PC 2012 07 17
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2012
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim
Tennyson, Bill Colopoulos, and Kelsey Nelson
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Joe Shamla, Project Engineer; and Ashley Mellgren, Planning Intern
PUBLIC PRESENT:
th
Josh Koller, Southview Design 1875 East 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights
Steve Wanek 6615 Horseshoe Curve
Jim Knutson 1551 Lyman
PUBLIC HEARING:
80 WEST 78TH STREET (GOODWILL): REQUEST FOR A PARKING LOT SETBACK
VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT
TH
(BH). APPLICANT: 80 WEST 78 STREET, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2012-03.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a request for a variance for
th
80 West 78 Street. The request is to permit parking. The parking lot to be at the right-of-way easement
line. City Code requires that setbacks be horizontal distance between either the property line or the right-
th
of-way and in this case the property line and the easement line were different. Location is on West 78
Street just east of Highway 101. That’s north of Highway 5. It’s a frontage road in front of. Back in
th
February the City approved the site plan for the building at 80 West 78 Street. It was about a 20,000
square foot building. At that as part of our review we reviewed it based on the property line rather than
the easement line. What that led to when we were reviewing the building permit application is that
there’s a small area of the parking lot that encroaches into the required setback. City Code requires that
our parking lots be 62 foot wide when they have 90 degree parking and two way travel aisles. In this case
that, and because of the angle of the front property line it forced the corner of the parking lot into that
parking setback. As I stated they’re requesting a 10 foot parking lot setback variance to permit parking at
the right-of-way easement. They would still be all on their property and they can, it’s just a small portion
of it. The request is just for the plan as submitted. It’s not for any other variances so everything else
complies with city ordinance. The granting of the variance is in keeping with the ordinance. The
construction of a parking lot is a normal accessory use for commercial buildings. The difficulty for
meeting the ordinance is the shape of the lot and the city requirement for the parking design. The purpose
of the variance is not for economic consideration but just for site layout and meeting city requirements
and again the trapezoidous shape of the property limited where they could put the building and all the
drive aisles and the parking lot and so staff is recommending approval of the variance request subject to
the, I believe there’s 3 conditions of approval and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: One of the options was to vacate the easement and that was not selected?
Generous: Right. We looked at that and the engineering department would like to maintain the right-of-
th
way in case the City has to reconstruct West 78 Street in the future or do any other improvements. Also
we had, there’s additional utility easements in that area so they wanted to keep city control and not allow
them to go further.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aller: Any questions? Hearing none, would the applicant like to step forward if they choose to do so.
Ben Merriman: Good evening commissioners. My name is Ben Merriman. I’m with Center Companies.
My business is located at 2025 Coulter Boulevard in Chanhassen. Bob did a great job of explaining it this
evening and also putting it down on paper as to what happened. We goofed up. We didn’t see the right-
of-way. We used the property line. Designed our parking lot and then when we went into permit the City
caught it and we realized what we had done so we changed the building permit plan so that it was correct
and now we’re asking for a variance to go back to the original design. You probably haven’t experienced
a lot of redevelopment in Chanhassen. You probably will as time goes on but these sites are difficult to
work with. As Bob pointed out it’s a trapezoid site. We had to tear down an old office building and with
these complexities comes these types of issues. I think this project along with the Haskell’s project has
really made quite a difference in that corner and the way it looks as you’re coming into Chanhassen. I
think it’s had a real positive effect and I appreciate your help with this. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Okay we’re going to open up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Would
anybody like to step forward? Discuss anything with regard to the variance requested. Seeing no one
step forward I close the hearing. Comments. Questions. I think it’s in line with what we had originally
approved. It’s back to the original plans and we’re not giving up anything based on the fact that we’re not
vacating the right-of-way so, and I do agree that the work that’s been done down on that corner is both
aesthetically pleasing and it’s been good for the community so I’ll entertain a motion.
Thomas: Alright, I will propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-07 for a 10 foot parking lot setback variance to
permit parking at the right-of-way easement as shown on the plans prepared by MFRA dated July 6, 2012
subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: Having a motion, do I have a second?
Colopoulos: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion?
Thomas moved, Colopoulos seconded that theChanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-07 for a 10 foot parking lot setback
variance to permit parking at the right-of-way easement as shown on the plans prepared by MFRA
dated July 6, 2012 subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Decision.
1. The monument sign must comply with City Code and the required setback and may not encroach
into any easements.
2. The applicant shall update the plans to show the proposed parking stalls and make changes to
plans according to staff redlines.
3. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment agreement with the City to construct the parking lot
within the City watermain easement.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
PUBLIC HEARING:
6645 HORSESHOE CURVE: REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF). APPLICANT: JOSH KOLLER,
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, OWNER: TIMOTHY FIELDHOUSE, PLANNING CASE 2012-09.
Mellgren: Good evening. The City has received a variance request from applicant Josh Koller with
Southview Design. The property owners are Tim and Carol Fieldhouse. The property is located on Lotus
Lake. The address 6645 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant is requesting a 25 foot setback to encroach into
the 75 foot shoreland management setback to allow for the reconstruction of a patio on the lakeshore side
of a property zoned RSF. There are several existing conditions that the applicant and the homeowner are
concerned with. The existing patio, staircase and walkways have begun to erode away and have created
uneven walking surfaces. The missing stones have created areas that have one half inch to one inch
differentiation in the surface level. The applicant has proposed a deck as a safer alternative to the existing
step from the house to the patio. Staff would like to note that the deck was not part of the variance
application. However is considered a replacement to the non-conformity rather than an addition.
According to current building standards the step rise should be 7 and 3/4 inches and this step exceeds that
requirement. The homeowners have expressed a lot of concern regarding erosion taking place the
westerly protrusion of the patio. This erosion is likely resulting from directed discharge from the hard
cover. Currently the site is exceeding the 25% maximum allowable hard surface coverage by 3.27%. The
applicant is proposing to reconstruct a patio encroaching into the 75 foot shoreland management setback
by 25 feet. This is an additional 13 foot encroachment into the setback than the existing patio as shown as
the image in the middle. The red line is the 75 foot setback from the OHW. The applicant is proposing to
remove the existing staircase, walkway and patio shown in the blue on the existing plan to reconstruct the
patio shown on the right image. This will reduce the hard cover from 28.27 to 25.9 percent which is 867
square feet. Staff believes the proposed design has a possibility through the reduction in impervious
surface to improve the water quality of the stormwater runoff from the site. Staff further recognizes that
the project constitutes an expansion of a non-conforming use. However the net benefits of the water
quality and potential screening of the patio as viewed from the public water may outweigh any deleterious
effects of this expansion. The granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The construction of a patio is a normal use associated with a single family residence.
The practical difficulty with the reconstruction of this patio is that the existing patio currently does not
comply with the shoreland management setback. The proposed patio will continue the non-conformity.
However the property exceeds the City Code requirements for hard surface coverage by 3.2%. The
applicant is proposing to reduce the hard cover, or hard surface coverage to 25.9% and staff is
recommending the hard surface be further reduced to 25%. This reduction will likely result in improved
conditions compared to what is on the site. Staff is recommending the approval of the 25 foot shoreland
management setback variance for the reconstruction of the patio, Planning Case #2012-9 and adoption of
the Findings of Fact and Decisions subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. This concludes the
staff report.
Aller: I know we sent out postcards. Were there any responses?
Mellgren: I did not receive any.
Aller: So no negative responses from neighbors or?
Mellgren: No.
Aller: Okay. And has the applicant been made aware of the findings and the request for the reduction to
the 25?
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Mellgren: They did receive a copy of the staff report.
Aller: Any other questions from anyone? Comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward
and be heard?
Josh Koller: Hi, Josh Koller. I’m with Southview Design. Our address is in Inver Grove Heights. 1875
th
East 50 Street so, a couple things on this. The property owners have only been here for 2 years on this
property. This house was built in I think 1918 or something like that. Obviously there weren’t any of the
issues with hard cover surfaces or anything like that. Permits weren’t pulled for patios, these types of
things. We appreciate the approval of the City or the you know asking for approval from the City here on
this. Going all the way down to the 25% is going to be a very difficult thing. We’re already shrinking
over 800 square feet of hard cover on this property. Right now with the existing condition we’ve got
overhead trees. We’ve got the hill that slopes down. We do have erosion problems, stuff like that. We
are planning on planting that. There’s a retaining wall being proposed in the design to help with the
erosion as well. You know that’s where we’re looking at you know again we’ve dropped over 800 square
feet here so we’re trying to get it as close as we can. If we keep shrinking that up, I mean we’re just not
going to have anything back there. The other point that the City had mentioned was, you know that
Ashley had mentioned was the deck not being part of this. The deck was submitted by another company
that was doing the deck work to get approval for a permit on the deck so I guess I was under the
assumption that it’s basically a large landing was separate and was getting approved for a permit there so
those are the kind of the things that we have issues with you know going forward with this project. We’re
just trying to eliminate a lot of hard cover issues and it’s pretty bad right now. If you walk out on site it’s,
not only is it you know not a very comfortable, usable space but it’s fairly dangerous. They’ve had
people trip on the patio. There’s big gaps on there and the stairs are just falling apart altogether. A lot of
that has to do with a lot of erosion issues and how it’s running down the hillside there so that’s kind of
what we’re looking at doing.
Aller: With the other conditions on, for instance on the.
Josh Koller: Yep, the 9. There was 10 conditions total.
Aller: You obviously have read them all.
Josh Koller: Yep.
Aller: You understand what they’re asking for. You’ve met with them.
Josh Koller: Yep.
Aller: Is there a problem meeting any?
Josh Koller: Nope. All of those are fine. That’s pretty basic. Usually when we submit for a permit
we’re going to put a plan together for erosion control. Whether they want silt logs or whether we want
you know, it really doesn’t matter to us. We can submit that. The elevation piece for the plan that’s,
those are very easy pieces for us to submit so everything on there was fine.
Aller: Okay.
Josh Koller: It’s just trying to get to that, you know we’re already going down like I said so much square
footage there and we are trying to get into that 25%. We’re just a little above it.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aller: And the overstory trees will stay?
Josh Koller: Yep. We’re not taking any of the trees out. There is one diseased pine that we might want
to talk about. We can get an arborist out there but that actually has nothing to do with what we’re doing
here. It’s not even in the area so, yeah. Yep.
Aller: And so could you explain the difficulty and the difference between what planning is requesting,
what the Code basically requires which is the 25.
Josh Koller: The 25, yeah.
Aller: And the 25.9. What are we talking about in reality?
Josh Koller: I didn’t do the calculation so I guess I don’t know. I’m assuming it’s probably going to be,
you know it’s a pretty good sized lot so it might be even a couple hundred square feet I suppose. I guess I
didn’t do the calculation on that. We have a couple things with this lot. I mean it is a pie shaped lot.
They moved the house you know when they built the house in 1918 or whatever clear back by the lake.
Well one thing we have is we do have a very long driveway going to there and different things like that
but then like I said this back patio was just really expansive and you know the biggest thing is we were
trying to shrink it down to get to that area. If we shrink it much more than that I mean they’re just not
going to have much of an even a place to sit and they like to, just like everybody, like to at least have a
table and chairs out there. The new patio, I think the square footage is I think 400 and some square feet. I
don’t recall so it’s not very big you know so we’re just again, just trying to create a little bit of usable
space. I’m never going to get good grass to grow underneath there anyway so erosion’s always going to
be something. That’s one of the big things with the retaining wall is to stop that and then you know we’re
also, we are going to have to set some boulder outcrops in there to help with that but you know what it’s
like when you have a hillside, if I just mulch it and plant it, I mean it’s just going to rush down anyway
and so otherwise they’re just going to have a mulch patio which obviously isn’t going to work very well
either so.
Aller: And the square footage now of the patio?
Josh Koller: It says on here. I believe, I’m sorry I would have to find that. Well the square footage of
the patio now is, I mean I guess I’m reducing it to the 8, by 867 square feet so I mean it’s fairly, fairly
expansive. I’d have to get back to you on that. I don’t know what the exact square footage is on that,
unless I have it on the.
Aanenson: Chairman I think that staff would know the answer to that if you’d like us to answer that.
Aller: Sure. I want a real good understanding of what we’re talking about in reduction from what’s there
now to what is proposed.
Josh Koller: Flagstone, if I can answer that.
Mellgren: Yeah.
Josh Koller: It’s right here. The flagstone patio right now, that’s there right now is 1,293 square feet.
Colopoulos: And you’re going down to 400?
Josh Koller: And we are going down to.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Mellgren: 426.
Aanenson: Can you say it louder Ashley.
Josh Koller: Yeah, 426. So I mean.
Colopoulos: An extra 9 percent, .9 percent would be approximately 360 square feet so.
Josh Koller: Yeah so I mean they wouldn’t have anything.
Colopoulos: You wouldn’t be left with much.
Aller: You wouldn’t be left with anything.
Josh Koller: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks for the calculations. I’m a landscaper, not a math guy.
Aller: And my understanding is that all the, they’re new to the lot, that the actual prior patio and all the
work was done pre permits? Before they were…
Josh Koller: Yes. Oh yeah, I mean they were done.
Aller: So the City wasn’t aware of anything and they certainly weren’t in a position to control or do
anything when they came in.
Josh Koller: No.
Aller: Other than what they’re doing now which is asking for the variance.
Josh Koller: Yep, that’s correct. They’ve been there 18 months so not even 2 years so.
Aller: Any other questions? Concerns? Comments? Thank you. Would anyone else like to come up
and speak on behalf of the applicant? No? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing.
Questions or comments for. How do we feel about the difference between the 25 and the 25.9 because
that’s really what it boils down to at this point. And I’ll start off by saying a substantial reduction this is
from the 1,349 and that I would, I think we appreciate, I certainly do, people coming in and asking for a
variance rather than just doing and asking for forgiveness later and creating a big problem where the City
has to come in and make alternations and do something else so we’re looking at something that is better
than what was there and it’s not perfect. It’s not optimum but I think that’s what variances are all about.
Okay.
Colopoulos: Want a motion? Ready for a motion or are we still in public hearing?
Aller: No, the public hearing’s closed.
Thomas: Oh you did that?
Colopoulos: You closed it? Oh you didn’t have the microphone on.
Aller: Let’s make sure for the record that the public hearing is opened. And no one coming forward it’s
closed. So any other comments, questions? Thoughts.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Hokkanen: Well I have a question, just so I’m reading this right. So if we approve this as it is the
condition of going down to 25 percent.
Aller: Would be.
Hokkanen: A requirement or could we strike that?
Aller: If we approve it as is it’s 25%. Is you want to modify it.
Hokkanen: We can modify each one, okay.
Aller: Then you would need to say that it would be 25.9 which is what the request is.
Hokkanen: Alright, that’s what I wanted to clarify. That answers my question.
Colopoulos: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals approves the reconstruction of a patio in the Shoreland Management Setback, Planning Case
#2012-09 and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to conditions 1 through 8 and
condition 10.
Aller: So we’re…
Colopoulos: And leaving condition 9.
Aller: In it’s entirety or modified?
Colopoulos: In it’s entirety.
Thomas: I would say modified to the 25.9.
Colopoulos: To 25.9. To 25.9, okay. Modifying.
Aller: Make it clear.
Colopoulos: Yes, let me restate that last part okay. Subject to conditions 1 through 8 and condition 10 as
written, modifying condition 9 to read, existing hard cover must be reduced no more than 25.9 percent of
the lot area.
Hokkanen: Second it.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Colopoulos moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals, approves the request for the reconstruction of the patio located
within the Shoreland Management Setback located on Lot 5, Rearrangement of lots in Pleasant
View, based on the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision, with the
following conditions:
1. The proposed deck can be no larger than indicated on the plan set provided with the revision
dated June 14, 2012.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
2. The proposed deck cannot be covered or enclosed at a future date.
3. Any proposed drainage, erosion control and grading must be shown on a plan and cannot be more
than is required to meet the requirements of this project. The applicant shall work with staff to
incorporate remedies to the erosion problems on the western portion of the site.
4. The applicant must demonstrate that the patio cannot be constructed without retaining walls.
Further, any walls determined necessary must be the minimum height needed to achieve the
above parameters.
5. Any retaining walls exceeding 48 inches in height require a building permit and professional
design.
6. The top and toe of any wall determined necessary should be shown on the plan.
7. Proposed finish elevation shall be shown on the southerly extent of the patio.
8. No tree removal may occur as a result of this project.
9. The existing hardcover must be reduced to no more than 25.9% of the lot area.
10. There shall be no expansion of the water-oriented structure located on the site unless the portion
of the proposal located in the Shoreland Management Setback is removed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION: REQUEST FOR A METES AND BOUNDS
SUBDIVISION CREATING TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL (A-2) AND
LOCATED AT 1551 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: RICK DORSEY, PPB
HOLDINGS, LP, PLANNING CASE 2012-08.
Aanenson: The applicant is requesting a metes and bounds subdivision to create two lots from a 20 acre
parcel. Parcel C is 4 acres and Parcel D is 16 acres. The 40 acre parcel is being split into two lots via an
administrative subdivision, and I’ll go through this in detail in a minute. So the administrative
subdivision by State Statute requires city approval on that. That action has not taken place yet. The
proposed subdivision does meet the metes and bounds would meet the city ordinances with conditions of
approval. So the subject site is located on Lyman Boulevard. Even for an administrative subdivision to
occur properties have to have access to the site so the two access points right now, so when we look at the
subdivision which I’ll show you in a second, the administrative subdivision, there’s an access point via
this street here which is on the LDK development. The Preserve and then the other one’s over the
existing driveway so that allows the first split of the property. There were several applicable regulations
which I’ll explain in a little bit more detail as we go through the development itself but again the main
one is that the City can approve a metes and bounds subdivision so this is different than a plat. It’s a
metes and bounds but it has to have access onto a public right-of-way is one of the criteria so we haven’t
seen too many of these specifically since my tenure here. This is the first time we’ve done a metes and
bounds with this type of thing inside an urban service area. Typically they’re platted. So the other, and
as I explained it is exempt. The metes and bounds from the subdivision. Excuse me, the administrative is
exempt. The metes and bounds does require city approval. Chapter 20 also comes into consideration and
that’s the density. If you’re outside the urban service area we have a requirement of density allocation.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Again because you’re inside where there’s sewer and water available, although none’s being provided to
this site, the lots could be smaller. Again the comprehensive plan comes into play too. The site is
currently zoned agricultural but it has commercial or office, commercial mixed use on it or office zoning
so again some of those things and I’ll talk a little bit more in detail regarding how the plat works. So the
administrative subdivision, so this is the parcel. So now both of these parcels do have to have, Parcel A
and Parcel B both have to have access onto a public street in order to qualify to make them exempt from
the process they have to have public access. As I pointed out on the other slide they both have access to
a public street. So once that is split, and again that has not been executed yet, the next step would be to
create this metes and bounds subdivision so Parcel A then is being split into Parcel C, 4 acres and Parcel
D, the 16 acres. So one of the conditions that was put on this regarding access is that Parcel C and D are
being, are sharing a common easement. Because there is no, currently no access approved on the site.
While the County is looking at upgrading Lyman Boulevard, those plans have not been approved and at
the direction of our City Attorney recommending putting in the easement requirement, a cross access
agreement in the name of the City because right now they’d both be under one name. Both properties are
owned by one person and it could be removed. To make sure again as the requirement states, that they
have to meet the requirement of having access. So some of the other issues that are in this, again inside
the urban service area is different requirements. It’s pretty rare that we would do something like this.
Normally someone would plat and have a development proposal. There are urban services available.
Because this is zoned agricultural, any further development is not consistent. Any other development that
would come in would have to apply for either the regional commercial zoning, which we created, or the
office zoning as you note it is dual guided so there is no development on this project already. The home
is being serviced currently by septic and well. Of course there is utilities available but they would have to
come in for another project approval consistent with the comprehensive plan to move forward on that.
And one of the things that we pointed out in this report is that in order to get the regional commercial
zoning district we put in place that it has to come through a PUD process, which means it needs to be
master planned and that would mean that we look at the entire thing regarding road circulation, utility
services so it’s provided in an efficient manner. Not that we just incrementally take down certain parcels
so one of our concerns with this metes and bounds and the administrative subdivision. It’s just advising
the owners that they have to take that into consideration in moving forward with a development proposal
in the future and concerns that they would be able to still exercise that option. Then engineering did
review this too regarding the streets. Access as we talked about. Lyman Boulevard is under the
jurisdiction of Carver County and they are proposing to upgrade this road. Again the plans have not been
approved to date and had bids awarded or anything like that so it’s our, it’s at our discretion we want to
make sure that we have control over that. That we haven’t landlocked a piece of property because that’s
our obligation so when those plans are approved, and there is another easement then we can be removed,
or another access point then we can be removed from that easement and we think that’s important for if
something was to happen and one of the properties changed hands, which has happened and then we’ve
got a landlocked piece of property. Again we talked about utilities. There are utilities to this area. There
is additional utilities talked about for development. We’ve talked about potentially another water tower
somewhere in this area but there are sewer and water available but again when we come in for a master
plan for the rest of this property we would see how that all lays out. In addition the City can collect some
lateral fees. This was put into your report. This same report’s going forward to the City Council.
Typically the, whether someone was to appeal those fees on how those are being applied is really the
jurisdiction of the City Council. It’s put in here for your edification but I’m not recommending that you
go into the discussion on that because that would be something that the City Council would look at.
Again part of this report is to be comprehensive and let the property owner know what kind of, what
issues are coming in the future so that’s why that was put in place and so all the fees regarding charges
and potential fees would be included. Having said that, we didn’t address the stormwater because we do
believe this property will be further subdivided and stormwater fees, the nexus or the time for that
extraction would come when that’s platted. In addition I want to clarify the park fee. The existing home
did pay a park fee. We did put a condition in there regarding Lot D for further development, but if Lot C
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
is also further developed, additional park fees would be required for that so I’ve modified that condition
to say the future development on Lots C and D for park fees would be collected at the time, at the rate in
force at the time of that development. So with that I’ll just kind of go through the compliance table for
the project itself. It does meet the requirements of the zoning district so again we noted in here that
there’s a separation of driveways because Carver County’s upgrading Lyman Boulevard, they will have
the jurisdiction of some of those separation of the driveways. That would be under their jurisdiction.
Again we talked about the fact that Outlot, that the Lot D does not have direct access so we want to make
sure that that cross access is in place and that the City is named on that. So with that I’d be happy to
answer any questions you have. Again we are recommending approval with conditions so with that I’d
take any questions you may have.
Aller: I think the report’s very thorough. I think it is over inclusive which is great. I agree with your
comment regarding the fees. I don’t think that it’s our purview to get involved with the fees. If they want
to bring that up or the applicant wants to bring fees up they should do so with the City and I think we
would be over stepping our jurisdiction as a planning commission in attempting to do that. And I don’t
have any real questions based on the. The applicant doesn’t have anybody coming forward at this time to
develop?
Aanenson: No. I’ll let him answer the questions on why they’re proceeding in this manner, yep.
Aller: Anybody else have any questions for staff?
Hokkanen: I have a question for staff. Kate.
Aanenson: Yes.
Hokkanen: This neighborhood preserve, was that whole neighborhood, was it like the perimeter of it and
the homeowners association?
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Again we did receive quite a few calls because there was a sign on the
property and yeah I think people thought there was pending development on that but again because
there’s no sewer and water being proposed with this development, it doesn’t have the development rights.
It’s also, even putting housing on there would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan at this point so
yes, we did receive calls and no we didn’t notify more than just the HOA’s.
Craig Pabich: Can I ask a couple questions?
Aller: Is this the applicant?
Aanenson: No.
Aller: Well let’s have the applicant step forward, if the applicant wants to speak on the proposal or
request and then we’re going to open the public hearing and you can ask questions sir.
Craig Pabich: Thank you.
Rick Dorsey: Good evening. My name’s Rick Dorsey.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Dorsey.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Rick Dorsey: I have read through, I just got this information on Thursday so I’ve read through it and for
the most part it’s telling what’s happening. The subdivisions are being done just for personal purposes.
Estate planning. Financing purposes. It is agricultural property still and it is being subdivided within the
guidelines of agricultural property. We are not developing anything at this point in time. When
something comes along that will happen at that point in time. I have a couple of comments. Actually I
met with, yesterday with the engineering department or the staff and we discussed a number of things.
One of them dealt with the right-of-way easement. Or excuse me, not right-of-way. The easement for
access to the secondary property. The County has told us that they will provide an access point in the
northwest corner of the property. Whether the road is built or not is really a moot point if we have the
access to the property. That’s just meaning if we need it, something has to, you know we can come off
the road, the County road into the property and if we can do that that’s access so I don’t know that there’s
a need for additional tying in with the City and dealing with access points. Did you find out anything
further? You were going to talk to them.
Shamla: We talked that over with the City Attorney and he believed that we should continue that access
because we do not have a guarantee yet from the County that that will, that access will go in until the
plans are final.
Rick Dorsey: Did you talk to the County?
Shamla: I did talk to the County and they have not finalized the plan on that yet.
Rick Dorsey: And what is holding it up?
Shamla: That I don’t know.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. I’ve been dealing with the County for probably 6 or 8 months in dealing with
Lyman Boulevard upgrading and the County had no problem with the access point and the only thing
that’s held it up is the City and I’m not sure why. It’s an issue between the County and myself. It’s a
county road and they have no problem with the access to it and they’ve sent us a letter already previously
saying that they would provide that. It meets the guidelines for the County so if we need to provide that
information we can do that. We’re not trying to do anything, not looking at trying to do something and
rescind anything. You know there’s other ways to provide access to it without the easement that’s being
put in place that I put in as a private easement. The concern that I have there is if it suddenly becomes a
public easement it may take away value from the property because it no longer is. It’s got a lien that the
City has to accept or agree to relinquish. They may never want to relinquish it. I don’t know what would
happen in the future. Some future date so it’s, we’re not looking to give away land at this point in time
and take away it’s value so to speak. So you know we have been told by the County that there is the
access point which would be to Parcel D at the northwest corner of the property. If we need to further
that we can get further information for that. If that’s an issue still going on in the future I’d want to
modify the easement and provide a, I mean the easement would not have to go all the way down the side
of Parcel C. It could go in 50 feet. 75 feet. Whatever it is to provide access to that other parcel. If
there’s a reason for the City to be connected to it and I wouldn’t have a problem doing that but I don’t
think there’s a need to go 400 feet and 80 feet wide or 60 feet wide or you know the way I did it for
private purposes. The other comment dealing with the right-of-way dedication for Lyman Boulevard
must meet Carver County requirements. There is no plan in place with Carver County at this point in
time so there’s no way that I can agree to meet any right-of-way dedication requirements at this point in
time because there’s no plan. There’s no project. There’s the possibility of a project and I’m being told
that I can’t get the access point at the northwest corner because there is no project so it’s a double, you
know coming back at me both ways so I can’t agree to provide dedication of right-of-way for Lyman
Boulevard and again that’s an issue between myself and Carver County when they do put a proposal
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
together and come to me and say we would like additional right-of-way or not. That will be something
that I believe is my right to discuss with them and it’s not involving the City. With respect to the fees, as
Kate said, those are things that we do have some questions about at this point in time and we tried to get
some of them answered between Thursday when we got it and they’re not completely answered yet so
you know we’ll deal with those between now and the time we go in front of City Council. So I think
there’s really just the two issues that were there that don’t deal with fees and those are my comments on
them and I tried to talk with the engineering department and I didn’t get response back today so this is
news to me what I’m just hearing right now and but I’m certain we can get, we asked the City to send a
letter to the County saying that they don’t have a problem with that access point because that is all the
County is waiting for is their agreement and if the City has an issue we’d like to know what the issue is.
If we just want the touch point, we’re not talking about roads going internal, where they’re going or
anything like that, how they would impact anything. We just need the touch point to provide access
because it’s agricultural property still at this time. Any questions?
Aller: Any questions?
Tennyson: Am I understanding correctly, oh that’s loud. That you’re okay with all of the
recommendations and the conditions except for 1 and 3? 1 being kind of a moot point and.
Rick Dorsey: No. No. They’re all the ones dealing with fees we said are not relevant here tonight.
That’s my understanding, correct?
Aller: Correct.
Rick Dorsey: Which is all of them except I believe 1 and 3 are the only ones we’re dealing with, is that
correct?
Aller: Well substantively I think it’s appropriate for us to deal with the conditions that are on there. The
conditions, the fees as set I don’t think we are responsible or have the ability to come in and negotiate
with you or make comment or recommendation appropriately to the City. The City and the City Council
will decide that portion.
Rick Dorsey: Correct.
Aller: So I think what the commissioner is asking is with regard to the rest of the conditions you’re fine
with those. It’s just 1 and 3 and of course…
Rick Dorsey: Well all the rest of, as I read them quickly all the rest of the conditions I believe are dealing
with fees except for number 1 and number 3. Is that correct?
Tennyson: And you have an issue with 1 and 3.
Rick Dorsey: Well they’re the only two that don’t deal with fees and I do have a question with them or a
concern for them, correct.
Shamla: Commissioners I do have a comment regarding number 1. I did talk to Carver County at the end
of the day today and the plan for Lyman is close to being finalized on the right-of-way dedication and
they’re hoping to get me the numbers for right-of-way dedication prior to the council meeting.
Rick Dorsey: I’ve got no contact with them saying anything of the sort so I mean that’s what I have to go
off of.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aller: Sure, and we have to go off of the report that we receive from them so what I think we’re all doing
is trying to sift through here and think about what we can do that will work for you to move this forward
on your behalf without at the same time prejudicing the City because I certainly understand the City’s
rights and desire to maintain the ability to have those accesses because we don’t know what the County is
going to do and we don’t have, and we’re hearing from them it’s coming and we don’t want to do
anything and put it in stone and make you promises or make decisions based on information that doesn’t
come to light so.
th
Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. Again as we indicated this is going to the City Council on August 19.
We have plenty of time to modify it right. To make some modifications. The applicant also, if we get
that information prior to that meeting and wants extra time can request some extra time. You know push
it back 2 weeks from that council meeting but I think you’ve clearly stated the goal here is to identify
everything that’s coming forward right now in the staff report. Clearly he has objections with a lot of
those but the ones that are in your, kind of your jurisdiction regarding the easement, if you wanted to
comment on that or some of those but I think the rest of it.
Aller: And which leads I think to, and I may be over stepping here, let me know. If we were to approve
and make a motion based on the report and approve as it sits today, based on the information that’s
coming in from the County, or we expect from the County, what alterations would there be and would
that satisfy the applicant.
Aanenson: Yes, and obviously the council can add to, take away based on that information, right.
Aller: They have the ability to do whatever they want to as it relates to them.
Aanenson: Exactly. Right. Right.
Aller: But if we were to move forward and make the motion to approve the Findings of Fact in the report
and move forward, I guess the ultimate question is understanding that we’re expecting the information
from the County and for them to have that access. What does that do with conditions 1? Does it remove
it?
Aanenson: No. I think right now you have to leave everything in there. It may be modified at the
council level, or prior to the council meeting if we get information.
Aller: And that’s my question. At that time.
Aanenson: Right. But if.
Aller: If hypothetically they come in and say yes, we’re going to allow this and we’re going to have the
access point then does that condition become moot or are we going to remove the?
Aanenson: Or it might be modified based on what the City Attorney said. Until the plans and specs have
been approved we don’t have a road so we don’t have that you know so I think we’re just trying to protect
that we don’t have a land locked piece and you know having a driveway access does that constitute a
secondary access so we can certainly look at that and we were aware of that I think after Mr. Dorsey got
the report. But as he said himself it’s kind of a chicken and egg. Is the road, right. So again we were
trying to be comprehensive and for his purposes to show all the potential so he knows going forward what
could be the expectations and hopefully some of these can be resolved before we go to the report to the
planning, or excuse me to the City Council goes out we’ll have more information on that.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Rick Dorsey: I guess the big question I have is how does this impact me, you approving it with
conditions that I don’t agree with or whatever. How does that impact me going forward?
Aller: What happens is the recommendation goes to the City and then they ultimately have the authority.
They can modify. They can reject our recommendation in total if they wanted to.
Rick Dorsey: So they can change the recommendation?
Aanenson: Oh yes.
Aller: Or they can change it and that’s why I just wanted to see so that people out there that are listening
and yourself and the rest of the commissioners and myself understand where we’re headed with it so that
we know what the impact of the information that’s being presented to us is ultimately so it sounds to me,
as I’m kind of working through this, that if we approve this the way it is, that’s your worst case scenario
and you can decide not to go forward with it. Just because you have the right to do it doesn’t mean that
you will.
Rick Dorsey: Right, right.
Aller: And if the fees are too high ultimately you may say I’m going to put it off until I can afford it or
until I have a plan or project in place or not. That’s your business. It’s your property. What we want to
do is make it so that we can protect the City’s rights and at the same time give you the ability to use your
property as best we can to the way you want to.
Rick Dorsey: So from the standpoint of being agricultural property I’m able to subdivide it as we’re
talking about it’s remaining agricultural property, correct?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Rick Dorsey: I mean that’s all remaining the same. I have to meet the criteria that there’s access to all
the parcels from a public road, and does that mean direct access from a public road or?
Aanenson: Correct.
Rick Dorsey: Because there, I mean even if I give it a co-easement on the private easement I’m looking
at, that’s not direct access to a public road necessarily is it?
Aanenson: Well in our opinion having a cross access agreement will give you access to a public street. If
the County has jurisdiction on Powers Boulevard they may not allow, they have the authority to say
where those access points can be. They’ve already given you one, and there’s no additional homes on
that other one so you have an access, but they do have jurisdiction over the access points on Powers.
Rick Dorsey: I guess I’m thinking about Parcel D.
Aanenson: Yep.
Rick Dorsey: You know the cross easement you’re talking about I’m trying to understand how that
provides direct access to the county road because there’s no other road that’s anywhere there. You’re just
saying there’s an easement for one going in and then I’m not understanding that that’s really providing
what you’re asking for.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aanenson: It does meet the intent because right now the only thing you could put on there would be one
home so you have two homes off of a private street which is permitted by ordinance. You may have to
upgrade that street so. That easement.
Rick Dorsey: Oh you’re saying, okay.
Aanenson: We have to be prepared that, the City has to look at it if in fact that, something was to happen
and the property got sold and somebody chose to put a house on there, could they get access to their
property.
Rick Dorsey: I understand that so.
Aanenson: And the control point is you have, the easements in both your names and if for some reason
you didn’t have control of Parcel D and you said you can’t have access to that, then we’ve got a land
locked property.
Rick Dorsey: Right, I couldn’t sell it anyway that way but irrelevant at that. So if we talk between now
and the City Council meeting, we talk to the County and they say they’re fine with the access point onto
Lyman Boulevard then this is a moot point.
Aanenson: Right. But there’s other ways to get control. Sometimes there’s bankruptcy issues. We’ve
had these happen in the city before.
Rick Dorsey: I understand that but my question is though if the County says it’s okay then we don’t, this
goes away?
Aanenson: We have to satisfy the City Attorney, yeah.
Aller: I don’t think planning is ready to sit here and say that the City Attorney and the City Council is
going to guarantee you that if that happens that it’s just going to go away. There may be a different
condition.
Rick Dorsey: But this is, okay. And City Council can change the condition is what I’m getting at.
Aanenson: Correct.
Rick Dorsey: So if the County says I’m not locked into this scenario if I get another access point to the
parcel. They can say we don’t need that one because you have one.
Aanenson: Well we don’t know what the conditions are going to be. What the.
Rick Dorsey: I’m saying if we get it, it can disappear? This isn’t locked in stone that I have to provide a
cross easement on this property.
Aanenson: Or if you stated there was another mechanism to make that happen. I’m not sure what that’d
be. I leave it more open ended too than just the County saying you know, they may want more specifics
of the timing and that sort of thing so, I don’t want to just say getting a letter from the County is enough.
I’m not going to speak for the City Attorney. I just know that when we reviewed this that was the
recommendation.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Rick Dorsey: Okay. And the City Council is who will make that determination…
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Rick Dorsey: That’s what I want to know.
Aller: Yes.
Rick Dorsey: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Thank you very much. Okay we’ve had the applicant speak. I’m going to open the public hearing.
If anyone wishes to come forward, ask questions of staff preferably.
Craig Pabich: So I got the short straw at the Sunday barbeque yesterday.
Aller: If you could state your name and address for the record.
Craig Pabich: Craig Pabich, 9161 River Rock Drive. I’m part of the LDK development in the Preserve
and just a couple questions on what was mailed and what’s in the report here that was discussed here
earlier. Specifically the access via Mills Drive. I’m assuming we all know that Mills Drive really does
not exist today. There is no thoroughfare. I think somebody made a comment that’s the access through to
LDK development. There is no access to Lyman from the LDK development. I get to do the 7 1/2
minute drive all the way around, which is fine quite frankly and that’s one of the things that I want to
make clear to those of you here is as a property owner in that LDK development, that’s one of the things
that I like about the development is that I don’t have a thoroughfare through to Lyman. People have to
drive the access into the development. It keeps the development residential. Quiet. Nice. The other
difference regarding the card that was mailed and the drawing that was on the staff report, if you look at
Mills Drive and how it’s written, or how it looks on the map, it actually comes across the back of it looks
like 4 or 5 different property lines. One of, my property is the second one in the middle. Right there so
there’s like 4 or 5 houses or homes right there so if you’re looking at future development or future build
out of that road you now have 4 or 5 homes with River Rock Drive in front and Mills Drive directly in my
back yard which not really keen on something like that as a property owner there.
Aanenson: Can I clarify again?
Craig Pabich: Sure.
Aanenson: The intention was just as an access would be this street going through.
Craig Pabich: Okay.
Aanenson: To be clear the intention for all this property over here is actually the continuation of Bluff
Creek Drive over to Powers Boulevard.
Craig Pabich: And that’s the way I understood it when I purchased the home as well.
Aanenson: Correct. That’s the City’s desires.
Craig Pabich: Okay. Then the other question I do have, just out of curiosity, it’s come up a couple times
that this property that’s being discussed is zoned agricultural, zoned agricultural and then as a property
owner when I got the mailing and went to the website there’s a lot of discussion about zoning
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
commercial. Getting into almost specifics on department stores and layouts and architecture, hence why
you probably got a number of calls so I’m just curious as to why that was done. Not that I think it’s a bad
thing. I think an all inclusive or you know over communicating is always a good idea but in respect to the
property owner hearing him say it’s still zoned agricultural, sometimes I feel like okay what are we doing
here? Is it still going to continue to be zoned or we don’t want to discuss that right now or what’s the
future plan?
Aanenson: Sure. It is agriculturally zoned right now. It has the ultimate land use, when the City updated
the comprehensive plan starting in 2008, we did look at a potential lifestyle center regional mall in this
area kind of complimenting the downtown so that is a potential. Certainly when those plans come
forward we will look at the transition between that development and the houses that are around there.
That anybody buying in that area, you know hopefully you’re getting advice to check with the City on
what’s going in there. And then also it does have the potential for even for a nice office park there which
also we’re looking at the transitions between all those. Not only to the east and west but also there’s
houses on the other side of Lyman too and to buffer those houses too.
Craig Pabich: Okay and just out of curiosity what’s the timeframe of that estimation?
Aanenson: You’d have to ask the property owners, yeah. But our goal, just like you’re here now learning
all this, we want to keep all our residents informed.
Craig Pabich: Yeah, that’s great.
Aanenson: So any future development plans, when this does get subdivided, you would be noticed again
and have an opportunity. It’d be much probably a longer process to kind of go through the different.
Craig Pabich: And typically what does the City try to, how far ahead do you try to get ahead of that?
Aanenson: Well it’s development driven so we put some planning in place so it’s really up to when
somebody wants to come forward with a development plan, and certainly we you know would, once we
have kind of a plan in the works then we would certainly get the neighborhood involved in that process.
Craig Pabich: Okay, great. Thank you. That’s all I have.
Aller: Thank you. Appreciate it. Would anyone else like to come up and speak on the matter? Seeing
no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. I think the fees are the fees
which are the conditions that are placed on. If the council would have something that it still wants to
change they can do that. They can go up and so, as far as moving it forward it sounds like that there’s
information to come which will be impacting this at a later time but to be able to move it forward, we can
do so by approving the proposed plan tonight and getting it before the City so that the information can be
gathered and they can work out a resolution or get additional time before the City. Does anybody have
any comments on that idea or?
Hokkanen: I feel like we’re missing a lot of information.
Aller: That would alter this. And I do believe that we need to protect the City’s position. If we’re going
to recommend that the City do something it should be keeping us in the position of having the flexibility.
Colopoulos: What would be the down side of waiting for that information?
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aller: If the applicant wants to withdraw he can withdraw or he can ask for additional time but I think it’s
before us tonight and I don’t know the down side. I think that’s more of a question for the applicant and I
think, and I think they know what they’re going to do with the property and we don’t.
Nelson: Do we think that that information is going to come in time for the City Council and then at that
point, even if we were to push this forward then they’re going to be able to modify it however based on
that new information.
Aller: I think the expectation is that they’re going to have it and they’ll talk about it well in advance and
if they don’t come to an agreement then it will be pushed forward. They’ll ask for additional time or the
applicant will take another route and do something else with his property. And so with that, any other
comments, questions? Would anybody wish to make a motion based on.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Metes
and Bounds Subdivision creating two lots subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the
Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aanenson: …modification. I just want to clarify that the fees on number 9 and that the existing home on
Lot C paid the park fees. I just want to clarify that so future developments on Lots C and D would pay,
would be required, if we can modify that condition just for clarity. Because in the future Outlot C would
not be exempt from park fees. I just want to be clear.
Aller: So a second line then in item 9 to say Lot C and D.
Aanenson: Correct. If that’s amenable.
Aller: It is. My understanding is from everyone that it was the intent of the parties back when they were
doing planning. I think that’s the information that we have before us. So with that modification, the
motion would be to approve the Findings of Fact and Recommendations including 9 with the alteration of
Lots C and D will require park fees to be paid at the rate in force at the time of development approval. I
have a motion. Do I have a second?
Nelson: I’ll second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Comments or questions.
Undestad moved, Nelson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the Metes and Bounds Subdivision of 1551 Lyman Boulevard creating two lots,
subject to the following conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
1. The right-of-way dedication for Lyman Boulevard must meet Carver County’s requirements.
2. The property is being subdivided and is subject to Collector and Arterial Roadway Impact fees.
However, at this time there are too many unknown variables to accurately determine these fees.
These fees will be calculated and collected when a development plan is submitted to the City.
3. Record a cross-access agreement for Lots C and D therefore the City shall be named on the
easement document to ensure that the access easement remains intact until some other access is
provided to Lot D.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
4. Parcel C is subject to a $13,533.31 sewer and water connection fee at the time the property
connects to sewer and/or water. The connection fee shall be subject to 6% per year interest
beginning November 14, 2005.
5. Parcel D is subject to a $54,268.55 sewer and water connection fee at the time the property
connects to sewer and/or water. The connection fee shall be subject to 6% per year interest
beginning November 14, 2005.
6. Parcels C and D are subject to the Sanitary Sewer Hookup Fee and the Watermain Hookup Fee at
the time of connection to the utility at the rates in effect at that time.
7. The property is being subdivided and is subject to SWMP fees. However, at this time there are
too many unknown variables to accurately determine these fees. These fees will be calculated
and collected when a development plan is submitted to the City.
8. Upon approval of the Metes and Bounds Subdivision, the applicant shall pay a GIS fee in the
amount of $45 ($25 for the plat plus 2 parcels at $10/parcel).
9. The existing Lot C paid park fees with the building permit. Future development on Lots C and D
will require that park fees be paid at the rate enforced at the time of development approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO
AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
CHANHASSEN HILLS, HIDDEN VALLEY, NORTH BAY, SPRINGFIELD ADDITION,
AUTUMN RIDGE, LYNMORE ADDITION, THE PRESERVE, TOWNHOMES AT CREEKSIDE
AND TROTTERS RIDGE. PLANNING CASE 2012-04-5.
Generous: This is group five. Thank you Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This is the fifth round of
Planned Unit Developments that we’re reviewing. This is actually the largest group that we have with 9
th
subdivisions involved. These items will be going forward to City Council on August 13. As we pointed
out before the City’s been working on these projects for over a year trying to get things straighten up.
These developments were approved and the design standards were incorporated as a part of the
development contracts or development plans for the project. They were rezoned to planned unit
development residential, however none of those standards were included in the zoning ordinance. What
we’re trying to do is take those standards and putting in the zoning ordinance so as people go forward and
develop their property or use them they’ll have the standards in the zoning document. Like I said a
st
neighborhood meeting was held on June 21 at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. Approximately 30
people showed up to this one so that was our biggest group. Meeting notices for that neighborhood
meeting as well as the public hearing was sent out to all the property owners. We found out also through
this process that some of the homes may not meet the standard. However we’re not trying to make them
go in and remove anything or build anything. We just want to know, them to know in the future that
these are the standards. As we told people that, when people called in for the standards we often had to
run down into the city’s basement to find out what was actually approved for the project so we’re trying
to clarify that and put it in one location so that not only the City but anyone who wants the information
can find it. And as part of this process we’re not trying to up zone any of the properties so. As I said
there’s 9 developments included as part of this. These were all in southern Chanhassen or south of
Highway 5. They are Autumn Ridge, Trotters Ridge, Lynmore Addition, Townhomes at Creekside,
Preserve at Bluff Creek, Chanhassen Hills, Springfield, North Bay and Hidden Valley and we’re
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
reviewing them, we’ll try to bring them individually as part of the public hearing process. Give you the
basic information and then if there’s any discussion that people can have it at that time and then at the end
we’d have a motion for all of them. The first project is Chanhassen Hills. It’s PUD #85-06. It was
approved in 1985. The underlying zoning for this development is Single Family Residential. Again this
is located just off of Waters Edge Drive and Highway 212. It’s all single family detached housing and
again under the PUD there’s unique standards that were used as a part of the original approval and that’s
why we couldn’t rezone them to single family residential. There are 72 single family detached units that
were approved as a part of this project. The minimum lot size is 11,200 square feet. For comparison the
single family residential district the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Minimum lot widths are 80
feet and you’ll see as a part of the plan they’re pretty standard there. In the RSF district it’s 90 feet and
the minimum lot depth is 125 feet which is also what is in the RSF district. Setbacks are similar to the
single family residential districts which are 30 front and rear and 10 sides and hard surface coverage is
25%, which is again what the RSF district would have so it’s the minimum lot requirements that make
this development unique. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD ordinance amending this project.
So with that I’d answer any questions.
Aller: Questions, comments. None. Then we’ll open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward,
close the public hearing.
Generous: You know I think our neighborhood meeting and that notice really helped because we have
had a few calls for this but no one comes to these meetings. The next development is Hidden Valley. It’s
PUD #85-11. It was also approved in 1985. The underlying zoning for this project is R-4 which is mixed
low density residential district. However it should be noted that as a portion of this there is a church on
the northern tip of this development. In the late 90’s there was an effort to amend the PUD to permit
office and medium density residential uses. As part of the neighborhood meeting we had inadvertently
pulled that information in but it was never approved so we pulled it out as we’re bringing it forward to
you and again we’re not trying to up zone any of these projects. We just want to continue the standards
that were adopted originally so. Again this project is located south of Highway 5. It’s adjacent to Lake
Drive East and it has single family residential housing in it. Pretty standard. On the south end is Rice
Marsh Lake so the hard cover standards within the shoreland district which is just the very bottom of this
project, it’s a 25% lot coverage but as part of the subdivision they also made those lots bigger and so as
you go farther north the lots get a little smaller and so, and that would go up to 30%. However the
minimum lot size in this development is 7,500 square feet. Minimum lot width is 70 feet and the
minimum lot depth are 90 feet so you see they’ve deviated downward from the RSF district, or even the
R-4 district. Front setback is 25 feet and this is one of those developments where they had alternating 5
and 10 foot setback requirements so it’s a 15 foot separation between structures. Rear setbacks are 30
feet and wetland setback is 75 feet which was a standard at the time, and like I said the hard surface
coverage is 25% in the shoreland district and it’s 30% in the non-shoreland district. Now I told you, this
parcel right here has an existing church on it. As part of the amendment in the late 90’s they made church
a permitted use under the PUD. We’re continuing that and so the only permitted use on that property
right now is a church and the standards are 50 foot building setbacks from all sides, and then 25 foot
parking setbacks from Lake Drive, 30 feet from the interior so that would be the back and the side and
then 25 feet from Hidden Court. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD amendment for Hidden
Valley.
Aller: Open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. We’re going to
move onto Lynmore?
Generous: North Bay. I don’t know how this got out of whack but. And this is one that I actually have
to amend the PUD ordinance that you have. PUD 95-01. It was approved in 1995. The underlying
zoning for this development is RLM which is Residential Low and Medium Density district. Part of the
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
reason for that zoning is that they maintained a large area of common open space which is consistent with
the RLM District. These are zero lot line townhouses so they have smaller lot areas. Again there’s a
large wetland complex in the southwest corner of this property with additional open space in the middle
and around the perimeter. You can see that this development also has a beachlot for residents within the
project. And if you go Reflections on Lake Riley is the development immediately to the west of that and
that’s under construction now. They’re in their second phase so Lakeview Road East has been extended
and now they have a second way into this neighborhood. There are 76 detached townhouses as a part of
this and a beachlot was permitted as part of Conditional Use Permit-99-1. The minimum lot size is 2,600
square feet and that’s just the area immediately around each of the units and then again there’s common
open space. Minimum lot widths are 28 feet and minimum lot depth is 75 feet. I won’t go through all the
setbacks but they’re pretty standard. Interior setbacks are all zero. They can build to the lot line.
However because of fire code there are some setback requirements. Hard surface coverage for this is
50% because this property was guided for high density residential and so that was consistent with the
PUD standards. The individual lots do exceed that 50% but if you look at the project in it’s entirety it’s
under 50% site coverage. Staff is recommending approval of this and if you look at the ordinance on
page 1 under permitted uses, and this is something the City Attorney pointed out to me. We have the
permitted uses in this zone shall be detached townhouses and their ancillary uses. It should say accessory
uses. And then that last sentence if there’s a question as to whether or not a use meets a definition the
planning director shall make that interpretation. We’re deleting that segment of the code. Technically
interpretation is the purview of the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments so
subject to that change we’re recommending approval of that ordinance amendment. So if there’s any
questions I’d be happy to answer that.
Aller: Any questions? Open the public hearing. And seeing no one come forward, closing the public
hearing and moving forward.
Generous: Springfield. This is PUD-93-06. It was approved in 1993. There’s also PUD-00-03. That’s
the Summerfield Addition which is a small segment in the north central part of this project. The
underlying zoning for this development is Single Family Residential. Again this small area here was the
Summerfield and then the rest of this is Springfield. Separate property owners. This is the old Pruitt
property and they had chickens running into the neighborhood and so everyone was, and staff was happy
when that went away because we were getting, having problems with it.
Aanenson: Getting chickens out of the pool.
Generous: This development is again divided by, for hard surface coverage is divided by land that’s
within the shoreland management district. Has a 25% hard cover. The rest of the development and
basically Springfield Drive is the dividing line between those two areas. Again all single family detached
housing. They do have a private park area within the development right off Springfield Drive and
Summerfield Drive. There are 135 single family houses within the developments and there are some
unique circumstances at Lots 3 and 6 of Block 1 are limited to a 2 car garage and that was part of the
original approval so minimum lot size is 11,000 square feet which was the PUD standard. Minimum lot
width are 90 feet and minimum lot depth is 100 feet. Setbacks are standard 30 front and rear and 10 sides
and Lyman Boulevard because it was an arterial road has a 50 foot setback requirement. Again the 25
and the 30 percent hard cover depending on whether or not they’re in the shoreland district. Summerfield
Addition has 10 single family homes. Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 are limited to 2 car garages because they
were smaller lots and at the time they specified that. Lot requirements again are 11,000 square feet with a
minimum frontage of 90 feet and minimum depth of 100 feet. Lyman Boulevard has a 50 foot setback.
There are two lots that access out of that and they share a common driveway. Front setbacks are 30 feet,
rear are 30 feet and sides are 10 feet. This was a 25% hard cover area and limited to 3 stories and 40
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
feet, which is a little bit higher than most standards. Staff is recommending approval of the Springfield
and Summerfield development or amendment to the PUD.
Aller: Questions, comments. Open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public
hearing and we move on.
Generous: Autumn Ridge, I don’t even have that one. Now I’ve got two. Autumn Ridge is a townhouse
development. PUD #93-05. It was approved in 1993. The underling zoning for this development is R-8
which is medium density residential. Again this is south of Highway 5 and west of Galpin Boulevard.
It’s just west of the Chanhassen, or what is it? Bluff Creek Elementary School. To the west is the
Chanhassen Nature Preserve which the City actually received this stuff as part of the development for this
property. Again it’s a townhouse development. They do have some twinhomes on the south side but it’s
mostly townhouses and they’ve made them into condominiums on the north end of the project. There are
14 townhouses. A total of 28 units. Those are the twins or twin homes. Two three units which, seven
four units, one six unit and nine eight unit townhouses as a part of this development. The minimum lot
size is 2,250 square feet. Minimum lot width was 30 feet and lot depth is 84 feet. Again this is a zero
setback requirement from the property lot lines but it is, they have perimeter setbacks of 50 feet. Hard
surface coverage is 30% but this included all the wetlands to the west of it as a part of the original
approval so. And the only requirement is that they have a minimum 20 foot driveway length. Staff is
recommending approval, and this one had the right language in it of the PUD amendment. Autumn Ridge
and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: If there are no questions, open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, closing the public
hearing.
Generous: I flipped it over inadvertently. Lynmore Addition. Here we go. PUD #98-01 is approved in
1998. The underlying zoning for this development is single family residential and this property is
adjacent to the tributary for Bluff Creek so there are some unique areas that we were trying to preserve.
It’s right off of Galpin Boulevard at Bridal Creek Circle. And again they’re single family homes and I
believe the last house or this house site came in for a development and there’s one left as a part of this
project. In the future if the property to the north develops there is an access easement that’s provided on
the west end of this, the most northwesterly property there. It’s 6 single family detached housings and lot
requirements are 12,854 square feet but they must average 15,000 square feet and because of the big tails
on the easterly one they didn’t have a problem. Minimum lot width is 90 feet and minimum depth is 125
feet. Setback is 25 feet for the front, except for Lot 6 who had a variance approved to go to 20 feet so
they could have a front porch. That was the existing home on the property when it came in for
development. Side setbacks are 10 feet, rear setback is 30 feet. Like I stated, the Bluff Creek corridor
runs along the northeast and east side of this project so there’s a 40 foot setback requirement from that
and they also are required to show that on their plans so it’s easy for us to enforce and there’s a 30% hard
coverage requirement with this development. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD, and this
ordinance was correct when they sent it to me so no changes on that and I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Aller: Hearing none we’ll open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public
hearing.
Generous: Next is the Preserve at Bluff Creek. This is PUD #06-14. It was approved in 2006. The
underling zoning is RLM which is residential low and medium density district. This is right next to the
subdivision that we looked at, the Metes and Bounds subdivision property. You can see Mills Drive
which is that secondary access point. These are all single family detached houses but they’re on smaller
lots. This is 93 single family homes were approved as a part of this project. The minimum lot size is
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
8,000 square feet. They have, we have perimeter setbacks are 50 feet and front setback is 25 feet on the
garage side and on corner lots they get a 20 foot setback on the second street frontage. It’s a 5 and 10 foot
setback requirement with the minimum 15 foot separation between buildings and the rear lots, rear
setback is 15,000 square feet. This was a unique development in that we determined what the maximum
site coverage for each lot was and that’s so they can go up to 3,631 square feet. It may be over 40% of
the lot. There’s a wetlands buffer of 16 1/2 feet with our standard 40 foot wetland setback from the buffer
and the Bluff Creek zone goes on the west side of this project down here in I believe we walked that
before. There’s a 40 foot setback from that and all the houses were platted so that they could comply with
that. Staff is recommending approval of the PUD ordinance. We have this one right when we sent it to
you too. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions and we’re recommending approval.
Aller: Questions? Hearing none, open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward, closing the
public hearing and we’ll move on.
Generous: Townhomes at Creekside. This is also a townhouse development. It’s PUD #96-02. It was
approved in 1996. The underlying zoning is R-8 which is mixed medium density residential district. It’s
located on Coulter Boulevard and Stone Creek Drive. It’s Andrew Court is actually the access into it
which is a private street. The east branch of Bluff Creek runs along the east side of this property and
Bluff Creek runs through the southern portion of this development. There are a townhouse development.
Private street to access it. There are 25 total townhouses. The minimum lot size is 1,950 square feet.
Minimum lot width is 20.5 feet and minimum lot depth is 91 feet. Interior wise there’s zero setbacks
from the lot development and so because of the private drive they have adequate space for the driveways.
There’s a 30% hard cover over the entire development which includes a large open space. Staff is
recommending approval and this is one where we have to amend the permitted uses. In the staff report it
was correct but in the ordinance there’s a reference if there’s a question as to whether or not use meets the
definition the planning director shall make that interpretation is being removed. With that staff is
recommending approval and be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Aller: Hearing no questions we’ll open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the
public hearing.
Generous: Trotters Ridge. It’s a single family residential development on Galpin Boulevard. It’s PUD
#93-02. It was approved in 1993. There’s some interesting history on this but I won’t go into it.
Underlying zoning is single family residential district and so they’re all single family detached housing.
There was an existing house within this development on the west side of Bridle Creek Trail just as you
come in and to the north. The Chanhassen Nature Preserve is to the north of this and there’s a trail system
that runs along the north side of this that goes around that whole thing so it’s a nice, pretty nice setup and
then in Galpin Boulevard there’s another trail. You can just see it here. Extensive wetlands within the
project. There is significant topographic changes as part of this. This is an example, early example of our
tree preservation ordinance where we were preserving individual trees and we discovered that that doesn’t
work very well. It makes it very difficult for people to build their houses so we moved away from that
but it was a learning experience for us all. There are 49 single family homes within the project. The
minimum lot size is 11,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 90 feet and minimum lot depth is 100 feet.
Front setbacks are 25 feet except for Lot 15, Block 2 which was the existing home and that has a 20 foot
setback. Side setbacks are 10 feet. There’s a 30 foot rear setback and the wetland setbacks varied and so
we took what was approved originally and put it into a table. Hard surface coverage is 30% for the entire
development and this is one again where the staff report deleted it but the ordinance that was printed had
that if, under permitted uses if there’s a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition the
planning director shall make that interpretation. We’re deleting that language from the ordinance as we
move it forward. We’ll clean that up for City Council. So we’re recommending approval of the PUD for
Trotters Ridge.
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Aller: Hearing no questions, open the public hearing. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public
hearing.
Generous: And with that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the attached
ordinances rezoning all the planned unit developments that we’ve presented tonight, with the
modifications as specified to delete either ancillary and change that to accessory or make the
interpretation not the planning director. And adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations for each
of the projects. And with that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Okay for this is our fifth time around. I don’t think I have any questions. I’m comfortable with
the fact that we have no up zoned. That we are trying to provide individuals with a greater opportunity to
be able to come in and see what the uses are available when they want to do something with their property
so.
Aanenson: I was just going to add too I think at the neighborhood meetings we did…so people wanted
their lot surveys. See what they were so those emailed out so like Bob said I think having people at those
neighborhood meetings was really a chance to make aerial photos or their subdivisions so give them an
opportunity to find their house and ask more specific questions so I think that was a very positive
experience.
Aller: Which is probably why the room isn’t full with people coming forward during public hearings, and
I think that is another good thing that I think planning did was when we split these up it gives us an
opportunity to get out to more people and have them get the opportunity to hear what’s going on with
their property.
Hokkanen: I’d just like to recognize it’s a lot of work and good job.
Aller: So would anyone like take on this motion?
Hokkanen: I’ll try. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the attached
ordinance rezoning the Planned Unit Development Residential to incorporate the development standards
for, I’m just going to list them all off. Autumn Ridge, Chanhassen Hills, Hidden Valley, Lynmore
Addition, North Bay, Preserve at Bluff Creek, Springfield and Summerfield Second Addition,
Townhomes at Creekside, Trotters Ridge and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendations
with the modifications.
Aller: Thank you. Having that.
Thomas: Second her motion.
Aller: Motion and second. Any further discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the attached ordinance with modifications rezoning the Planned Unit Development
Residential to incorporate the development standards for Autumn Ridge, Chanhassen Hills, Hidden
Valley, Lynmore Addition, North Bay, Preserve at Bluff Creek, Springfield and Summerfield
Second Addition, Townhomes at Creekside, Trotters Ridge and adopt the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendations.
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Generous: Thank you. In the next group we’re actually rezoning some properties to single family
residential. The final.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated June 19, 2012 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Aanenson: So we did do the PUD’s for the group, must be group 4 that went to the City Council. The
City Council also looked at the PUD for the, there were changes there in the, how we process the
applications regarding Findings of Fact and the public hearings so that was approved. Also the non-
conforming lots. Those are specifically related to the shoreland district and then also sign illumination
and temporary signs. You had approved those before but we kind of grouped those together to go all at
once so those were approved. And then they also did approve the Lakeside beachlot which we appreciate
th
you coming in Lisa so we can get that, so they could enjoy that for the 4. They were very thankful for
that so that’s it for the update.
Aller: Any other business? Motion to adjourn.
Aanenson: Oh, can I give you one other item before you adjourn?
Aller: Sure.
Aanenson: Just kind of ongoing business. Our next regular meeting, which we’ve had the request the last
year was, is National Night Out. The City has a very high participation level in that and actually last year
the, all the department heads went out to neighborhoods and I was down at North Bay one. A couple of
neighborhoods. I went to three neighborhoods so it’s nice. We usually go out with an officer so it’s a
nice opportunity for us to meet too so we will not be having a meeting. I encourage all of you, if you
have a neighborhood get together that you participate in that and things that you hear we’d like to get
feedback on. Concerns or issues or if things are going right or whatever we’d like to hear about that. We
st
do have items for our August 21 meeting. I think the first one on there may not be in. We thought they
were putting some stuff together. There’s some exciting things happening down there but I think they’re
working on something else but we certainly will have a next iteration of the rezonings. And then we do
st
have something, did we have something else in on that that was going to come in for that August 21.
We have something else on that. This went out before it went to press and I don’t have the latest update
on that but there’s something else. We are meeting with some other developments. We will have a
couple other things yet this fall. Then the other thing, oh the Canine Club. That was one before and
st
came off and so that will be back on for the 21, thank you. I knew there was something else. Thank
you. Yeah, they have til Friday but we believe that they’re targeting that date because they want to get
that going before the fall. And I hope you’ve been driving around looking at the Goodwill going up and
Primrose. They had their ground breaking so that’s exciting. Then also we do have that tour planned
th
with the Environmental Commission again and the Park Commission on the 12 so we’re kind of putting
together some ideas. I think some of the things we’re going to look at is the tree preservation area,
wetland, shoreland sort of things. We’re talking about maybe ending up somewhere where we could kind
of maybe roast hotdogs or have a marshmallow roast or something like that. Kind of all get together so
we’ll hopefully have good weather on that night so hopefully we can all attend but if there’s anything that
you have on your agenda that gosh, I’d love to learn more about this or maybe we can take a tour of this.
Certainly we like to visit things we’ve done recently so we try to hit those on our way but then also
provide that educational component like we did last time walking. Can you be with us Kathleen do you
think?
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 17, 2012
Thomas: We shall see.
Aanenson: We won’t make you walk too far, or maybe it might be a good thing to walk, we’ll see.
Thomas: We shall see. Yeah it will be close so.
st
Aanenson: Anyway so we’ll see you at our next meeting on the 21 then, our regular meeting so that’s all
I had.
Aller: Great, thank you. Motion to adjourn?
Thomas moved, Nelson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
26