PC Minutes 06-18-2013
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 18, 2013
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Kim Tennyson, Lisa Hokkanen, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen
Withrow, and Steven Weick
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
PUBLIC HEARING:
CAMDEN RIDGE: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) TO
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 36.2 ACRES INTO 32 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, 26 TWINHOMES LOTS,
AND 10 OUTLOTS; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1500
PIONEER TRAIL. APPLICANT: LENNAR. OWNER: BRUCE JEURISSEN, PLANNING
CASE 2013-13.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a Camden Ridge
development. It’s Planning Case number 2013-13. The developer is U.S. Home Corporation and the
owner of the property is Bruce B. Elmer Family Farm, LLC. I should point out that for tonight’s meeting
I did have two corrections to the staff report and I put them out for everyone. On page 12 we revised the
square footages and the number of homes. When we were putting this together we had three estimates for
the shoreland district and we got a final one so all the numbers are consistent in that page. And then on
page 29 under planning condition number 3 we changed the word conservation to preservation. That’s
the only changes that we’re making in the staff report right now. And I also did hand out to you a letter
from Chadwick Group Inc. to the Planning Commission and City Council. It’s representative of the
property owner and he wanted to make sure that this got on the record so.
Aller: Yes, and we have received that item as well as the two changes and the item from John Chadwick,
the Chadwick Group Inc. has been received and read and will become part of the record.
Generous: Okay, thank you. Location of the property is 1500 Pioneer Trail. The current farm access is
via, off of Pioneer Trail. There’s a driveway that comes under Highway 212 and then goes into the farm.
As part of this development they are going to provide access from the northwest via River Rock Drive
South which will come off Bluff Creek Boulevard so that will be the future access to the property. The
existing access will not serve any of the development. It will be retained for I think farm access to the
property for the southern site. Part of the site. It’s located just to the west of Highway 212 and it’s in the,
we call it the 2005 MUSA area which I’ll explain later. The southern half of the site is in the Bluff Creek
Primary Zone. This is a zone that was established by the City in 1996 and it’s an area that the City’s
trying to preserve for permanent open space. The site was actively farmed up to last fall. I don’t know if
they’re farming it this year or not. There are woodland area that runs through the northwest corner of the
site and there’s a significant drop on the property. There’s over 75 feet from the northern property line
down to the creek which runs through the southern third of the property. The property is currently zoned
A2 which Agricultural Estate District. As part of this development they are rezoning it. The property is
guided for medium density residential. Residential medium density uses which permits density of 4 to 8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
units per acre on a net basis. The proposal, they’re requesting a rezoning of the property from
Agricultural Estate to Planned Unit Development Residential. As part of the PUD we would develop
standards for the property. The subdivision review would be for 32 single family home sites and 26
twinhome sites. And the conditional use permit is for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. All the properties that are within that district must go through this process. Again the existing
conditions. Like I said there’s a 70 foot elevation change from the northern part of the site down to the
creek. The farmstead is located just to the west of Highway 212 on the southeastern part of the site.
Access currently is via Pioneer Trail which is this Outlot D in the Jeurissen Addition and then they have
an easement under the 212 corridor and the road continues up to the north. Bluff Creek runs diagonally
through the property. It has a nice jog in it. It’s very wooded on both sides of the creek. And the Bluff
Creek primary zone is shown surrounding the developable area of the property. In 2006 the City
approved 146 unit townhouse development for this site for Liberty at Creekside. However that approval
expired in 2012 because they didn’t extend it any further. This property, there are many issues that we
looked at in reviewing this property. There was an Alternate Urban Areawide Review that was done for
this entire area. There were assessments for city improvements that were done for Bluff Creek
Boulevard. There are access issues regarding this property. The Bluff Creek corridor and the primary
zone are within this property. Because of the creek there’s a shoreland district regulations that they have
to follow, both the City and the DNR. And also there’s some discussion the property owner will need to
provide additional analysis to determine whether the southern half or a third of the property is within the
Bluff Creek primary zone or not. And also to address interim access and use issues. The Alternate Urban
Areawide Review was done, it looks at cumulative impacts of development and what the City did was
look at the 2005 MUSA area, which is that area bounded by Powers Boulevard on the east, Lyman
Boulevard on the north, Audubon Road on the west and Pioneer Trail on the south. We took all the land
uses that were in there and looked at what their impacts were to the environment and to the infrastructure
system and any development that comes through must be consistent with that review and meet the
mitigation requirements that were spelled out in that. What one of the major points of the Bluff Creek or
the 2005 AUAR was that we were looking at minimizing the number of creek crossings in this area and
we were hoping to maintain just one creek crossing for public streets. In 2005 a feasibility study was
done for the MUSA, the urban services that were going to be needed in this area. Now the second part is
assessments. As part of that 2005 urban area development the City installed Bluff Creek Boulevard sewer
and water services to serve this area and each of the properties within the 2005 MUSA area were assessed
that property. At that time Town and Country Homes, the previous owner or developer for Liberty at
Creekside agreed to the assessments so we’re going forward under that assumption. Access to this
property is via Bluff Creek Boulevard. However the connection within the Preserve has not been
dedicated yet so it is a condition of approval for the Preserve development but they haven’t platted this
area and so we don’t have it as a dedication so we need to resolve that access issue before this project can
go forward. As part of the Pioneer Pass development the City did pick up a corner of this property for
access purposes to provide that little connection and also to preserve the Bluff Creek corridor and provide
drainage and utility easements. Sewer and water services will be coming down this corridor as a part of
the development. A big thing in this is the Bluff Creek Watershed District. This runs through most of
the city from up on Highway 41 down to the Minnesota River valley. In 1996 the City completed a Bluff
Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. This looked at all the environmental features
within that corridor and it tried to develop educational and infrastructure improvements that would be
necessary to help preserve this corridor for the City. It’s a significant corridor in the city and 2 years later
the City developed a Bluff Creek Overlay District ordinance which is in Chapter, Article XXXI of the
City Code to actually provide the protection for the corridor and design requirements that developments
must provide. The primary one is a 40 foot setback from the primary zone boundary. The first 20 feet of
which are a buffer zone so it’s supposed to remain in it’s natural state. Within this development, it’s
within the shoreland district and it’s covered by both City shoreland requirements and the DNR shoreland
requirements. Under the DNR shoreland requirements 50% of the land within the shoreland area must be
preserved as permanent open space and this example shows that the City is proposing that Outlot B be
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
dedicated or donated for open space purposes or a preservation easement recorded over it. This just
reiterates a 40 foot setback and then there’s a little buffer zone there. The shoreland district extends 300
feet on either side of the creek so it’s a 600 foot corridor plus the width of the creek. Hard cover within
the shoreland district is limited to 25%. We had the developer’s engineer calculate all the hard cover that
they’re proposing only comes to 17.9% so they’re within that calculation, and the total shoreland area is
17.4 acres in size so that’s the number that I corrected on page 12 of the report for everyone. Under the
PUD where the City will actually be rezoning this property and the PUD provides all the development
standards that will be followed, if there’s anything unique to the property. It will permit the 32 single
family homes and the 26 twinhomes. The development standards include an intent, the permitted uses,
setbacks, lot coverage and minimum lot requirements and they’re all spelled out within the report and are
included as an ordinance attached to the development. What’s unique about this, to maintain the 25%
hard cover within the shoreland district and also the 35% within the overall development we have
established a maximum hard cover for each of the lots and so as they go forward we’ll be able to monitor
that when they come in for their building permits so we’ve used it on the Preserve and it’s pretty
consistent system to go forward with and people understand it very easily and when they develop that
they took the house pads that the developer already had and then added driveways and put in patios and
sidewalk areas and the little fluff area if you will so that people could do some expansions in the future.
So we believe that it will adequately address the needs of the residents that move into this development.
As I stated the subdivision proposal is for 32 single family lots and 26 townhouse lots. They area
numerous outlots that are in here but all of them will be for public purposes, either trails or stormwater
ponding so. The grading plan, there’ll be a significant amount of grading and as we pointed out in the
staff report the developer would like to enter into a development contract with the preliminary plat to start
site grading so it’ll take a long time. They propose to grade the entire property. Again we’ll begin with
the preliminary plat and they’ll need to have River Rock Road, the easement or the right-of-way
agreement in place before we allow any of this to go forward. There are a few issues with the grading is
these highlighted areas on the plan are potential areas where they will be encroaching into the Bluff Creek
primary zone setback buffer area and so we need them to re-evaluate either the grading plan or the
housing types to make sure that they can stay out of it. As it was pointed out they may have to look at
either a lookout type unit instead of a walkout to make this area work where they’re going farther down
the, or creating a more hill area. As part of the development the infrastructure improvements will include
the sewer and water services. All the public streets. The trail systems and the stormwater ponding.
Access extension is again River Rock Drive south and the only thing that we pointed out in the staff
report is this segment of the River Rock Road or Drive was shown as a 50 foot right-of-way. They are
required to put a 60 foot right-of-way in so it will revise the plat slightly. What we think is this outlot will
be get smaller and this one will get smaller. They have a 20 foot easement for a trail and we don’t need
quite that much. It’s an 8 foot trail so. Tree preservation. They do not meet the targets for tree
preservation. The only areas that are taking out are allowing the steep slope areas. They’re coming in
and there’s no way to avoid that and then right behind, in this curve on the property. It’s all outside the
primary zone boundary so what they have to do, in instances when they don’t meet preservation targets,
they’re penalized and provide additional landscaping and their landscape plan was pretty close. They
needed to add one more tree and then they also need to provide additional buffering along the 212
corridor so additional planting requirements. I should point out that one of our conditions is that the
developer complete a noise study for this project to make sure that they meet all federal and state
guidelines. And there’s a landscaping plan so they need to provide additional landscaping along this area.
Parks and recreation. The development itself does not need to provide any parks. It’s within the Pioneer
Pass Park district. As part of the project however they will be providing the Bluff Creek trail from it’s
terminus just to the north of this development down to the Highway 212 corridor. We do have a
condition in the report to work with the property owner to see if we can get that final connection out to
Pioneer Trail done but it’s not necessarily as part of this project. It’s something the City would have to
undertake or wait til development on the south side of 212 to come forward. They will be paying full
park and trail fees but then we will be reimbursing them for the trail construction. And this is the first,
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
what they’re proposing to plat initially is it will create 4 outlots on the entire property. Outlot A to the
north would be the future Camden Ridge development. Outlot B is the Bluff Creek primary zone that will
be preserved as permanent open space. Outlot C is property that will, the current property owner would
like to keep and we’re saying well what are you, we’d like to know the interim use for it and access points
and then also have him develop an environmental study to determine the appropriate watershed district
classification for this property. And then Outlot D is the current access into the site. It’s where the
driveway goes out to Pioneer Trail. Finally the conditional use permit is for all development within the
Bluff Creek corridor. It requires a 40 foot setback from Bluff Creek primary zone with the first 20 feet
being a buffer area and so as part of the grading plan we’ll have them make revisions to that. We believe
that again Bluff Creek corridor goes through most of the city and it surrounds this property. There’s a
wooded hill to the north. If you’ve ever been out there you can see it from 212 which is on the Fox
property and then it surrounds it on the west and then on the southern portion of the site. Again the
primary zone has a 40 foot setback and so part of this would be used to maintain open space. With that
staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, subdivision and conditional use permit for Camden
Ridge development subject to the conditions in the staff report as amended and adoption of the Findings
of Fact and Recommendation. And with that I’d be happy to any questions.
Aller: Bob, were all the studies that were recommended, are they to be, are they number one conditions
and number two, are those conditions to be met prior to any grading?
Generous: Not for the environmental study. We would wait til that came, until that property came
forward for future development.
Aller: And then my understanding is the River Rock access, that has to be done and decided before
anything occurs here?
Generous: That’s correct. They’ll have to.
Aller: So that’s a pre-cursor to any work being done.
Generous: Either an easement in place or that land purchased in fee title ownership.
Withrow: Is there any concerns about that? Any risk that you’re aware of?
Aanenson: Maybe I could give a little background on that. They have been working on it for, it was a
condition of approval of the plat on the Preserve so when they come in for their next phase it will have to
be acquired at the developer and expedite that and they can certainly work on that as a separate
agreement. I just want to clarify too on that Outlot C, whether it goes forward or not. Obviously the
council, whatever you recommend will go forward to the council too to see how they want to handle that
issue too. It’s typically when you have a developer propose an application they’re in control of all the
property so you have the underlying developer developing and dedicating separately which is very unique
and then the developer’s only acquiring what he’s platting so you’ve got two different things so we’re just
saying there’s a lot remnant and our ordinance does allow you to create a remnant lot that does not have
planned access to it so that’s just one of our concerns. We want to make sure that a farm road in our mind
does not constitute you know long term. I guess if they wanted to farm it in the future. We just want to
make sure we understand that so we’ll hoping between now and when it goes to City Council some of
those issues will be further clarified.
Aller: So if we adopted and have the recommendation move forward as stated, then there’s access right
now that would allow for the condition on the property they’re farming now. But if we allow for the
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
motion to be passed, it moves forward in that manner, then one of the conditions is that there’s an access
required to Parcel C.
Aanenson: Yeah, I’ll just take that a little bit further. The Carver County’s first response was to close the
access so if we say that we don’t know that there’s development potential on that property, and the
property owner wants to continue to farm, then we may have to go back to the County and say that’s how
it’s intended to be used and see if that changes. And again we’re trying to get that clarification between
now and when it goes to City Council. Then the other issue is, you know does it have, is it developable
and how would you get access to it? Again we don’t want to create a lot or a potential that there could be
so, and it may. We just want to make sure that that’s clarified. To go back to your question, could they
continue grading. Working on that. We don’t want to hold up this developer but we do also want to
create another problem in the future so we’re trying to get some of those answers as quickly as we can.
Aller: Thank you. Commissioners have any more questions at this point?
Hokkanen: I have, can we pull up the map that shows that access point? I think one of them was parks
and rec too. This one. Does this show? No.
Generous: No, not very well. Outlot D in the bottom of this is part, is where that driveway comes off of
Pioneer Trail. There it is.
Hokkanen: It’s right there, okay.
Generous: And it follows right under that blue coloring and then goes under 212 and then just to the east
of that pond and then it goes up to the farmstead.
Hokkanen: I know where it is now, okay. Can we go just to the, it said parks and rec. It was more of an
overview since we’re talking about access. Up above in the blue so it would be north of this
development. That road. Extension of Bluff Creek Boulevard. When is that scheduled to ever, is it ever?
Aanenson: Yes. As part of the AUAR, the condition of the AUAR is Bluff Creek Drive needs to tie into
Powers Boulevard. How that happens and when it happens is dependent upon the property owners
underneath that.
Hokkanen: We talked about that like a year ago didn’t we?
Aanenson: We talked about it a lot. Yeah. We’re not in control, yep.
Hokkanen: I know. Well, nice. Because you’re adding all these, another development that then has, so
I’m just a little concerned about that. Okay. That’s my only question for the access.
Weick: So access will be just then from that northwest corner into this property.
Generous: That’s correct.
Weick: As it stands.
Aanenson: Yeah, maybe we should clarify that. If you can go to the plat. There is an emergency access
that was provided for. It’s more like a fire lane on the western side. Yep, there you go. Right there.
Generous: This little.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Aanenson: Yeah.
Generous: They call it Street C in the report.
Aanenson: So that could tie into the property to the north and that would be a secondary access in and
out. It wouldn’t be a public street. It’d be more like a fire lane.
Generous: Yeah, 20 foot wide pavement width within a 30 foot easement.
Weick: And the units per acre, this falls well within correct?
Aanenson: Well Bob, it’s a lot of detail in the staff report but it’s 4 to 8 units an acre so 4 could be low
density. 4 could be medium density but it has to be at least 4 units an acre so we went through a lot of
different iterations of potential layouts and they looked at doing the residential low density which would
include twins and single family’s but they needed a lot of variances on that so, and even in that case that
district also requires that you preserve a significant area. In order to compress the density then you would
need to preserve so there’s some things kind of running, kind of counter intuitive there so we decided to
go with the PUD, which we did in the Preserve, as Bob indicated that allow you to average some of those
hard covers and kind of accomplish the same goals without the variances. So you set the framework for
each one. We looked at their typical house plans to see how they would fit on there and that’s also what
we did on the Preserve.
Weick: And could you, the slide that has the, I think you described it had shaded areas and you described
it as the, that was the area that trees were going to be taken out.
Generous: The tree preservation.
Weick: So the dark shade.
Generous: Are trees to be removed.
Weick: Removed. So it’s really wooded along the creek and most of that stays.
Generous: Oh yes, except for this little knuckle.
Weick: That little part right there.
Generous: (Yes).
Weick: So even the lots that will back up onto the creek.
Generous: Yeah, they won’t see, if you go out there now you don’t see the creek because the trees are so
thick.
Weick: And they’ll keep that.
Generous: (Yes).
Weick: Okay.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Aller: That will be a good buffer. What about the infrastructure? How that’s look out there? It’s
certainly capable of handling the number of units on the proposed lots?
Oehme: Chair, Planning Commission members. The areas and size for this size of development, when
the AUAR and the feasibility study for the 2005 MUSA project was drafted up so we feel confident that
the water and sewer capacities are adequate to support this development and all the other developments in
the area.
Aller: Anything else at this point?
Yusuf: Was there some mention about a noise study?
Aller: Yes.
Yusuf: Can you explain?
Generous: Yes. It’s under the planning conditions. It’s just to determine what mitigation requirements
would be done with the development to meet state and federal standards for noise. Often times it’s just to
make sure that the homes have air conditioning would meet the standards. Sometimes they need to put up
noise walls. It looks at all those issues and what needs to be done so that they comply with standards.
Yusuf: Okay, thank you.
Aller: And that would be done before final?
Generous: Yes.
Aller: Okay. Anything else from commissioners at this point? Alright, we’ll move forward and we will
open the public hearings. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the item please step forward. State
your name and address for the record.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair too, you might want to let the applicant for the proposal maybe come before the
public.
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Joe Jablonski here this
evening representing the applicant, Lennar Corporation. I appreciate the work that staff has put in on this.
It has been a little bit of give and take and we’ve been able to come up with a good plan here that’s
something that we’re comfortable with and proud of and we hope the City will be as well. In doing so
appreciate the fact that it is a difficult site because of the topography. Because of the limitations and the
boundaries around it because of the creek going through the middle does certainly provide not only some
challenges but also creates some nice amenities for the site, and I think that we’ve done a good job
preserving where we could through there and some of the trees that were taken out really if that property
were to develop, you know we looked at it a number of ways and it just, there wasn’t a way that we could
do that to preserve those, so I think that the plan that you see tonight is a result of a lot of work that’s been
done on staff’s level and with us and I’d be happy to answer any questions specific to the report or to any
items that.
Aller: Well let me ask this. You had an opportunity to take a look at the report because you’ve been
working with staff.
Joe Jablonski: Correct.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Aller: Is there any particular condition that you feel as though you would have a problem meeting?
Joe Jablonski: You know we’re in the process of working with the neighboring property owner to work
through the easement situation. I think that it’s important for us to know that we’re going to be able to do
that before we go forward with it anyways so we understand that very clearly. As far as everything north
of the creek and what’s going on in the Camden Ridge portion, I think we’re pretty clear and appreciate
all the work that staff has put into it and that we’re comfortable moving forward. Now there are some
representatives of the sellers here tonight that might have some questions on what happens south of the
creek but we are certainly in favor of moving forward at this point and it has come to a point where
timing and things become critical because we would like to see it move forward and get going so that we
have the opportunity to take advantage of the few summer months that we have left, if you can call it that.
Aller: Well that’s what we’re looking at the application before us.
Joe Jablonski: Correct.
Aller: So that’s why I’m asking you as far as the conditions that we would be imposing if we moved the
motion forward. Did you have a problem with that?
Joe Jablonski: Did not.
Aller: And it sounds like you don’t so that’s great. Number two, can you give us a little bit of flavor
about the types of units you’re going to put on. The number of bedrooms. The quality of materials. The
price point.
Joe Jablonski: Sure, we can go through that real quick. The twinhomes would be a single story with a
basement type of home. They are viewed as more of a empty nester type of product but fit very well with
young professionals as well. It’s a 3 bedroom. Two bedrooms up or a den and a master bedroom and
then another, the ability to finish one or two bedrooms down below. Roughly 2,800 square feet finished
so, and those would be full association maintained. Full maintenance of both the exterior and the grounds
around them. The rest of it would be single family detached which would range in size from 2,500 square
feet probably up to about 3,500 square feet with the ability to finish more square footage down below in
the lower level. It would be very similar to what we are building in our Reflections community. In fact
this is a great opportunity for us to see this or look at this as a replacement community as that one starts to
wind down. The materials, which we used in Reflections, included kind of a hard board or it’s actually
LP siding so it’s a cement. Wood fiber cement. Make sure we do plan to carry that into this community
as well so. Price point wise we’re looking at the twinhomes probably in the mid 300’s to start with and
the single family would be in the low 400’s or in the 400’s I would think. Maybe going up a little bit for
the premium bluff lots which are both bigger and allow for a little bit bigger home because of the
impervious requirements and things.
Aller: Then we talked about hard cover and that the way that this is laid out now is that there’s a hard
cover analysis done on each particular unit or lot and then there is going to be some left over for
additional. Is that going to go to the association then to divvy out amongst owners or do you have a plan
on how you’re going to deal with the rest of the potential hard cover?
Joe Jablonski: What we would do on the, it would be a credit to that individual lot so in the case of the
single family homes it would give those folks the opportunity to add porches, decks with whatever the
balance of that hard cover is and similar to what we did in Reflections is those homeowners get through
their disclosure process exactly what the home that is being built at and the balance of what is allowed on
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
their particular lot so they have a very clear understanding. In fact they sign off on that knowing how
many square feet they have kind of left to use. In the case of the multi-family or the twinhomes there, I
think what we would do a similar thing, although improvements on those are a little bit different. They’re
more, they would probably be more association wide. You know some day they may want the ability to
put on a little bit bigger deck on an individual unit or something but there are definitely size variations
will allow some of them to have the ability to do that more than others.
Aller: Okay. And it’s great that you’re thinking about that because otherwise variances come at us.
Joe Jablonski: Right.
Aller: …kind of see whether or not that’s…
Joe Jablonski: Very good at making sure we understand that up front too so.
Aller: Great. Any other questions?
Withrow: I have one. You mention association. Does that apply just to the twinhomes or to all of them?
Joe Jablonski: We would have a, what we would consider more of a general or generic type association
for the single family as well which would deal more with architectural controls. Because there will be
some open space or some areas that will require maintenance, we’ll have to have some of that
responsibility fall on the association. It won’t be, you know we’re not planning any private
improvements on the single family part but it will just be maintaining general open space or architectural
restrictions.
Withrow: Thank you.
Aller: Thank you very much.
Joe Jablonski: Thanks.
Aller: Okay, continuing on to the public hearing which is open. Any individual wishing to come
forward, please state your name and address for the record.
John Chadwick: Good evening commission, staff. My name is John Chadwick. I reside at 4477 Manitou
Road, Excelsior, Minnesota. Good to be with you this evening. We’ve been after this for a while as you
know. I’ve been before this body a few times for various things. I actually started working on the Bluff
Creek area in 2001 on the Sever Peterson farm. You look at some of the stuff and you know the Bible is a
long book and I’m not going to take you through the whole thing here tonight but I’d like to share with
you some of the twists and turns we’ve been on and ask for consideration with those this evening. I’m
speaking on behalf of Mr. Jeurissen who’s here with us this evening and while we could go through
everything point by point, the Sunday School teacher generally loses the class when you do that. I would
like to go to page 3. There’s some conclusions in there and try to hit those if you will. Conclusions
recommended and basically there are 3 or 4 issues here. There’s some assessment issues and there’s
access issues and we’ve got the assessments listed first. The program was, there’s 30 acres of not wetland
out of 36 acres. You buy 36 units and let’s say your 36 units is 36 driveways. Please go with me for a
minute and so you bought 30 driveways. You’re not going to use 6 acres. We know that’s wetland.
You’re never going to drive on them anyway and that, those 30 acres represent Bluff Creek Drive. Now
we’re going to go out there and plow that for you. Every day charge you interest on it every single day
but we’re not going to let you use it. That’s the situation that Mr. Jeurissen has been in since 2006.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Every day interest goes by. Every day we’re paying for something but we’re not getting it and I’d kind of
ask you, turn to your neighbor and ask them how they feel about that if they’re having to pay for
something they don’t get so as kind of a, and there’s been other assessments have been paid on all 30
acres so far and so we’re asking for just a little bit of relief here on some of the interest on some of those
assessments and if we have driveways that we’re going to essentially give away to the City over
conservation, never getting to drive on them ever, why should you pay for those driveway units? And
then lastly this 5 acres that Mr. Jeurissen will retain, pay for those driveway units when he’s going to use
them. Just looking kind of for a fair and equitable way to do this. I’m sure there’s a thousand different
ways to look at it but I ask you to consider that. And as far as the south portion, which that Outlot C,
there’s been a wrangler going on with MnDOT. I won’t drag you through all of that but it’s going on for
a year now and as of today we received a letter it’s being transferred out of one department to another so I
guess we get to start over there. Not particularly happy with that of course. And part of that whole issue
came up with there was going to be a frontage road built to Mr. Jeurissen’s property in the diagrams and
during the taking. Everything was fine there. Mr. Jeurissen signed off. They did a design build.
Changed that and if you look at Exhibit 1a, this one, you’ll see some things that say frontage road and that
frontage road is not there folks. That was never built. That’s why that Outlot D needs to be retained so
we can get in there and keep farming. We’re still working on that. Also as part of.
Aanenson: If you want to put those on the table. Right on that photo.
Aller: Right on the photo. There you go.
John Chadwick: Alright. Frontage road right here. Boy this is great video folks. First class. Okay,
there’s a frontage road right here. Just like that. Would have served both the north sides of the creek.
Didn’t get built. Never built. As recently as mid-May MnDOT went in and actually did a cost study.
What would it cost to build that with the bridges? It was a million one. They said hey, we’re not
interested Mr. Chadwick. Well great. You know that’s not particularly helpful. So then he got
transferred to another department. I realize I’m airing a little bit of God’s wrath here but that’s what it is.
The second part, this little stove pipe I just drew right there. Subsequent when Peterson sold his property,
MnDOT does own 66 feet here so there is access available. Sometime if we ever get some resolution
with MnDOT, MnDOT owns all the way from this back to Pioneer Pass. That’s all right-of-way owned
by MnDOT so we’d sure, we need some time here to work things out with MnDOT. That has been kind
of a slow process and some help and forbearance on those interests, the interest on his assessments would
be a nice thing to have here given the situation we’re in and having to go through some other access
issues that have been problematic.
Aller: Thank you. I have read the document that you were referring to. It has been made part of the
record and your comments are now part of the record as well. As a commission we’re looking at the
application, as I’ve said before, we’re looking at the application before us with the property in the
condition that it’s in now and so, although it’s an interesting history as far as where the property has
moved and the conditions and things of that nature, we are not an assessing body so we have no control
and would not be able to grant your desires at this point. It is part of the record. It will go the City
Council and it can be taken up through the proper channels there.
John Chadwick: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it all.
Aller: Any other individual wishing to come forward speaking for or against? Seeing no one coming
forward, I’m going to close the public hearing. Thank you for your comments. Commissioners. I think
the report is extensive.
Hokkanen: Very.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Yusuf: It is.
Aller: I think it goes through everything that needs to be done. I would again note that we read and
considered all the items and comments on pages 3 and 4 of the document provided to us.
Weick: Is it okay to ask another question?
Aller: Sure.
Weick: There’s a, I think there’s mention made of the park that’s within the mile radius so you don’t
have to build a park within this development.
Generous: Right.
Weick: I guess one thing that popped up when he mentioned empty nesters and that’s sort of this idea of
accessibility is there. Accessibility from this development to that park or is there planned accessibility?
Meaning a path or something.
Generous: There is a proposed trail to connect to it which would, if we can get it to Pioneer you could go
either way.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: So it will make a nice loop eventually when it’s all complete.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: And some of that trail is going to be the result of additional development if and way that happens.
Generous: Yeah, to the south.
Aller: To the south.
Weick: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Okay. Any other comments? Sounds like it will be a diverse grouping of homes in a very difficult
area to create a nice living environment. It sounds like this is going to be nice. Any other questions or
comments? I’ll entertain a motion if anyone feels like making a motion.
Hokkanen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning, subdivision
and conditional use permit for the Camden Ridge development subject to the conditions of the staff report
and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Any discussion on the motion? Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Any discussion?
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approves Rezoning from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-
R); Subdivision into 32 single family lots, 26 twinhomes and 9 outlots; and a Conditional Use
Permit to allow development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following
conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
Building Conditions:
1.Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures.
2.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
3.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
4.Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
5.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
6.The applicant and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
7.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for review and approval.
Engineering Conditions:
1.The developer must obtain right-of-way for the part of River Rock Road that connects to
Bluff Creek Boulevard.
2.The proposed “Easement Detail” must be revised to include how the easements around the
perimeter of the twinhome lots will be platted.
3.The developer’s engineer must adjust the grading on the trail near Outlot F so that it will
meet ADA standards.
4.The contours near the northwest corner of Pond 2, between Lots 6 and 7 must be smoothed
out.
5.Additional information needs to be noted (such as elevation points between the lots) between
lots on the north side of Street B to show the grading will allow water to drain away from the
structures.
6.The final plans must note the survey benchmark on the plan set.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
7.The final plans must note the existing and proposed elevations at the corners of each lot.
8.The grading behind all the retaining walls must be modified so that water will not drain down
the face of the wall.
9.Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
10.Retaining Wall B must be moved so that it is outside the drainage and utility easement at the
back of the lots.
11.A Homeowners Association must be created to take ownership of all retaining walls and the
draintile along the face of Retaining Wall B.
12.Local streets must be within a 60-foot wide right-of-way.
13.At final plat, the Engineering Department will review the profile of Street A between stations
2+00 and 4+00 to ensure the profile meets the minimum length requirements for vertical
curves.
14.The proposed centerline grade at the intersection of River Rock Drive and Street A must not
be greater than 3%.
15.The existing driveway access to TH 212 must be closed.
16.The developer’s engineer must design a Street C typical section.
17.The development is adjacent to Bluff Creek Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial
collector fee at the time of final plat.
18.The developer’s engineer must incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection
system into the watermain plans.
19.The developer’s engineer will ensure that CBMH-102 does not conflict with the nearby
watermain.
20.At the time of final plat, the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements assessment must be paid
or reassessed.
21.Water and sewer hook-up fees must be paid at the time of final plat.
Fire Conditions:
1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
2.Temporary street signs must be installed prior to home construction.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
3.No burning permits will be issued. Any trees removed must either be chipped on site or
removed from site.
4.Water mains shall be made serviceable prior to combustible construction.
5.Posts, fences, utility boxes etc. shall not be placed near fire hydrants which would hinder
firefighters to quickly locate and/or operate fire hydrants in a safe manner.
Natural Resources Conditions:
1.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings to meet minimum requirements.
2.The applicant shall plant a minimum of 130 trees in the development.
3.The applicant shall diversify the plant schedule so that no one species comprises more than
one third of the total number of trees.
4.The applicant shall specify vegetation proposed for Outlots A, B and C.
5.The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan to the city prior to final approval.
6.The applicant shall preserve trees #1301, 1302, 1303. These trees along with trees #1393-
1398 shall be protected by fencing prior to and during any grading or construction activities.
7.The developer shall install signage at lot lines to demarcate the Bluff Creek Primary Zone.
Parks Conditions:
1.Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland
dedication.
2.Construction of Bluff Creek Trail from its current southerly terminus, extending between the
new homes and Bluff Creek to a terminus point at TH 212. The developer shall provide
design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.”
All construction documents, including material costs, shall be delivered to the Park and
Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt and constructed to
meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of the
aggregate base, asphalt surfacing, and storm water systems utilized to construct the trail. This
reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and
receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials noted.
Labor and installation, design, engineering and testing services are not reimbursable
expenses.
Planning Conditions:
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
1.The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as its portion of the 2005 AUAR prior to recording the final
plat.
2.The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise generated by traffic on Highway 212.
The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for
residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which shall be
implemented by the developer.
3.Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a
preservationeasement shall be established over said outlot(s).
4.The property owner shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited
to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city
st
to determine the exact watershed zone boundary on Outlot C, Jeurissen 1 Addition. Data
for watershed zone delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional
specializing in watershed management, environmental science or other related profession.
st
5.The property owner must advise the city of the intended use of Outlot C, Jeurissen 1
Addition, and how it shall be accessed. This Outlot may not be developable or accessible in
the future.
6.Final plat approval will be contingent on the developer resolving the access issue. Either an
access easement or right-of-way must be in place prior to any site development.
7.Individual lots may not exceed the maximum hard cover per lot established in the compliance
table.
Water Resources Conditions:
1.Land disturbance within the first twenty feet of the Bluff Creek Overlay District setback shall
not be allowed unless the applicant can demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved without
the proposed disturbance.
2.A mitigation/restoration plan must be provided for any disturbance within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District or setback from the BCOR.
3.Trail must be aligned to minimize the encroachment into the BCOR primary zone and
minimize loss of natural vegetation and habitat.
4.Efforts must be made to minimize the number of inlets into each pond.
5.The proposed ponds must be designed with a forebay.
6.The plans must demonstrate how water quality basin #1 and water quality basin #3 will be
accessed. This includes all inlets, outlets and filtration benches as well as sediment removal
from forebay and water quality volume.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 18, 2013
7.The stormwater design shall, to the greatest extent practicable, seek to maximize infiltration,
extend detention times and protect Bluff Creek from scour and other erosive conditions.
8.The applicant must evaluate downstream flow conditions as indicated in Section 19-144.
9.A Surface Water Pollution Plan and all required elements must be provided to the city for
review. This plan must be compliant with NPDES requirements as well as the requirements
of Chapter 19 of city code.
10.SWMP trunk fees due at final plat are estimated to be $113,350.25.
11.The development must comply with the MN Rules chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
12.No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. Grading activities have been observed within this area
along the south side of Bluff Creek. The applicant should submit a plan for the revegetation
of this area that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Any such areas that have been disturbed
through the removal or addition of soils material prior to approval shall be addressed prior to
commencement of other grading activities but no later than seven (7) days from approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your input.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 2013 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANING COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEMS.
Aanenson: Included in your packet is the upcoming items. Unfortunately we’ve got a couple of
meetings that we won’t be able to have. One, we don’t traditionally meet the second meeting, the first
th
meeting in July because it falls during the 4 of July week which we sometimes have a hard time getting a
quorum. Having said that, that means our second meeting in July will be quite a bit busier. We do have
two variance requests on. We also have another subdivision. A PUD for single family and then also a
senior living. Another senior living project so, so it will be a little bit longer and we’ll do our best to try
to get it to you in a manner that makes it easier for you but so that will be a little bit bigger meeting. Also
on the top we do have some other projects coming in. We anticipate either the first or the second
meeting, or excuse me that first meeting in August then is National Night Out. We’ve chosen to let all of
you be with your neighborhoods and also the department heads typically go out too to different
neighborhoods so that first meeting in August we do anticipate a couple of commercial, small commercial
projects on for that application so we’re working through those so I think they’re pretty exciting. So we
know for that. And then we talked about with our joint tour, I thought there was a memo in there and I
thth
apologize, that we picked September 11 or 10 so that’s your off meeting night. It would either be a
Tuesday or Wednesday so if you felt like staying with the Tuesday, that would be great but we will have a
tour we’ve done with the Environmental and the Park Commission so, if you want to show hands for the
thth
10 and we’ll count or 11 and then we’ll kind of.
16