was more looking for clarification about Bethany's point than really asking an
additional question.
Aanenson: Well I think Bob tried to answer that It's the immediate market demand and long
term making solid decision, financial long term that's why I guess I couched it back in the Key
Financial Strategies to go back and say, that would be the more.
41
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Papke: On that topic just want to, you made a broad staten~nt before that residential tends to
require a $1.04 for every.
Generous: Well that was based on the study, I believe it was Lakeville did in the early 90's.
Papke: Do we know where the average price of this development fits in that
Obviously you said there's a break over point where we begin to break evem
Generous: It used to be $300,000. I'm not sum now. We use $240,~ as a part of our analysis.
Sacchet: Thank you. That's all your quesfi~?
Tjomhom: Yes it is.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Yes. In here you said it's going to require mass grading for any developmem on this site.
Being respective of the bluff area. Along with the mass grading we've got a total site here of 94
acres, if I'm not mistaken, correct?
Generous: That's correct
Feik: Of the 94 acres, how much of it is developed into townhomes? As planned.
Generous: 53-54.
Feik: 53-54 acres. And those are, the 53 or 54 acres are consistent with the revenue dollars you
show on the bottom of page 3 for city share.
Generous: I just used the ordinance.
Feik: Okay. If this were to go commercial, and I spoke with you today on this earlier. If this
were to go to comme~ial, is it fair to say that you cotdd even achieve this kind of density with
commercial given the hills, th~ bluffs, the large pads you're going to need for 30,000-40,000
square foot footprints, truck turn around's, everything else. What I'm getting at is, do you really
think it's reasonable, the dollars that you show here for the office warehouse revenue dollars, are
attainable given the slopes and the condition of the site? Can you get at that density to get those
kinds of dollam?
Generous: It's possible to do it and they've shown aplan for developnmm of this site.
Feik: But to do that you're going to, you mentioned you'd have to have probably some office.
Pure office. Some higher.
Generous: Well yeah, higher valued.
Feik: Higher valued properties, so where I'm getting at is, the office warehouse city share or
revenue dollars here are, is fairly speculative.
Generous: Right. It's based on the assumptions.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Feik: And there's only about $55,000 a year difference between townhomes and the industrial.
Generous: Yes.
Feik: Okay. So it's not mucl~ Let's see here. I think the rest of my questions or comments I can
wait for later. Thank you.
Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce.
Claybaugh: Most the questions have been asked but Kate I wanted to ~ you to page 2. The
second paragraph up from the bottom where you went through the sentence, since 1988 the year
of the latest comprehensive plan was adapted, or adopted. Pardon me. 183 acres of the vacant
758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. That represents 25 percent since 1998.
Is that pretty much on pace with what you saw the ~ industrial being developed or is that
behind the pace? I'm just trying to get a sense of.
Aanenson: Maybe a little lower, yeal~
Claybaugh: Maybe a little lower.
Aanenson: We had in the late 90' s, we took down a lot of office industrial. That was actually out
pacing residential.
Slagle: Say that again, you took down7
Aanenson: Yeah, there was a lot of development that was occurring in the industrial parks that
were moving pretty quickly. Mark Undestad's project for example.
Generous: CSM on the ease
Slagle: So we built up7
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Yes, fight They were actually more valuation historically different than what we've
experienced in the past generally residential permits have been hi~ value. Ae0,ally them was a
number of years where we were actually more commercial industrial value.
Claybaugh: I'm assuming by recommending denial of this that you assign a lot of weight to
maintaining that diversity. My concern is that we see applicants wanting to rezone office
industrial residential but we're not going to see anything going back the other way. And it sotmds
like city staff is very committed to that diverse mix. Is that accurate7
Aanenson: Yes.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: A couple more questions. First of all, the role of the Planning Commission is not to
deal with tax issues, is that correct?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Aanenson: Well it's couched in. We gave you the policies of the city and certainly it's a factor
in looking at the stability and economic viability in our co~ve plan is an element so.
Sacchet: Okay. In the staff report it refers compliance, or as it is non-compliance with
performance standards. Could we just clarify what kind of performance standards you're
referring to?
Generous: It's based on the concept plan that they submitted that we're providing sensitive
development in the Bluff Creek corridor. Reducing i ,mpervious s~. Taking account of the
topography. That's why some of our, should you approve it we had some recommendution that
they look at different housing types and different configurations of the ~ to make it work
Sacchet: That answers it. And then one more quick question on top of page 7. There is a
summary of what it, benefits of a PUD and it states that in return for a PUD for the fleya'bility, the
city is receiving developing that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Now in this particular
case it is not consistent, correct?
Generous: Correct. This is what we would expect
Sacchet: Alright. That's all my questions. Any more questions?
Slagle: One question. I'm sorry I didn't ask The W~ Pipeline easement. The applicant
puts in one of their documents that that is a reason to be open for a land use change. Any
thoughts on that?
Aanenson: That's their argument. I don't think it's an argument for residential.
Slagle: Okay, so it wouldn't in your opinion it wouldn't mun_er if it's office industrial or
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Alright. Yep, one more Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah I just wanted to check. Vfnen thc church went in, is it Woodside7
Feik: Westwood.
Claybaugh: When that went in we had I believe it was Hoffman Development come in
afterwards for a round table session concerned about tapping into the infvam-ucture that they
expected to when we went through that rezoning. To me that was something that I found out
after the fact that was unexpected. That they were counting on the infraatn~t~re to be expanded
through that property to the back side to feed fima-e development. With that church going in, that
no longer appears to be the case. Is there anything with respect to infi'afi'trugl:u~ that's beeal
geared towards the zoning that's there that could cause any furore hiccups with the surrounding
development? You understand my question? You come in with your capital i%provements
you've geared those towards office industrial, I'm assuming.
Generous: Right. Sizing.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Claybaugh: Right. With making a change in rezoning it, is there anything on the peripheral
properties that may be affected, similar to what happened, yeah.
Aanenson: Well that was one of the things under the EA that if you did choose to go forward,
there isn't enough information on the concept at that level.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Acuuflly that triggers another question on my part. Them isn't really much sumaunding
development expected ~cause it's either across the street or across the wethnd, but there is that
power station. In the letter from the City of Chaska pointed out that they have an easement of
access across. Do we know where that ease~ is? Could you point that out Bob or Kate?
Generous: it's also included in the attachment they have a description. The stuff I handed out
tonight .... about in this area.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you. Only if there are more questions, I'm very interested to hear
the presentation of the applicant. If you want to come forward and present your story. State your
name and address for the record please.
Jason Osberg: Good evening. My name is Jason Osberg. I'm with Tollefson Development. Our
address is 17271 Kenyon Avenue, Lakeville, lVlinnesota, 55044. I'm here tonight as a means of
presentation for our proposed townhome development, land use amendmem on the Mattson
property here in Chanhassen. I feel that we have a lot of information I'd like to share with you
tonight that might help look at this in a more positive manner, and maybe take a look at it from
our perspective. I know Bob has done a good job with the staff memo. Communicated with him
on a regular basis for the last few weeks and while the information in there may be opinionated,
we respectfully disagree with a lot of his statements that have been made and that's what I want
to share with you this evening. But maybe right away on some of the comments that I heard from
the commission, it's i .m!x~taut to keep in mind that 16 percent number of your inventory for
commercial industrial, that only half of this site is usable because of steep slopes or... open space
as part of that Bluff Creek corridor, which we certainly intend to provide as part of our
development here on the concept plato The concept plan itself is a means or a tool that is
workable. We submitted this as a method to get the dialogue going, as we heard that term earlier,
dialogue. We want to get the discussion going with the city. We're open to exploring just about
any opportunity on this site that's residential in nature. Now we have presented townhomes, 427
units which approximately is 8 units an acres on the net density, but if there are other thin~ on
the site, smaller lots, single family, detached villas, that type of thing, we are also amenable to
looking at that if the city's open to this land use amendment. Some of the advantages I guess thaf
we will see, I don't know how well that's going to show up. Thank you. You talked a little bit
about tax base revenue. I mean I know this works both ways because we're going to be creating a
residential development which is going to increase services, but it's also i .re?arrant to know that
you're going to have a near term or immediate absorption rate and you're going to have tax
revenue coming into the city and that's going to help balance what taxes could be generated in the
future for the commercial industrial. Park decision is a huge issue in many communities that we
work in and we feel that this is a good opportunity to get the developer and the city working
together on something that we can create, take the private land that's presently owned by Mr.
Mattson and used for agricultural purposes, and convert some of that into public open space for
the good of the community and the benefit of not only the residents of our proposed development,
but surrounding areas here in the hinterland. We talk about land end cash. We talk about a new
concept that we see popping up in alternative to pools which is a spray park. I'll go into a little
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
more detail. I've got some pictures and some ideas to share with you of that in the future, but
we'll also have interpretative areas because this is a nature corridor. We'd like to do some
signage. We'd like to bring out the naucral ~fies of the site. We can create overlook areas on
some of the bluff areas that capture the view sheds of the immediate area. Bob mentioned a
$240,000 price range or a price point, and that's kind of an average of what the builders are
telling us that they'd like to be at, at this density. What we want to really bring out is that we can
create affordability on this site and we can also have upscale housing as well. There's many areas
on the site that lend itself betIer to back to back units and there's sites that, locations on the site
that lend itself to twin homes or single family homes with view sheds. So it's a wide range of
affordability levels or income levels can be achieved. We talk a little bit about the grading. That
was a concern that we heard earlier. Residential development, keep in mind, can be if it's done
correctly, you can create a development that enhanc~ and utilizes the topography of the property
whereas most commercial industrial sites and one of the commissions mentioned, is going to take
a ton of grading, and the flat surfaces and the large i ,mpervious areas, you're going to get that with
residential but at least with, or you're going to get that with industrial but at least with residential
you have some flexibility in working with the land and the contours. The pipeline easement was
brought up as an argument. Well we feel as, ff you're going to do commercial indusUial
development, you're going to need large parking lots. You're going to have larger buildings that
are continuous and how do you build over that without crealfng problems or moving that
easement. Resi~ can provide that fleya~ty. Reduction of the non-residential traffic
through neighborhoods. In the staff report, the staff indicated that our ~ development
would have a smaller i ,mpact on traffic trips in the neighborhood. Well if you look at those
numbers based on what Bob put together, that's about haft. We would reduce truck traffic
through the neighborhoods. You've got really nice neighborhoods to the ncr'& and to the east.
The ongoing maintenance of these buildings would be done by an association. Theref~ the
quality and the overall look and curb appeal would be kept to a higher standard whereas a
commercial industrial development, I know the City of Chanhassen has high building standards,
but who's to say that those can't be blighted buildings in the fu0.rre as well so that's positive.
Additional housing oppommifies. Commissioner asked do you need this housing in Chanhas~n
today? Yes, you need housing. Yes, you need co~ industfal as well, but we're here to
try to provide that oppommity for housing because that's our nitch. And then lastly the
advantage would be a development related fees paid to the city now, and that's a big thing in
communities that we work in because with the boa_~t cuts at the State, you're losing LGA.
You've got a reduced city budget Developmem fees can help subsidize those losses. One of the
things that we saw in the e-mails was they didn't ~ the neighbors didn't like townhomes being
here and they bought into it being commercial industrial site. Well we respect that and we would
be willing to or open to having a neighborhood meeting if the city would be in agreeance with us
to pass this land use amendment. We'd be glad to work with the neighbors on site c~cs,
site planning. Again the concept is something that can be tweadaxL It's nothing that's in stone.
So that's one other thing. On your adverse affects that the staff memo talked about, one of the
big things is that this is inconsistent with your comprehemive plan. Well we understand that.
That's why we're here tonight. We're asking to change that so that our proposed application is
consistent with your official document. You talk about incorrqnm'bility in the staff memo with
adjacent land uses. Well if you look at the land use that's out there today, agriculture is
inconsistent with single family residential and is incomistent with industrial across the street in
Chas~ so no trotter what you guide it, commem~ industrial res~ you're still going to
have those inconsistencies and non-compatible land uses side by side. One of the commissioners
talked about performance standards. Yes, I mean we understand that, in Bob's staff report he's
referencing commercial industrial standards. However, if this is allowed to be resin, we
would be open to meeting whatever performance standards your residential code would call for. I
touched on some of the other issues already earlier here but we have a finm~ analysis that was
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
prepared by professionals on tax i .mpact. Now, ff the Planning Commi~sion would like I've got
the full financial analysis. I know that's, you're here more for ordinance and comprehensive plan
but that information's available not only to you but City Council and if there's me~ of the
general public that would like to see that, I do have additional copies here but it's the big word to
note is that we am showing in thi~ financial analysis the diffemn~ of close to 11 million dollars
in the year 2021 from the difference of residential, our proposed residential development versus
commercial industrial office site utilizing the Mattson property. Now as Bob mentioned, he
thought the appreciation values wore high. I can't speak for or against that. That' $ not my line of
work, but we can certainly take another look at that if the Planning Commission's more
interested. But we are, like I said, we're open to different housing types. I've got conceptual
pictures of different units that may be appropria~ on the site, if the City re-guides it to residential
uses here, if anybody's interested in looking at those. And then I also want to just take the last
minute of my presentation and show some of this sprinkler concept. This is again a concept that
is kind of taking the place of public pools in neighbozhoods and they're a little less safety hazard.
They're zero depth. They're quite fun from what the people who produce ~ told me. This is
a manufacturer out of Canada and these are some pictures that they sent me but this is just kind of
a general gist of if we were to do a residential development, we'd like to offer something unique
and different to the City of Chanhassen. Something that you presently do not already have. So
with that, I've got a million other things but I know we're short on time so I'd love to take any
questions. I know there are members of the public who are also here to talk about this.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. No questions from the applicant?
Lillehaug: I do have a question. I mean we're also here to look at the approval of a concept
PUD, correct? So looking at the plan here, just a couple details on it that I'd like you to ad__dmss.
It appears that on the north we have a railroad tracks. On the west we have a county road. On the
east we have a wetland with a power line running down the edge of the ~ that we're
talking about here. On the south you have a substation~ In your ~ as a residential
neighborhood, kind of locked in by these ~, does it really fit in them? Maybe in the
inner it does but in your opinion does the very outskirts of this property, is it good for residential
neighborhood to be in here?
Jason Osberg: You know the marketplace is telling us that it is because the~'s that type of
demand. If you look at the concept plan, we do show a trail system. We show some spraying.
We would provide adequs~ buffering along County Road 18. We'd provide buffering around the
substation. It's no different, I mean there's I believe Pulte has a project here in Chanhassen that
is on the corner of 5 and 41, if I'm not mistakem I mean I think it would kind of be in that same
framework. It's just going to take, you know you're going to orientate your houses a little
different, away from those high traffic areas, but it's definitely workable. And I do have our
engineer from Sathre-Berquist here tonight if there are any technical questions about the plan, I'm
sure Bob would be happy to answer those.
Sacchet: Kate.
Aanenson: Can I ask a question? I did receive a lot of phone calls from developers so it was my
understanding that you would sell this and you are the developer, is that correct?
Jason Osberg: We are the developer.
Aanenson: Okay.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Jason Osberg: We do not build homes. We're simply a land developer.
Aanenson: So someone else would come in and do the project.
Jason Osberg: Yeah. No, what I mean is, we would be the lead applicant Now if it was Home
Builder A, B, C, they would come in along with us and then they would submit their product type
and then it would have to get all the.
Aanenson: I believe it went out for notice because I did receive phone calls. I was just trying to
understand the relationship of who's going to be, if this were to go forward the, showing the
product?
Jason Osberg: Okay. We have.
Aanenson: Does Tollefson Development have a product or do you work with somebody else to
present the product?
Jason Osberg: We work with several home builders, both national and local.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that's i .mportant. Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Two questions. I will come back and ask for some examples of who those folks are. But
what I'd like to ask you is one, would you be op~ and I refer to an article that just was in the
paper the last few weeks of how, if you will, Ameri~ now lives in homes and drives to the store,
to whatever. No one waik~. My question is, is would you be open to some commercial, call it
support?
Jam~ Osberg: Like a maybe a new urbanism that's kind of a mixed use? Maybe lower level
retail, above level living or separate units entirely? At thin point we're open to anything that
works in the marketplace. We're open to anything that the City of Chanhassen would allow
residential. We just need to apply for the land use amendment and able to get to that next step.
Slagle: I understand. Couple more questions. One is, I'm more looking for a feel on thin versus
a raw number. But what do you think of the number of units that you're asking for? I mean are
you amenable if you will to lower number of units?
James Osberg: Again, we're open to anything at thin point. We undea~stand that to make this land
use amendment there's going to have to be give and take. We represent a typical 8 unit per acre
townhome development that some of the builders have told us that they'd like to build their
product type, that's what we show here. We don't show Builder A, B, C's exact profile hem but
we show something very, very similar. No, we are open to working one way or another. I've got
examples of 40 foot wide detached lots that some builders have indicated interest in that look
fairly nice, and may kind of lean towards that new m-. baninm maybe you were referring to in your
previous question.
Slagie: Last question then would be some of the examples of the buildem that you c~y work
with.
James Osberg: We deal with the national builders are, and I'm not going to say any specific to
this development because, we deal with Pulte Homes. We deal with Orrin Thompson, US
Homes, Lenar. We deal with, had contact with Town and Country Homes, and I know that was a
48
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
development that was brought up near here. Ryland, Rottlund, David Bernard Homes. We have
relationships with the National Home Builders, but we also have local home builders and some of
the larger ones like M.W. Johnson, Nettegard Cons~on, Donnay Homes, Avalon.
Slagle: Let me ask you more specifically. Can you give me some examples of some
developments that you've actually been the lead on that I could see?
James Osberg: For a strict townhome development, there's one in Cottage Orove called Shots at
Elmar Village. That incorporates a neighborhood retail center along with it. That builder's M.W.
Johnson. We are in fact tonight going in front of the City of Shakopee with Pulte on another deal
where we would do the exact same thing here where we're the lead developer, and that one
actually has about 1,300 units on 160 acres. So that I can give you conceptual plans for that.
Slagle: Okay. That would he enough for me to see. Okay.
Sacchet: Steve, go ahead.
Lillehaug: Does your model and analysis take into account as far as the drive for all these units,
does it take into account the possible concept PUD that was proposed south of here? Does it take
into account the 300 or whatever homes that are.
James Osberg: From Town and Country's development? No. What our's does is specifically
addresses the Mattson ~. We haven't, we didn't look beyond our development for trips, if
that's what you're referring to.
Lillehaug: Not really trips. More the market drive. Absorpti~
James Osherg: Absorption-
Lillehaug: Right.
James Osberg: Yeah, we're looking at a 4 year absorption rate is what the financial analysis uses,
if I recall correctly. And that's at 110 roughly, or 107, 106 units.
Lillehaug: So you're saying it doesn't take into accotmt, I don't know which one may or may not
be here first but if it doesn't take into account another equal size development next to it?
James Osherg: No, because I can tell you this from the mar~~ that builder aside, they're
doing their thing. There's plenty of other builders who have stepped up to the plate and said, if
this goes forward we'd like to build in there. We honestly probably have requests for about 1,000
units in Chanhassen. Our site doesn't even accommodate that, if that were to be approved. So
the market is definitely there by other builder.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, how about which direction, the other side of the roon~ Kurt first.
Papke: Yeah, I couldn't find it when I re. ad through it again just recently but I believe you made a
comment somewhere that the site is amenable to a walkable situation, that there are things within
walking distance. Just curious as to what you think is within walking distance of thia
development?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
James Osberg: I guess the easy answer to that is you've got walking trailshere in your parks and
open space just to the east of the prope~, t~'om a non-vehicular standpoint, utilizing these trail
connections to where they lead in Chanhassen, I believe they go up to County Road 5, is that
correct?
Generous: Yeah.
James Osberg: Leading to County Road 5 and the area that we're in right now, you've got some
retail. You've got some food. You've got some beverage. You've got that type of non-vehicular
option if you were to connect with this trail development.
Papke: So you're referring primarily to the Irail then7
James Osberg: Con'ect. But again, like commissioner said earlier, we can look at doing a mixed
use development right here on the site. One of the reasons why we didn't do that however is the
D.R. Horton application that was turned in in '96-9r/, they had a mixed use and that was denied.
We thought we'd go with something different.
Sacchet: Bethany7
Tjomhom: Nothing.
Sacchet: Bruce7
Folk: Just one, and it's kind of a joint question. You had said a portion of this was guided for
park and rec. How many acres was that?
James Osberg: From what I've seen.
Feik: Or Kate, if you want to answer jointly.
Aanenson: There is nothing guided parks and rec. That would be a taking. There would be some
extraction. There is the Bluff ~ overhy zone that they have to accommodst~, but the~ is no
per se park dedication. There is wethnds. There is the overlay district which they have to
dedicate. It's shown on the map, the/green, the Bluff Creek overlay. But it would be an
extraction. Where there's commercial indusuial we would take the extraction in the trails. For
the park fees, excuse me. I'm using jargon. We would take park and trail dedication fees. We
would also put trails in place whether it be residential or industrial.
Feik: Okay, so there's not a significant amount of acreage that's called guided if you will, to
inappropriately use that word.
Aanenson: No, there is shown on the comp plan but that's, this goes back to the original comp
plan where we're trying to preserve. It's really encumbered within the overhy district, the
primary overlay district. That's the no touch zone so no ~ what the land use is, that overlay
district still remains in place so that's a no touch zone.
Feik: Okay, so out of the 94 acres how much of that is, falls in that portion?
Aanenson: Well there's 53 developable acres so that.
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: 40 percent.
Aanenson: 40 percent. Some of that's wetland. Some of that's the slope.
Slagle: But you could under a PL~ request.
Aanenson: A density transfer?
Slngle: Or request land to be set aside f~r a neighborhood pa~k or whatever.
Feik: You're saying there's 30-35 acres or something like that?
Aanenson: Cca'rect.
Feik: So therefore in this table ~ instead of this being 94 acres, it should be 34 acres less
because no matter what you do with it, it's not going to be office indusffial.
Aanenson: Yeah, but you know what, you'd have to take that same philosophy and apply it to
every project. We took every project on the gross acreage.
Feik: Oh you did?
Aanenson: Yes. All whole.
Feik: That's the question.
Aanenson: So we'd have to try to extrapolate each one and it's too complex so.
Feik: That's the question, thanks.
Sacchet: Craig?
Claybaugh: Nothing new to add.
Sacchet: ReaJly quick, because I want to get to the residents. I want to address this. There's two
things kind of peaked special interest in your presentation. One is more a question for staff. Like
you pointed out that the 16 percent of the city's office induslxial space are correlated with really
only a little more than haft of this ~ being developable. So Fd like to clarify with staff,
what are the 16 percent? Is it the developable part or how does this cor~late?
Generous: It was based on our assumption of the developable, the square footage that could be
developed on the site.
Sacchet: So the 16 percent is the developable part?
Generous: Right, if we take out 15 percent for right-of-way, and 30 percent for open space.
Sacchet: Okay, so that is factored in. And the other thing, that's not really a question but I am
pn~led how you reason that demand makes it suitable for residential but that's more something
that's going to come into comments I would think. Did you want to add anything else?
51
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
James Osberg: If I could Mr. Chairman. Getting back to the parks and open space and trails. We
show on the concept plan, sorry. We show this southeast comer as 12 ½ acres as open space for
the park system. We also would be showing internal trail system We also show this
neighborhood park near the bluff area that was identified in the staff memo as a potential
neighborhood park as a location potential for that spray park. Now this Bob is about 4 acres?
The neighborhood, roughly 3 ½-4 acres. Some of thi.~ 12 ½ acres is not usable, from what L
Aanenson: It's all in the pfimm-y zone and the .bluff is the no touch zone so they're eredithag
themselves for giving that as park space and that's I guess what we were trying to clarify.
Sacchet: That there wouldn't be any possibility to do much in there, okay.
James Osberg: And we have this additional remnant piece here that because it is a PUD we
understand that we have to be flexible in terms of what we provide. This is an area the City
would like parkland here. Or if the~'s other areas within the concept plan, we're open to
working with that.
Sacchex: Well I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. With that I'd like
to invite the public. This is a public hearing. If you want to come forward. Address this item.
This is your time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, and curious
to see what you have to say.
Al Gomez: Al Gomez. I live actually across the way from the water preserve. I've got to tell
you I'm a little disappointed. I assume you're all taxpaying members of the community. You
guys obviously have some very comprehensive phms in front of you. We're here with a letter
that basically states nothing more than there's a planned development, so as you are all asking
questions and referencing numbers, and maybe we don't need that much detail, but I sure would
like more than this lex~r that stAte-s what is going on. The big proposition that we talk about is
changing the zoning disturbs me a lot as a taxpayer because when I bought the property, I called
the city and asked what that zoning was and made a business decision to buy the protmrty based
on what was there. And if we can change that at the time, becau~ I know you asked why is that
intportant, that we change it or not change it, it is exactly that. We made those decisions. The
builder's obviously here for a main reason. They're here to make a profit. We talk a lot about the
taxing and taxation that would generate revenue. I didn't heatr anything about the expenses that
come with 427 units being put into Chanhassen. I personally can't afford anotlu~ referendum for
more schools. Will Tollefson or any other developer pay for those additional schools and/or
classrooms that are going to be required. Tnqr~smmture. We talk about that corridor and the
commercial properties that are there. The railroad, I thinic it's perfect for that continued
development. I don't see how putting in cc~xm~acial property's going to generate that much more
tm~c than when we put 420 units and the families that could potentially come and to from there~
You also refer to another development that for again for all of us that are just hem on behalf of
this one, have no idea about so that's all new to us on another 300 and some units. Rich, I think
you referred to what's within the one mile of that property. I think if you take Galpin onto 5, it's
amazing how many of these townhomes we've developed in this area and the influx of traffic, of
people. Yes, tax revenue but also the e~ that come with it. Again a lot of things that I saw
that personally I would prefer to get a lot more information for a better summary than a one page
saying here's the proposition. What are the i ,mpacts?
Sacchet: It's my understanding that the staff reports are available to the public.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Aanenson: Yes, we did speak to several neighbors and staff reports were handed out. Anybody
that calls us, we always offer them to come get a copy or send them an e-mail them a copy.
Al Gomez: Could you add that to your letters in the furore saying.
Aanenson: This is how big this staff report is.
Sacchet: But it should be noted.
Al Gomez: But what I'm saying is that is available upon request.
Aanenson: It is on the~.
Al Gomez: Is it on here? Then my problem.
Generous: We will have our e-mail addresses in the future.
Al Gornez: The e-mail, you and I talked about that and again if you have e-mail od_dresses, it's a
quicker means of communicatiom
Aanenson: We always encourage people to get the staff repc~
Sacchet: Also you have to be aware that these staff retmns are available like middle to later pan
of the previous week so they're not available really a long time berm but they are available.
Al Gomez: And I don't know that I need the details that you get but something a little more than
this one page...o~ a lot of it is philosophical as to why we're here. And you've got a lot
mom detail to base your decisions and your quesfiom that we don't see.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comments very much.
Lillehaug: To make a comment on one of your questions. The staff report does address the
impact on the schools, etc, so that is in here and it's not left trammed. So we are aware of all that.
Al Gomez: Bob, could I get a copy?
Aanenson: sure.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Pm sure there are other people that want to address this item.
Next please. Please state your name and address.
Andy Kayati: My nam~ is Andy Kayati. Fm at 8715 Valley View Place. Fm in the Bluff Creek
Estates community right them, and on the east side of the proposed development. When I moved
here 9 years ago I looked at this beautiful area and I said you know, this is wonderful. I really
like what it looks like. I said I can envision that at some point in time ~'s going to be
sormthing there. I could envision, you know knowing that it was light industrial, that I could live
with light industrial ~ I have light induzu'ial just to the north of me on the other side of the
adjacent parcels, just to the other side of our residential location there. I said if there's anything
that I don't want there, it's what I call high density housing, and I don't care how you term this,
this is high density housing. The number of vehicles on the roads there, I don't see that they
could sustain them for years to come because I don't see any rapid chauge~ coming to the
53
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
infrastructure of that area any time soon. Looking out my back kitchen window I can obse~e the
traffic light that was just put in a couple years ago at the comer of Audubon and Lyman. The
traffic essentially backs up there at 5:00 in the altered, probably 20 or 30 cars deep. Try to
make that turn when you're going to Chaska I~gh to pick up your kid, which I do. The
watershed area that they alluded to, and if you don't mind I'd like to bring this up. This area
here, probably you've got, you've got maybe an inch. It's not usable.., so to consider that park
use, it's ridiculous. I'm also very, very concerned I think with looking at the amount of the
percentage of utilization that you're taking out of office and light industrial 16 percent. That's a
considerable amount to be taken out of that usage. And you're taking that out of, I know we're
not supposed to bring up taxes here but the infrasUucUu~ base and the tax base and tmnsfen~g it
over to the residential. What kind of i ,mpact is it going to have on police services? I know
schools are taken into consideration, but there's.a school right up the street, Bluff Creek, that you
can't even get into now. All of those things with 43? new units coming in, and by the you know,
by the slightest estimates if there's 1 ½ cars per unit you're talking about 600 vehicles a day. So I
guess I take issue with the reduced trips for this type of residential versus ~ use there. In
addition to that, any type of smaller lot usage for single family houses I would oppose that in
addition to this. If they're reasonable sized lots, which we have there, which I consider to be
reasonable sized lots which are approximate, ly a third of an acre. We're just a little under thaL
Something like that may be reasonable but anything as far as a smaller use lot I would never
agree to. You know as I said, the impact on the area and for that reason I do oppose this
wholeheartedly.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to a~d_dress the commission? Please do so at
this time. I also want to remind you, it doesn't necessarily add more weight if you repeat points
that have already been made.
Marsha Strand: Good evening. My name is Marsha Strand and I live in Bluff Creek Estates as
well at 8631 Valley View Court. My biggest concerns have been pretty much presented but I
want to add the component of noise. The topography of that area has a valley in there and fight
now the kids love to go down and play in that swampland and you hear every word bouncing
around our cul-de-sac that they're saying down there, and I think that their water park or
whatever they call it, spray park, sounds like a great amount of fun to a lot of small screaming
children. And I live you know among a lot of children and I know that when they have fun they
scream and holler and nm around, and I would not expect that that would be any different in that
kind of park. And so that adds another compounding factor that again we didn't anficu~
residential when we bought our property there and hope that unless there's a much more
compelling reason to change the planned development, than we've heard ttmJght, that you choose
not to do that. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else wants to address this item? This is your moment to
do so. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record plealse~
Mike Solheim: Hi there, I'm Milm Solheim. My address is 1780 Mound, Minnesota. I'm not
actually from CYnanhassen but I just want to stand up and give you a little bit of background or
what I think of Tollefson Development. I've worked with them and I know the faxnily. It's like
Jason says, they're very amenable to any kind of proposal that the Council and the community
and the members that live out there who it's going to affect, for this project to work. So I'm just
asking that everybody think that this is just a footprint of what's going to happen, but it's very
much amenable to what the City of Chanhas~en and it's me~ want. So I just wanted to get
up and say that. Appreciate your time.
54
Planning Commission Meeting- May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Slagle: I have a question for you though. Just so I understand the relationship, when you say
work with them.
Mike Solheirm I work with them. Affiliated with them to a point. I am a mortgage broker so I
do loans, so I work with builders and developers to try to get them to secure the end loans.
Slagle: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I don't live in that area but I am concerned
about the development of that area. Our comp plan is 5 years old, to 1998. That's 5 years ago. I
think dedicating that land for industrial use was in the best interest of the city and I think it is
now. I don't think thin~ have changed that much. I also have a point to make about Town and
Country. I kind of get the feeling that Town and Country is a done deal. Okay, it's a concept
plan period.
Sacchet: It's not a done deal.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. And the other thing is, the City Council agreed to spend about what,
$110,000 or raore on a study that did not incDd_e this area I believe, correct? But it's the land
adjacent to this area, and I wonder why this parcel, which is also zoned industrial was excluded
from that development study.
Sacchet: Can you ~ddress that please?
Aanenson: That's a very good question and that would be one of our concerns is the timing on
this whole thing is, the implication is that we're doing a large environmental assessment to the
south area. The 600 acres in the 2005 MUSA. Looking at the right land uses, trip generation, all
that and to change this now at this time seems a little gren~ture which is I would concur with
that.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah I'd like to see what the outcxrme of that study is.
Aanenson: Well this does require an EA also. If this was to go forward based on the number of
units, it would require an EA but you're right, the two need to be working together.
Sacchet: EA meaning Environmental Asses~
Aanenson: I'm sorry, yeah to look at the traffic. All those sort of things. Wetlands.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you Debbie.
Carrie Krych: I'm Carrie Krych and I am at 2127 Boulder, othex side.
Slagle: Stone Creek?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Carrie Krych: Stone Creek, yep. And we're just, some of us on Boulder have a little bit different
viewpoint than what's been said today. None of us, that we've spoken to of my neighlx~rs on
Boulder want to see 427 townhomes. Absolutely none of us would ever think that was a good
idea. However, light industrial or whatever is a little fearful as well. It's right in my back yard,
as I'm sure it's in some of your's but I'm fearful of what else could be put there that would be
great for me to look at every day. Every day for 6 months of the year I've got woods. I can't see
anything. Build whatever you want. It's real quiet...but and it's my 3 kids that scream, but 6
months I see everything. Everything because there are no trees. There's no leaves and so I see
everything so if it were you know, you know nice residential, that would be a better solution f~r
me than industrial. I don't really want trucks hauling in and out in my back yard either so. So I
think we, my neighbors as we talked and as I came today, we didn't, we were that boy, we want
to be, it's going to be residential. We'd choose resident~ and be screened as best we can fxom
some light industrial because we don't want the trucks. We don't want that I~__tt_exn and then you
know the fear, I don't even know. I want to ask, where is thig Town and Country? No one else,
maybe you all know. I don't know where it is. Where's it s~ to be going? I want to know
because that frightens me to death. I mean all of a sudden you're bringing up 800 potential or
500 potential units on top of each other, that's crazy.
Slagle: Go south on Audubon up the hill: ancL
Sacchet: On the east~
Slagle: Now on the east side.
Saam: This is the proposed development.
Aanenson: But I think what they need to recognize is that...
Sacchet: Past the metal dinosaur.
Aanenson: 600 acres that are going to be coming into development. Not just all residential but
there's 600 acres that in the year 2005 they're starting to irr~. lemenc Some of it's industrial and
some of it's going to be residential.
Carrie Krych: I am concerned, I mean Chanhassen is an expensive city for a homeowner to live
in and we live in nice priced homes and I want to live in neighborhoods where it's thoughtful
planning where we have, to plot industrial into ~ areas, sometimes I'm concerned that
Chanhassen is a little, not as thought out as some of our other communities and so I get coacemed
about that and concerned about the tight industrial.
Sacchet: I don't know whether it's any consolation to you but we do have a very well worked out
comprehensive plan and the matter in front of us tonight is an applicant req~ezling a change to
that. I would also want to point out, and I don't want to belatx~ thig but it's likely that you could
have buffering, berming with industrial as with residential
Aanenson: Can I just clarify too the ordinance does require from residential to industrial 100 foot
landscaping bern~ Buffer.
Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that.
Carrie Krych: That is helpful.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thank you very much for speafldng up. PI~ go abe, ad.
Mary Frey: lust one thing that, Mary Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. I'm opposed for
everything what they've said too and I guess if it were, yeah obviously single family residential
would be preferential over light industrial but if you were trying to win us over you probably
shouldn't have done a, I mean as I calculated it out, that'd be 427 units on 53 developable acres
which puts it about 8 units on an acre. In addition to that a water park plus parking and driveway.
That's incredible. I meam you know, why not start out that way and then if you want to talk with
the neighbors, we would have listened probably if it would have been residential single family.
Sacchet: If I could ask you to address the commission though. That's really the ~ of this.
Mary Frey: That's all I wanted to ask.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright, who hasn't spoke~ yet7 Who wants to
speak? Please, it's your un'n.
Greg Scallon: My name is Greg Scallon. I live at 1814 Valley Ridge Trail, and I guess you
know, I've heard what all the neighbors say and I kind of agree. I just look at, you know I see the
City of Chanhasson Land Use Plan and then there's a lot of time and money that has gone into
this plan over the course of the years and this is the vision that we have and I guess I just have a
question as far as the, you've got the cmxent market is hot for residential but this is looking at a
long term plan. I guess I don't know what, how compelling of a reason that you would need to
change, make a significant change in this plan. And I guess that's just my only question.
Sacaghet: Thank you. That's definitely the question in front of us tonight. Anybody else want to
address this item? This is your chance.
Slagle: Any farmers?
Sacchet: Doesn't look like it. Any non-farmem? Ah'ight, if nobody else wants to address this
item I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments.
You is inclined to start addressing this item? Any, do you want to jump in? Go ahead.
Feilc Sure, at the risk of alienating all of my neighbors by the way, which is all of that crowd. I
think we need to keep some things into pempective. This land will be developed. It's going to
happen. There's some issues regarding when, or noise and odors that, current issues I should say,
coming in from the commercial stuff to the west. If this goes industrial, just let me warn you
those odors could get that much closer. They could be fight across the ~ Just something to
be aware of. Schools, it's been mentioned we've got a very large AUAR going on down the
street. 600 acres. It's guided 50/50 commercial/residential. At 300 acres at anywhere near
reasonable density, less than this but more than single family, we're looking at 1,000 units that
are going in in the next 10 years, who knows what. So the school issue is really an issue. It's
going to happen. We're going to be having all of the referendums and everything else so I guess
in part of it I want my neighbors and everybody to think about is sometimes it's better, the devil
you know and the devil you don't. I'm wondering if we would be having the same concerns up
here if the density was proposed something significantly less. I'm not sure we would. So I guess
I can be persuaded to approve this, much to the chagrin of my neighbors but again, but I'm not
sure that this is necessarily as bad as everybody says. I think: like I say, it's going to be
developed and sometimes it's bet~ to have the devil you know than the you devil you don't.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Sacchet: Thanks. Craig, do you want to jmnp in next?
Claybaugh: I can't argue with logic like that but I guess the one point I'd like to make is that if
the commission as a body was of a mind to entertain this, entertain approving this, I would prefer
to table it and have staff come back and prepare the documentation geared more towards an
approval so we're looking at it from that perspective and all the things that go to that. From an
approval standpoint I'm not getting from the package what I do when it's prepared in that
fashion. This is prepared for denial and I know that you've touched on some things should we
consider approval but I just, it seems like a lot of information and not enough time and not
enough material to really break it down. So that would be my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bethany, do you want to make your comment or?
Tjomhorn: I think I'd just second what he just said. I think it's a thick packet. It's a lot to think
about. It's a lot to undemand but I do think that this was geared for industrial property alld
people have purchased homes. They have businesses in the industrial park area because of this.
They've been promised something that it was for c. omme~ial and I don't know if it's right to all
of a sudden change our mind.
Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Kurt, do you want to address it?
Papke: Yeah. One of the issues that was brought up tonight was the, them seems to be a fair
amount of surprise in the neighbors about the pace of development. That the Town and Country
development seems to have been news to a number of people, and I think that's a relevailt isgug.
I think one of the o~ residents mentioned they don't see the compelling reason to change from
the comprehensive plan at this point. I think if you put those two thin~ together, from my
perspective anyway, it seems like we have an oppommity to change our plans aha do so at a time
when there's already another development that's being cons/dered and the timing just seems poor
to move forward. Why would we want to change a plan that's been around for 5 years that a lot
of thought went into, just because we have an oppommity to change it? At a time ~ there's
another development going on. So not that plans are meant to be cast in concrete and live for 20
years, but on the other hand you don't just change them because you have an oppommity to
change them so that's my perspective.
Sacchet: Good point, thanks Kurt. Rich.
Slagle: The only thing I'ii add is, I go back to my gut reaction when I first saw this ~ and
I wondered how in the world we would build office, factories, plants on that property. I mean
there's going to be a ton of grading to be done if it stays within the current land use that it's
proposed. On the other hand, as commissioners have stated, this might be a premature concept to
change it at this point. I would definitely be in favor of tabling this to get additional information
and a perspective sort of both favoring and opposing. I will say this to my fellow
commissioners, if we were to approve a land use change and followed it up with a PUD, I would
be highly interested in some really creative, and I'll look at the applicant as I say this, creative
approaches to planning for this parceL A little different than what I accepted on prior nights here
so basically what I'm saying is, I think I'm okay keeping it the way it is, but if the majority at this
point feel like we can explore it some more, I'm willing to go down that path.
Sacchet: Thanks Rice Steve.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
Lillehaug: This is my first choice for where we want to put the school. I wish the school would
go there. Could staff explain to me what precedence the applicant needs to set maybe for us even
to consider changing the land use. Is there findings?
Aanenson: We have findings to recommend that you not change it, correct.
Lillehaug: Okay. So when I read through your findings, I agree with most of them. So in that
regard I don't see any extenuating c~ces. Why we would want to chan~ the land use
guidance here in this case. So I would support denying the applicants in this case to change the
land use. And then I also want to discuss the idea of tabling this. I'm not sure if we can get
enough clear guidance to the applicant or staff on what we extx~ out of this to even change our,
or to come back to this tabling and make a better decision here. I think what's been ~ is
enough for us to consider the request at this point and I really would encourage the rest of the
commissioners to make a decision here tonight. The key is the land use change. Either you're
comfortable with changing it or you're not. At this point I'm not comfortable changing it. I think
it's been guid~ correctly in this case based on the adjacem land use in Chaska, ami just the
general surroundings in that area. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I'm pretty clear about this. I do want to commend the applicant for
bringing forward a very well thought thro~ and proposal argued very well the benefits of it.
However, I think I would be misl~ you by ~g even tabling this because I cannot
support the proposed change of the land use. With the railroad on one side, the road that's going
to become a four lane road on two others, across of which is going to be industrial, with a power
station that's going to have to be extnmded on the south comer, it does not sound suitable to me
personally for residential use. The~ are some advantages, and given that according to our studie~
the industrial use is going to have a higher traffic load. As a matter of fact did be say about twice
the traffic load, that is something to consider and I don't think some of the residents were quite
clear about that. However, the design of Lyman Boulevard is, the concept for it is such to
actually be able to carry that sort of traffic with 212 freeway coming in, that's going to be, that's
all in the plan that it can carry that traffic load from an engineering viewpoint. That's been all
considered. In terms of the tax base, that's really more a City Council issue than one for us.
However, looking at the financial aspect, even though that is not really in our scope that much in
terms of consideration, I understand the predicament of the current owner wanting to move this
property. I understand the interest of the developer wanting to make it residential because that's
the hot item in the market right now. He can move it. However from a viewpoint of the city, I
would be tempted to consider that short sighted, as a reason to make it residential. I mean
because there is demand right now for this particular product does not make it suitable for
residential. And I also want to point out for the benefit of the commi~sione~ here that with an
issue dealing with the comprehensive plan, the city has ~us leeway. I mean that's
actually the area where we as commissioners have the most flexibility. I mean this is not a
situation where we map it to a particular ordinance or a piece of code and we have to detexmine
does it fit or not. This is really a point of decision where each of us has to make a decision
whether this is suitable, is in the interest of the city overall That's our responsibility with this
recommendation, and ultimately a decision of the City Council. So basically in view of demand
for housing for this particular product of housing does not make this site suitable, and I think this
site is better suited for officedindusuial. It has good access to roads. It's next to industrial It has
access to rail. It can be buffeted from the neighboring residential use by berming, by
landscaping, what have you. As a matter of fact as our Director of Planning pointed out, that's a
requirement for residential to go in ~. The topography, it's not ideal for industrial residential.
There is no ideal situation here but I clearly think that the reasons to change this land use
$9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
amendn~nt are clearly tilting me to be opposed, clearly opposed to this change. So that's my
comment. Are there any other comments or more discussion from, yes Rich.
Slagle: I just have one real quick one Mr. Chair, and very well spoken if I may add. I want to
share with mostly the neighbors. I want to say this before the vote. I would encourage all of you
to, if you will, recruit additional me~ of your neighborhoods, whether you support it or are
against it, for the upcoming meeting if it carries on to City Council, which I think it will. Because
I have to be honest, Stone Creek, them might be one or two people here. I mean tbem's a lot of
homes just across the railroad and I'm surprised that we don't see more. So please, get the
neighbors involved. I know the City Council would apprec~te hearing from more folks.
Sacchct: Thanks Rich. Any other comments? More discussion? In the absence of that I would
like to.
Claybaugh: The interest that I had or in throwing out tabling was if people were of a miml to the
thing that I didn't add to it is, I am not inclined to vote for this but if others am, like Rich said. ff
you're interested in exploring it, also I'm willing to go down that path.
Sacehet: Thanks for clarifying thac I think we're ready to try a motion. This will be intexesting.
Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission ~ denial of the Land Use
Map amendment from Offi~dus~ to Residential-Medium Dea~sity based on inconsistency
with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and nonconf~ce with
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Lmehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commi~on rezommends denial of
the Land Use Map amendment from ~ to Residenflal-~ Density based
on inco~~ with the comprehensive plan, ineompatibility with surrounding uses and
nonconformance with the pefforman~ standard. Ail voted in favor, except S-~sgle who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Sacchet: This item goes to City Council tm June 64u, is that correct? June 9~. Do we want to
summarize?
Lillehaug: Do we have to vote on the second one?
Sacchet: We have B. We're not done yet. There's a second motion~
Lillehaug: The Planning Commission reconunends denial of concept PUD for a townhouse
development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.
Sacchet: With condition as att~checL I second that
Lillehaug: Is there any conditions7
Generous: Not for denial.
Sacchet: Okay, the denial is none. Okay. Second.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003
IAllehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commi~don recommends denial of
the concept Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development based on
inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Ail voted in favor, except Slagle who abstained,
and the motion carried with a vote of 60-1.
Sacchet: Do you want to say why you're abstaining Rich?
Slagle: No.
Sac. chex: Do we need to summarize for council any of the highlights of our disctmsion? Do we
want to summarize some of the points? Basically we agree with staff~ That's the basis for
our denial, correct? Okay, we leave it at that. Thank you very much. Appreciate your proposal
APPROVAL OF ~:
Commissioner Feik noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commi.~sion meeting dated May
6, 2003 as amended by Chairman Sacchet to change the vote on page 2 to include one absmntion.
So the vote should be recorded as 3-0-1.
Chairman Sacehet adjourned the Planni~ Commt~don meeting.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
61