4 Rice Lake Manor 2nd AdditionCITY
PC DATE: July 15 2003
CC DATE: August 11, 2003
REVIEW DEADLINE: 8-12-03
CASE #: 2003-11 SUB
By: A1-Jaff
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Preliminary Plat fo subdivide One Single Family Lot with an area of 2 acres
into 4 Lots
8590 Tigua Lane - Located at the northwest intersection of West 86th Street
and Tigua Lane
Kurt and Lynne Miller
8590 Tigua Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 937-2476 or (612) 910-7580
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
Single Family Residential District ' RSF
Low Density Residential
2 Acres (87,151 Square Feet)
2.0 Units per Acre
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Request to replat one parcel into four single .family lots. The site contains one single family home.
Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision subject to conditions. Notice of this public
hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in
approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the
standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On June 26, 1980, the City Council approved a subdivision of 39.8 acres into 8 single family lots,
Rice Lake Manor.
SITE ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 2 acres into four single family lots. Proposed
Lot 2 contains an existing single family home. The remaining 3 lots will be reserved for future
development of single family homes. The site is zoned Single Family Residential District and
located northwest of the intersection of West 86th Street and Tigua Lane. Access to Lots 1, 4,
and the westerly 115 feet of Lot 3 is gained via West 86th Street. Access to Lot 2 and the
northerly 115 feet of Lot 3 is gained via Tigua Lane. All lots will exceed the minimum 15,000
square foot lot area, the 90 foot lot frontage, and 125 foot lot depth requirements. Staff is
recommending approval of the subdivision with no variances subject to conditions outlined in
the staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2 acre site into 4 single family lots. The density of the
proposed subdivision is 2.0 units per acre. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of
area, with an average lot size of 21,788 square feet.
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 3
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the
Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
No wetlands exist on site.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Surface Water Management Fees
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees are
based on single-family residential development rates of $949/acre. Based on the proposed
developed area of approximately 2 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are
$1,898.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-
family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,348 per developable acre. This
results in a water quantity fee of approximately $4,696 for the proposed development.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $6,594.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District; Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply
with their conditions of approval.
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The applicant is proposing to custom grade the three newly created lots (Lots 1, 3 and 4).
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for each
lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval.
The existing and proposed drainage for the site will runoff to the south toward Tigua Lane.
From there, it is collected in catch basins and routed through storm sewer to an existing
swale on the east side of Tigua Lane.
· Proposed runoff rates for the site must be submitted to ensure that the existing storm sewer is
sized sufficiently.
· Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that erosion
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 4
control fence be used for the area adjacent to the existing manhole at the northeast coruer of
the site.
UTILITIES
The proposed sanitary sewer will be considered a public utility line since it will serve more
than one lot. In addition, the lift station will be designed by the City and paid for by the
developer.
The underlying parcel has been previously assessed for utilities on the existing lot unit and
those assessments have been paid. Since the applicant is now proposing more units that what
was previously assessed, the three additional units will be charged a watermain lateral
connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection
charge is $4,513. The sanitary sewer connection charges will be waived because the
developer will be installing the lateral sewer main. Sanitary sewer .and water hookup charges
along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup
charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee is $1,275/unit.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
MnDOT, etc.
STREETS
The site is proposed to be accessed via an existing streets along the south and east portions of the
property.
PARK DEDICATION
Park and trail fees shall be paid as required by ordinance for the three new lots only. The total
fee based on 2003 park fee requirements is $2,400 per lot or $7,200 for the three lots, payable ant
the time of final plat recording.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
The developer for the Kurt Miller property development has submitted tree canopy coverage and
preservation calculations. They are as follows:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
2.0 ac. or 87,151 SF
9.5 % or 8,307 SF
25% or 21,788 SF
9.5% or 8,307 SF
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 5
The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference
between the minimum coverage required and proposed tree preservation is taken to calculate the
required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage (21,788-8,307) 13,481 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 12 trees
(one tree provides 1,089 SF of canopy)
All replacements must meet minimum size requirements.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90'
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 15,045 90'
Lot 2 39,991 313'
Lot 3 comer Lot 16,935 231'
Lot 4 15, 180 110'
Total area 87,151 square feet
125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
151' 30730'
10'
274' 30730'
10'
138' 30"
147' 10'
138' 30730'
10'
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District and subdivision ordinance.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comPrehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ge
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 6
o
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
o
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g03-11 for
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition for 4 lots as shown on the plans dated November 19, 2002,
subject to the following conditions:
City Forester Conditions:
a. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to showing a minimum of 12 trees to
be planted.
b. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard
of each lot.
c. The applicant shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed
in rear yard areas.
d. Tree preservation fence shall be install at the edge of the grading limits on lots 3
and 4, block 1 prior to any construction.
2. On the grading and utility plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Label each of the new lots as custom graded.
c. Show the rear lookout elevation for Lot 3.
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 7
d. Show the location of the existing wood fence.
e. Show the existing sanitary service to Lot 2.
f. Show and label the existing 8-inch DIP watermain in West 86th Street.
g. Add a row of silt fence in back of the curb near the existing sanitary manhole.
h. Move the lift station to within five feet of the common property line of Lots 3 and
4.
3. Ail plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
4. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval.
5. Proposed runoff rates for the site must be submitted to ensure that the existing storm
sewer is sized sufficiently.
6. The lift station will be designed by the City and paid for by the developer.
7. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be
due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance.
o
Since the applicant is now proposing more units than what was previously assessed, the
three additional units will be charged a watermain lateral connection charge at the time of
building permit issuance.
9. The applicant is required to install the sanitary and water services to the property line of
the proposed lots.
10. Draintile is required to be installed in back of the curb on Tigua Lane.
11.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $1,898 and a water quantity fee of approximately $4,696
for the proposed development. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable
to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $6,594.
12.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District; Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval.
13.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Soil reports must be provided for all lots where fill soils are placed or soil correction
work is done.
b. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as
soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures."
Rice Lake Manor Second Addition
July 15, 2003
Page 8
ATTACHMENTS
2.
3.
4.
5.
Application and Notice of Public Hearing
Memo from Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer.
Memo from Steven Torell, Building Official dated June 30, 2003.
SWMP Work Sheet.
Plans dated November 19, 2002.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612} 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
.ADDRESS:.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Ptanned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
~Z- ._~. Notification Sign d~
Site Plan Review* 1~. X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
~ , , ]" ($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VARANAP/Metes
~.~ ),' ,,,~..~,~ r'd 1~.[ ~.~' [ and Bounds, $.4.~00 Uir3or...SUB)
Subd,vs,o~', '" "&~'(~,(~C,' -t" 16 ,~ ~ I-~t I TOTALFEE$
,anst ota, property owners within 500 feet oftl~e boundaries of the property muSt be inbluded WltD-the
application. ' '.~ ~ i,~;' .~. _. ~ ' - ....
]~ui]ding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews,
'*Twe slx full slz ] ~ :
nty- , e folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
;transparency for each plan sheet.
'** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
.NDTE-~/hen multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
]=ROJEC'T NAME
].DDATION
.].EGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION '~¥~. (-
'3~EQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~"~ ~.~=~ ~ ~-~
J ·
~ application must be completed in full and be t~ewri~en or clearly printed and must be accom panied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
~e~e~ ~ determine the specEic ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application,
A d~e~3on of completeness of the applicati°n, shall be made within ten business da~ of application submi~al. A wri~en
~e ~f app~on deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of appli~tion,
'~s ~ ~ ~ that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all Ci~ requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the pa~y whom
1he C~ should conta~ regarding any ma~er pe~aining to this ~pplication, I have aEached a copy of proof of ownemhip (either
~py of O~efs Duplicate Ce~ificate of-TEle; Abstract of ~tle or pumhase agreement), or I am the authorized pemon to make
· ~ appian a~ ~e fee owner has also signed this application.
! va'Il keep myself informed of the deadlines for submisSion of material and the progress of this application. I further
zmderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
ray krmwledge.
'i'he city ttereby notifies .the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to. public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the. applicant that the City requires an 'automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Si~;~t'e of Fee Owner
~o~cal]on Received on
Fee Paid Receipt No.
-J'he app~icarft should contact staff for a copy of the staff report Which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If apt contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed Io the applicant's address.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
APPLICANT: Kurt Miller
PROPOSAL: Subdivision Request
LOCATION: 8590 Tigua Lane
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant,
Kurt Miller, is requesting replat of Lot 8, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor into 4 lots on property zoned
Residential Single Family; located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West 86th Street
and Tigua Lane, 8590 Tigua Lane.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmeen at 227-1134 or e-mail saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies
to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 3, 2003.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5~.60®
DAVID & SHARON NICKOLAY
~500 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES
HOMEOWNERS ASSN
2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
KURT D & LYNNE MILLER
8590 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
BRENT W POPPENHAGEN &
KARl J BERG
8501 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BEVERLY A FIEDLER
8521 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SCOTT E & SHANNON L FIEDLER
8511 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN M & TRACY A SCHEID
451 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS
8561 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NADINE N NELSON
484 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN
TRUSTEES OF TRUSTS
8551 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
J CHARLES & BONNIE J EHLERS
8485 MISSION HILL LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY G & LEA J NORDOS
461 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL
8550 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GEORGE J CARLYLE &
JANELLE VEILLEUX CARLYLE
8560 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SUNITA GANGOPADHYAY &
SHUBHAGAT GANGOPADHYAY
8571 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERIC L PETERSON
KATHERINE M WELCH
8561 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOHN A & CATHRYN P MAZEIKA
8525 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING
8570 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL C LYONS
8571 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
ROCHELLE R GREAVES TRUST
8581 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS J BOURNE
471 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
RANDY V ROSETH &
PENNY P WHITE
450 MISSION HILLS CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
TONY L & PATRICIA J FERGUSON
8495 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GORDON A & BRENDA M SCHAEFFER
8591 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LAWRENCE D & NANCY E STEIN
8541 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES A & MARILYN L CRAWFORD
8581 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY
8580 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SHARON A NICKOLAY
TRUSTEE OFTRUST
9500TIGUALN
CHANHASSEN MN
AVERY®
DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING
8550 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
55317
Address Labels
ROSEMARY B WILL
475FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
Laser 5160®
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO
350 HWY 212 E PO BOX 89
CHASKA MN 55318
MICHELLE J ERICKSON-CODY
442 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DANIEL T MILLER
454 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LUANN M MARKGRAF
401 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN
KAAREN S WOOD
418 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN
55317
MN 55317
DAVID A KRAWCZAK &
CHRISTINE CASMER
417 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN - MN
SUSAN M HEINEMANN
421 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
55317
BEVERLEY k DAVIS
466 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CARMEN M' SCHALLOW
428 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOEL C BREDEMEIER
422 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
BONNIE M HOGHAUG
425 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
MICHAEL W HANSEN
482 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KATHLEEN M JOHANNES
430 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICIA A ADAMS
429 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
KELLY SILVIS
986 CARRIAGE LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55318
KAREN L BLENKER
405 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
JACOB L & ANGELA M HERTEL
446 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART
474 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEAN M KAMRATH
434 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
25628 CORDOVA LN
RIO VERDE AZ 85263
MARK D 'PILATE
470 MISSION HILLS WAY F.#115
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LARRY M'& MARLENE R NASH
409 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
TANDEM PROPERTIES
7808 CREEKRIDGE CIR #310
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439
ANN C ERHARD
424 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
KRISTINE M MARTENS
438 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
i JAMES M SCOTT
458 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GARY & CARA WILLAERT
420 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOYCEIMANClNO
413 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
PAUL D JUAIRE
462 MISSION HILLS WAY'E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
THOMAS D KARELS
416 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
AVERY®
Address Labels
Laser
5160®
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
VINCENT C ANDERSON
425 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SARAH N KUSNERZ
437 MISSION HILLS WAY E
· CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CARL L HARSTAD
449 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANNETHERESAJESKE
421 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
E JAMES VALDIMORE &
MARTH C JAMES
,409 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BARBARA E WOLTER
400 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JUDITH A LEHMAN
412 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
STEPHAN M BRINK
433 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRADLEY SCOTT MAPES
445 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PATRICIA M HEDTKE
405 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOHN W HOPKINS
417 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
PAUL C & KATHLEEN A CANCILLA
429 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ARTURO F URRUTIA
408 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT CO
350 HWY 212 E PO BOX 89
CHASKA MN' 55318
DEBRA JEAN NORTON
441 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JESSICA J THOMPSON
413 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
KRISTIN C HAASE
404 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
AVERY®
Address Labe{s
Laser
5160®
MEMORANDUM
CIT OF
C HASSE
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
lax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax: 952.227.1190
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer pld~
July 2, 2003
Preliminary Plat Review of Rice Lake Manor 2nd Addition
Land Use Review File No. 03-12
Upon review of the plans dated June 11, 2003, prepared by Otto Associates, I
offer the following comments and recommendations:
Engineering
Phone: 952.227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
·
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 95Z227.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110 ·
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
·
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952.227.1110 ·
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Ph one: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
·
Web Site
www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The applicant is proposing to custom grade the three newly created lots (Lot
Nos. 1, 3 and 4). Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion
control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit
application for City review and approval.
The existing and propc
Tigua Lane. From
storm sewer to an
toward
Proposed runoff rate
storm sewer is size
Erosion control measures and
with the City's
recommends that
existing manhole
UTILITIES
The proposed sanitary
will serve more than
the City and paid
line since it
designed by
· The underlying parcel has b{ utilities on the existing
lot unit and those applicant is now
proposing more units the three additional
units will be charged a charge at the time of
building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge is $4,513. The
sanitary sewer connection charges will be waived because the developer will
be installing the lateral sewer main. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges
The City of Chanhassen · A ~]rowing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play.
Sharmeen Al-Jarl
July 2, 2003
Page 2
along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time
of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup
charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee
is $1,275/unit.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of
final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development
contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form
of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the
improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to
the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, MnDOT, etc.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. On the grading and utility plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
b. Label each of the new lots as custom graded.
c. Show the rear lookout elevation for Lot 3.
d. Show the location of the existing wood fence.
e. Show the existing sanitary service to Lot 2.
f. Show and label the existing 8-inch DIP watermain in West 86th Street.
g. Add a row of silt fence in back of the curb near the existing sanitary
manhole.
h. Move the lift station to within five feet of the common property line of
Lots 3 and 4.
2. All plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the state of
Minnesota.
o
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and' erosion control plans will be
required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review
and approval.
4. Proposed runoff rates for the site must be submitted to ensure that the existing
storm sewer is sized sufficiently.
5. The lift station will be designed by the City and paid for by the developer.
6. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC
fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance.
Sharmeen A1-Jaff
July 2, 2003
Page 3
o
Since the applicant is now proposing more units that what was previously
assessed, the three additional units will be charged a watermain lateral
connection charge at the time of building permit issuance.
8. The developer is required to install the sanitary and water services to the
property line of the proposed lots.
9. Draintile is required to be installed in back of the curb on Tigua Lane.
ktm
c: Teresa Burgess, City Engineer/Public Works Director
g:\eng\projectsXrice lake manor 2nd\ppr.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Sharmin Al-Jarl, Senior Planner
Steven Torell, Building Official
June 30, 2003
Review of a proposed subdivision located at the northwest
Comer of the intersection of West 86th Street and Tigua Lane.
Planning Case: 2003-11 Subdivision
I have reviewed the plans for the above subdivision. Following are my commems,
which should be included as conditions of approval.
1. Soil reports must be provided fOr all lots where fill soils are placed or soil
correction work is done.
2. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections
Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
G/safety/st/memos/plan/8590 Tigua Lane
DATE
FILE NO.
PROJECT
SWMP FEE WORKSHEET
July 7, 2003
2003-11
Miller Subdivision
Site Area in Acres
Outlot
Assessable area
2.00
0.00
2.00
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
RSF
WATER QUALITY
WATER QUANTITY
FEES
Rate per Acre Acres Total
$ 949.00 2.00 $
1,898.00
Rate per Acre Acres Total
$ 2,348.00 2.00 $ 4,696.00
CREDITS
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE
Storm water pond acre 0 $ 949.00 $
Outlet structure each 0.00 $ 2,500.00 $
SWMP FEE $ 6,594.00
SWMP CREDITS $
TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 6,594.00
il:l
liilI
{!'" l
I1-1 t
illllI
0
rn
0
0
0
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 1, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, Bethany
Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, and Steve Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE IN
EXCESS OF 6 Vz FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE~ ALISON BLACKOWIAK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Alison Blackowiak
J.D., Jill & Lori Ryan
8140 Maplewood Terrace
8121 Pinewood Circle
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item, Commissioner Claybaugh asked what had
been done on other applications for tennis courts. Commissioner Papke suggested adding criteria
for wind break construction. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to differentiate this request from
a previous request on Lake Lucy Road. The applicant, Alison Blackowiak, 8140 Maplewood
Terrace presented her case. Commissioners had questions regarding notification of neighbors, a
wind break, lighting, and the color of the court. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing.
There was no one wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Lillehaug had concerns with approving this application when the Planning
Commission did not approve the fence request on Lake Lucy Road, and what are the differences?
Commissioner Claybaugh stated he would not be in favor of a wind break but would approve the
conditional use permit for a 10 foot fence. Chairman Sacchet didn't have a problem with the
application. J.D. Ryan, the neighbor behind this property, stated he didn't have a problem with
the tennis court fence. After the motion was made, there was discussion around a friendly
amendment regarding a wind break.
Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 92003-3 to construct a ten (10) foot high fence surrounding the
tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace, with the following
conditions:
1. The tennis court must not be lit.
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
2. The fencing must be black to blend with the surroundings.
3. The fence must be built according to the plan dated 6/6/2003.
The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and
drainage easement.
5. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area.
6. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following:
ao
Proposed elevations at each comer of the new tennis court.
Existing property and proposed contours. ,
Existing neighborhood property contours within 25 feet of excavation.
Show drainage arrows of flow direction.
Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey.
Location of any buildings or structures on the property .where the work is to be
performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent
owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the
proposed fence for the new tennis court.
7. If a wind break is added it must be constructed of a blending color.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to
1.
Commissioner Lillehaug voted against the motion because he was not in favor of a wind break.
He would be in favor of a 10 foot high chain link fence but not the wind break. To summarized
the Planning Commission felt tennis courts are allowed. 'Tennis courts usually have a 10 foot
fence. No neighbors have an issue with it. There is distance and screening that mitigate it
sufficiently. Where there is a range of opinions is to what extent they would allow potential wind
break which currently is not planned, but could potentially be added in the future. Commissioner
Claybaugh stated that he felt the wind break was an issue but not enough to vote against the
motion.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A2~
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK LOCATED AT 9201
AUDUBON ROAD, ERIC THESHIP-ROSALES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Eric Theship-Rosales
Mrs. Dean Degler
Connie & George St. Martin
9201 Audubon Road
9111 Audubon Road
9231 Audubon Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Feik asked for clarification
on items he felt were more opinions than factual, Commissioners Lillehaug and Tjomhom
2
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
questioned why this item was in front of them for consideration. CommissiOner Claybaugh asked
if the applicant has been working cooperatively with staff in trying to find a resolution.
Eric Theship-Rosales, 9201 Audubon Road, the applicant provided background information on
his reasons for seeking this rezoning. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant for clarification
on condition 9 concerning the home based office. Commissioner Claybaugh asked staff to clarify
how Section 20-997 affects this application. He asked the applicant to comment on what kind of
equipment is in the shed that emits odors, makes noise, hours of operation, all those things that go
in and affect the quality of life of the neighbors. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant to
explain why he didn't get the rezoning prior to building the shed. The applicant stated his plan
was to build the shed with the idea of rezoning it for his business when needed.
Chairman Sacchet called the public hearing to order. George St. Martin, 9231 Audubon Road
asked if the Planning Commission had received a copy of the email he sent to Bob Generous. His
three main issues were noise, hours of operation and impact on his driveway. Chairman Sacchet
closed the public hearing and asked for commissioner comments. After comments the following
motion was made.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to lOP, Industrial Office Park based on the
findings of fact attached to the staff report, amended to strike the phrase "from a practical
standpoint". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
In summary the Planning Commission felt this application is premature rezoning, that the
condition in the original conditional use permit for the shed was clear that it was not supposed to
be used for business, and that they could not find any pressing reason to recommend approval at
this time. The Planning Commission directed staff to continue to work with the applicant to find
a solution to his business needs.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PREI,IMINARY PLAT REQUEST
TO SUBDIVIDE 5.93 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE
FAMIIJY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD~ LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Janet Carlson
Margie Borris
Jerry & Kristin Kortgard
Linda Scott & Sue Morgan
4141 Kings Road
4071 Kings Road
3901 Glendale Drive
4031 Kings Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle was asking what
was planned to happen south of this property, which is in Victoria and the need for Lot 4.
Commissioner Claybaugh had questions regarding the tree survey and if the city forester had
reviewed the plan. Commissioner Papke asked if staff had any concerns with the utility pond.
Commissioner Tjornhom asked about the filling of the secondary wetland. Commissioner Feik
had concerns with the driveway access for Lot 3 on the curve of the road, and the size and
placement of trees to be planted. Commissioner Lillehaug had numerous questions regarding the
environmental assessment, cul-de-sac radius, status of Outlot B, road right-of-way, the pond
3
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
elevation, setback from the lake, and services down to Lot 11. Chairman Sacchet asked about
the retaining wall shown on the plan, and if there were any trees that could be saved, specifically
trees marked 140 and 71. Commissioner Slagle asked about the entrance monument sign and
questions regarding the plat if Lot 4 was removed.
Lundgren Brothers, the applicant, was represented by Mike Burton. He stated the name for this
development will be Countryside, they have been having discussions with David and Steven
Williams regarding Kings Road, and provided their proposed time line for development of this
parcel. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the Phase I and II reports, the turning
radius of the cul-de-sac and if the overhead power lines were to be buried. Commissioner Slagle
asked about sidewalks. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about Braun Engineering monitoring the
site during grading and the positioning of the driveway on Lot 3. Chairman Sacchet asked for
clarification on the grading plan and the possibility of saving trees. Commissioner Claybaugh
asked to check on the sight lines and the turning radius of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Slagle
asked about Lot 4. Chairman Sacchet then opened the public hearing.
Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road had questions regarding Kings Road development, storm water
runoff, access to Lake St. Joe, utility work, and the quality of life along Kings Road and if more
security will be provided with the increase in people. Margie Borris, 4071 Kings Road stated that
Lundgren Brothers had not contacted the neighbors about their concerns before this meeting, and
that this was the first they had heard of this development taking place. She expressed the same
concerns as the previous speakers, storm water runoff, safety, cost of hooking up to sewer, and
quality of life. Staff clarified some of her questions and concerns. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo
Drive had concerns about the plat being incomplete and resembled more a PUD than subdivision,
building pad size and impervious surface next to shoreland. Linda Scott, 4031 Kings Road had a
concern about being assessed for the improvements being done with this development. Jerry
Kortgard, 3901 Glendale Drive, who owns the property just to the south of this development,
asked for clarification about the elevation between the two properties and the expansion of the
pond. The commissioners provided comments and then made the following motion.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on
plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted.
A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each
lot.
The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
yard areas.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9,
10, Block 1 prior to any construction.
The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for
impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan an exemption shall be
obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring.
4
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and
must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the
wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40 foot setback shall be shown on
the grading plan.
The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St.
Joe and the required 150 foot setback from the OHW.
Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is
sized adequately for the proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water
infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall
be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility
easement must be dedicated over the entire swale.
A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the
storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon
the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage
from the streets to STMH #1. A minimum 20 foot easement is required for the storm
sewer pipe between STMH//2 and STMH #1.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be
preserved as buffer and removed upon completion of construction.
Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and
the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time the estimated SWMP fee,
due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $19,552.
Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria,
The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA
guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition.
The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city.
A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the
time of plat submittal.
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
19.
21.
22.
23.
25.
26.
7.
28.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de-sac
which is outside of the right-of-way.
Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and
add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development.
Type III silt fence shall be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland and removed upon
completion of construction. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of
the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be
restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. The existing
roadway will be removed and the property on the east where the road needs to be
removed will be established with turf.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges
at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are
$1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
Add the following CkyofChanhassen latest D~ail Plate Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005,
1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202,2204,3101, 3102, 3104,
3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244, and
5300.
The retaining
drainage and
designed by a
wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the
utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be
registered engineer.
On the utility plan:
Show sanitary sewer flow direction.
Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the
north side of Kings Road (Outlot B).
Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type.
Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings.
6
Planning Commission Summary - July 1, 2003
29. On the grading plan:
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Add a storm sewer schedule.
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations.
Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction.
Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance.
Revise CBMH #1 with a 2 foot sump.
Add street lights to the plans.
Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7.
Supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approved by staff.
Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot
9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage.
The plat will be contingent upon agreement with the property owner to the north of
the development regarding the dedicated road right-of-way.
The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension
of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes
not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond
Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish buffer planting along the
eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9.
The turning radius of the road on the northeast corner shall meet current city design
standards and current city code.
39.
Tree g71 shall be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be placed
around it according to city forester's directions.
40.
The applicant agrees to perform ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants during
excavation.
All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
The Planning Commission's concerns with this item are highlighted in the additional cOnditions
added, highlighted in bold print.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feik noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated June 3, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 1, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, Bethany
Tjornhom, Kurt Papke, and Steve Lillehaug
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FENCE IN
EXCESS OF 6 Vz FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY, LOCATED AT 8140 MAPLEWOOD TERRACE~ ALISON BLACKOWIAK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Alison Blackowiak 8140 Maplewood Terrace
J.D., Jill & Lori Ryan 8121 Pinewood Circle
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a question. I don't imagine this is the first tennis court in Chanhassen.
What have they done previously?
Generous: We found two other files. One in a rural residential district and one in RSF district.
They approved both of them conditioned on compliance with the submitted site plan.
Claybaugh: Okay. Speak to the fence.
Generous: 10 feet tall. One said black vinyl and the other didn't specify. It was based on their
original site plan.
Claybaugh: Okay. Then the additionally the last question I had. Somewhere in here,
unfortunately I didn't mark it here, you made reference we're in the process of code review as a
body, as the Planning Commission and you indicated that may be something...
Aanenson: Right, I was going to point that out. That is something that we should, conditional
use you wouldn't deny. You would just add conditions to mitigate the impacts and what we'd
like to do since the tennis court is permitted is build those conditions fight into our conditional
use.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: Right, to align the process a little bit.
Aanenson: Correct. Develop the criteria that would be appropriate and we'd have that as a
separate discussion.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Thanks. Any other questions Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, I just had one. Is there any kind of a wind break associated with this fence? Are
there slates in the fence or is there a sheeting on there and, no.
Generous: No.
Papke: Because quite often tennis courts are built with some sort of wind break and I don't know
if we want to build that into any of our verbiage in the future or forget about it. I just bring it up
because it does come up from time to time and it could affect the appearance.
Aanenson: We could build that into the standards. Have some criteria for construction.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. No questions Rich?
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: Bethany? Bruce?
Feik: No.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: Yeah I have one quick one. You've got to dig back in your memory bank here
though. A few months ago we had a fence request for a similar height on Lake Lucy Road. What
differentiates this request from that request? Other than materials are different. Location directly
adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. There's a difference.
Generous: It's in a conservation easement. There was existing landscaping there that, that was a
privacy fence. That was their whole argument in that one that they were providing privacy and
safety for their children and if you look at the fence design, there was 3 feet underneath it that
they could go through. We didn't see that it was the need for the approval of that.
Aanenson: The other point is, a tennis court is a permitted accessory use. It seems if you can
allow tennis courts you need to have the appropriate fencing to go with that. They just don't
work together so because it's a tennis court in the middle of a yard as opposed to a perimeter
fencing that acted as a barricade, we saw them differently.
Lillehaug: So then we're determining what really governs here, the city code for the fence or the
allowable use of a tennis court?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: Allowable use of the tennis court, and we have those throughout the city. So, because
that is a permitted use, and in this cimumstance, as a conditional use where the fence is taller. It
seems appropriate that the two should go together.
Lillehaug: When you say we have them throughout the city.
Aanenson: Tennis courts.
Lillehaug: Do we have them on private property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: And the 10 foot high is the standard for a tennis court, right? Just I believe the report
says that, just want to confu-m that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: That's all the questions from staff so I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward.
State your name and address for the record please and tell us your story.
Alison Blackowiak: Hi, my name is Alison Blackowiak. I'm at 8140 Maplewood Terrace. I
suppose you thought you'd gotten rid of me but no such luck. I'm back again. We are putting a
tennis court in in a new house we recently purchased and want to put a fence on three plus sides
of it. 10 feet to keep the tennis balls somewhat contained. I think the staff did a good job of
outlining the findings. One minor thing that doesn't affect the tennis court, I'd like to put it up.
I've added a little dashed area. We're going to be shifting part of the fence a little bit up from this
back, move it up here in an effort to save two apple trees that are back there, so the fence, that's a
5 foot section. That has nothing to do with the court, but just so everyone understands that it will
come up a little bit more, just so we can save a couple of the trees back there. I don't have
anything to add but if anyone has questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Sacchet: Question from the applicant?
Claybaugh: I have a question. Alison, have you met with your adjacent neighbors regarding the
tennis court?
Alison Blackowiak. No. My husband had actually talked to a few of them, but we just recently
moved in a little over 2 weeks ago so we don't know everyone yet. We know Randy, my
husband has met people directly behind us and on either side s° the ones that are I think most
directly impacted we've met with. Also, Kurt you had talked about the wind break. At this point
we're not planning on doing anything. We feel that there are fairly strong winds there and really
don't want to anchor anything onto the fence. But if a wind break would be done, it would be a
complimentary color. It'd probably be black but I don't anticipate that in the future at all.
Sacchet: You had a question Kurt?
Papke: Yeah. I assume this is an asphalt tennis court or are you doing clay or grass?
Alison Blackowiak. Yes. No, no, no. Asphalt.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Papke: That's not an issue in this case but in other cases that would affect the impervious.
Alison Blackowiak. Right, yeah. This is a 2 V2 acre site so.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: Would you be opposed to adding a condition restricting your ability to add future wind
breaks to the fence? As long as it's been brought up.
Alison Blackowiak. I don't know. I mean for me I don't plan on doing it but I don't know that
what the, if a wind break is a similar color. In other words, if you have a black fence and use a
black wind break, I don't know that you'd necessarily see it.
Feik: There are trees around partially.
Alison Blackowiak. Yeah.
Feik: I mean that's going to do some.
Alison Blackowiak. Do some screening, right so would I, I guess I really wouldn't personally
wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't see the value of it. I mean I would think if it would be a
wind break it would have to be a complimentary color. That would make a little more sense to
me than saying absolutely none because throughout the city on a lot of the city courts there are
wind breaks and if it's a green fence, it's a green wind break, etc. So I think that that would be a
little more, so you don't have something screaming a totally different color.
Feik: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? One question. The first condition that was put on said the tennis
court must not be lit. I think I know there's a pole there.
Alison Blackowiak. There is a pole that was back there that the previous owner, or even two
previous owners, I'm not sure, but somebody prior to us purchasing the home had installed. That
pole is going to come down. We may have a small light there just for you know decorative
lighting but have absolutely no intention of putting lights up on the court. No.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's not an issue for you then?
Alison Blackowiak: No.
Sacchet: Okay, that's all the questions. Anything? Yes, go ahead sir.
Papke: Question, the color of the court is green or red?
Alison Blackowiak: It's going to be a two tone green.
Papke: Two tone green.
Alison Blackowiak: Yeah.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Papke: Because that can sometimes enter into the aesthetics as well.
Alison Blackowiak: Right, yeah. I just felt that that was kind of least offensive for me too. I
mean I don't want to look out and see something blue or tan, I thought green would blend nicely.
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much Alison. This is a public hearing. So I would invite
anybody who wants to address this item to come forward. State your name and address for the
record please and share what you have to say. We'll listen. Don't see too many people moving.
Nobody wants to say anything about that? I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to
commissioners for comments. Who wants to start? Want to start Bethany?
Tjornhom: I guess I don't really have any comments. It makes sense to put a fence up around a
tennis court or else you'd, unless you have a really good dog that's going to chase your balls, you
need something to stop your balls from going into the neighbors yards and it's just a reasonable
request with a reasonable use so I'm in favor of it.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: I wouldn't have any concerns other than wanting to give the applicant clear direction if
there's concerns regarding the screening. That we're forthright and give clear direction.
Sacchet: Okay. Steve.
Lillehaug: I'm actually kind of torn on this. You know why would we allow it for a tennis court
and not for privacy reasons. I'm really questioning that in my mind. What's more important? To
protect the neighbor from flying tennis balls or to actually like on the Lake Lucy case, have a
sense of better privacy with a higher fence. You know which is more important?
Papke: I have a question or comment on that, and maybe this is as much to staff.
Sacchet: Well let.
Lillehaug: Go ahead.
Sacchet: Okay.
Papke: In reference to this, is this kind of a similar situation to a swimming pool where in the case
of a swimming pool I think a fence is mandatory.
Feik: But that's a safety issue.
Papke: That's a safety issue but.
Feik: This isn't a safety issue.
Papke: It's not a safety issue but.
Aanenson: It could be considered a nuisance, which is an attractive nuisance as a swimming pool
is an attractive nuisance. Going back to what Bob said, the other issue was, it was in a
conservation easement.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: Right. If it wasn't in a conservation easement would it have been approved?
Probably not. Would a 10 foot fence been approved there if there wasn't a conservation
easement? If it was constructed in the right area. I don't think it would have been approved.
Aanenson: I don't know.
Sacchet: Well, you made your point.
Lillehaug: With the swimming pool, does the city typically or do we allow 10 foot fences for
swimming pool?
Tjornhom: I think it's 6 feet.
Aanenson: 5 foot.
Generous: 5 foot is what's mandatory. And the code permits up to 6 ½ feet.
Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to jump in?
Papke: No concerns.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: With respect to the property on Lake Lucy Road. I think the height of a privacy
fence becomes somewhat subjective. There's a lot of people on Lake Lucy Road with no fences,
me being one of them. Some people are going to feel more threatened than others. I think the
public standard has dictated that a 6 foot fence is sufficient for that use and I think likewise that
the 10 foot fence goes hand in hand with the tennis court, is my thinking. The only reservations I
had with respect to the application was the wind break and the reasoning behind that was the
chain link was more open in appearance and I think a wind break would lend itself towards being
more opaque so I would be against adding a wind break but would be prepared to approve the
application for the 10 foot conditional use.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich.
Slagle: Just a point of clarification fellow commissioners. The wind break, would the reason that
you're perhaps against it, well actually let me ask why would you be against it?
Claybaugh: Visual aesthetics. Just that the chain link, one of the attributes of the chain link is
that the appearance is more open. I think that would take on more of a 10 foot wall appearance
with the wind break. Again, a mesh up there or whatever variety it might be. I think that's just
inherent with the product.
Slagle: Okay. I tend to lean towards supporting this. You know it's not often we see
applications from this area, these estates. Now is this a gated community? In all seriousness, !
think it's fine.
Sacchet: Just a few additional things. First the context with that other situation, fence situation
we had before, was it about a year ago or what. That was in a tree preservation easement or a
buffer zone where they were supposed to not be any green, no trees cut. Plus there is a regulation
as to the, how much fences are allowed along that type of road, which was another conflict. So
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
there were several very distlnct conflicts that I would think that they are very distinctly different
cases. Plus here it's screened. There is a lot of room around it. I mean I didn't go exactly out on
the property and look at it but just looking at it from the cul-de-sac there it seems like the houses
are pretty far away. There's a lot of greenery, trees, so I question whether we need to be too
restrictive even with the wind break thing. Maybe restrictive to a blending color, I think that
would be balanced. But the key element here is, it's my understanding for a conditional use
permit in this particular case is to assure that there's no conflict with the neighborhood. There
isn't a single neighbor that showed up here. This was obviously sent to all the neighbors. We
have one neighbor who missed to speak up.
J.D. Ryan: We live directly behind then and would be looking at it and we don't have a problem.
Sacchet: You don't have a problem so you're not here to complain about it. So there we go. The
only neighbor that is here doesn't have a problem. So I think in those terms, there is no conflict
with allowing this conditional use permit. I would like to specify though in the wording that it's
specifically a 10 foot high fence surrounding the tennis court. It doesn't say that currently so just
to be specific what we are actually approving here. Or recommending approval. And with that I
am ready to get a motion. Anybody want to make a motion about this? Please go ahead.
Slagle: I'll make the motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use
Permit//2003-3 to construct a 10 foot high fence around the tennis court.
Sacchet: Surrounding the tennis court, yeah.
Slagle: Surrounding the tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace with the
following conditions 1 through 3, and then also the findings by the engineer on the back page.
Sacchet: Four additional conditions, right?
Slagle: Correct. Memorandum dated June 25, 2003.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Sacchet: Any friendly amendments?
Claybaugh: Yes, I'd like to submit a friendly amendment to restrict any future wind break on the
tennis court fencing.
Sacchet: You would restrict it flat out?
Claybaugh: Yes.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable Rich?
Slagle: Maybe I shouldn't have made that.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
CIaybaugh: You can deny it, that's fine. I won't hold it against you.
Slagle: That's fine.
Sacchet: Okay. Anybody want to make a different friendly amendment?
Feik: What about restricting a wind breaks except the western exposure or something like that
where the prevailing wind is? A compromise.
Sacchet: Or restrict wind break to have blending color?
Feik: Blending color and on the westerly side or something like that. Try to get some sort of
compromise.
Slagle: Can I offer a thought?
Feik: Please.
Slagle: I would be okay with same color obviously, and then upon the approval of the neighbors.
Sacchet: How would we administer that?
Feik: What if the neighbors move? That' s not fair.
Slagle: I'm trying to help you out.
Claybaugh: I'd be satisfied with current neighbors. When somebody else moves in, they know
what they're moving into at that juncture.
Tjornhom: Is it really visible then? This tennis court. Can people drive by and see it or who's
looking at this wind break?
Feik: Neighbors. But that gets back to the privacy type issue and the opaqueness of it.
Slagle: You know, if it's the same color, I mean we've all played tennis. If you've got winds
whipping and you're trying to serve or return serve, I mean wind breaks help so if they're the
same color I'm okay.
Lillehaug: So is it to stop balls or to prevent wind?
Slagle: The wind break is to prevent wind.
Lillehaug: So the fence is for a wind break now?
Slagle: No, it's an addition. It's an add on to the fence.
Sacchet: Not currently planned. Did I hear you accept it the same color?
Slagle: No one's made that motion but I would accept same color.
Sacchet: Okay, I'll make that friendly amendment.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Papke: One thing to consider on the color, you may not want to make the wind break the same
color as the black fence. A green wind break or something like that actually might look a lot
nicer so we start to specify the color.
Sacchet: I said blending color.
Papke: Blending color, okay.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. We have a friendly amendment.
Slagle moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 92003-3 to construct a ten (10) foot high fence surrounding the
tennis court on the property located at 8140 Maplewood Terrace, with the following
conditions:
1. The tennis court must not be lit.
2. The fencing must be black to blend with the surroundings.
3. The fence must be built according to the plan dated 6/6/2003.
4. The applicant shall be aware that no building shall be allowed over the utility and
drainage easement.
5. Type I silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the grading area.
6. To assure drainage flow, submit Certificate of Survey showing the following:
a. Proposed elevations at each comer of the new tennis court.
b. Existing property and proposed contours.
c. Existing neighborhood property contours within 25 feet of excavation.
d. Show drainage arrows of flow direction.
e. Surveyors original signature on the Certificate of Survey.
f. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be
performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent
owners that are within 25 feet of the property or that may be affected by the
proposed fence for the new tennis court.
7. If a wind break is added it must be constructed of a blending color.
All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to
1.
Sacchet: This will go to City Council on the 28z of July. And anybody who wants to appeal that
can do so.
Lillehaug: And then I'd like to make a quick comment on my nay vote.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Yes we want to summarize for council here where we're at with that. Do you want to
explain why you were opposed first Steve.
Lillehaug: Do we need to summarize for council? It was approved.
Sacchet: Yes they asked that we do. But do your's first.
Lillehaug: Okay. My nay vote is because I would like to see just the chain link fence there. No
wind break. Anything on 10 foot up. I think that's too extreme and not needed for a tennis court,
but I would approve a 10 foot high chain link fence.
Sacchet: The fence is alright but you don't want to have the option of wind screening.
Lillehaug: Yep.
Sacchet: In summary, and you can add to that if I don't cover it well. We're clear that this is
appropriate. Tennis courts are allowed: Tennis courts customly have a 10 foot fence. No
neighbors have an issue with it. There is distances. There is screening that mitigate sufficiently.
The only issue where we kind of have a little range of opinions is about how, to what extent we
would allow potential wind break which currently is not planned, but could potentially be added
in the future. Anybody want to add anything to that summary?
Claybaugh: I'd like to clarify my position and that is that I think the wind break is an issue. It's
not enough of an issue for me to vote against the application but I still take issue with it on some
level.
Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks Alison.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REZONING OF THE PROPERTY FROM A2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK LOCATED AT 9201
AUDUBON ROAD~ ERIC THESHIP-ROSALES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Eric Theship-Rosales 9201 Audubon Road
Mrs. Dean Degler 9111 Audubon Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff.
Feik: I'll start. Bob I want to address one of the issues that you had just brought up, which was
something that I highlighted. You had stated that the lOP district requires a minimum lot area of
1 acre, but in the staff report you preface that with from a practical standpoint. What I'm trying
to get to is it either does or it doesn't. From a practical standpoint is sort of an opinion.
Generous: It does not, this does not comply with that.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Feik: That's where I'm trying to get. So really from a practical standpoint is irrelevant, it does
not.
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Right. Unless we were to rezone the entire property and then.
Feik: Right. I was just trying to ferret that out a little bit. And then the same thing in the second
to the last paragraph on that same page on page 2. Last line, the use of this driveway for an
industrial use could negatively impact, do you believe it will or will not?
Generous: I believe it would if the use were to intensify yes.
Feik: Just trying to identify some items here which I, when I read it looked more opinion and less
factual. Another question was in the miscellaneous portion on page 4. Second to the last
sentence in that paragraph. Would you please tell me what I'm looking at there. It says the
building cannot be occupied until the required alterations are completed and certified. Certificate
of Occupancy is issued. It's currently occupied, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Feik: The structure. So what would that mean? He would need to vacate?
Generous: Or verify that it complied with the building code requirements for the industrial use.
Feik: And it does not?
Generous: Our assumption is that it does not, but.
Feik: Would that require sprinklers and other issues?
Generous: I contacted the building official regarding that issue and he said this type of
occupancy would not. It would require ADA accessibility and probably a bathroom.
Feik: I understand the applicant is doing a boat restoration work, antique work. Wood work, I'm
assuming stuff like that. That would not require additional fire suppressant type equipment?
Generous: No, that's what he told me.
Feik: That's it, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve, any questions?
Feik: Yeah, I'll stay away from my comments here.
Lillehaug: Yeah, we've got questions. My question is, is currently it appears that he's using it for
the purpose, these purposes and this business and shop. Would that be correct assumption? And
let me just kind of preface that with another, is there any reasons that he has to get this rezoned to
operate this business on that property?
Generous: To operate the business on the property he would need industrial office park zoning.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: So by not doing this, he cannot operate that?
Generous: Correct. Under the previous CUP he was not supposed to use it for operation of a
business also.
Lillehaug: So that's the whole reason the applicant is in front of us tonight?
Generous: Correct.
Lillehaug: Just so he can operate his business.
Sacchet: Is that it Steve?
Lillehaug: That is it.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjomhom: Well I have written down here why is this necessary? I guess he took my question
from me. I didn't understand it either as I read it. Why this would be happening if he already
was doing something. Is there any other places around his property where this has happened,
where other people have done that? I mean do other people have small shops on their properties
that you know aren't rezoned or that are. Do you know what I'm saying? Maybe that's a bad
question. I don't know.
Aanenson: Well there are other ones. It's probably our number one complaint in the city and
they usually end up in the legal process. We didn't want to give the background, too much of
this. This is a way to seek remedy. He was informed that he was in violation of city ordinance.
Not to put the use there. We found out so this is a way to seek relief from that. So yes there are
other people that are doing. The way that we handle those is if we are made aware of them we
investigate and follow up and we're working with him to find other spots. There isn't a lot of in
the city doing what he wants to do. Live and work. You cannot do an accessory structure
business and accessory structure so it makes it a little bit more complicated.
Tjomhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Kurt?
Papke: ...the fire protection and so on, if the applicant were to have this rezoned industrial
commercial, would there be, would he be subject to further inspections with OSHA and things? I
would think a boat refinishing business you have solvents. You have welding equipment.
Generous: The fire marshal would have to inspect it and the building official.
Papke: Okay. I just wanted to clarify.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: I'm trying to think how to phrase the question here. The application in front of us,
the city staff is recommending denial and my question is, is in the process of working with the
applicant has there been any movement with respect to how he can make this work or is it pretty
12
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
much, I hate to use the word loggerhead but is this the application that came in or has there been
any movement with staff on improving this application? Is this what came in the door the first
time or was there any?
Aanenson: No. We met with him. He' s looking for other sites you know and as part of what he
is pursuing to find other spots.
Claybaugh: Right, but with respect to this particular application, this property.
Aanenson: Again I'll go back to what Bob said and it's in the staff report. It's premature when
there's no sewer and water. We wouldn't let any other industrial, you know if you don't meet the
standards of that, plus you've got a house and a building on there. We're in the middle of the
AUAR study. It's premature. At a minimum I think we need to, you know how would you get
access to this lot and the lot next door.
Claybaugh: No, I'm very sensitive to those issues. I was curious if this was what came in the
door. What kind of movement there was. It seems like there's still a long ways to go.
Aanenson: Right, our advice is not to pursue it but certainly an applicant has the right to pursue
the rezoning. We just felt it would be better to try to move it.
Claybaugh: Understood. That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Rich, no comments? I do have a question. Hopefully the question doesn't become a
comment. In the background, number 9 on page 3 of the report it says the proposed garage pole
barn may not be used to conduct any home occupation subject to the city ordinances. That was a
condition when the City Council approved the conditional use permit to put that structure up.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: So it was very clearly stated that it was not to be used for home occupation at the time.
Now, just to clarify, you pretty much said that we want to be real clear about this. Basically one
of the main reasons why this application is in front of us because it is being used for a home
business.
Generous: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay. I believe that's all the questions I have. With that I'd like to invite the applicant
to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and tell us your story. We'll
listen to you.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Eric Theship-Rosales, 9201 Audubon Road, Chanhassen.
Slagle: Welcome.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Thank you. It's good to be here. I've kind of written this out long hand
because it's kind of hard for me to hold all these variables in my head and it begins with a little
bit of a biography. An introduction to my business and the reasons for application to rezone my
property at 9201 Audubon. In high school I was voted into the National Honor Society, took
varsity letters in 3 sports. I was a member of the drama club and my school"s choral singing
group. I graduated with honors, courses in math and science. I'm telling you these things
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
because I want you to know who I am. Exactly what happens on the hill across from the Chaska
Industrial district on Audubon is about the people who live there. The businesses they do and the
community they live within. I grew up in Marshfield, Massachusetts where Daniel Webster had
his farm. He's the one who wrote the famous Webster's Dictionary. From my own lineage I'm a
true Pilgrim, a direct descendent of Miles Standish who stepped off the Mayflower onto
Plymouth Rock and established Plymouth Colony. The first of the America's thirteen original
colonies. ! went to Arrand School Design and graduated from there in 1983 with a Bachelor's
degree in 2 and 3 dimensional design. Took several courses in sculpture and glass blowing.
After graduation I took a job with the Providence Granite Company. For a year I carved granite,
making architectural stones for buildings. Providence Granite Company closed down after that
and I moved back to my home town and bought an old wooden boat. I started taking on wooden
boat work. That year the boat yard where I had my boat hired me on as an employee and an
apprentice. I worked there for 5 years. It was total emersion into the business of wooden boat
repair. Big boats and small boats. In 1990 1 moved to Seattle with both to practice stone carving
as an artist and to do wooden boat work to support my sculpture interest. They are both labor
intensive activities as you can imagine. When I met my wife Kathleen we decided to get married
and we moved to Minnesota because her family was here. I found work at Excelsior Boat
Refinishers and started work there in 1995 as their head carpenter. At that point, some 10 years
after beginning my boat apprenticeship, I had almost 10 years and about 15,000 to 18,000 hours
of experience working exclusively on wooden boats. While I was pursuing a sculpture career in
Seattle, most of my income came from that field. From that field came from contract carving that
is carving letters in stone or otherwise being paid to fabricate stone parts for buildings and
monuments. This is almost over. Bear with me. As a part of my own artistic aspirations I began
a series of large granite busts of George Washington, as well as putting together a concept
proposal for the Seattle Arts Commission to finish Mount Rushmore. I don't suppose you think
about Mount Rushmore as something that needs to be finished, but I do. Abe Lincoln's left ear is
missing. There' s enough stone there to do the job. Back in 1993 1 thought I was the man to do it.
Come to my home and I'll show you the shed ! just completed. I built it myself, designed and
fabricated the forms for the concrete. I rented a backhoe and excavated the earth and put in the
full foundation. I did all the carpentry, purchased the scaffolding and raised the metal sheeting
for the exterior sides and the roof. I put in all the insulation and the doors. In the same way I
will also build the addition to my home which was recently approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. I have all these skills and I enjoy the learning that's involved.
I also, and this is the most important part, enjoy the money savings by doing it myself. This
rezoning is very important because without it my system breaks down. I won't be able to build
my addition unless I can work for an income out of my shed on the property. I have searched the
area surrounding for low cost space, and we can talk more on that later, but considering all the
loans on my shed I'm paying 21 cents a square foot now to work on wooded boats on my home
and the other options are not pretty. Now I want to talk about my interest in rezoning my shed
property to IOP, but first I want to say that I really appreciate the work this Planning Commission
has done over the last few years to watch and listen to the sensitivity and objectivity of the
Planning Commission members, that the Planning Commission members have shown to various
requests and disputes that have come before you. Chanhassen has grown so incredibly much
since I have lived here. It was about a few years ago when my proposal to build my shed came
before the Planning Commission and you were there Uli, as one of the newer members I believe,
and it's good to see you as Chairman now. ! really appreciate your work.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Eric Theship-Rosales: You have a lot of good experience and I fully trust you to lead the
commission today as we all discuss a solution for my company and my life. I trouble you with
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
my short biography because I wanted you to know about my deep patriotism. I was present when
the two newest members of the Planning Commission were sworn in and excited to hear their
pledges to uphold the highest values of the Constitution of the United States. We are talking here
about liberty today and about those highest values. I sat at my business in my home in December
of 1998. My employer was talking about selling his boat shop and it seemed time to return to self
employment. As a fu'st time homebuyer we purchased my property at Audubon, mostly to stop
paying rent to a landlord. But one could clearly see the potential of the location to put up a shed
and use it as home base from which to make a living. My home business consisted in my home,
consisted of freelance boat work. I had a telephone, a file cabinet, desk in my basement, and that
defined my home business. I was running around the Twin Cities with my pickup track and my
tools. I worked on people's boats either at their homes, down on their docks, or at the marina's.
Slagle: Eric, if I can. Mr. Chair, I mean in all, if you can move it a little quicker. And the only
thing Mr. Chair is for the folks who are here for the rest, because I want to hear more about the
point 9 I think of where you before us applied for the shed, the condition not to use it as a
business and now it is part of, I want to hear why that happened.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well that's actually a misunderstanding. That point 9 specifies by code,
as you work on a home business you're allowed I guess one employee. There are several
restrictions, both in the IRS code and the local code, it says you cannot, you can't put any extra
stuff that you make when they use in your home business 25 percent square area, square footage
of one floor of your, you know what I'm trying to say. I think you know the code.
Sacchet: Now that is something that we want staff to clarify because it does refer to Section 20-
977 of the ordinance in the context so maybe, why don't you finish your presentation but try,
yeah I mean I kind of took a clock. I thought well we'll listen to your background for a while, but
we do need to get to the issue at hand. I appreciate your devotion and all but.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. Let me address the issue of home business and not using the shed
for home business.
Sacchet: Please.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Because you're not allowed to do that and that was understood at the time.
I never intended to do home business in my shed. I intended to move my home business out of
my home and into my shed. That was the.
Sacchet: Within the allowable framework that the ordinance allows home business basically?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No. Skip home business. We're not doing home business. We're moving
into the shed. We're going to rezone for home business in the shed. Excuse me, rezone for
business in the shed and not do home business in the home. Two very different things.
Sacchet: That's what you're trying to do with the application of rezoning?
Eric Theship-Rosales: I'm sorry?
Sacchet: Your rezoning application, that's what you're aiming for. But in the absence of that
rezoning being in place.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Eric Theship-Rosales: Correct. We're not, you understand the point? When I applied and it was
approved for building the shed.
Sacchet: Right.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Number 9 stated that I was not permitted to do home business in the shed.
I'm getting to that, it's right in the next paragraph.
Sacchet: Okay. Well I' 11 wait for you to get to the next paragraph then.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Thanks. Okay. I first started looking into zoning in 1999. I had the
opportunity to ask former Mayor Nancy Mancino about how the new highway project 312 would
affect zoning in Chanhassen. She informed me that zoning isn't something that's handed down
by the city, but rather that while the city is required by the state to create a plan which would
forecast the planning direction of a town, and the actual zone changes would come as requests
from contractors and other interested parties who may have an interest in developing available
lands, etc. After the regular meeting, and I have a transcript if you're interested of our
conversation for the highway was finished I questioned her further and she said that I would need
to split the zoning if I wanted to live on the one side and do business on the other side of my
property. A trip to city planning informed me of the primary and secondary overlay districts as
well as the 2020 plan to guide my area either to industrial office park or parks and open space.
My business was growing slowly. This is my home business now. When my former employer
did finally go out of business I was called back by the new owners to do structural wood working
that his other employees didn't have the experience to do. By the time spring of 2002 had rolled
around I had completed a canoe rebuilding project in my garage. This was before the new shed
went up. I was renting business shop space from both Volkminger Properties on Galpin
Boulevard and had purchase plans and dug the home to lay the foundation for the shed at
Audubon. I had signed a lease with Volkminger with the understanding that the landlord would
install heat and update the electricity to handle my larger wood working equipment. This is a 3
year lease and I have a copy of that if you'd like to see it. Sorry, 3 month lease. When the lease
ran out, I operated there without a lease until October, 2002. Heat was finally installed. So now
you can see I'm building the shed, putting a lot of time into that, and trying to get hours away to
go down to the shop right here on Galpin and work on the wooden boat contracts I had lined up.
The problem with that was that every time I turned on, well every other time I turned on my table
saw it would, the lights would go out and I'd have to take the key and go running around to the
next door business, unlock his door, flip on the lights and go back to work. It wasn't very
practical. He promised me that he'd put in electricity to 220 volt so I could run my thickness
planer and really get up to speed and do some good work. He never did that. Instead they asked
me to leave in February because the heat that they had installed wasn't working because I wasn't
working there. In other words you've got to use the heater for it to work properly, okay. I wasn't
using the heater because I didn't have the electricity to do the work. I hope that's clear. It's very
clear in my head. It was a big problem. Okay, let me catch up with my words here because I'm
not a public speaker by trade. The overhead heater wasn't working properly which they said was
due to lack of use and of course I wasn't using the space because I didn't have the electricity I
needed. They refused to grant me a lease in mid-February and I was stuck with contracts to fulfill
and nowhere to do the work. I have a copy of the lease here with me. I then moved the boats to
my shed which was complete except for the garage door and the electrical. You can imagine my
panic. This was a tree business emergency. 3 of the 4 boats were due in the spring. This spring,
two staff came to my house to look at the proposed site for my new addition. That was Bob
Generous and Angie Auseth. Intern Angie. Up until this point I had no notion that there was any
discrepancy in my master plan of living and working at my home. I planned to change the zoning
16
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
over to business use as soon ag my shed was finished. And with lots of long hours and income
from the business I would continue to build my business and also build a recently approved
addition I desperately need for my growing family. Two sons now, one 7 and one 13 months.
That was on Friday, May 16th. I discussed the zoning with Bob. He said the same thing that
Nancy Mancino had said in 1999, and he held up his hand and drew a line which passed by the
front of my shed to a north/south direction. He said just split the zoning. It was the next Monday
that I received a letter from the city planning giving me 30 days to move my business. Perhaps
you can imagine the state of panic I was in. I think $40,000 worth of contracts. No time to look
for a place because I need to work on the boats. I certainly had time to consult with staff. Quite
frankly they were rather quick with me. As I read through the staff report I see stipulations from
legal code that regulate the erection of new buildings, new business buildings on land that is
already zoned for industry. The dominant theme from staff seems to be that activities as a
business may negatively impact the environment community by creating an intensification.
When I applied for the required secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District conditional use permit to
build my shed, I included the intended purpose of boat building in that application. Perhaps you
remember that.
Sacchet: I do.
Eric Theship-Rosales: I did that because I didn't want to get all set up to do work on boats and
have someone come by, tap me on the shoulder and say hey buddy, that's not a cow and that's not
a tractor so you can't do that here. Staff also states a finding of fact number 6 that to rezone the
property is premature. I can state flat out that other than the septic system that's not a finding of
fact, and I didn't know about the septic system needing to be a requirement for doing business.
That simply doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And anyway as I went to apply for the permission
to build the addition to my home, all that was in place. The plumbing that ! did put into the shed
for a small bathroom in the back was found to be within limits for the size of the capacity of the
septic for the addition. In other words I had two bedrooms in the new addition. Two bedrooms
in the old home and the old home bedrooms would be eliminated and the shed was already
confirmed as being the shed bathroom usage was already confirmed as being within limits. I built
this building for this intended purpose, although I didn't know when I would move my business
in. I didn't know how fast the business would grow, okay. The plan passed the Planning
Commission and the City Council unanimously. The fact is I need to use the business, the
building now for business. It would pretty much put me out of business now if I went and paid I
think double or more. Right now the lowest per square footage shop space that I can find is either
downtown on East Hennepin Ave or out in, I don't know if you know Hollywood, 30 miles or so.
I think it's 29 miles out there. I visited 5 or 6 different people looking for shop space and the
square footage cost is between 33 cents for the two I just, 33 cents per square foot per month for
the two I just mentioned, or up to 50 cents per square foot which is twice what I'm paying on my
shed. Okay. The impact of light industrial operations like a wood shop is quite a bit less
intensive than the agricultural activities, okay. There's no diesel run equipment. No heavy
machine traffic like columbines and tractors. No midnight lights on while planting and
harvesting, and no maintenance activities for that machinery. Allowable decibel levels and hours
of operation are higher in agricultural zone land use designation than they are in my proposed
rezone to IOP. The well on the property is working fine. It's a newer well. The septic system
and leach field were built between, were built new in 1994 and a tie in to that system for the
bathroom and the shed was inspected and approved for compliance before my shed permit was
issued. No update is needed to build my home addition either. I can understand how staff at the
planning department must be anticipating the outcome of this new study and the surrounding
area. This alternate urban area wide review. The truth of the matter is, that withholding my
liberty on a wait and see basis for this study to be complete is quite unethical. As the city is
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
forbidden by law to purchase and hold land if the only one to benefit would be some future
developer or contractor within that 650 acres that is under review. So it's for me it's a
Constitutional issue and we'll have to talk about that some more.
Slagle: Eric, are we close?
Eric Theship-Rosales: We are. One more sentence. Council members, I need to be allowed to
do my boat work on the property. Would be willing to give up the home addition plans and
rezone the entire property IOP if that meets legal precedent for you more easily. I would of
course in that instance be looking for some business to rent my house and I would expect to have
confirmation tonight from you for that activity. The other option that comes to mind in reading
staff's report is that rezoning may not be necessary at all, but rather than a condition could be
granted on the present zoning to allow my wood shop as a conditional use in the agricultural
zone. Perhaps then waiting until a few years passed and we are closer to the 2020 target date for
the rezoning of the entire area over industrial uses similar to mine. Sorry for the broken speech,
I'm really nervous. But that's the basic, that's my basic argument.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you for your story. Questions from the applicant? How about we start
over here?
Lillehaug: Can I ask one before it slips me here?
Sacchet: Okay.
Lillehaug: Because I didn't quite understand something you said there a paragraph ago. Were
you saying, I didn't quite follow you. Are you saying that you'd give up your house?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes.
Lillehaug: Could you kind of restate that? I wasn't following what you were saying there.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, do you want to switch to video, Bob's got a picture here for us. See
I outlined, this because what Bob suggested when we were standing there in front of my shed.
You know I don't know either one way or the other, I just, ! don't have the mental capacity
perhaps to follow all this. I mean I read your report, staff report, I can't follow it. It seems I
should be able to but it's beyond me. If we sit down calmly and talk about the options then we're
going to find something that works and tonight is the night to do it. My wife's given me
permission to give up plans on the new addition, rezone the entire property and we have to rent
out this, the home we're living in now for some business purpose. That was the point.
Slagle: So you would move?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Certainly. We would move into an apartment until we could find a home
to purchase. That would be the plan.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: And believe me Eric, my questions about your. ;.and your story, don't think that it's, I'm
not for some of the things you're wanting to accomplish here tonight. But my question I guess
centers on, are you aware that the 2005 is, and correct me if I'm wrong staff, more important in
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
the sense of this being premature. Is that correct? And so my question to you is, that year in my
mind is a more applicable date than a 2020.
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I'm not aware. Please read it to me.
Slagle: Well I'm willing to read it to you but what I'm trying to say is that it says by 2005 is
when you're supposed to receive the extension of MUSA.
Aanenson: Can I just make something clear. I did meet with the applicant and tried to go
through all this with him. I'm not sure we had an understanding, for a lot of complex reasons
which you can see here tonight. Try to go through all this with him. He's been notified on the
mailings. Everybody in that area has. Hasn't necessarily attended some of those. I did try to
explain. I did advise him to maybe seek some other counsel regarding pending assessments that
may be coming on the property, those sort of things. Wasn't a lot of movement in that area.
Slagle: What I'm trying to, as a fellow citizen here to say that from my standpoint the, that year
is important because really up until that year they're saying anything like this, rezoning might be
a premature request. So I think of that and then I look at we had a condition and maybe there was
some confusion as to what a home you know work situation was.
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, there's no confusion.
Slagle: Well I thought you said earlier there was some miscommunication.
Sacchet: A misunderstanding.
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, not on the application for the shed.
Slagle: Point 9.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Point 9.
Slagle: But let me say this, when you described your search for alternative spots, and basically
you're saying I can't find anything. I have a hard time with that.
Eric Theship-Rosales: That is as of 4 weeks from today.
Slagle: Would staff be open to extending?
Aanenson: Yes, and we told him that. In good faith we're trying to work with him. We put a
deadline on there to make sure that in good faith they are looking and he has sent me some
information of sites he' s looking at and this is one other remedy that he chose to seek relief from
the requirement to, so we're looking at all those. Happy to continue that.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Claybaugh: Well, would it be possible for staff to comment on Section 20-997, specifically what
that ordinance states. How it affects this application.
Generous: I can read it to you.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: Please do.
Sacchet: If it's short enough.
Generous: One paragraph. Section 20-997, subordinate use. The use of a dwelling unit for any
home occupation shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to a residential use. Not more than
25 percent of the floor area of one floor of a dwelling unit shall be used in the conduct of the
home occupation. No garage or accessory building, except accessory agricultural buildings
existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation.
Claybaugh: Now during your comments to the commission you indicated that some of the
agricultural requirements were possibly more lax than the office industrial, but the bottom line is
is that you're not using it for agricultural. Okay, you're using it as a business and specifically I'd
like to go through this part of the process but I'm very interested in hearing what the neighbors
have to say. I'm also curious about what kind of equipment is out in the shed that emits odors,
that makes noise, hours of operation, all those things that go in and affect the quality of life of
your neighbors because it' s really more than likely what it's going to come down to, at least from
my perspective. So if you could comment on that.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. I do have a gas operated compressor. It's 14 horsepower. The plan
is to convert that to electrical and put it inside the shed. I've discussed that with the building
department. It would be located over the bathroom inside on the northeast comer, not likely to
produce any audible noise during the day. I would like to say that when I bought the building it
was designed for 2 by 4 construction. I beefed up the walls to 2 by 8 construction. Pretty much
doubled the thickness of them. That extra insulation is known to decrease sound. I did that of
course to decrease my electrical bills for the in-floor heating which I installed also to reduce the
possibility of sound getting out as a stone carver, granite, carving granite generates a lot of noise.
I've had noise issues in the past. I've researched decibel levels on Seattle and had some dealings
with that so, generally speaking my intuition for the law came from Massachusetts law, not
necessarily Minnesota law but I know the regulations of say 65 decibels at the source is
considered residential, if it's in part time use. Okay, the compressor generates probably 85
decibels at the source, which is like a loud scream. It's lower than a loud whistle. If you've ever
been a concert and someone's whistled in your ear, but that noise level dissipates rapidly as a
square of the distance to the next source or the next person hearing it. Okay, I haven't had any
complaints from George or Connie about the air compressor but there are several ways to
mitigate the problem. Right now it has a small canister muffler. Could increase the size of the
muffler. It' s also a portable unit. It would be moved to the opposite comer of the property when
the landscaping is done.
Claybaugh: It also sounds like there's some issues with the driveway as well, Some deliveries
for equipment. Boats coming through. So on and so forth.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Let's talk about that. Sure, so just to say, I'll talk about that next. Just to
say, as far as the compressor goes, there are several options. Like I say I haven't had a single
complaint, hasn't come up as an issue in the neighborhood, and I'm happy to move the
compressor or put a bigger muffler on or eventually say a few months from now get it inside the
building. Now regarding the.
Claybaugh: I guess one question I have is, to you is, a lot of people have home based businesses
but at some point as those businesses grow, they cross a threshold and to me what's in front of
20
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
me, it's clear to me that you've crossed that threshold and it becomes a question of now you've
graduated into a different category. On some level you want to keep your feet in both worlds.
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, that's not correct.
Claybaugh: You want the advantages of the office industrial but you want to anchor one foot
solidly in agricultural and that it's a home based business. And I'm not sure how to reconcile that
or to help you with the problem that you have. At this stage it's clearly tragic on a personal
standpoint for you, and I'm not, I'm just.
Sacchet: We're still at questions Craig.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Can I respond?
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Talk of liberty here, we have the liberty to speak. We're practicing it right here.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Number 9. Okay, in the conditions for permission to build a shed, any
home business shall not be operated in the shed. It's legal code. Okay, that's what the law states.
If you're doing home business in your home, do not move any parts of it into the shed. That was
understood when the application was given. I confirmed it with a yes. You can find it on the
video record. The goal was never to do that. The goal was to take Nancy Mancino's suggestion
and split the property into part industrial zone, and keep the other part agriculture or residential, a
place where I could live. I was a little bit premature.
Slagle: Eric, can I ask why didn't you, why wasn't that presented to us 2 years ago?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Slagle: Why didn't you follow that path?
Sacchet: You usually do the zoning first and then you would build. I guess that's where Rich is
coming from.
Slagle: Yeah.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, I wanted to build a shed for myself. I wanted the accomplishment
of doing it. I wanted the labor savings. I didn't understand that point that you should rezone and
then build. Simply put.
Claybaugh: What was your intended use for the shed when you were building it? I mean it had
to be more than self gratification of building 4 walls and a roof.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure. The people I mentored from, gave me the apprenticeship for the
wooden boat building, the first boat that I ever worked on, the first boat I ever put planks in is still
sitting in their shed. They gave that to me. It's a 38 foot long boat. It's worth, right now it's
worth about between 7, I'm telling you. I'm answering your question. They gave me this boat. I
wanted to build this shed, put the boat in there. Fix it up and use it for personal use. Perhaps put
my company name on the back and use it as advertising. Okay, so that's your answer. I wanted
to build.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: So you wanted the shed to store the 38 foot boat?
Eric Theship-Rosales: To work on it. To work on it. It's a re-build project. It's a hull and parts.
Claybaugh: Okay my next question, follow-up question would be, are you doing more than that
at this juncture?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Yeah, the plan was to build the shed with the idea of rezoning it for
my business when I needed it. That's the understanding that I had, and that was my
understanding of my option.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: Kurt, any questions?
Papke: I don't believe you've answered the question of the hours of operation, in which you
actually perform your business in the shed.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Right now?
Papke: Yes.
Eric Theship-Rosales: 8, 10, 12, 14 hours a day. Trying to get these boats done.
Papke: So from what time until approximately what time? From 8:00 a.m. til.
Eric Theship-Rosales: It changes depending on my, depending on everything in my life going on
right now. 7:00 to 7:00 p.m. Good 12 hours right now.
Papke: And one of the letters in our packet here stated that apparently sometimes you keep the
doors open and so sometimes the 8 inches of insulation, the noise comes out anyway.
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I wouldn't keep the door open when I'm making noise. I'm very
careful to close the door if I have grinding to do. The compressor does run. It's outside. The
grinding is, I grind with the air. In other words, air power from the compressor powers the
grinding tools. I don't suspect that I've been over code for agricultural industrial office use
zoning or residential, as far as the neighbors are concerned with the noise. I do walk around with
the ear muffs on because I use them. I tend the compressor while I'm running back and forth to
my tool.
Papke: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Bethany.
Tjornhom: I have a question. How long have you been doing this where your business has
expanded to where now you are working 10-12 hours a day? How long has this been going on
where you are in the shed?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Eric Theship-Rosales: I moved out of the Galpin space that I mentioned in my letter, I moved out
of there in mid-February. I hired a hauler. He hauled the boats up. I stuck them in the shed and I
started working on them.
Tjornhom: So, if you have, do you advertise your business? What address do you have on for
your business?
Eric Theship-Rosales: I use 9201 Audubon Road.
Tjomhom: Okay. When you first decided to have this business, this is just a surprise then? You
didn't know you couldn't do this where you are now?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I knew that I needed to rezone. Understand in my letter that I put
down, I had a business emergency. I didn't feel I had time to.
Tjornhom: So you didn't really intend to have this happen where you are right now?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No.
Tjornhom: It just sort of fell into your lap this way?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yeah. It was tragic as you say. I mean it was pretty hard to take,
Tjornhom: Alright. That's all I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce.
Feik: I just have one question. Should you be successful with this, there is a concern from the
neighbors regarding hours. Can you live with working 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday
period?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No I can't. Not during this next two years.
Feik: Thank you. Thank you.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I'm looking for a reason to help you out here. There's a lot of, I agree with staff. I'm
getting to a question. I agree.
Sacchet: We're still in questions area, please.
Lillehaug: I agree with staff on a lot of these points. Or on all the points. But I'm hung up on
this miscommunication. You're saying the miscommunication, there's no miscommunication
with the application? When you presented the application for the conditional use permit to build
a barn, that's the application. In my mind there's no miscommunication in condition number 9,
so could you, I'm just looking for a reason. Why should we go against everything in, I mean
there's ordinance after ordinance here to say that you shouldn't be allowed to do this at this point
right now.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I want to talk about.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: Other than a hardship, is there, what is, is there one or two specific reasons that the
city should go against all these ordinances to approve this? And that's, maybe that's just too
vague of a question.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well, we should maybe consider the larger question because like I say, I
don't need to just zone part of it if it would mean that my business could survive and exist, we
could perhaps, if it was zoned a section as it' s laid out in the drawing, rezone the whole property.
Okay the other option would be to keep it A2 and create a condition here tonight whereby ! could
operate for say 24 months or so, perhaps 36. That would give me the option to build my addition.
It would give me the option to build the business far enough along so I didn't have to go out of
business, okay. I could generate a client base to get my name around more, etc and I could afford
one of these places like in Waconia where I can do business for 50 cents a square foot.
Lillehaug: So let me hit on this one more time.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Sure.
Lillehaug: Is there a miscommunication with number 9 there in the ordinance? I mean are you
fully in agreeance that you're going against the ordinance?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes. Yes.
Lillehaug: As far as operating this business.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Yes.
Lillehaug: Knowingly.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well yes. Like I said, it was a business emergency and I made that
challenge to the law, I did. I realize I did that without, I mean it was basically a panic situation.
Lillehaug: So you're saying a miscommunication is coming when you're allowed to rezone this
property?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No, I believe I was talking about miscommunicating between staff and
myself in terms of defining condition number 9. It's a much simpler issue.
Sacchet: So just to add onto this, so when you came in for the permit to build this shed you did
understand that the shed was not to be used for business?
Eric Theship-Rosales: No. I understood that the use of the shed was illegal if I had a home
business also. In other words it could not be an extension of the home business. I never intended
for it to be an extension of the home business. I wanted to close the home business down.
Sacchet: And move it to the shed?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Exactly. Under proper zoning conditions, applying for them under all
proper practices of law.
Sacchet: And that would, that would only work if it's rezoned though.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Eric Theship-Rosales: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yes, you still have a question Bruce?
Feik: No.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I did want to respond to.
Sacchet: You want to add one more thing? Okay.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well Craig mentioned an issue about the fence between the two
properties. And well this is my first home as I say, and you don't necessarily catch all the issues
when you're a first time homebuyer. I didn't actually eye balled it to the two telephone poles that
define the property. Okay, if you walk around in front of the one telephone pole near Audubon
Road and you eyeball the second telephone pole, you draw a line where you see the lines
connected and you measure to my house, okay to the front door, it's about 14 feet to the front
step. It's about 10 feet. If there were a fence there, right on the property line, I would not be able
to have driven my car on the first day of owning the property. Open the doors and not hit the
fence. Okay. It's just, it's always going to be a shared property. It's going to be a shared
driveway. If you extend from my gravel edge at my doorstep, to George's the end of George's
gravel at his lawn, it's about 20 feet. There's plenty of room to drive agricultural vehicles back
and forth in there. Okay. Now, so I walked over there and I said well can I buy some property
from you because I don't think I have a legal property line here. I don't think if we put up a fence
there I'd be able to use my property. They said no. Okay. And then later on, the issue came up
with they were going to build a fence.
Sacchet: I don't think the fence is an issue here tonight Eric.
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well it will be in a second when George stands up.
Sacchet: Well you can address it at that point so let's not try to address everything that could
possibly come up, otherwise we're going to be sitting here addressing things until we turn gray.
So why don't we see what comes up and deal with it. Is that acceptable to you Eric?
Eric Theship-Rosales: Well I would like to say that we need a solution tonight.
Sacchet: We certainly want to find something that's equitable.
Eric Theship-Rosales: I would hate to stand down at this point and not be able to come back and
discuss other issues. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you Eri~. Now this is a public hearing so anybody who wants to come forward
and address this item, please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record and
let us hear what you have to say please.
George St. Martin: My name's George St. Martin. I live at 9231 Audubon. Everybody got my
e-mail that I sent to Bob Generous? Okay, so I have no further comments except for one thing.
The driveway. It's not a big deal but again it is. I pay taxes on that driveway. There was no
25
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
question that when somebody buys a property they should know where the property line starts
and ends, and also back before Eric bought the property there was a fence there. Two neighbors
ago. I mean there was a big wooden fence inbetween those two properties. And that's all I have.
Thank you for your time.
Sacchet: Just to summarize for everybody else here in your note I recall there were mainly three
issues. You had a concern about the noise, the duration, the hours of operation, and the impact on
the driveway. Those were the three main items, correct?
George St. Martin: That's correct.
Sacchet: Okay.
George St. Martin: If Eric could agree to those things, you know we don't have a problem.
Sacchet: So you're trying to work it out, that's good.
George St. Martin: Well yeah, absolutely. We just want to be good neighbors.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Anybody else wants to come forward and address this item? This is
your time to do so. Seeing nobody, I close the public hearing and bring this back to
commissioners. Comments please.
Lillehaug: Yeah I can start. I'm going to open up with a question though because I agree, fully
agree with staff on this. So to come up with a solution, is the solution allowing him to rezone?
Can he rezone this? Or not even rezone it, just not occupy that home and have that business on
that property?
Aanenson: If a business went in there again that would trigger a change in use, so if it' s a change
in use then again you kind of go through the site plan review because for occupancy and that sort
of thing, they have to do some modifications to the home for building code issues. If it was to go
office, if someone was to rent it for, because now it's not used as a residence, so there'd be some
code issues on that too. Parking standards and those sort of things would also come into play.
Lillehaug: So if I understand it correctly, the only solutions per code would be to not operate the
business there? Or have the property rezoned.
Aanenson: You could rezone it, yeah but I'm saying that for the existing house it wouldn't
probably stay in the exact condition because it would go through site plan at this Point because
it's changing residential to an office use more than likely if it's going to stay in the home kind of,
and then have to go through to meet those standards. Parking. Whatever other codes would be
required for occupancy.
Lillehaug: My comments are, it's in the 2005 MUSA. The city is not ready to extend services
down there based on the AUAR that is currently being performed. So I support not making any
plans to extend services down to that property at this time until that report is complete. I do not
support it also because of fact number 2 that if we did go according to the plan in front of us, it
wouldn't meet the district regulations on the size of the lot and depth of the lot. We did hear from
the applicant that he's willing to change that but that doesn't help the services issue. The
driveway's an issue. And then my bigger issue is, under the conditional use permit it's very clear
26
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
that that barn, that shed was not to be used as occupation until it was rezoned. So I cannot
support his.
Sacchet: Thank you Steve. Bruce.
Feik: Comments, but quick question first. Kate or Bob. Had this been zoned previously, and the
applicant had come in here two years ago when he brought his application for at that time it was
defined as a shed and this was rezoned to lOP, would the construction materials, the setback have
conformed at all to the lOP zoning at that time.
Generous: Only the setback would conform.
Feik: Only the setback. So what I'm proposing gentlemen, and lady, that one of two things
would happen. One is either the applicant had an unfortunate job situation where he had built a
hobby shop, and now wants to convert it to a full time business of fairly lengthy hours with a
neighbor that's next door and not necessarily a compatible use, or he builds a property knowing it
wouldn't conform, which I don't think he might have done, but certainly wouldn't have been the
best thing to do. Hoping to get it sort of grandfathered in which would not have been a good
case. Would not have been a good thing to do so in either case, as well as all the other comments,
I cannot support the application.
Tjomhom: This is probably the worst vote I'm going to have to do so far I guess. I feel really
bad. You know I hate to see you have hardship with your business. I know you're trying and
that's to be commended but I have to agree with Bruce and Steve that there are ordinances and
there are regulations and there are zoning laws for a reason and unfortunately where you live
those that apply to your business and so I guess I can't support, or I have to agree with staff in
denying the application.
Papke: I empathize with the applicant. I respect him for trying to go through the process with the
Planning Commission and trying to get it resolved. ! think this was a noble attempt but as Steve
mentioned before I'm still looking for a reason as to why we would approve this and I don't see
any compelling legal reason that would suggest even that we pursue that so ! would have to
disapprove that at this point.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: Like fellow commissioners I genuinely empathize with your situation. It's clear that
you're an artisan. You take a lot of pride in what you do. That definitely showed through in your
presentation. Unfortunately there is a number of compelling reasons not to and the absence of
compelling reasons besides what I would consider on some levels self created hardship to
approve it, and as such I don't feel that I can support the application in it's current form. I agree
with the staff's findings and it's a very unfortunate situation but it is what it is.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: Basically ditto what the other commissioners have said. I'd like to throw out for the
commission if we proceed onto a motion that, if the motion does go against the application, I'd
like to encourage us to consider an extension.
Lillehaug: And extension for what?
27
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Slagle: For the Cease and desist.
Aanenson: That's not within your jurisdiction to be clear. That's a legal issue that we're working
with him. We're trying to work with him.
Slagle: When you say it's not legal.
Aanenson: You can't give a use variance. You don't have the jurisdiction to say you can
continue to use that for a certain period of time.
Slagle: And where would that come from?
Aanenson: City code. He's in violation of the city code. The clock's ticking on that. Certainly
we've given him time. We're working with him and we'll continue to work with him.
Slagle: So city code dictates 30 days?
Aanenson: Yes, that's our policy 30 days. He's past that. We're going to continue to work with
him. If you want to give staff the direction to continue to work with him fine but you can't give a
use variance so we'll be happy to continue to work with him.
Sacchet: Is that it Rich? Well, I have a few comments to make. I don't remember all the details
that went into the discussion when this barn was approved, however I clearly recall that the use of
that barn for business purposes was a major issue at the time. So I have a hard time figuring out
how that could have been lost or misunderstood at the time. It's a tricky thing. I mean we drive
through a red light and then tell the cop we didn't see it. We still drove through it and if you have
an accident you have an accident, whether we saw the red light or not. It's a tricky situation. In
terms of the liberty, I mean we're almost July 4th so it's our celebration of liberty here in this
country. We certainly exercise a fair amount of liberty of speech already here tonight. The
liberty of doing what we want to do and you have an incredible talents and incredible drive that I
really respect and admire. That should not be impacted by where you do it. But then it's the
other aspect of liberty. Maybe liberty starts where somebody, ends where somebody else's starts.
My liberty starts where you, mine ends where your's starts and here we're talking about the city
framework that is clearly established and defined. Also, what our thing in front of us is very
clear. I mean I agree with you Rich that we'd like to find ways to mitigate the hardship and help
you find a solution, but then at the same time what' s in front of us is to rezone half of the lot and
have a lot. I mean if you would come in, if you want to consider rezoning the whole thing, that's
a totally different thing. We can't really even discuss this at this point because that's not an issue
in front of us. The issue in front of us is does this zoning, half of it into IOP, half of it residential,
does that meet ordinance and it clearly doesn't. It really doesn't. If you want to come in with a
different application, trying to apply for rezoning the whole thing to industrial office, then that
would be a different move. But we can't really tell you whether that's going to go through or not
at this point. That's not...it hasn't been studied. It hasn't been discussed. I'm just curious from
staff, would the whole property fulfill the requirements in terms of size to be rezoned because
that's...
Aanenson: ...there's an access issue, upgrading the road. Now you have two uses so you'd be,
you know the driveway to engineering specifications, storm water management, so you'd really
include a site plan review with that.
Sacchet: There's a whole other program.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: Yeah, it's a different application.
Sacchet: Now I do have another question for staff. I mean staff, you focused on the aspect that
this is premature in view of the whole area being studied very extensively which we expect to be
complete later this year to plan what's going to happen overall in that area for the 2005
timeframe. There's another aspect here though. This would be spot zoning. Wouldn't it be spot
zoning?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: And spot zoning is a bad thing in city planning framework, that way I understand it. As
a matter of fact it'd be...illegal if it got contested, is that correct?
Aanenson: Yeah, I think the bigger issue too is we want to look at accessing not only this parcel
but topographically what pieces relate together as part of that whole study. What's the best way
to provide access to those parcels that may get access off of Audubon and how we efficiently
work that through so it's not looking at this piece in a vacuum. It's looking at the neighboring
property too and looking at rezoning, and that's what the study is looking at. What's the best way
to provide access to those and looking at this separately. It may not be in the best interest of both
properties.
Sacchet: Okay. Well, let me clarify once more for my fellow commissioners what's in front of
us is very clearly the application to rezone half of it and so that's what we're voting upon tonight,
and what goes beyond that would be something different so with that comment I'm willing to
take a motion.
Lillehaug: Can I add something? I don't want to give any false indications here either. If an
application were to come in to rezone the whole property, my comments are the same. Services
aren't provided there at this point and they're not ready to be and I wouldn't support rezoning the
whole property either so I really, I don't want to give any false indication that I would support
rezoning the whole property either. So you're aware.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other comments? Discussion?
Claybaugh: I would concur with Steve for the record here so the applicant understood where
likewise I was coming from.
Lillehaug: And that's at this current time.
Sacchet: At this time, right. With the study, with the AUAR study being in progress at this point
it'd be very hard to justify any rezoning in that area. Plus it's contrary to what the comprehensive
plan indicates and that's kind of the foundation of the framework that we're working with for the
city's comprehensive plan. So with that, I'd like to have a motion.
Feik: I'll make a motion.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
Feik: I move that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning of property from
A2, Agricultural Estate District to IOP, Industrial Office Park based upon the findings of fact
29
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
attached to this report with, I have one change please if you would be so kind as to that one from
a practical standpoint, if you'd either strike that or remove it so that it's clear. If the applicant
chooses to pursue this with the City Council, I'd like that to be clear for the council.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the
rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate District to IOP, Industrial Office Park based on the
findings of fact attached to the staff report, amended to strike the phrase "from a practical
standpoint". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Sacchet: This will go to City Council on the 280" of July, and that gives you a chance to present
your case to City Council and I sincerely hope you find a good solution. It seems a little bit out
of view right now but I'm sure there's a solution somewhere in this. For summary for the City
Council, we are in agreement as a Planning Commission that this is premature rezoning. That the
condition in the original conditional use permit for the shed was clear that it was not supposed to
be used for business use. And that we couldn't find any pressing reason that would allow us to
recommend approval at this time.
Slagle: And we also ask staff to work with the applicant.
Sacchet: I think we have consensus on that. We'd like to definitely show every possible good
will to the applicant to do whatever we can to find a solution to the challenge at hand but
certainly from having heard a little bit of your life story Eric you're very used to dealing with
pretty heavy challenges. I mean if you carve beautiful things out of granite, here you've got a
chance to carve something.
Slagle: We have a bowling alley for 6 months don't we that he could use?
Sacchet: Alright, let's hold those horses. So with that let's move to our next item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5.93 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Janet Carlson
Margie Bords
Jerry & Kristin Kortgard
Linda Scott & Sue Morgan
4141 Kings Road
4071 Kings Road
3901 Glendale Drive
4031 Kings Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff. Rich, do you want to start?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Slagle: Yeah I've got a few. Kate if you could put up the map of the overall area. Let's see here
yeah. There we go. The property you had mentioned in the report, the owners to the immediate
south.
Aanenson: This.
Slagle: Yeah. Who's the owner to the immediate south of the big area?
Aanenson: This is Victoria.
Slagle: That is in Victoria?
Aanenson: Yep. This is the city limits would be...
Slagle: Okay, I see what you're saying now.
Aanenson: Yeah. And then there's also Victoria on this side.
Slagle: Over to the west?
Aanenson: Yeah. Actually yeah, this is higher ground but the wetland comes up and kind of
drops down through here and then it's also wetland as you go through there. And Lake St. Joe is
a natural environment lake. There's a large wetland complex.
Slagle: My question is going to center around future plans for that big area but obviously, do you
have any feel what Victoria...
Aanenson: Certainly Kings Road can be extended down. I'm not sure if the lot utility on that
road, but certainly we wanted our utilities to loop through Kings Road street for maintenance of
our services.
Slagle: Okay. My question was also going to center around to fellow commissioners was the
idea, because you have this beautiful lake and I believe to the north of the Lundgren development
to the south is wetlands and what not. You could have had a beautiful trail, walkway, but
obviously that's not under our.
Aanenson: Well it was a natural wetland and actually Lundgren did this subdivision on the backs
of those. Those are larger lots. At that time the lot requirement was larger. There's also, they are
not allowed to have docks. So we didn't want to get in there. That wetland I believe is in that
area, some of the neighbors probably, in excess of maybe 200 feet. It's pretty large before you
get to the ordinary high water mark. Yeah, so we didn't want the integrity, because it's a natural
environment lake, of just preserving that. It's beautiful. And you get a nice view and there is the
access on this side.
Slagle: Okay. Next question regarding the plot. We're talking about one of these called sort of
minor tweaking, but just from an observation standpoint. In your planning background, I mean is
lot number 4 really needed? I mean couldn't you just extend 3 and 5 and 2 and 6 and make it all
work.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: You can always have less lots. It meets the requirements. This is the one lot that I
believe it's Lot 6 that's undersized.
Slagle: I mean it just seems like if you're 5 and 6 and 3 and 2, you've got a house right smack
behind your house.
Aanenson: Yeah well I think if you look at the orientation, 5 could come off of the cul-de-sac. 4
could come off of Kings Road. This is going to have orientation off of Kings Road, and the rest
of them will come off the cul-de-sac.
Slagle: And then the outlot on the southeast.
Aanenson: Right. Now for this until to get maintenance to this .point there will be a requirement
for a large utility access, 20 foot wide. We should put a condition in there to get to maintain this
point. At such time, whenever that is.
Slagle: Do you have any feel?
Aanenson: No, it's up to them. We don't want to force them to do anything until such time when
they choose to go forward, kind of...the spot down but this lot could be platted but they'd have to
come back and just change it from an outlot to final platting and that would just go to City
Council to meet those requirements.
Slagle: I think right now that's all I have Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Craig.
Claybaugh: Yeah my question pertaining to the tree survey plan. Did the city forester concur
that all these trees that were marked for removal, none of those were salvageable?
Aanenson: Yes, Jill reviewed this and gave her comments.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Kurt, any questions from staff.*
Papke: Yeah. On the area just to the north of the pond, if I'm reading the topographical map
correctly, it looks like there's a lot of grading going on in that area. It's major changes. Major
amounts of dirt being moved. Any concems with that and with the pond just below it?
Aanenson: We did look at this is one of the reasons we actually, it got tabled because we asked
them to redesign. The pond was originally up in this area and ultimately we want to put the pond,
this pond will probably be increased in size when this project develops and it's closest to the lake
to give us the best treatment before it goes in so ultimately we thought that was the best location
long term for that pond. And we do have a 20 foot wide easement to get down there again. This
wouldn't be built, and then when we have access here, we'll get an additional easement and
increase the size of that pond to get to that.
Saam: Commissioner Papke if I could add too. As far as the grading goes, as you mentioned,
there is some significant grading going on there.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Papke: It changes like 10 feet.
Saam: Yeah. We do like the location though as Kate mentioned. The pond is near to the lake.
It's in the low spot. It makes sense to put it there. As far as the grading and the slopes, we'll
have them put erosion control matting on the slope. Address it that way.
Papke: That's all I have, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjornhom: In reading this they were talking about the wetland and there was a secondary wetland.
That's going to be totally wiped out, is that correct?
Aanenson: Yeah. Well part of the process, and that's in this area fight here. And part of the
process is our wetland specialist walks the sites and determines whether or not it's existing and
the determination when that was a hole dug, it took on wetland characteristics so it meets the, it's
called the diminimus rule so it could be filled under a certain square footage. And this won't be
touched, this wetland down here.
Tjornhom: But then they don't have to replace the one that they're.
Aanenson: Correct, because it wasn't determined to be that quality.
Tjornhom: Okay.
Sacchet: Is that it?
Tjornhom: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay, Bruce.
Feik: Just a couple. Kate regarding Lot 3. On the curve. Do you have any concerns regarding
driveway access on that curve to Kings Road?
Aanenson: Maybe Matt wants to comment on that. I'm assuming they would probably try to get
it on this area.
Feik: On one side or the other fight.
Saam: Yeah, get it off of that curve so.
Aanenson: Off the coruer.
Saam: Farthest to the east or as Kate showed, farthest to the south, southwest there.
Feik: Assuming this moves forward, do we need to address that now?
Saam: I don't believe so. I think, unless you want to but in my opinion staff can deal with the
builder at time of building permit. Deal with the engineer.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Feik: Next question is regarding in the conditions where we're talking about the 63 plus trees
that need to be planted. Item 1 and the two deciduous per lot in the front yard. I might have
missed it but do we need, or did we specify size with those trees?
Aanenson: That's per city ordinance so we didn't list it but.
Feik: Okay, so but in per the ordinance.
Aanenson: Yes. And then we review those plans to make sure that they're specified on the plans
to meet our city specs. The landscaping plan.
Feik: So you actually prefer to have those landscaping plans revised and have those shown on the
plan?
Aanenson: They will be. They call off the specs...stays on the plan.
Feik: And size?
Aanenson: Correct. And we'll review those before they begin.
Feik: Okay. That's it for now, thanks.
Aanenson: I just wanted to point out, they are working on an entry monument too...Lot 5.
Saam: A what?
Aanenson: Entry monument on Lot 5. An entry feature. Excuse me, on Lot 8.
Sacchet: Steve, any questions from staff please.
Lillehaug: Boy I've got a bunch here and no one's hitting on my questions so.
Sacchet: Go for it.
Lillehaug: Staff requested a Phase I EA. Phase II was completed. Which is more investigative?
Phase I?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay.
Lillehaug: The temporary cul-de-sac is a 35 foot radius, I'm going to direct this to Matt here.
There's a 35 foot radius proposed there. That's a temporary cul-de-sac. A permanent cul-de-sac,
I don't know what city standard is. Maybe 45 for radius, 50 foot radius.
Saam: 45.
Lillehaug: Okay. And that's really driven I think specifically or more importantly for a fire truck
turning radius.
Saam: Yeah, fire truck and snow plow.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: Can we get around this with a fire track? 35 foot radius.
Saam: I believe so, yeah. I've sat down with the fire marshal before. This is typical radius like
on a private street so.
Lillehaug: Okay, good. What is the future of Outlot B to the north of Kings Road?
Aanenson: That will be platted with this extension. With this project the road will be built. That
was holding this up. The improvements need to be made to the road and also utilities will be
stubbed and so more than likely with the two parties agree to financial, then it would probably
just go to the City Council for final plat. Those lots.
Lillehaug: So is this a city outlot?
Aanenson: No, it's a development of Minnewashta Oaks.
Slagle: And who's the owner of that?
Aanenson: I believe it's Williams Brothers now. It's changed hands a couple times, but that was
part of the original development on the other side, but because they didn't have access via a
public street they weren't able to final plat those lots.
Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions Steve?
Lillehaug: Yes I do. The south portion of that outlot, is that already dedicated right-of-way? Do
I need to know that?
Saam: For the sidewalk?
Lillehaug: Well the roadway' s in part of it also.
Aanenson: No. That's going through the property to the south, the Kortgard's property.
Lillehaug: You know that same outlot.
Sacchet: Outlot B?
Lillehaug: Outlot B. Portion off
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Is that dashed line.
Saam: I guess that's the question that staff's been trying to research and we're having a surveyor
research. It's shown that way in county half section books. County plat books as roadway.
However, in doing some research we found that it's never been recorded or deeded or property
owners haven't been paid for it so yeah, that issue still has to be resolved.
Lillehaug: We're talking a 30 foot swipe there, right?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: Yes. The two property owners need to resolve that to get the street to go through it.
Saam: And I think the applicant might add to that. I know they've been talking with the property
owner to the north so.
Lillehaug: Alright, we'll revisit that there then. I'm still on right-of-way here. On the west'there
looks to be like there's 33 foot right-of-way dedicated in the city of Victoria.
Aanenson: Correct.
Lillehaug: Is that correct?
Saam: Yes.
Lillehaug: We don't want to utilize that for a portion of the road or is it just a jurisdictional
nightmare to have a road running down the city divide?
Saam: Yeah I guess, and they don't own.
Aanenson: Go ahead.
Saam: Oh, they don't own anything in Victoria. They're not proposing to plat anything there.
Lillehaug: It's already dedicated right-of-way though.
Saam: Well, yes and no. It might fall under the same situation as the piece to the north. I guess I
haven't researched that one Commissioner Lillehaug so I can't give you a straight answer,
whether it's dedicated or not. It's shown on the county record books that way but.
Lillehaug: I guess if the applicant's willing to put the road on his property.
Saam: And dedicate the 60 up, we don't have a problem with it.
Lillehaug: Okay. I'm not done yet. The pond. Normal water level 950. High water level, 952
and that's governed by the grading plan. It shows a berm I think at about 952. That only
provides 2 foot of bounce. Are we comfortable with the design on that pond to ensure that we
have enough bounce in that pond to adequately store the increase in the runoff rate?
Saam: Staff has received drainage calculations for the pond. We are reviewing that so I guess at
this point we're fine with it. If it would need to be tweaked, that's something we commonly do
between now and the final plat so I'm confident that we'll attain the necessary treatment.
Lillehaug: And then with that pond on a high event, the outlet structure may not be able to
accommodate a large event rainfall. So does the city typically .have, to prevent overflowing
across that entire berm and eroding that berm on an extreme high event, does the city typically
want like in an emergency spillway?
Saam: Yes. Yep, we'll have an emergency spillway. Just for the record our outlet structures,
they are designed for 100 year events so if you're talking something larger than that, sure that
could over top the berm.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: That's fine then. Hold up here. That's a question to the applicant. Oh, the OHW for
the lake, it requires 150 foot setback. Do we have any idea where this is and if it will impact Lot
11 and Lot 107
Aanenson: Yeah, we scaled those. They meet that, yep.
Lillehaug: So we're out of that 150 area?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Okay. Services down to Lot 11. Or for the most part even to that undeveloped
portion to the south there. Do we anticipate watermain and sanitary services coming down the
unnamed cul-de-sac to continue to come down there, or off of Kings Road on the west?
Saam: I would anticipate, I'm just checking this quick.
Lillehaug: And what I'm getting to is, if it is coming off the cul-de-sac portion, the watermain
appears to make a jog there and I don't know if that'd be, then we'd have a conflict with sanitary
if the sanitary's going to be extended down there so, take a look at that I guess. And then utility
services to Lot 11. They're anticipated to be included under this project?
Aanenson: No.
Lillehaug: No.
Aanenson: No, not until the road gets extended. Right now it'd be an outlot because they have to
have access via public street. Right now they don't own that. There's no public street frontage in
front of that lot, so kind of like we did on the north side. Those outlots on the north side, because
they didn't have a public street they weren't allowed to develop. This would be the same
circumstance. So whenever they get access, or bring the street down in front of them they have to
have...via a public street.
Lillehaug: That's it for staff, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Two quick questions before we get to the hearing. Trying to get to the
hearing here. We have obviously a number of people for this item but, I guess this is a question
for you Matt. On the east property line, or in the middle there, between Lot 10 and 11, is that a
retaining wall on the lot line? Those bubbles, that line of bubbles?
Saam: Yes. Yes.
Sacchet: That's a retaining wall?
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: What makes that necessary?
Saam: The slope would be greater than 3 to 1 if the wall wasn't there. Perhaps in the
neighborhood of 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 and our maximum is 3 to 1.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Okay. And then I believe Kate you already touched on this but I want to hear this
again. City forester didn't find any trees that were savable? Except those few little remnants on
the south edge.
Aanenson: That was her recommendation that based on the quality of the trees. But again,
looking at how the house placements are and if you look at the tree survey. The back side of Lot
5 and 4, kind of closer to the existing home.
Sacchet: That's what I'm talking about.
Aanenson: I'm pretty confident those can probably be saved, yes.
Sacchet: Well the trouble is that on Lot 4, bordering on 2, 5, we have a grade change that is in
the neighborhood of 10 feet or it's very significant. Or 6 feet or what have you. I do have a
specific, talking about significant trees. I mean there's basically two significant trees. Two very
significant trees. There's two maples. It's the tree number 140. It's a 36 inch maple and tree
number 71 is a 38 inch maple. They're both on, 140 is between Lot 4 and 5, pretty close to Kings
Road. And number 71 is kind of just out of the building pad on Lot 5, kind of on the southerly
side. And that one seems to be only about, actually it seems to be pretty much up on grade where
it's grading so I don't see why it couldn't be saved.
Aanenson: Try to work those into conditions.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Slagle: Uli?
Sacchet: Yes go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple more for staff. You touched Kate I believe or Bob on the monument that I
think is going to be on Lot 8. Have we seen anything on that?
Aanenson: Just some preliminary drawings.
Slagle: Okay, the reason I ask, and all due respect to the applicant, but because there's residential
homes, it's not out in a major throughway, I believe that the quality of this applicant's entrance
ways has decreased, if we use Longacres, the one at Minnewashta Landings, or the one with the
waterfall.
Aanenson: Highlands at Lake St. Joe.
Slagle: Yeah, I mean I think Vasserman Ridge is a real step down from an entrance way from
what I've seen before so I just ask that really work with the applicant to make that a beautiful
entrance way. So my question is if you've seen something like that. The other question I have is
on the wetland. The second wetland. Called a wetland on Lot 2. If hypothetically Lot 4 was not
included, would there be the ability to have the wetland in Lot 2 as part of that person's lot? I
mean would there be the need to fill it in? Because I'm guessing part of the reason to fill it in
was because they needed to put a house.
Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean if it's not functioning as a wetland, first you make a
determination of how you want it to be. Is it going to be something that a homeowner's going to,
38
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
how's it going to function. If it's not draining, if it's not part of a system so to speak, so the
determination was, it was man made. So it's not part of our wetland system that's bouncing,
ebbing and flowing. If someone wanted to have a wetland back there, a pond, I'd rather call it a
pond, could they do that? Sure.
Slagle: Last question on Lot 4 again hypothetically. If Lot 4 was not them, would it be safe to
say that all the driveways for this development would either come off this unnamed cul-de-sac or
Kings Road on the west? You wouldn't have a need for a driveway on the north then?
Aanenson: You're going to have driveways on the opposite side of the street are all going to have
driveways. All the homes on the north side and the Oaks all have access via Kings Road.
Slagle: Do they?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Slagle: Okay.
Aanenson: And then, so I guess depending on how you want to lay out Lot 3, it could have
access as Matt indicated on the north side, or it could go to the west side, the further west or
north, depending on the house choice I guess.
Slagle: Okay. That's it.
Sacchet: Alright, this is a public hearing. Oh applicant, sorry. Almost forgot you. Let's listen to
the applicant, if you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record please
and tell us your story.
Mike Burton: Good evening Chairman. Commissioners. My name is Mike Burton representing
Lundgren Brothers. Don't have a lot to add tonight. Just that we have chosen the name
Countryside for this new development so that will be on future plans. And just to explain, we
have been talking to the Williams brothers, Williams Development, David and Steven for a little
over a year now about actually what our intentions here are to split the cost of the east/west
portion of Kings Road with them, and then we will pay for the point where it turns to the south.
Regarding these 20 boulevard trees, the two trees per lot. In talking to Jill just to clarify, those 20
are of the 63 total. Just so we clear that up. Just wanted to point out that based on our critical
path time here we would expect City Council approval of the final plat we think September 8th,
and so in wanting to try to build the subdivision and to have asphalt down by Thanksgiving,
which is usually the end, we need to get started and the Carlson's are trying to move things off
the site now and they may even move their home off the site and as of August 16th we can have
the demolition process so that's our goal. Is to start demolition and then right at final plat start
construction so with that, if you have any other questions.
Sacchet: Qu'estions from the applicant. You've got a question, sure. Go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: Do you have any knowledge of buried debris, petroleum products, etc on that
property?
Mike Burton: No.
Lillehaug: No knowledge?
39
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Mike Burton: None other than our Phase I and II.
Lillehaug: What do you mean not just Phase I and II.
Mike Burton: Well Phase I and II that Braun Engineering did for us. You know that report.
Lillehaug: So you're saying a Phase I was completed?
Aanenson: Yes, a Phase I and II. That's what I summarized.
Lillehaug: Oh, Phase I was completed.
Aanenson: Yep, it was completed and then the Phase I did recommend that they do a Phase II. I
can show you, hopefully in here the test bores that were done.
Slagle: If I can ask you, Steve, so we're satisfied that Phase I and Phase II have covered
everything we need to know?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Lillehaug: I want to, my goal here is to ensure that we're comfortable that there's no
contaminants on that property because my site visit would tell me otherwise. There's batteries
sitting out there. There' s petroleum all over out there.
Aanenson: Yeah, it was summarized in Phase I. It identified those issues because it had been
used as a contractors yard and that's what they indicated that you should do the soil, so these
were the test spots that were picked to do the soil borings and they were scattered throughout the
site.
Lillehaug: Total of 5?
Aanenson: Yes. It looks like there's more than that, yeah that were done. And the conclusion
of that, and I put that in the staff report, that they didn't find contamination. We had the same
issue and we asked the applicant.
Lillehaug: So there are no contaminants out there?
Aanenson: None found...
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions for the applicant Steve?
Lillehaug: Do you have a road name for the cul-de-sac there?
Mike Burton: Not yet.
Lillehaug: Overhead power lines, are you going to contact the overhead power lines...
40
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Mike Burton: Met with Xcel Energy as a matter of fact this morning and so they're confident
they can move those.
Lillehaug: Underground?
Mike Burton: Underground. Like 8 poles to take down.
Lillehaug: So at who's cost then?
Mike Burton: Our's.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Mike Burton: What is the radius on Kings Road there? On the northwest comer. Do you know
that off the top of your head?
Lillehaug: And can I ask this to staff too, I mean are we comfortable with that radius there and
the sight distance and are we going to have a warrant speed on there?
Saam: You're talking about the turn on the northwest comer of the site?
Lillehaug: Yep. I don't think I'd be comfortable, I don't know what the radius is there. I think
it's an important design element that should be shown.
Saam: That's for sure something we'll look at at the time of final plat. You could add it as a
condition now if you want that submitted to staff.
Lillehaug: Sure. That is, that's it. Thanks.
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? Yes Rich.
Slagle: I have one. Was it at all raised, the question of having a sidewalk down the unnamed?
Mike Burton: That really hasn't come up.
Slagle: Okay. How would you feel about that?
Mike Burton: I supposed we'd have to talk. Talk it over at Lundgren. Since there was a
sidewalk, what across the street from Kings Road coming all the way down, just felt that was
adequate for the region.
Slagle: Here's what I'm getting at. You've got a park on the northeast. Northeast of this
development. If you're, assume you purchase the property to the south, if you're anywhere in
there and let's just say more to the southeast, you're going to walk up the street, no sidewalk, to
cross Kings Road to get to the sidewalk. You know if you're over here on the far west side, yeah.
Then I think it's pretty easy. I'm just you know, because what is our code, you know we're
working on our codes and from my conversations with Mr. Hoffman, something to the effect of
anything but a cul-de-sac will require a sidewalk.
Aanenson: I'm not sure that it's been determined but Todd certainly we did comment on the fact
that it's...
41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Saam: Number 32 to add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6
and 7, which is that street. So I think that's what you're getting at.
Lillehaug: Say that again, so I understand.
Saam: There's a condition to include a sidewalk along that unnamed street along the west side of
it.
Slagle: I'm with you. I just want to make sure the applicant's okay with that.
Mike Burton: Yeah, that's fine.
Slagle: Gxeat. And would that then, if we can, would that then continue? Great. Answers my
question. That's all.
Sacchet: Questions Craig?
Claybaugh: Yes. As a follow-up question to Phase I and Phase II environmental. Once you start
out there and start moving dirt and doing your cuts, will Braun be out there doing site monitoring
and additional testing?
Mike Burton: Yes, they will be.
Claybaugh: So that's incorporated in the process at this time. The second to last question I had
is, the point was made regarding the position of the driveway on Lot number 3 and at that time it
was discussed that it could go either to possibly further to the northeast or the southwest, and I
see the building pad is justified more towards the southwest. And that is a concern so when the
house comes in, the garage is now justified to that bUilding pad. It's going to bring you out on
that corner.
Mike Burton: We could stipulate that. Right on the south end.
Claybaugh: Alright. That's the extent of my questions.
Sacchet: Any questions Kurt? My tree question. I guess you know me for trees by now. From
looking at these trees, these maples certainly look in pretty good health, those big maples. Those
two big maples. Now according to your grading plan it'd be very hard to save the one that is
currently on the northwest of the building, but the one on the southeast of the building seems to
be, there's just one grading line that could be pulled over around the tree. The 992 line that's
currently going straight north/south. If that would be carded around that tree on the west.
Mike Burton: I'm sorry, which number? Which tree number?
Sacchet: Tree number 71.
Slagle: Could we put that up?
Sacchet: Yeah, could you point that out where tree number 71 is? It's, I would say the most
significant tree on the property. It's a 38 inch maple.
Aanenson: There's one right here and...
42
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: First of all, I mean I'm not a tree specialist but it appears to me these trees are in pretty
good shape.
Bob Payette: I'm not a tree specialist either, I'm an engineer so. The one in the back of Lot
5...the building pads, you can't, you could possibly stand on that site and trees...the building pad
is going to depend on the configuration of the house, and I know with their tree ordinance, they
wouldn't count it as a saved tree being in that location. We might be able to save it but we'd still
have to compensate for it because of the proximity to the house.
Sacchet: Okay. The way the grading plan currently is, the tree number 140 is a pretty hopeless
case. I mean there you have like a 6 foot grade change. However, the tree number 71 is currently
at about 992.
Bob Payette: That's the one I was talking about. Tree 71 could be saved with the grading.
Sacchet: Yep.
Bob Payette: The city with their tree preservation plan, they wouldn't count that as being saved
because of the proximity to the building pad.
Sacchet: Yeah I understand that but that wouldn't be a reason not to save it.
Bob Payette: Well we could try to save it and then depending on the configuration of the house,
because it' s right at the back of the building pad.
Sacchet: It's at the edge of the building pad, that's correct. Now the building pad is what size?
Aanenson: 60 by 60.
Sacchet: 60 by 60.
Aanenson: but again that's just the pad. That's not how the building's going to look, so I think if
you want to add a condition that we work to save it, again we wouldn't count it as a tree that's
been saved. They'd still have to do otherwise but we can work with them.
Sacchet: So it would not affect in other words the number of trees that need to be planted.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: But it is, it could be savable and depending on the house plan.
Aanenson: ...the house placement, correct.
Sacchet: Okay, okay. Would you be willing to do that? I have a little mixed feeling asking that
because I don't know what happened with some of the trees in Ashling Meadows that
disappeared after you assured me they would stay there.
Mike Burton: How far back is that from the building pad?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Bob Payette: That's about 10 feet. The canopy's going to be, 36 inch tree. Depending on what
house you put there.
Mike Burton: Well our deepest home of the Linden Hills Series is 56 ½ feet. So I can't imagine
the comer...
Bob Payette: Grade wise it can be saved with the grading. I mean that's.
Sacchet: Grading wise it could be saved. The question is.
Mike Burton: I think we could work with that.
Sacchet: It appears to me like it would be doable with some good will basically.
Mike Burton: Yeah, I think we can work it out.
Sacchet: Okay, appreciate that answer.
Mike Burton: Commissioner Slagle, I saw him roll his eyes back on the driveway.
Bob Payette: Well the driveway on Lot 3. About the condition of making it from the south side.
Slagle: And this would be my twin.
Claybaugh: The evil twin according to Rich but.
Aanenson: I was going to point that out too .... driveway right here on this lot too so it may
make some sense to bring those... I mean this is a lot right here.
Feik: But Kate from the north side you have better visibility around that curve.
Claybaugh: Exactly. You're on the outside of that curve at that point on Lot 3 you're at the
inside. What, from the applicant's perspective, what would be the objection just in terms of not
knowing what house is going to be placed on the lot or?
Bob Payette: Well just knowing how they build their houses, I believe there's a good chance
they'd like to build an end load garage off of that coming off the north side, and that leads itself
to having a lookout type house.
Claybaugh: I guess I would be willing to subordinate that to the point that Commissioner
Lillehaug made in that the city engineer agree to investigate and that is the sight lines, and if
that's sufficient for the radius so provided that that radius is actively reviewed, and is adequate
from city staff s perspective, that's adequate to me.
Slagle: I've got one more question if I may. And sorry to keep bringing up Lot 4, but I do have
questions about that. And as I see the tree, the number of trees, I mean in your opinion if Lot 4
was not there, would a fair amount of these trees that you're talking about taking down, would
they be preserved?
44
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Bob Payette: We didn't really analyze that. I'd have to look at the grading plan to look at that
but I, my understanding from the tree and the forester is that a majority of those trees aren't very
quality trees.
Slagle: They might differ if you ask them but.
Bob Payette: Well yeah, everybody's got their own opinion.
Slagle: Okay, just wondering what you thought of that. Okay.
Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're?
Bob Payette: I'm Bob Payette with Sathre-Berquist, engineering.
Sacchet: Okay. You're doing the engineering for Lundgren Brothers?
Bob Payette: Yes.
Sacchet: Just to clarify, thank you. That's the questions from the applicant. Okay, anything you
would care to add at this point? Thank you.
Mike Burton: Thank you.
Sacchet: Now we get to the public heating part. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to
come forward, address this item please do so at this time. State your name and address for the
record and tell us what you have to say. Any takers?
Sue Morgan: Good evening.
Sacchet: Good evening Sue. Do you want to state your name and address for the record please.
Sue Morgan: Yes. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have a few
questions regarding the development. One would be, is there any discussion about the current
residence on Kings Road paying for the development of the rest of Kings Road?
Aanenson: No. There shouldn't be any assessment fees or anything with it.
Audience: I can't hear you.
Aanenson: There shouldn't be any additional assessment fees for any existing homes. This
development would work with Williams Brothers independently to resolve those issues.
Sue Morgan: Okay. Also I was wondering about storm water runoff for the development. I
know there's a holding pond down in the comer. Kings Road has had some history with storm
water runoff going east on Kings Road, down to the comer of Minnewashta Parkway and Darrell
Kirt's property. Water kind of ponding up across the road from the park area to south of Kings
Road. The holding ponds that have been developed on the comer of Minnewashta Parkway over
spill every spring, so I was wondering if any of the storm water runoff from this development will
be running into that same conduit.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Saam: Most, well let me point out. From approximately this point to the east, all of...will
continue to go that way. Everything else here will go down to this pond, so that's probably less
than 5 percent of the site I would guess.
Aanenson: Answering the other part of your question, the city engineering office is working on
the outlot that we own on the other side of Kings Road adjacent to Mr. Kirt's property to increase
the size of that pond to pre-treat that water better before it goes, and we hopefully have that done
yet this summer.
Saam: Correct.
Sue Morgan: Great, thanks. A couple other questions. The outlot that, down in this area, will
these lots have access to Lake St. Joe or will they be short of that?
Aanenson: They will be short of that. I believe the OHW comes in such an angle that they don't
have direct access. It's not out intent to give anyone that doesn't have that right now with the
docks or anything like that, for that natural environment with the wetland.
Sue Morgan: And let's see, as far as construction on Kings Road, do you know, maybe it's too
early to tell, if there will be construction along the whole Kings Road and putting in utilities. For
example those of us that live east of the area that you're developing, you know will the shoulders
be tom up? Will the utilities be extended? Any idea?
Bob Payette: The utilities would go from the existing road they go north off of there where the
pavement ends. Work would start there and go to the west.
Sue Morgan: Great, thanks. And then I have one other question in regards to access to Kings
Road. The first group of houses that are going to be built, the only access to Kings Road will be
this area here. There will not be any access to Kings Road.
Aanenson: Correct. Until somebody else, the Kortgard's would choose to develop their property.
They would just remain as it is.
Sue Morgan: And then I guess one other concern that I have and maybe this is premature and
maybe it should be addressed at a different city meeting but the quality of life has changed in that
area since the Country Oaks development has been in place about 6 years and now we're putting
in another development and yet another. I know personally we've experienced and have called
the police on several occasions for theft of planters, for peeping tom's, for smashed mailboxes
and that with every development that comes along there's more and more people that are added to
the community and I don't know what the city of Chanhassen's plans are for added security. We
do have more and more people that will be using the beach. Whether or not there will be
lifeguards in that area. We do have a public park there that's unguarded, unprotected so you
know it's just my concern as we increase the population that some of those instances will
increase. So will you just keep that in mind as a Planning Commission and City Council that we
provide additional services to cover that area, along with just supporting another development, we
support the people that live there. I think I've been able to count 5 or 6 times since Country Oaks
has been in place that I've seen a police officer that hasn't been called so, thanks very much.
Sacchet: Thanks Sue. It's good to see you again.
Sue Morgan: Good to see you too.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Anybody else wants to come forward, please do so. State your name and address for
the record please.
Margie Borris: I'm Margie Bords. I live at 4071 Kings Road. You'll have to excuse my voice.
I live directly east of the development. Until we got the notice in the mail about what was going
to happen tonight, Janet told me that they had sold their property, that is the most we have heard
prior to the meeting. They made, Lundgren Brothers made no attempt to contact us of any
concerns that we might have. Our elevation is quite drastic. We are at one point, where the
current house is, what you're looking at plots 8 and 9, we're quite high and then it does drop
dramatically but there' s also been some grading where part of their property, which they can use
just to park vehicles, hasn't been an issue but that's higher than we are. So we're looking at stuff
falling into our yard. We've left our place pretty much natural for the last half acre of our
property. We have a little over 2 acres. We own part of the road. Nobody's told us what
direction is this road going. Is it going on the existing road plan where it comes, this looks really
nice here. It looks nice and straight but that's not the way it is. It comes straight across, up to our
property line on an angle. Not straight. At an angle. Where we own the property, and nobody
has talked to us about it. But where is it going? Are you going to take our property?
Aanenson: No. It's going off...
Margie Borris: So it's going to follow the line that it's currently in.
Aanenson: It's going to...
Margie Borris: Right, what I'm saying is, it's going on the straight line that is the original part to
the east of us.
Aanenson: Correct.
Margie Bords: Okay. And we are, as I understand it not paying for any of this road
development, sewers or anything?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Margie Borris: What about the hook-up's? I have to change all of my appliances from LP. I
have a well, which works just fine, and a drain field. I've left our place pretty natural because I
deal with inner city kids that like to come out there. They go out and back and yeah, there are
kids that are coming in now without this development and coming into our property. They're
doing stuff. You know so far it's not major. We also have an electric fence for our dog. Are all
these other people, how are they going to keep their children and animals out of our yard?
There's many, many issues. This pond that's down here, Sue was right. The ponds that you have
there so far have been flooding. Not only extended over to Kings Road. They even extend the
flooding out to Minnewashta Parkway. So you're getting it from two ends over there, and there
was a concern about the berm not being high enough. You've got it. Because it is so low down
there and then of course you have to get these people that want those manicured lawns with
fertilizer. Where's that going to drain? It's not all going to go to that pond. There's going to be
runoff coming over to our place again. I didn't see anything about a wall or a fence or anything,
and like I say, they never talked to us about it. There are many issues. And as far as, somebody
brought up about walking across the street to go to the park. They know. Right now I have 3
grandchildren ages 3 to 8. We have to watch even now on that dirt road because they come
47
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
around the comer, not from carlson's property but from back here where there's a younger group
of people that like to mn their cars, mn their motorcycles higher than the speed limit. They don't
look. The people that come down the road from Minnewashta Oaks or whatever that's called,
they don't stop at the stop sign. They don't feel they have to. There are a lot of issues. Lundgren
Brothers came to the City Council not quite a year ago or somewhere about that timeframe, they
want to build 125 homes west of this in Victoria and connect it up to Kings Road. Do you know
what kind of traffic that is? Are the sewers that we're building now going to handle the extra
runoff all over the place? Is Victoria going to pay for any of this? There are a lot of issues that
I'd like to hear about and I haven't heard anything.
Sacchet: Well if I may add, I mean we have to consider what's in front of us and it's certainly
what's beyond, I mean yeah there will be more.
Margie Borris: Yeah, they can develop I understand they're going to develop it. There's nothing
I can do about it. What I'm looking at from my point of view is our property. We built there.
We had to get a variance for 2 ~A acres because we were zoned semi rural. To my knowledge we
have never been rezoned so now they're building them over, and they're looking at what,
approximately half acre lots, correct? Something close to that. Okay. And they're going to
follow the criteria, of the building across the road, most of those are building homes that are so
large, they're right to the 16 feet around. That's all they have for yard. They've got 16 feet all
the way around. There is no privacy anymore. There are so many issues. Sue's thing about the
quality of life is dead on. What happens to the flood plain that we used to have? That went
halfway up the property line. Way up here. Where's that study? You said the 100 year mark.
Take a look at your history. Somebody's not going back far enough. I want to know how we're
going to be protected. I think the sidewalk is a good issue. I think the pond is a big issue. I think
that the elevations and how we're going to handle this. How's it going to runoff from their's to
our's? There's part of our property that might be higher than their's. I already know that we
have a berm on the northeast comer that is higher than anything they have right now. Are we
going to be required to carve that down?
Sacchet: No, you shouldn't be impacted by this.
Margie Bords: Okay, but in the same respect should we then push our yard back out where it
belongs? I mean there's a whole bunch of things. And like ! say, they never 'called us. They
never talked to us. He said this is what we have, do you have any questions? No. They
considered their needs, and I don't fault the Carlson's for selling. If I were in their place I would
too. They got a good price. They're ready to retire. I mean why deal with the hassle. Eventually
they've been dealing with issues with the City Council for years. Why should they hassle in
their elderly years? While I may be older, I don't feel I'm ready to retire. We have telescopes for
looking at the stars which is one of the reasons we came out there. There's going to be more
lights. It's not going to be that available anymore. You're asking us to cut back. You're asking
Sue and them to cut back.
Sacchet: You wanted to ask something Steve?
Lillehaug: Sure, could we ask staff to maybe pick some of these points, her concerns apart here
to help reassure that things are.
Aanenson: Just to clarify, we did speak to Linda Scott and we did speak to the Kortgard's and
this was the only applicant that didn't call. It was tabled so we had spoke to most of the property
owners that had called us when they got the first notice so.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Feik: First notice was when?
Aanenson: Two weeks ago.
Margie Borris: Two weeks ago I had plans to take 70 inner city kids to Wisconsin Dells for a
week. I have just got back into town a couple days ago.
Aanenson: The notice went out 2 weeks prior to that so this was delayed quite a while so.
Margie Bords: There was a notice that came in and said there was going to be one in June and a
notice that followed right behind it, changing as we were leaving.
Sacchet: Let me just point out, I mean our whole effort here is to make sure we find a solution
that is working for everybody. That's why we have a comprehensive plan for the city. That's
why we have city ordinance. And I mean it almost a give and take. I mean when I went out there
I thought wow. If I would live next to it as you do I would be thrilled about having houses other
than bulldozers and trucks.
Margie Borris: They haven't bothered us since 1986 when we built our home. We knew they
were there. We have had no problems with them. As far as starting up their engines during the
week, during business time, you were talking to that other gentleman about noise, there hasn't
been maybe a couple mornings when, it's around 7:00. Okay, I'm on my way to work. It's not
an issue on the noise.
Sacchet: Let's hope that the experience with the neighborhood will be even better then the
contractor's yard then.
Margie Bords: I'm not having a problem with that. I'm having a problem with the volume of
people, our personal privacy, the way we set up our plans and what we already have going. And
what it's going to cost us to fix up into this. I'm sorry, even if they stub in all this utilities of
sewer and water and whatever, it's still going to cost us several thousand dollars to hook it up.
The way our house was built and set back, we are pretty far back from the road. We've set up for
our hook-up for the LP on the east side of the house, and there's no set-up for sewers to come in
so we're going to have to break up somewhere along the line our basement floor. We're going to
have to hook-up. Last I checked the price on that alone was over $25,000. That doesn't include
the castle main.
Sacchet: Could you just clarify Kate about the impact and the requirements of hooking up, the
time line with that.
Aanenson: Sure, Matt can answer that.
Sacchet: Do you want to address that first?
Saam: Sure. As far as the sewer goes, the city ordinances if you're within 150 feet of the sewer,
and I see the nearest manhole to your property that they're proposing is just off the northeast
comer, off of Kings Road. You just said your house is set back quite a ways from the road.
Margie Borris: Well 50-60 feet.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Saam: Okay. It's not shown on here so that's something that we'd have to verify but the city
code says if you're within 150 feet then you're required.
Margie Bords: I'm closer than a 150 feet.
Saam: Okay. So then you would be required to hook up.
Margie Bords: Yes I know that.
Saam: Okay. Water you're not required to. If your well is functioning you can continue to have
that.
Aanenson: Same with propane.
Saam: Excuse me.
Aanenson: The propane wouldn't be an issue. You don't have to hook up.
Sacchet: And what's the time line for the sewer hook-up?
Saam: I believe it's one year.
Sacchet: Kurt you have.
Papke: A question, the applicant has some concerns about their ability to enjoy kind of the
solitude of the area. This area is zoned RSF right now. How long has it been zoned for this use?
Do we recall or has it been long enough that no one can remember?
Aanenson: I'm assuming it was probably done with the '81, or '91 excuse me, comprehensive
plan.
Papke: So it's been zoned for this density for at least a decade, is that a reasonable explanation?
Margie Bords: We were not notified.
Papke: But it hasn't changed so.
Margie Borris: Well we had to get a variance for 2 V2 acres because it was semi rural in 1986.
Someone should have told us.
Aanenson: Right, I'm saying 1991, yeah. It was before Bob's and my time when that plan was
done.
Papke: Okay.
Saam: Mr. Chair if I could just add one more thing. The resident stated a concern about runoff
toward her property to the east. The grading plan shows a swale along the eastern property line.
Her common property line. So there is an attempt to drain this site's drainage down to the pond
and not onto her property.
Sacchet: To the south.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Saam: Yes.
Margie Borris: I guess you know maps are good..I'd like to see a model where you can actually
see where all these levels come from because you're going to have to somewhere level this
because we are at the highest point on the road.
Sacchet: Yeah, and it's good that you bring up that concern because it's the type of things that
we can mitigate with conditions like, there is a swale. It's on Lot 8 and 9: Once it comes down
to Lot 10, there's no swale left and then there's even a retaining wall so.
Margie Borris: Well 10 and 11 are quite a bit lower than 8 and 9.
Sacchet: Your concern is closer up to the road, if I understand that correctly, right?
Margie Bords: The which?
Sacchet: Your concern about the drainage.
Margie Borris: I'm considering the drainage all along the property line. And what are they going
to do you know to keep, we've left our area wild for the deer. If you look in that part that says
Victoria, the other day there were 10 deer back there. They're not going to go away. They're
still going to hang around a little bit. And onto the east of us, there's that big ravine that's owned
by Sue and Scotty and that's left pretty much wild. They have an electric fence on their side. 'We
have an electric fence on our side. That's good for animals but it isn't going to do much for kids.
And unless you're going to make it an ordinance where everybody out there has to have one, how
they going to keep their animals and their children where they belong? No property lines. I mean
there isn't any room for fences or anything like that the way they've got it plotted across the road.
Slagle: Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: Yes Rich.
Slagle: If I could ask a quick question of staff, if that's okay. There was a comment made about
the applicant in front of Victoria for the land to the west. Is that correct to your knowledge?
Aanenson: That was discussed at one time. We're not pursuing anything. We're not aware of
anything that's going on right now.
Slagle: Is that ongoing?
Mike Burton: There's nothing approved. We've not really been in any discussions with them.
Margie Borris: Did you purchase the property?
Mike Burton: We own.
Margie Burton: Okay, Victoria had a two year moratorium.
Mike Burton: We had a conceptual plan of some possible 43 home sites. Not 100 and some but
nothing has gone forward with that.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Slagle: The reason I'm asking obviously is because if Kings Road was extended to the west, and
I'm guessing and asking, is that the plan?
Margie Borris: That was the plan.
Slagle: Well bear with me.
Aanenson: It's not the city of Chanhassen's plan. That's not our plan to provide access to
Victoria residents come through. Could a council make that decision? Yes. It wouldn't be the
staff' s recommendation or the planning director's recommendation at this point...
Lillehaug: Can we even bring this further because you know it is important. Are there any other
options? I mean is this where this traffic is going to go down Kings Road because that brings
back the whole issue of sight line distances around that comer. I mean do we need to provide for
a better road with more traffic. It is important to include as part of this site plan I think in my
Aanenson:
Lillehaug:
Aanenson:
But you've already locked in that the 60 foot on the other end so.
Say that again?
That same width on Kings Road, 60 feet starts at Minnewashta Parkway so if we're
going to make it a wider road, they'd have to take it the length of the Minnewashta Parkway.
Lillehaug: And maybe not necessarily wider but at least adequate sight line distances, etc with
the increased traffic. I mean that's a tight radius specifically, and just generally.
Slagle: That comer will be interesting where this property is proposed, that would be an
interesting intersection of Kings Road as it goes north and then veers east if there was an
extension to X number of tens of homes to the west. I mean it'd be sort of an interesting weird
you know intersection. Difficult perhaps.
Sacchet: Question of staff. That area of Victoria, does it have access from a different place in
Kings Road?
Aanenson: No. Those homes that access Kings Road right now.
Sacchet: Those to the southwest.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Yeah, and there is certainly enough room to do.
Margie Borris: There is also some to the west.
Sacchet: There's certainly enough room to do all kinds of wonderful stuff there.
Margie Borris: I think there's a farm and a house directly west. You go back from the curve, is
there 1 or 2 homes? Three back there and then you go, it curves again going this way into
Victoria and there's I believe 5 homes back there.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Yeah I went back there. It's a beautiful area. Well, now from your comments, and
we're going to have to try to move ahead a little bit but from your comments I heard that you
have a drainage concern. You have a buffering concern. Now I'm trying to recall, I didn't really
pay attention that much to your property when...
Margie Borris: We're considered low income housing...
Sacchet: Your area is pretty wooded there?
Margie Borris: Very.
Sacchet: Very wooded. So you do have a pretty decent buffer then to your west?
Margie Borris: No. To the south.
Sacchet: To the south you do but not to the west.
Margie Borris: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay.
Margie Borris: Right now to the west of us there was an old barbed wire fence with a couple
scrub trees and some sumac. My favorite.
Sacchet: So would it be possible to put more buffering in there to kind of preserve a little bit your
quality of life as you call it, which I Would agree there's good quality out there. Okay, anything
else you would like to add?
Margie Borris: Well we had the hook-up concerns. We had the flood issues on the area. Any
kind of fence. And I guess assessment costs. And you said they were going to take all the
assessment costs.
Aanenson: Well, yeah.
Margie Borris: Correct?
Aanenson: Except for the sewer.
Sacchet: Sewer hook-up. That's not an assessment. That's your hook-up charge. That's
different right?
Margie Borris: Okay, well we're already paying, when they redid Minnewashta Parkway they
charged all of us on Kings Road an assessment even though we didn't live there. Even though I
have well water, I'm paying a water bill. You know I mean that isn't all that much and all but
then we had to pay assessments and they assigned it by the size of your lot. They said we could
build 2 homes on our lot. I challenged them to find where I could put that second one, so they
only made us pay one but they're holding the second one in reserve. So we're going to be
charged again for Kings Road.
Saam: No.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: That's not my understanding. The only fee that you will incur, and cOrrect me staff if
I'm wrong is the sewer hook-up charge when you hook-up to the sewer and possibly the water.
But I think it's been repeated by several staff members that the assessment for the road
construction is not going to affect the existing residents.
Margie Borris: But did I understand him that I have a year that I have to hook up to that or not?
Saam: If your house is within 150 feet of the sewer, yes. You'll have a year upon us giving you
notice in a letter form, you'll have one -year.
Margie Bords: Okay. And then here again.
Saam: Unless you get relief from the council. That's the only option.
Sacchet: There's always an option there, yes.
Margie Borris: And that is done by a variance or what?
Saam: I guess it would be called a variance but yeah. I mean you'd have to come to the City
Council meeting and appeal to them.
Sacchet: So basically to just clarify, if somebody gets a letter that they're within the distance of
the sewer line, that they have to connect within a year, they can come to council and contest it
basically, that's what you're saying?
Saam: Yes, that's their only option I would think.
Margie Bords: Okay, in response to that latest declaration of notification, Kings Road is in the
zip code of Excelsior. Our mail goes everywhere. There's a Kings Road in Mound. There's a
Kings Point Road in Shorewood. There's a Kings Avenue in Minnetonka. My mail goes
absolutely everywhere.
Sacchet: Yeah, I can see how things can get confusing but the zip code should clarify which one
it is.
Margie Borris: 55331. That's Excelsior. We pay for Minnetonka Schools. It was sort of a joke
but even when, during Desert Storm, my husband's in the service. He got mail from the State
Department that was returned because they said Chanhassen, 55331. That's what happens to our
mail. I'm just telling you, I had less than 10 days notice from today.
Sacchet: Well we'll certainly encourage the developer to discuss things with the neighbors.
Margie Borfis: Well at the meeting that we had when they were going to do the Victoria thing,
there was a big concern about the traffic at the intersection where that other development comes
east of our property line, because already there was traffic issues.
Sacchet: Well thank you very much for sharing your concems with us.
Margie Borris: I didn't give you my history and I didn't stroke you.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Didn't read it from a sheet of paper either.
Lillehaug: I'm quite sure we don't know what you're speaking about.
Sacchet: Alright, we have another taken for the public hearing. State your name and address for
the record please.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You know I've Sat at a lot of these meetings
and read a lot of these reports and I guess I'm troubled by the fact that under proposal summary it
says minor changes need to be made to some of the lots to meet city standards. And then the final
condition is to revise the plans. Normally I would have seen this report come as a variance
because it didn't meet code, and I want to make sure that the lots that are platted meet code in .the
final plat, and I know it's a condition but I just want to state that because this is not the way they
normally come to us. It should come to you already by code. I believe.
Sacchet: We sure would like that.
Debbie Lloyd: So there's no discrepancy there at all. I just really believe in our RSF district, the
opening of this sort of gives me the feel that the PUD because there's an outlot. It's not a PUD.
It's not RSF and these lots should all have, meet the 90 foot width requirement of the front and of
the depth of the lot. The other point I'd like to make is about building pad versus buildable area.
The buildable area, 60 by 60 is what's shown. That's not the building pad. And one other thing,
this is shoreland. Impervious surface has not been mentioned at all in this report that I can see.
Perhaps it's on these plats but that's a real critical element to be covered. To boot to find out that
there's a water issue with this plan, it's really vital. And her mention of-the floodplain as well, I
think if there's documentation in that and former applications, that should be surfaced. Thank
yOU.
Sacchet: Thank you. Could staff quickly address the concern about impervious? How does that
play into this?
Aanenson: I think it's 25 percent. I did mention the height, that's 35 feet... It cuts diagonally
through approximately these lots. Oh here it is. It shows on these lots.
Sacchet: Yeah it shows there.
Aanenson: Where you would hit the shoreland district.
Sacchet: And we're well within the impervious limitation?
Aanenson: We would check that with...
Claybaugh: Building permits.
Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else want to address this item. Please come forward. This is your
turn. State your name and address for the record please.
Linda Scott: I am Linda Scott, 4031 Kings Road. I'm pretty much okay with all of this. When
Margie brought up the 43 lot development in Victoria, I'd almost kind of put that out of my mind
but I hope that you as a Planning Commission doesn't put that out of your minds because their
premise at the last meeting we had, which they brought our neighborhood together to get our
55
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
opinions, was that they would have us be assessed, or have us help pay for their road that would
go into Victoria to their 43 lot development. And I have a hunch that that's in their plan even
though they haven't been discussing it so I just want to make that clear.
Sacchet: Thank you. Would you want to address that at all from, I mean it's a different city so.
Saam: I can maybe add something to that. If this is the right one I'm thinking about, and Mike
you let me know. About a year ago Lundgren petitioned the city to upgrade Kings Road as a
public project and with that proposed assessments were, well assessments were proposed against
the existing property owners like Ms. Scott mentioned. Now I don't know anything about the
Victoria project but I'm assuming that they wanted this upgraded so they could route their traffic
through onto Kings Road and onto Minnewashta, but that project died. Now they've acquired
this property. They're going to be the ones upgrading the road at their nickel, not assessing
anybody.
Sacchet: And isn't that kind of common practice that with a development, the developer pays for
the road improvements that only then become the public road.
Saam: Correct.
Sacchet: That's pretty much standard practice so it should not impact the residents that live
further down that road.
Saam: Exactly.
Aanenson: But let me just make one thing clear. Just, if there's an improvement project to, for
example Minnewashta Parkway, curb and gutter was put on. There was an assessable project city
wide. Again that wasn't through the planning department. That was an engineering project that
was done a number of years, so there was benefiting properties and'City Council held hearings on
that. So just to say.
Sacchet: It could go either way.
Aanenson: Sometime in the future, we have assessment projects all the time that come to the City
Council for reconstruction of roads. They're separate from just development issues. I just want
to clarify that. Just to say that assessment would never happen in the future, for some reason the
city decides to.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's not what we're saying here.
Aanenson: Right.
Saam: In 20 years we could maybe come through and have to upgrade Kings Road and of course
at that time, anybody who benefits I would think we'd propose to assess their property, but right
now there is no proposed assessments. The developer will be upgrading.
Sacchet: And the key is you said everybody that benefits.
Saam: Yes...
Sacchet: ...extension of roads for the benefit of this development so that's where the cost lies.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: Yes, we still have a public hearing. We're not done. Would you mind letting the other
person who hasn't talked yet and then you want to come up.
Jerry Kortgard: I just have a real quick question.
Sacchet: Yeah, come forward. State your name and address and tell us what you have to say.
Jerry Kortgard: My name is Jerry Kortgard. I live at 3901 Glendale Drive. I own the property to
the south of the Carlson's, and I promise you I didn't come on the Mayflower like some of the
other people. But I have a quick question about my property where it meets Carlson's at the part
that goes down towards St. Joe where the holding pond's going to be. Where the elevations will
line up with my property in accordance with the Lundgren proposal. I'1! sit down and listen to
your answer.
Sacchet: Is this something that maybe staff can address?
Aanenson: This property here, I think staff would like to, and I would like Matt and the
representative from Sathre-Berquist, that we go back and just re-evaluate the drainage to make
sure, but this is Mr. Kortgard's property and his concern is how this lot, if they have to increase
the pond, how does that blend into their site so I think that's something that we should probably
walk with them, and similar with the Borfis', walk the property with them so they have an
understanding of the swales and exactly how the grades are going to match.
Slagle: Would that be with the neighbors as well?
Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, we'll walk it with them. We'll set up equipment and have
their engineer, our engineers...
Sacchet: Both sides, yep that would help. Thanks Kate. Now we have some other people, Sue
you want to come back. That's alright.
Sue Morgan: Just a comment I guess in regards to, my name is Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road.
In regards to the comments about the assessment on the road, and just a point that with all the
construction and all the development and this development, Kortgard's development, if it ever
happens. If you decide to go ahead with the 43 houses at the end of Kings Road in Victoria, that
all the construction and all the trucks going back and forth, what happens to the deterioration of
Kings Road? It's not going to be you know, we're not going to be waiting 20 years to repair the
damage done by all of the trucks going in and out, the heavy equipment. So eventually we are
going to be assessed to support your development. One way or another so it's naive to believe
that we won't be assessed for the development along Kings Road because we will be at some
point in time. Just a comment.
Sacchet: Thank you Sue. Matt, do you want to address that in terms of what the road is designed
for? The impact a little bit. If there can be respond to that maybe.
Saam: Sure. Our roads are designed for 9 ton. That's our heaviest road. We do have a
pavement management system in town where every year we try to update that and look out, do a
3 to 5 year projection at what streets are we looking at upgrading. So sure, like with any other
57
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
street where heavy trucks go over it, there's a potential that the traffic will degrade the streets
sooner than maybe if nobody drove on it obviously, so but that's a concern everywhere. And it's
tough to say, will this deteriorate in 3 less years? In 5 less years? I mean we don't know that.
It's kind of a wait and see type game.
Sacchet: Right now we have pretty heavy equipment going from that contractor's yard too don't
we?
Saam: Yes, that's a good point.
Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else want to come forward to address the Planning Commission on this
item. This is your chance. If there is nobody else, I will close the public hearing, and I want to
thank you for all your comments. Bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion.
We already have some discussion over there.
Claybaugh: Nothing meaningful.
Slagle: I can start.
Sacchet: Do you want to start Rich? Go ahead.
Slagle: First I'd like to say that obviously we're all aware of Lundgren. Compliments to all of
you. You do a great job Mike. But I will say this on this particular application with respect to the
idea that quote unquote, minor changes are needed to be made, and staff is in essence, and I can
understand why, don't agree with it but wrapping this into conditions. Because obviously as I
stated tonight I have concerns with one lot. I have concerns with respect to the trees, the grading,
potentially if there are more development to the west. Kate you made the comment that from the
north there will be driveways connected to Kings Road. Any idea on the number of lots 4 or 5?
Aanenson: No, it's probably more like 8. 7 or 8.
Slagle: 8. Okay. My point is this, another driveway on Kings Road, if indeed that extension
goes through. I have concerns about that. I have concerns about contamination, and I have to tell
you just from the common sense folk here. Boy, I almost want to see another study done.
Braun's an excellent firm but boy, I'm surprised by the results, so I would say one of two things
to my fellow commissioners. One, I would be in support of this application if Lot 4 was
eliminated, and I realize that they're meeting conditions but it's sort of a give and take. I would
be open to using that if the applicant would be so inclined. And I also would be inclined to
support a motion to table this with these two things in mind. One is, that the lots aren't exact.
And secondly, that I would actually like to see a little bit more information as to what's going on
to the west. I realize that that's more of a subjective request but, and I'll just make this comment
to staff. In the future, if I can ask a favor, if we have anything that' s on the border of another city,
if we can get any indication of graphically what's there, roads, neighborhoods, so forth, it'd give
me a better understanding from an overall standpoint as to what's happening in that area. So I
hope that made sense.
Sacchet: It did.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Thank you Rich. Want to jump in Craig?
58
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: Yeah. Thank you very much. Let's see here. I believe that the neighbors brought
up some very good points. Certainly some of them apply within our grasp or jurisdiction. Others
are not. I believe that the property's been zoned and established for a little better than decade.
Zoned for this purpose. I believe that the applicant has a right to develop it as long as it meets the
codes and the ordinances that apply to a subdivision and it has done that. With respect to where it
hasn't met the requirements for one of the lots, that condition .is set forth and mandates
compliance before it goes for final platting. I agree with fellow commissioners that I would
prefer to see that done in advance but it doesn't mitigate the fact that they are going to have to
achieve that before final platting. So I don't want to assign too much weight to that. With
respect to the road, typically intensification of development is never welcomed, but the people,
the properties around it with the zoning, they have a right to develop the properties. I personally
live on a large lot. I like it that way as the developments came in and closed in around it, it
certainly reduces the quality of life. But my alternative is to go out and purchase those properties
and I flat out can't afford it. So that's progress, that's reality. I don't own those properties. I
don't direct how those properties are going to be developed or not developed. As much as I'd
like to see Pat Jensen's horses still running down on Lake Lucy Road, they've been gone for 15
years. Was that quality of life? Absolutely. That was a thrill to turn the comer. But it's gone
and there's nothing I can do about it because I personally can't afford it, and I'm assuming that
most of the people here are in the same situation. It' s sad but it is progress. They do have a right
to develop it. With respect to the road, I'm not sure how we would address changes for the road.
The road is currently a 9 ton road. How much larger would we make it, would be a question that
I would have. You know what, there's engineering. Civil engineering calculations that go into
the bounce on the ponds. The sizing of the roads. The storm water runoff. Provided that the city
engineering and the developer's engineering are adhering to those standards and calculations,
that's what we rely upola here. Rather than walking out subjectively, looking at it and going yes,
there's a lot of runoff. So if there's something that hasn't been included in the calculation, I
heard the term floodplain thrown around. I didn't necessarily hear anything responded to from
the staff or from the developer with respect to that, and I don't know the history of that. I am
going on the assumption that they are well aware of what that area is, if it is in fact on the
floodplain, that that has been taken into the calculations. And if that isn't the case, I'd appreciate
city staff making me aware of that. But the point being is that all the things that were brought up,
there is a process to address them. The issue about the sidewalk is an excellent issue, and I would
personally like to see it incorporated. The issue with a buffer between your yard. That is a
sensitivity issue that the developer could address. Could come over and say we're going to be
putting in 11 lots. We're going to move forward with it but we'd like to make it as palatable as
possible. What can we do to put some buffers inbetween the development and your property.
That would be a professional courtesy that I would like to see. With respect to the sizing of the
pond, I leave that to the engineers. We ask the questions. Try to improve on the process but
ultimately they're the professionals. The experts that have the calculations to make those
judgments. With respect to the assessments, I think that the staff made it clear that the residents
are not to be addressed in this particular situation for the improvements to the road. Their costs
bom by the developer. However, in the case of the lady that came up with the sewer hook-up.
There is an ordinance in place that if your property is within 150 feet, within 12 months you will
be required to address that and do that hook-up. If that's contrary to what you want to do, and I
understand if it would be, you need to get in contact with city staff in the next week and find out
the process to try to work around that and mitigate that on a personal level. With respect to the
runoff, I believe in my observation of the civil drawings here, that they are keeping the majority
of the runoff on site and on some level improving it. Bringing it down in and treating it before it
goes into the wetlands. From that respect, at least from what I can tell for their property, that's an
improvement. Again, the developments, they're typically never welcomed. It's always a change.
59
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
People don't like change. I don't like change. I understand it, but the bottom line is they have a
right to do it and they're not asking for any exceptions and I don't feel that we have the platform
to deny it.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig, well said. Kurt comments.
Papke: Okay, I'll be reasonably brief. I think it's a very good project. I only have one concern.
We are the Chanhassen Planning Commission. We only have jurisdiction over what happens in
Chanhassen. However I do have some of the same concerns about the development to the west
here. When questioned about the intent of what's going to happen west of this development,
Lundgren Brothers gave a very qualified response that there's nothing in the works right now.
But that's a very qualified response, and I'm a little concerned that we could find out 6 months, a
year from now that oh now there's this 43 homes that they' really want to put in there and the only
way they can get to those homes is to extend Kings Road. I'm just a little concerned that we
could get in a box here and I know there's probably no feasible way to completely prevent that
but if we could just to echo some of Rich's comments, if we can garner any information about
what the plans are in that area. What the alternatives are. What the ramifications might be on
this development, even though they're not in Chanhassen. I think we do, if we possibly can, we
need to try to take that into account in some way, and we have no information on that and what
we're reviewing tonight. We have zero and that concerns me a little bit so that's my only
concern.
Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany.
Tjornhom: I like being fourth because everything I want to say has been said already. I guess I
agree with so far what everybody has said about the concerns with Kings Road, and future
development that may occur. The neighborhood's quality of life. Their concern with water
issues, sewer hook-up's, everything. I don't know, I guess I just agree with everyone's concerns
about that and so I guess I'll leave it at that.
Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce, want to jump in?
Feik: Thank you. I won't reiterate what's been said thus far. So I'll keep my comments fairly
new. I still have concerns with the raise of the road. I still have concerns with the access to Lot
3. Rich, I don't have a concern with Lot 4. By the way I'd live there. Sorry. I do have a concern
that there were a couple of simple things that could have been resolved and not been part of the
conditions. It could have been done beforehand. Specifically the lot size on 6 and a couple of
other little things I wish had been done. Suffice it to say though I can support the application.
Sacchet: Thank you. Steve.
Lillehaug: I agree with Commissioner Slagle that boy, I don't like tabling items but this one I
think we need to, and specifically I have a problem with approving the site plan based on the plan
for Kings Road. We don't even know who's property that is to the north of the applicant's
property line here, and we're approving a site plan for a road not within the applicant's property.
We don't know who's property that is up there. That's what I have a problem with.
Aanenson: I don't understand that.
Lillehaug: You don't understand that?
60
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: The gentleman to the north is the Williams Brothers. They own that property.
They're trying to work on an agreement with them to build the road. It's just a cost, who's going
to pay. They may end up paying most of it. It's just between, there's two parties that own it.
Saam: If I could offer a condition too to maybe address your concern Commissioner Lillehaug.
You could add a condition that this plat is contingent upon the fight-of-way being granted for the
property to the north.
Lillehaug: See I didn't know that was in the workings.
Aanenson: Yeah, so we'll just clarify that condition that they work together to get that resolved.
Saam: In fact if yoU wouldn't recommend adding it now, I guess before it went to City Council I
would probably do an update to City Council and recommend that we add that condition. I was
unaware that it was in there so it's partly our fault but I would recommend that we do add
something because that is a valid concern.
Aanenson: ...they just haven't worked out the payment issue.
Lillehaug: New information, thank you.
Sacchet: Is that your comments Steve?
Lillehaug: Nope, I've got one more here. Same road, same problem. Difference piece of
property and it was, excuse me I don't remember your name but on your property. We've got 60
foot of fight-of-way all the way up to your property and I think it' s necessary to continue and get
60 foot of property there. For one reason at least a temporary easement...so if we can't get the
necessary right-of-way at this time, we certainly need to get an easement. The applicant needs to
get an easement to have this, the old roadway removed. I'd like to see 60 foot of fight-of-way.
Lot number 3. And let me ask this question here. Is it, does the applicant have to put a 60 by 60
foot building pad on that lot? Is that what they're supposed to provide?
Aanenson: They're supposed to demonstrate it, but that doesn't mean that that house is going to
be 60 by 60. But that's what they need to demonstrate.
Lillehaug: Okay, so they need to show the 60 by 60 can fit on there, which it doesn't. It's off a
little bit. The square footage is still there but the 60 by 60 is not there. I really would like to see
the plans cooked a little more, and some of these items were cooked more I guess I would
approve it. That's my comments, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Well I'm on my last cough drop for tonight.
Feik: I have a quick question that Commissioner Lillehaug brought up. To the east of the subject
property, where the road switches to the north from the existing road bed, where we have an
existing 60 by 60, or 60 width easement without affecting the existing property owner to the east.
Aanenson: I think Matt was going to address that.
Feik: Does the whole road go north?
Saam: Yeah.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Feik: To my look, from my point it looked like she actually gained some land.
Aanenson: Correct.
Saam: Yes. I guess I would also recommend that we add a condition that any grading or removal
of the old roadway, which is outside of the right-of-way, that the applicant has to obtain
permission from those property owners. Basically a temporary grading easement to grade outside
of the public right-of-way on somebody else's private property. I think that's what you were
getting at.
Lillehaug: She gains property but the right-of-way, the proposed right-of-way at that point is only
going to be 50 foot wide. It's not 60 foot wide. That's my concern.
Saam: Yeah. This developer doesn't own that property so, I mean that would take him
negotiating with her to gain that.
Lillehaug: And that's what I'm getting at here.
Saam: I guess typically what we require is that if they're going to work outside of the right-of-
way, they have to provide proof of that, i.e. a temporary easement. If you want to add a condition
that they upgrade the right-of-way, I guess you could do that. It is 50 feet, if I could just point out
all the way down to Minnewashta I believe so.
Lillehaug: It's not 60 feet?
Aanenson: Correct.
Saam: Yeah.
Lillehaug: Scratch that then.
Sacchet: Okay, I'd better speak as long as I still have a cough drop in my mouth. My supply of
cough drops has run out. First of all I'd like to point out that what the constraints are of what
we're doing here tonight, or whenever we're here as Planning Commission. This is to approve or
deny a preliminary plat. That's what's in front of us here, and if you look on the front page it
says the city's discretion approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the
proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance.
If it meets these standards the city must approve the preliminary plat. Okay, so that's the space
we're working with. Now within that framework I have to basically conclude that this
application, even though it doesn't meet 100 percent of every aspect of the ordinance, the
deviances are not meant to last. The deviances are relatively minor. They're meant to be aligned
before it goes to City Council. That's not unusual for us to deal with with minor adjustments that
have to be done, even though in an ideal world everything would be taken care of before we have
to deal with it. But then what would we deal with so. There is certainly some value in this. I
certainly regret that we don't know what's going to go happening on the west side in Victoria.
That's a real hole in terms of making a judgment but the judgment is not the surrounding. The
judgment of what's happening on this piece of property, does this apply, does this follow city
ordinances and the code and it's awfully close. It's awfully close with that. Now there were
some really pertinent aspects brought up by the neighbors. Security was brought up. I live in a
new neighborhood and I have to say, there are actually squad cars driving through on a quite
62
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
regular basis so I would hope that with that being coming a more an intense use you should also
see more of the security measures and the protection that is the city's responsibility. In terms of
the crowding, it's been zoned for single family for quite a long time. It's regrettable there has
been no discussion with the neighborhood and I would certainly encourage the applicant and also
city staff made an indication that that can be remedied in different ways. The concern about your
property being on a lower elevation is something that needs to be looked at. I think that can be
mitigated to some extent. The impervious aspect or runoff aspect I think would significantly
improve with that drainage pond coming in and the whole system of storm water catching I think
that should he proven. The impact on the road. I have a hard time balancing what has a bigger
impact on the neighborhood, whether there's construction for a year or whether they're planning
to have construction there and after that you have mostly say little cars versus currently there are,
and I would assume that these trucks and bulldozers and backhoes don't stay up on that hill all the
time so they obviously have to come down that road, which must have a pretty significant impact
in the end as well. In terms of the specifics here, I really would like to make an effort to save one
of those two big maples. The one that can be saved grading wise. I think it'd be a stretch to ask
for the other one, but the one that can be just with one little adjustment of the 992 grading line,
small adjustment of that line you can save that tree and I think it's significant. If it's not healthy
or our city forester decides it's not worth it, by all means but it looks awfully look to me. At least
from the distance that I saw it. In terms of the finding though on page 7, and staff you may want
to notice this one. Finding number 5. You've heard this from me before. It states the proposed
subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of this report. I'd like
to tone this down at least a notch and say, proposed subdivision will not cause excessive
environmental damage. But there is definitely environmental damage. I mean we're cutting
down just about all the trees here. I mean that's damage. We're doing very significant grading,
in some cases up to 10 feet. In terms of the specifics to the conditions, I would like to see some
additions that for one thing the aspect that the plat is contingent to this road, ownership and
parmership to the north is being worked out. I think that's a very pertinent condition to add. I
would also want to ask that that drainage swale on the east, northeast part of the development be
extended down through Lot 10 and 11, as far as is reasonably, well does it make sense. Right
now the swale is basically on 8 and 9.
Feik: That was pointed out for me that that drainage is a catch basin.
Sacchet: Basically bring it down to what's a catch basin, yes.
Feik: It already does.
Sacchet: Well sort of. Does it really do that?
Aanenson: That's one I think we agreed...
Sacchet: Work with staff. Work with neighbors to look at that. I would also think it would be
reasonable to ask for some buffer plantings along the eastern side of Lot 8 and 9, since it's
dropping off to the neighborhood there. I think that would be common sense courtesy to help
mitigate that to some extent. A study of the northwest corner radius there of Kings Road I think
is appropriate, especially since we are, heard some figures here. What was it, 40 something
potential additional lots coming on that road. Now's the time to study that curve and make it as
safe as we can. Work with neighbors, we akeady touched on that. Walk, like staff indicated, that
they would want to walk the lot and see how it can be mitigated as much as possible. The
removal of that piece of the road on the, that goes onto the property of the neighbor to the east,
Ms. Bords. I think it would make sense possibly to have a condition in there that that gets looked
63
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
at and clarified before it goes to council. That there is a clear situation and we can say how much
is, are they going to be impacted as a neighbor? How is that going to mitigate it? Is there going
to be an agreement that they can grade that and remove the road and basically put into a natural
state, that would make sense. And of course I would like a condition to save that significant
maple there. Work with staff to do so and hopefully, I want you to hear that Mike. Yoohoo,
Mike. Want you to hear that. I'm pushing for a condition for that maple there and I was just
going to say I want to make sure you hear that. That hopefully you will see the tree unlike some
of the trees at Ashling Meadows that we don't see anymore. That I clearly remember you pointed
out they would stay. Now I don't know what transpired that they're not there but they're
definitely not... But that's a different story so, but I just want you to hear that. Rub it in a little
bit. That's my comments.
Slagle: Mr. Chair.
Sacchet: Yes Rich.
Slagle: Just a comment to the rest of the commission. After hearing you make the comments
regarding Ashling Meadows, I go back to our discussions on Vasserman Ridge where I believe
we tabled that and asked the applicant, along with staff to look at tree preservation. I don't
remember if there lot changes. I believe there were, I know there...
Sacchet: They were good ones. They were good ones.
Slagle: So my only question is, and I don't need an answer but just to pause and think about this,
when I bring up Lot 4, which to me appears to be just placing a lot to get another lot, they're
certainly entitled to do that. I'm not saying it's not okay, but when you look at the concept of not
allowing Lot 4, saving the trees, avoiding some serious grading, my question is why is that not
the same as what we asked at Vasserman Ridge?
Sacchet: Who are you asking this question from? Of.
Slagle: I don't need an answer but I'm just asking why is that different than what we ask of the
same application at Vasserman Ridge and Ashling Meadows of looking at tree preservation and
even go back to Noecker where we asked him to re-work his lots because of trees.
Sacchet: So basically your point is that it would be perfectly in line with our previous decisions
to ask this to be a little further refined before we decide on it.
Slagle: I guess I'm just asking is what is the.
Sacchet: Yeah, please if you want to address them Mike.
Mike Burton: Just so you know, we have worked with, I don't know if you know Tim Erhart's
property. Well, we're in the works with buying a lot of trees from him for this site that we're
going to spade in so they're going to be very large, big mature trees. So we'll put some along Lot
8 and 9. Build a nice buffer to your house. We'll move some around. There's 64 trees that are
going to be there and a lot of them are going to be better quality than what we're pulling out. I
guess that's all I've got to say.
Sacchet: I'd also like to ask staff about the time line, since we have some indication of some of
the commissioners leaning towards tabling. How are we doing with the time line here?
64
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: I've got down here, well that was the day it was going to go to City Council. That's
not the review deadline. It's 60 days from the application.
Sacchet: Do we know when the application started?
Aanenson: Yep, it's in the application.
Sacchet: Yeah, if Lot 4 wouldn't be there it would be much easier for our part but I'm not sure
whether it would be easier for you guys.
Slagle: You know the question is this. We talked about environmental concerns and we've
obviously seen a situation where there's more of an environmental impact than this one, so I'm
not trying to make this the last stand of the tree huggers but my point is this, that I think as you
look at this development, Lot 4 doesn't have to be there. It's being added because it's another lot
that you can sell. I understand that, but boy tell you what, this development would be just fine
without Lot 4.
Tjomhom: So then if you saved Lot 4 and the trees, would he still be required to put 61 trees in?
Slagle: No.
Sacchet: No, it would change.
Feik: I'd like you to look at the trees though that are being proposed to be taken out there
between Lot 4 and 5.
Slagle: I saw them.
Feik: They're scrub cedar for the most part. They're.
Sacchet: Well a couple of ashes and those two maples, but most of them are these cedars.
Feik: You have box elder in there. I mean it's not.
Claybaugh: It's not just that, in that line of thought. We don't need lots 1 through 10 either.
They're designing it to meet the square footage, the width, the depth. They're obviously trying to
you know, the depth goes to the bottom line, it offsets the costs. Whether that's right or wrong or
whatever, they're within their rights provided that they can achieve the ordinance requirements.
Slagle: Absolutely, no one's saying they're not within their rights, but at some point when do we
or staff ask for an applicant to take an extra step.
Claybaugh: To address Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker was asking for a variance. There was some
horse trading going on. This particular applicant, as I'm aware, isn't asking for anything. That's
why I stated earlier, I don't believe that personally we have a platform to.
Slagle: Craig, one could say that minor changes need to be made to some of the lots could be a
variance.
Aanenson: Well there's really only one change. Let me clarify that.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Please do Kate.
Aanenson: This lot shows, right here. If you scale it, and it's written wrong, it scales over 90.
So it just needs to be changed.
Sacchet: So that's just a writing error?
Aanenson: The only lot problem, and similarly here, this is the 10 foot, the setback that you
would need. The 60 foot square fits on here. They just took a straight line off. It meets the 60 by
60 pad...so it meets that criteria. And so the only problem is this lot here and that can be
accomplished by taking some, which you've over off right here and it meets that. That's the
only...
Feik: So just Lot 6.
Aanenson: Correct.
Lillehaug: What about Lot 5?
Aanenson: It's just a matter of tweaking. It scales to over 90.
Claybaugh: But if we want to be hyper technical and table it for that issue, that would be an issue
at least, a tangible issue.
Aanenson: Right, and this one does meet the 60 by 60.
Lillehaug: What about Lot 5? Side length width needs to be 125 feet. It's only 111.
Aanenson: Well, you've got 155, you've got 90 here and then this will be over the 125 so this
would be the frontage at 90. So this could be the 90 and this could be the 125.
Sacchet: Just turn them around.
Aanenson: Correct. There's nothing in the ordinance that says...they're both collector streets so.
Sacchet: Yeah, well we're in discussion. Do we need more discussion or does somebody want to
venture a motion? Want to try a table motion and then if that doesn't go through we go to the
next. That's one strategy I would propose. Anybody want to make a motion? No?
Feik: I'll make a motion.
Sacchet: Make a motion Bruce, go ahead.
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16,
2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions 1 through 34 and then
I will wait for the numerous changes which I expect to happen.
Sacchet: We have a motion, is there a second?
66
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: I'll second.
Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Now we're going to have an avalanche of
friendly amendments I suppose. Who wants to start?
Claybaugh: It seems like your's were fairly well.
Sacchet: Want me to go, alright. I'll jump in, alright. So we're at 34. So number 35. This plat
will be contingent on agreement with the property owner to the north of the development
regarding the shared road.
Lillehaug: And dedicated fight-of-way.
Sacchet: And dedicated right-of-way, alright. That's 35.
Feik: Accepted. We'll do them one at a time. I might not agree with all of them.
Sacchet: Alfight, 35. I don't expect you to. I can try. That'd be a first. 36. The drainage swale,
well let's tone that down a bit. The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the
possible extension of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure
drainage goes not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also l0 and 11 to the drainage pond. Is
that understandable what I'm shooting for? That I'm trying to not to leave some wiggle way. It's
work with staff. Have the neighbors input. Consider what's reasonable because I'm not the
expert. I can't say what's the fight thing. Is that acceptable Brace?
Feik: Acceptable.
Sacchet: Wow, I'm impressed. Number 37. Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to
establish some buffer planting along the eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8
and 9.
Feik: Accepted.
Sacchet: Cool. 38. How do we do that one? Applicant will work with staff on evaluating the
turning radius of Kings Road on the northwestern comer of the development to ensure safety
sight distance and possible increase of traffic by further development to the west. Is that?
Feik: My concern on that I think is, this is really an engineering question. It either it is or it
doesn't and city staff is already saying it meets.
Sacchet: Does it?
Saam: No, I haven't gotten that information. If I could just recommend to say that the radius
meet current city design standards or current city code, because that's what we'll check them
against our minimum radius.
Sacchet: So do we already know that?
Saam: No, I don't. That information isn't provided yet.
Sacchet: So we say, we can make it very crisp then. That's what you're asking for.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Lillehaug: Can I ask a question first? What is a minimum radius?
Saam: I believe it's 180 feet without.
Lillehaug: It's not 180.
Saam: Requiring you know a 20 miles per hour curve sign or something like that.
Lillehaug: So maybe we can add work with staff.
Sacchet: Well actually we could just say meet the city standard.
Feik: Meet city ordinances.
Sacchet: For that curve.
Feik: Period.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: If we're looking to meet the minimum standard then I'm more interested in having
that driveway justified to that southwest comer. Not specifically interested in the minimum. I'm
interested in looking at it, that from the perspective of what the situation is, that it provides for
that. If you feel that that's met, that a conservative perspective of the safety of that is met by the
minimum code, that's one thing. But if you don't feel like that ultimately concerted safety
threshold is met within the minimum standards, then I want that driveway justified to the
southwest. So I'm not sure how we achieve that but I guess I'll let you finish and see what
happens and come back to it.
Sacchet: I would just propose the radius of Kings Road in the northwest of the development has
to meet city standards.
Lillehaug: That's going to delete Lot 3.
Feik: Well then that's the applicant's decision.
Sacchet: That will do something to Lot 4 too then.
Lillehaug: What are we looking at?
Slagle: Can I say something?
Sacchet: Yes.
Slagle: I mean we don't know what's happening in the west, and that could affect this northwest
comer and if we look at this development through this, ! mean folks seriously.
Sacchet: I mean this could tilt the balance here. Are we saying, and you're the engineer Steve so
I'll leave it to you, and you Matt. You're our technical brains here. Matt, you stated the
requirement is 180 for the radius. Now Steve made the comment...want to see it again.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Claybaugh: Why would this be in front of us if that radius didn't currently meet city code?
Saam: Because we don't have that information in order to check it at this time. Again that's
something that's provided on the final plat. We check it back before it went to council. If it had,
if it didn't meet it at that time then we'd work with their engineer to make sure.
Sacchet: Let's hold this question. This question doesn't lead anywhere Craig. I want to come
back to my question. Do you concur with what Steve just stated that if this radius becomes 180,
which is what you're telling us is city code, that this would put in question the existence of Lot 3?
Saam: Yeah, it would put it in question that they would have to go down by a lot. That's a good
possibility.
Sacchet: Now I would take this as a reason to...
Lillehaug: ...out there is very substandard. Is this a place where we kind of grandfather that
curve in and just allow it mitigated through signage like Matt is indicating?
Saam: I think that's a good point. If I can just point out that we do have situations like this. In
fact in the Noecker development he has a curve that I think is signed 25 miles per hour because
he couldn't meet 180 foot I believe. So there are situations like this in town.
Sacchet: Yeah, but that combined with the potential of dozens of more lots.
Feik: You know, we don't know that though.
Slagle: Come on, what do you think's going to happen out west?
Sacchet: Craig, you wanted to add something?
Claybaugh: Well yeah. I actually agree with my twin Rich here. He may be onto something. I
think that there's probably going to be more homes out there. Depending on the amount of traffic
on...that traffic on that road is limited to those households, okay.
Sacchet: More or less.
Claybaugh: Essentially. He had 17 lots in there. In terms of that curve, who else is going to
come through there unless they come through the Lundgren.
Saam: To the south is what I'm saying.
Claybaugh: When it's expanded, okay. Then that's a valid point. Just a question of how much
traffic we feel this curve is going to take on.
Sacchet: Alright, you made the motion.
Feik: I have a motion out there.
Sacchet: Does the motion stand?
69
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Feik: Motion stands.
Sacchet: We continue with the motion, alright. Alright, so to come back to the, I don't think we
got to accept that friendly amendment. That that curve to the northwest will meet city code in
terms of the radius of that road.
Claybaugh: And that's 180 foot radius.
Sacchet: That's what we're asking.
Claybaugh: Designed for 20 miles per hour curve, is that?
Saam: No, 30 is 180 foot. I believe that's what...
Sacchet: So that's my proposed amendments.
Aanenson: Is that the posted speed...?
Saam: Yeah, unless we could, unless it doesn't meet 180 foot, then we could build a 25 miles per
hour.
Aanenson: They're saying...30 miles speed limit.
Claybaugh: That's something tangible that I can see.
Sacchet: Is that amendment accepted?
Feik: That's accepted.
Sacchet: That's accepted, good. That was 38. 39. Now we're getting on slippery grounds.
Lillehaug: Can I add to 38 before we go on?
Sacchet: Sure, you want to add to the amendment?
Lillehaug: Yep. With that provide an alignment for Kings Road for the entire length because
there's a kink right north of the, a kink in the alignment right north of the proposed cul-de-sac.
So provide an alignment and get rid of that kink.
Sacchet: Make it all straight basically. That would move it a little bit north, just a tad there.
Lillehaug: Maybe not put a radius in there. There's no kink in the road.
Sacchet: Not a kink basically. Okay. Is that an accepted, that would be 39.
Feik: It's not a kink.
Sacchet: It's just not a straight line.
Feik: It's just not straight. It's not exactly east and west.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: It's not a straight line.
Feik: Lots of roads aren't straight lines. Why? I'll be willing to entertain if you tell me why?
Seriously. It' s off by 2 degrees.
Lillehaug: Right here.
Feik: Yes, exactly. Why is that a concern? I'm serious.
Sacchet: So I take it you did not accept that one?
Feik: I didn't accept that one.
Sacchet: Okay, Bruce did not accept that one. Alright, let's see where we can get you to accept
one or two more. Alright, 39. Another try to 39. Did we already cover applicant will and staff
will work with neighbors like we said, looking at the swales.
Feik: We've got the swale down and you've got the...
Sacchet: So we don't need that, okay.
Aanenson: You need your maple tree though.
Sacchet: Oh thank you. That's 39. 39 is tree number 71, 30 inch maple tree shall be preserved
and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be put around it according to city forester's
directions.
Feik: Accepted.
Sacchet: Thank you. And obviously that would have an impact on the grading, but I think that's
understood. It's a reasonable impact on grading. Very reasonable. And should we say that, can
we go as far as asking what that house that goes on the lot. I mean if we say save that tree, that
includes not... And do we need to say something about this road alignment where the road gets
taken off the neighbor's property? Condition 40.
Saam: Mr. Chair, I believe that is addressed in condition number 22. I did find it. It just says the
applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate
property owner, which would address that.
Sacchet: That does address that, but let's add to 22 that, are we recommending or asking for silt
fence? Because recommending doesn't do anything.
Saam: Well we're basically telling them.
Sacchet: Okay, so should we say applicant shall use Type III silt fence to be used adjacent to the
edge of the wetland, which shall be removed upon completion of the construction. You've heard
that from me before. Is that an acceptable?
Feik: Except that you might as well add that removed to number 11 as well.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Sacchet: Yes I do. There's another one there, yes exactly. That's where I actually marked it to
add it. So yes, we want to remove in both places.
Feik: Accepted in both places.
Sacchet: Thank you. So I believe that's enough friendly amendments from me being out of
cough drops.
Lillehaug: Can I add to number 22 that the existing roadway will be removed and the property
will be established with turf. Property being that property on the east there where that road needs
to be removed. I just want to make sure that the applicant's clear that that should happen.
Sacchet: That's part of the intent, yeah.
Feik: It says all disturbed areas shall be restored.
Lillehaug: If they don't disturb it then they don't have to restore it. I'm saying that make it a
requirement to remove that road.
Feik: Accepted.
Claybaugh: I may but I need a clarification from staff here first. We talked to the applicant
during their presentation about the ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants and they said that
they were going to do that. It is a condition in here already? For the ongoing?
Aanenson: No. I think you can...
Claybaugh: I know they agreed to it, I just didn't find it anywhere in here so. Okay. Friendly
amendment number, what are you up to?
Sacchet: 41.
Claybaugh: You used 41 or 41's available?
Sacchet: 41's available. 40 we did.
Claybaugh: Number 41 would be.
Aanenson: I think 40.
Sacchet: Oh you're right.
Claybaugh: 40? Alright. Friendly amendment number 40 would be that the applicant agrees to
the ongoing monitoring of, for soil contaminants during excavation.
Sacchet: What does that mean Craig?
Claybaugh: That means right now they've done their preliminary Phase I, Phase II environmental
tests through soil borings which are random, I'm assuming they're 2 foot borings or them about,
if that. Down at 8 locations on the site that's 5.93 acres. When the excavator gets out there and
72
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
you start moving cubic yards of dirt, they may uncover something. They may create a set of
circumstances where it gives Braun better access to testing a suspect area.
Sacchet: How would we deal with that?
Aanenson: That would be done through the utilities. When the sewer and water is put in place.
There can be testing done.
Sacchet: And the applicant has agreed to do that. It just wasn't anywhere on the record so I
wanted it included in the public record so.
Feik: Accepted.
Slagle: I've got one.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: With respect to the entryway monument, signage, what have you, I would ask that the
applicant and staff work together to provide, for lack of a better term, first class.
Feik: How about provide plans and specs prior to City Council?
Papke: Wouldn't that have to be reviewed because of signage?
Feik: How about plans and specs prior to City Council?
Slagle: I'm just trying to get some emphasis in the upgrading of.
Claybaugh: Can I add something? Are they required to submit a prototype with the final plat? Is
that something we can put in the form of.
Aanenson: You have no, I'm not sure that you can deny for not being. I think...it's an elective
thing.
Slagle: I understand but.
Aanenson: I know and I hear what you're saying. That you want it to be nice and we'll
communicate that.
Feik: That's why I'm saying, because it's a judgment call, what is nice and what isn't nice?
Aanenson: Well if it's a PUD I think you have design standards but because this is a straight
subdivision, I think they understand.
Feik: So if you've got a concern.
Slagle: I think they've got it.
Feik: Sketches prior to City Council.
Lillehaug: Is that a requirement?
73
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Aanenson: No, that's what I'm saying. It's not a requirement that they have to, right.
Sacchet: If you're suggesting...
Slagle: Withdraw.
Sacchet: Withdraw it. Now I have one question to staff. If the number of lots would have to
change based on radius or whatever of this road, would it come back to Planning Commission?
Or where is, it' s a gray area there.
Aanenson: Typically that would be, we consider that a minor change. If you want to see it again,
you certainly have that right. Just to clarify this, it is scheduled for July 14th. Just to let the
applicant know, I don't believe that's enough time for us to meet with the neighbors. Because
that report would have to be ready to go Monday or Tuesday so we're going to tell you right now
that we're going to take the additional time and put it on the 28t~. That gives us time to meet with
Borris' and Kortgard's and get those issues resolved and walk it and the grading so.
Claybaugh: Those are very important issues.
Aanenson: They are, and we just can't turn around and do due justice on that so that would move
it to the, from the 14th to the July 28th council meeting.
Sacchet: Alright, we had a motion and a second. We added a ton of friendly amendments. We
did a lot of discussion. Are we done with amendments discussion? So we put this to the vote.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on
plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted.
A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each
lot.
The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
yard areas.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9,
10, Block I prior to any construction.
The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for
impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan an exemption shall be
obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring.
A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and
must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40 foot setback shall be shown on
the grading plan.
The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St.
Joe and the required 150 foot setback from the OHW.
Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is
sized adequately for the proposed development.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water
infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall
be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility
easement must be dedicated over the entire swale.
A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the
storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon
the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage
from the streets to STMH gl. A minimum 20 foot easement is required for the storm
sewer pipe between STMH//2 and STMH #1.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two
weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be
preserved as buffer and removed upon completion of construction.
Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and
the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time the estimated SWMP fee,
due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $19,552.
Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria.
The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA
guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition.
The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with
Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city.
A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the
time of plat submittal.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
75
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de-sac
which is outside of the right-of-way.
Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and
add a temporary cul-de-sac at the soUth end of the development.
Type III silt fence shall be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland and removed upon
completion of construction. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of
the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be
restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. The existing
roadway will be removed and the property on the east where the road needs to be
removed will be established with turf.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges
at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are
$1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee ·
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
Add the following City of Chanhassen latest D~I Pla~ Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005,
1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104,
3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244, and
5300.
The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the
drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be
designed by a registered engineer.
On the utility plan:
Show sanitary sewer flow direction.
Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the
north side of Kings Road (Outlot B).
Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type.
Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings.
On the grading plan:
ao
Add a storm sewer schedule.
Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
76
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations.
Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction.
Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance.
30. Revise CBMH #1 with a 2 foot sump.
31. Add street lights to the plans.
32. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7.
33. Supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approved by staff.
34.
Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot
9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage.
35.
The plat will be contingent upon agreement with the property owner to the north of
the development regarding the dedicated road right-of-way.
36.
The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension
of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes
not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond
37.
Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish buffer planting along the
eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9.
38.
The turning radius of the road on the northeast corner shah meet current city design
standards and current city code.
39.
Tree g'/1 shah be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be placed
around it according to city forester's directions.
40.
The applicant agrees to perform ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants during
excavation.
All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
Sacchet: So this carries 6 to 1 and goes to, as we just heard, to council not on the 14~ as on the
staff report, but two weeks later. 28m or whatever that was. We want to summarize this.
Feik: The additional conditions probably summarize.
Sacchet: The summary is special emphasis on the additional conditions.
Feik: Does that cover it?
Sacchet: I would think so. I would think that covers it.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feik noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated June 3, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m.
77
Planning Commission Meeting - July 1, 2003
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
78