PC Minutes 07-17-2012Chanhassen 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