PC Minutes 07-16-2013Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion? I’ll just say I believe that there are other variances that have been granted
in that area that this would be in line with as stated in the report.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approves a 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single-family
home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
1. The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall
try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property.
2. The building shall be limited to the split level house design.
3. The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES: REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS
LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING
CASE 2013-08.
Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application is for a
senior housing project, extended care. The site is located north of Pioneer Trail, west of Bluff Creek
Boulevard. The existing zoning as well as the land use on the site, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows this
area designed for development as medium density. Medium density allows for 4 to 8 units per acre.
Types of development appropriate zoning for this type of land use would be an R-8, an RLM which
allows for mixed types of low medium density or a planned unit development residential type of zoning.
What the applicant is proposing to develop on this site is a single building which will contain 24 rooms.
Individual rooms. The occupants of the building will be individuals that need assistance with their
mobility. They will put a substantially less demand on the infrastructure of, on the infrastructure than a
typical medium density type of development would. And for a continuing care facility the only type of
zoning that is, that allows this type of use within the city is the R-8, which is the medium density. So
with that said, what the applicant is requesting is a rezoning of the property from currently as I said it is
zoned Agricultural Estate District. They are proposing to rezone it from Agricultural Estate to Medium
Density which is R-8. They are also requesting a site plan approval for the construction of a continuing
care retirement facility and a conditional use permit since the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. The only way you are allowed to develop within that area is if the City grants a conditional use.
The current zoning of the site is Agricultural Estate District. The applicant is requesting they rezone it to
Medium Density. That type of rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff is recommending
approval of this rezoning. It is compatible with the surrounding area. The area to the north of it has a
medium density. The area to the east has 4 units per acre and then as we go into the Chaska portion of the
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
city, which is to the southwest, that area is all residential single family homes. The site plan basically
consists of a building that will gain access off of Pioneer Trail. Bluff Creek runs along the northeast
portion of the site. The total area of this building is 13,700 square feet. As I mentioned earlier it will be
one story. 24 bedrooms within this building. The maximum hard surface coverage permitted under this
district is 35%. What the applicant is proposing will result in 8.9% hard surface so they are substantially
below the maximum permitted. One of the things that the applicant has done with this building is
extended a sidewalk that basically goes along the driveway and it will connect with a regional trail along
Pioneer Trail. The design of the building is attractive. It is proposed to be constructed of high quality
materials. They include a cultured stone and a sample of the materials is available. There will also be
paneling. All elevations that can be viewed from the public, by the public have been treated equal.
Treated and given equal attention. There is variation throughout the building and the windows, as well as
doors will comprise over 50% of each elevation as required by ordinance. Bluff Creek. As mentioned
earlier Bluff Creek runs along the northern portion of the site. The area that is highlighted in red on this
slider shows the secondary zone while the blue is the primary zone on the site. Staff has had
conversations with the developer and it is the applicant’s intention to ultimately donate this property to
the City. The required 40 foot setbacks from Bluff Creek primary zone are being met. Of that 20 feet is
going to be a buffer. And they have no intention of developing anywhere within the area that is the
primary nor the secondary zone. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the site plan
approval and the conditional use permit to allow for the construction of this building for continuing care
for the elderly and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Great, thank you. And the report, as you noted, there’s a number of additional pages other than
what has been presented in the viewing screen for the general public and can be found on the website.
There are a number of conditions. Have you discussed the conditions with the applicant? And are they,
and do they appear to be willing to comply with those?
Al-Jaff: That’s for the next item.
Aller: Oh, I’m sorry. Do we have an equivalent between, with the shrubs that were requested and the
existing vegetation, do we know what that is?
Al-Jaff: Yes. It is.
Aller: In that buffer.
Al-Jaff: They are working with the landscape. They’re working on the landscaping with the City
Forester and when she reviewed the plans she indicated that they meet all the requirements. She had no
additional comments nor conditions to add to this.
Aller: That’s all I have for now so, any questions? Comments?
Withrow: What is the size of the amount of land donated to the City?
Al-Jaff: They are working with the Water Resources Coordinator and that will be something that will
come in the future. There are some steep grades on the site. Some bluffs as well as wetlands. They
could do it either through a subdivision or they could grant the City an easement to, over these wetlands
and storm ponds.
Withrow: Okay, and then in the report you mentioned that we’re still waiting on soil borings.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Withrow: And I don’t know a whole lot about those but what is the likelihood that they won’t come back
positive? And if so what would be done about it? What effect would that have?
Al-Jaff: They will have to correct the soils.
Withrow: They can remediate it?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Withrow: Okay. Thank you.
Aller: And if we pass this then any remediation would have to comply with the Bluff Creek
requirements.
Al-Jaff: Correct, as well as wetland setbacks, as well as the bluffs.
Aller: And then was there a permit required then for the construction? No?
Aanenson: Well no getting, I mean Chair, the process would be then for the, it’s not a subdivision so we
put together a site plan agreement. There would still be security put in place for any public utilities or any
landscaping that was to be put in place. The site plan would administer all that so then also for the
building permit process…would be executed to find out if soil corrections…send it to a building official.
And I just want to add one other, going back to, if I may go back to the site showing that watershed area.
The donation. I’m just trying to find it on this. Oops, there it is. So if you look at this larger area, that’s
what Sharmeen had indicated relief at, there’s some steep slopes and there’s some areas that…it’s
topographically isolated so it really has no building utility…that’s fine, we can manage that so…because
they’re not platting it right now and it’s not needed for any…except for the fact that they’re grading next
to it…if they want to work through some other things with the City, that could be a separate discussion…
Aller: Thanks for the clarification. Anything else? Alright, would the applicant like to come forward?
State your name and address for the record sir.
Dave Pokorney: My name is Dave Pokorney. I’m with Community Asset Development Group. My
address is 1403 Valley View Road, Chaska. Thank you. So I actually don’t have a lot of comments. I
think we spent a lot of time with the staff working through this. I’ve got to tell you I’m really glad I’m
here with this project and not some of the other ones we looked at because the landowner has owned the
land for a while. We looked at some different uses. I mean you can imagine if we had the townhouse
project and we were really having to be up against the buffers and bluffs and that’s what, when we kind of
hit upon this is the concept. We just said this is a really good use for the site. Quite frankly we’re not, as
Sharmeen’s indicated we kept away from all of the bluffs. Were able to, there are a few trees on one
corner that we’re touching but everything else is staying so for us it’s, we’re excited about the project
because we think it’s a really good use but quite frankly we’re also excited it was not a difficult process to
develop this site. I mean we’ve known for some time that this was going to be a challenge. Relative to
the dedication, I think our discussion we’ve been having with the staff is that basically everything that
you see that’s outside of the red line and this we would deed either an easement. It probably would be an
easement because we are not going through a platting but it really is a piece that should be public. Should
be preserved. People should have the right to go in there. It has really little value once we develop this to
our property, although it has the same value to us as it does to the rest of the public so we may have, we
won’t have our residents hopefully that are using but we may have visitors that will use it as an open
space.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: Just to make it clear.
Dave Pokorney: …we’re happy with, relative to the conditions which I know is the next item, I do have
to say I think it’s the most conditions I’ve ever seen in a project in a long time, if ever but we don’t have
any concerns regarding the conditions.
Aller: Well and I’m sure citizens are glad to hear we’re putting requirements out there. Obviously the
dedication portion is not a requirement for purposes of moving forward with your project, nor is it
something other than a general interest for the people out there listening.
Dave Pokorney: And quite frankly the landowner will probably, because it’s not a requirement he’ll be
able to get some kind of tax advantage that will work for him.
Aller: So tell us a little bit more about the project itself. It’s a senior’s home. Tell us what you’re
constructing.
Dave Pokorney: Yep, so it’s a 24 unit building. It’s geared to seniors that have, either they’re having
memory care issues or they’re elderly and very few, I mean we won’t have residents that have cars, put it
that way. The way that it’s set up it’s actually two separate units. Living units. Both units on each side.
Each living unit will have it’s own dining, living room area. We will join, the reason we put it into two
12’s, particularly with people who have memory care issues. The smaller and simpler that you can make
them, it’s just a better environment but when we can combine them together then we have the joint
staffing so in the evening times we don’t need, we can have one person staffing a 24 unit. During the day
there’s more. These tend to be really that one story environment works well for seniors that have these
types of issues. We’re, if there’s a down side to the site it’s a little bit remote but from an up side it’s in a
really great environment and it’s a place that you know I’d like to sit out in the back porch and that’s what
our residents will do so they can take advantage of the environment that’s there and it’s not the most
convenient but it’s a place that people who are visitors, they’re going to be able to know how to get there
so being right on the county road is actually a positive. I’d tell you that I’m not so sure that we’ll ever use
the sidewalk. At least none of our residents will but we’ll put a sidewalk in. So assuming that it gets
approved, we do have financing in place and we would anticipate starting construction probably in
September and it’s a 6 to 7 month timeframe.
Aller: Questions?
Hokkanen: No, I think it looks good.
Withrow: Yeah I have a question. Will there be any patios or decks or anything on the outside for
visitors and your residents to enjoy this setting, as you say?
Dave Pokorney: Yes. Yes, so there is, there’s a small patio directly out the back and then there’s on the
north end of the site there’s a larger open space walking area. It shows up on our site plan as a little curly
pathway. That will be fenced and again it’s because some of our residents will have memory care issues
but that’s there for, not only for residents but for residents and their guests. And that type of a space is
really important to these because people, for example on a day like today, maybe it was a little bit too hot
today but people, it’s really a calming environment for them to be in and so you need to have outdoors,
and actually I think it’s a second part of it when you development these. You have to have a minimum
amount of outdoor space. We probably exceed it by a fair amount.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else have questions? Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing. Anyone
wishing to speak for or against the item before us please come forward. State your name and address for
the record.
Chris Hammer: My name’s Chris Hammer. Address 9688 Washington Boulevard. It’s the property
directly to the north of the property in question. My only possible cause of concern is potential impact
into the wooded area and Bluff Creek itself in the future. It’s an area that should be protected. Is the City
preventing any future development into that because that would affect our home values directly to the
north. We have a nice private space with the wooded area and the creek behind with all the wildlife.
We’re worried about the value of our homes being impacted in the future because if something comes in,
what’s going to happen next.
Aller: Okay, anybody have an answer for that?
Aanenson: Sure. Similar to what we did on Liberty at Bluff Creek which is where you live, we actually
preserved all these trees and this is part of that same continuum of the Bluff Creek Overlay and it’s in that
area because it probably has significant slopes and the creek goes through there so it’s, you can see the
area that’s…right now is where they’re putting the building and…
Chris Hammer: Okay.
Aanenson: So we worked hard to try to find a use that would accommodate that as the applicant just
stated so.
Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against? Seeing no one
come forward, close the public hearing. Comments, questions from the commissioners.
Hokkanen: I think it’s a good use of the property. It’s a nice addition to the city.
Audience: Sir, I think we have audience comments…
Aller: Oh, come on. Move faster than ever.
Colleen Kroll: Three months ago I talked with Sharmeen about the possibility, 3 months ago we got
letters explaining what was going to be developed in that space. My property is the odd shaped one on
the north and.
Aller: And your name and address?
Colleen Kroll: Oh I’m sorry. I’m Colleen Kroll, 2694 Shadow Wood Court.
Aller: Thank you.
Colleen Kroll: And like I said, I’m the property that is the odd shaped one. Short on the north and long
on the south side. Our property runs right down to the pond. We have a nice woods to the north and I’m
curious about how the donation would be if it would become open for trails and public parks and so forth
or how that would be detonated with Mr. Klingelhutz donating a certain percentage of what he has, as
well as many, many years ago the easement for Pioneer was to become a much larger road and so the
property can’t, the State owns it at the time period for it’s beginning to expand. When they no longer
choose to have that as a need, what is that going to look like, once we say it’s okay to put a building in,
how does that affect future development? Will there be a second building? Will there be a, you know
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
how do you limit the growth on it because it’s really not that big of a space. It’s a meadow. It has a deep,
steep slope. The ravine that runs through the trees is quite steep. I know that when you own something
and you can take down as many trees as you want but it will change that entire environment and wild
turkeys and the deer and everything else we have so we have some questions about that. Also how the
sewage is hooking up into the city of Chaska so, I will let the other guys to address that part but we need
to know more what the future’s going to be because when they’re sitting out on their back patio, which is
going to be great, they’re going to be watching my kids in my pool. It’s a direct way. It’s about 50 feet
away so it’s not that, as well as the pond fluctuates in height and to know exactly, I understand that the
City, and I don’t know if it was Chanhassen or Chaska, took the highest height. What the pond history
has done but there’s no flags on the meadow right now. There’s no flags for us to even understand where
this development’s going to be. How it’s going to implement us so we’re going off of that but the
building’s not even put on it in relationship to our houses so it’s really kind of hard for us to imagine
what’s going to happen so the new building. In March we had a building placed on the, plotted out but
not on the new development pieces that we’ve seen so, it does affect us that way so that’s our part.
Aller: Thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, there is copies of the plat. I mean it’s all engineered. Well this, I mean they’re all
in the packet so maybe we can get that to the residents as well.
Aller: And it’s all available on the website as well.
Aanenson: Yep, so you can go on the finished floor elevation and then you can find your finished floor
elevation from your building survey and then you get an idea of what that would be.
Aller: Okay. And then can we go, there was a view of the property. There you go that at least gives you
an idea of where some of the landscaping looks like it’s potentially…
Aanenson: Yeah, all the plants are in… We can go back to the other one. Maybe Sharmeen wants to talk.
It’s not our intent to get into where the trees and the ravine are, we don’t think that’s buildable. When
MnDOT vacates the right-of-way on that property there is potential for another building. Again this
property is zoned medium density. There could have been a lot of townhouses in there. We worked
really hard to try to find that transition between the single family in Chaska and the residents in
Chanhassen that are guided also medium density so we thought this was really a good use. Much less
units in there. Much less traffic in there plus they’re also lower profile buildings so.
Aller: That’s the question I got as well as the fact that we’re getting incredibly low hardscape.
Aanenson: Correct, if we can go back to, yeah.
Aller: So that’s going to help. We give a little here and there on these variances all through the city. It’s
nice to be able to keep some so that we can get some of that water flow through the.
Aanenson: Yeah, I’m just trying to find the one that showed the, I guess for the right-of-way. So when
MnDOT would vacate that right-of-way, the potential then for additional building would be you know
somewhere in this area. Somewhere through here so, but we don’t know what that timeframe is going to
be.
Al-Jaff: And it would have to appear before the Planning Commission and a public hearing would be
held so we would have to go through the entire process again.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: Yes sir. Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Jeff Kerfeld: My name is Jeff Kerfeld. I live at 2702 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska and so I am two
doors to the north and west of the Kroll family so just wrap around that cul-de-sac just a little bit so.
Couple questions I have I guess, we’d like to get a little more clarification as far as how the sewer’s going
to be connected to our neighborhood. It’s my understanding that the utilities will not be provided by the
City of Chanhassen but will be provided by the City of Chaska and directly across the road from us is a
lift station and on a regular basis we have the City of Chaska coming out to do maintenance on that.
Their truck is there you know several times. Sometimes several times a month and of course we are
concerned about that because we had issues with flooding in our basements. Power goes out but more
importantly you guys had an incident in Lake Susan about 3 years ago I think with a watermain break that
forced raw sewage in people’s basements and I don’t think we’re in a position where, if there’s a failure
or a fault as a result of how this utility connection is being made that we want to have that possibly
circumstance come to play into this Shadow Wood neighborhood so can we get a little, if now’s the
appropriate time to get a little clarification.
Aller: Let me see what I can get for you.
Jeff Kerfeld: Okay, that’s great.
Aller: That’s your main issue? Anything else?
Jeff Kerfeld: Yeah, the other part is, I’d be very curious as far as Colleen had mentioned, it’s a fairly
steep hill. I mean our kids go sliding down it during the winter time and then you know there really is no
crest per se. It kind of goes down off to the other side so I’d be very interested, I did see on the map a
little bit as far as where it’s placed. It seems like it’s placed more towards the pond than this but I really
question how much leveling of that land and how they can do some leveling without removing some of
those big trees. You know we see wild turkey and deer and pheasants and you know wildlife continually
through that area so that’s, you know that’s a major concern.
Aller: Thank you.
Jeff Kerfeld: Beyond that I would also be curious to know as far as what sort of lighting is going to be
used with regards to the building. Right now we look out obviously at a dark field. We do have the
neighborhood to the north but that’s all protected. My house looks to the north and I don’t ever see those
townhouses in that area and everything so the hope obviously would be that any lighting would be below
the building so that at nighttime we wouldn’t, we don’t want a Walmart parking lot I guess is what I’m
saying sitting out there in the field across the pond from us and everything so that’s a concern. And then
lastly runoff. The pond fluctuates immensely. I mean we’ve had, I’ve lived in my house for 22 years so
I’ve been in the Shadow Wood neighborhood for 22 years and we did have one year when there was no
water in the pond. Generally we have water and we use that as a hockey rink. Skating rink for the kids in
the neighborhood. I’m the dad that goes out and takes the snow blower out and blows off the pond every
year but that’s part of our recreation for the neighborhood and everything. We want to insure that that
water flow, that natural watershed provides water for that area for, you know for our continual enjoyment
and such so. Beyond that, that’s all I have.
Aller: Thank you sir.
Jeff Kerfeld: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
Aller: You want to hit those?
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Fauske: I would love to answer the questions.
Aller: Thank you.
Fauske: Is this on now? Okay. The question about the sewer connection, City staff has met with the City
Engineer and the Utility Superintendent from the City of Chaska. The question we had is, we had heard
that there had been issues with this lift station that services the Shadow Wood area in the past. They’ve
indicated that they have taken the appropriate measures to go in and increase the wet well of that
particular lift station and that they would have capacity for this site. At this time the City of Chanhassen
will send a letter to Chaska formally requesting the connection. With regards to where it physically will
be located, the sewer line would run within the Pioneer Trail right-of-way to Shadow Wood Court.
Would connect to a sanitary sewer manhole that’s at the intersection of Shadow Wood Court and Pioneer
Trail so we don’t have the specific alignment plan profile of that but, and I apologize we don’t have it on
the screen but if you do have a packet, Civil Page 4.0 is the utility plan and that does show a close up of
where that proposed sewer connection is so we have had those conversations. Excuse me, the
conversations with Chaska to discuss you know why is the proposal going to Chaska versus Chanhassen.
Just to give you a little bit of history, we did look at making a connecting to the north to the K. Hovnanian
project to the north and as Sharmeen had indicated in her presentation there’s woods and slopes and a
creek and significant slope elevation changes in there so that’s why pursuing that option, that option was
not pursued. With regards to the elevation difference. There’s just, to kind of give you an idea of what
the elevation difference is from the elevation of the wetland to the first floor of the building is about 20
feet so that can kind of give you, and that’s the slope of the ground. So that should give you an idea of
the elevation difference. And then runoff to the site, on the north side, here’s that outdoor space that Mr.
Pokorney was speaking about. There’s a pond, small pond that will treat the runoff from the parking area
before discharging to the wetland here and then there’s a second, it’s an infiltration basin that will collect
some of the runoff from the drive before discharging to the wetland so those are the two stormwater
amenities that they are proposing to provide some treatment and some peak discharge attenuation. And
his fourth question was regarding lighting which.
Aanenson: I would just also indicate, it is our water. We will be serving with the City of Chanhassen’s
water…and again the reason for the sewer is when we looked at the original proposal, there was
significant tree loss with trying to bring it through that area that we were just talking about we’re trying to
preserve so there was a decision made to say what’s the best way to preserve that overlay district is to
come through Chaska…
Al-Jaff: There was one other question regarding lighting on the site. Any lighting would have to meet
ordinance requirements. 90 degree cut off. Not to exceed half a foot candle at property lines and all light
fixtures have to be shielded.
Aller: Anyone else? Come on forward. Welcome.
Emily Owen: Thanks. My name is Emily Owen. I’m at 2706 Shadow Wood Court. I’m just to the north
of Jeff Kerfeld and I share all of their concerns as well. I additionally, and I may have missed this in a
presentation because I was a little bit late but my, one of my concerns is the road that comes out onto
Pioneer. Will that, the traffic that it’s going to increase. I don’t know if visitor hours are going to, if
there’s going to be hours or if it’s just going to be any time. What that’s going to do to the traffic on
Pioneer and whether we’ll have to have a stop light. I guess there’s pro’s and con’s to either way so that’s
my only question. Thanks.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: Thank you. My understand is, and anyone can jump in and correct me if I’m wrong. The State
would be the one to come in and take a look at stop lights and the requirements for stop lights along that
corridor.
Aanenson: Or the County.
Aller: Or the County and the use as requested is substantially less than the use that could be there so I
think overall you’re looking at getting less traffic this way by far than if it is approved than if we leave it
alone and let somebody come in and build under the zoning currently present. So is that a correct
assessment?
Aanenson: Yep.
Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Please sir, come forward.
Keith Wyman: I’m Keith Wyman, 2674 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska. I’m not opposed to the project.
I believe it’s a good use for the space compared to what could be in there. I do have some, a couple
concerns. One is sight lines or the height. Finished floor is 20 feet above the pond with a I feel fairly
steep roof. You know can that be dropped down at all? Can the roof lines be cut down so we’re not
seeing this big roof up above the trees that is there? Is there anyway that that can be, you know can we
drop finished floor down a little bit more? Create some retaining walls on the one side where we have
that steep grade. Our houses now on the other side of the pond are probably you know maybe 12 feet, 10
to 12 feet above the pond. He’s going to be 20 feet above the pond. You know is there a way to drop that
down to get those you know, the top of that roof down lower? And then also have concerns too with the
sewer connection. I do understand the need for tying into Chaska. You know no, you don’t want to go
through those, to the north. It just doesn’t make sense but when the lift station was put in it was sized for
our neighborhood. Not for this addition so is it, you know we went to that meeting with, what Matt had a
couple nights ago for you know he’s saying that it’s over sized already but I guess I’ve never seen a
developer put anything in over sized in the past. Why would they over size this one? So, and you know
it has had problems in the past so you know, if this does causes problems what is, yes it’s tied into
Chaska’s system but where does Chanhassen or the owner going to do if it does happen so.
Aller: Thank you sir. I know, most of the matters that come before us like you’re about the water
systems and the safety systems and sewer systems being put in and my understanding is they look, just as
we do, we have a 2030 plan. We look for future growth and that’s why you have systems in place to
accept that growth when it comes and they never come but they try to do that so unless I hear something
differently from staff, it sounds like Chaska has made that representation.
Fauske: That’s correct.
Aller: Anyone else? Comments. Concerns. Okay. Sure? We’re going to close it now. Close the public
hearing. Comments. Questions. I like the fact that there’s diversity with the growing age of the citizenry
of Chanhassen. We’ve looked at the demographics here recently and it’s good to have projects like these.
I like the fact that we have a project which is going to allow for significantly less impact on the hard
cover surface area and it looks like we’re preserving a great deal of the Bluff Creek system and of course
the developer has to work with them as well so. With what’s in the report and the representations I think I
would be looking to approve at this point. I’m not hearing anything that is going to sway me to say that
we shouldn’t allow for the opportunity for the product to move forward.
Hokkanen: Well I think we clarified the conservation of all those trees and areas that concern the K.
Hovnanian and some of the others have talked about and the different elevations. It’s a nice project.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Could be a lot worst in that development and higher density project. Could be much more difficult…so I
think it’s a great addition to the city.
Yusuf: I agree. It seems like a very good use of the…
Aller: Okay. Any thoughts?
Withrow: No.
Aller: Entertain a motion if anyone would like to do so.
Withrow: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning of
property from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8).
Site plan approval for construction of a continuing care retirement facility called Bluff Creek Cottages.
Conditional Use Permit to allow development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Hokkanen: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion?
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
Planning Case #2013-08 to rezone 8.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate
approve
District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential Bluff Creek Cottages contingent upon site
plan approval, as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and adoption of the Findings
of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek
Cottages as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and including the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions:
1.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per
1987 Corps Manual.”
2.The 894’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer
and setbacks.
3.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage
2 wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
4.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
5.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any
earth-disturbing activity.
6.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
7.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
8.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the
bioretention basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
9.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet
protection shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after
installation until final stabilization is met.
10.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
11.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0’).
12.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
13.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no
greater than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the
applicant is strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
14.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and
approval and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
15.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
16.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention”.
17.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments,
underdrain (if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review
and approval.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
18.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration
rates. The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
19.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
20.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall
be a grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip
pre-treatment sizing”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
21.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff
condition into Pioneer Trail and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the
proposed catch basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer
to capture this event.
22.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the site plan consisting of a 13,700 square-foot continuing care retirement
facility, Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek Cottages as shown in plans dated received
June 13, 2013, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to
the following conditions:
Building Official Conditions:
1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required.
3.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and signed
by a structural engineer.
4.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place
when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted.
5.Structures and site must meet Minnesota Accessibility Code.
6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
1.Add one hydrant at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and the entrance road.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
2.In addition to 12-inch address numbers on the building, address numbers will be required at
driveway entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements.
3.A PIV, Post indicator valve will be required.
4.Yellow painted curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs are required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for details.
5.City Engineer shall verify that the purposed fire apparatus turnaround is sufficient.
6.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant(s).
Planning Conditions:
1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views.
2.Approval of the site plan application is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and
conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08.
3.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The
sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line.
4.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. If illuminated, the letters shall be
backlit and use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials
shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit.
5.The trash enclosure for the building has not been shown on the plans. The structure must be
screened from views and constructed of the same materials as the building. Recycling space
and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the
trash.
6.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project
perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Light fixtures shall be
downcast and the light shall be cut off at a 90-degree angle as required by the city code. All
fixtures shall be shielded.
Park and Trail Conditions:
1.Park fees in the amount of $12,000 shall be collected as part of the site plan permit.
Engineering Conditions:
1.An agreement must be obtained from MnDOT and Carver County to allow the driveway to
connect to Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and to allow construction of private utilities in the
right-of-way.
2.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth-
disturbing activity.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
3.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit
requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment.
4.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until
after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and
perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the
stockpiling of materials in this area.
5.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the bioretention
basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized.
6.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located
downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet protection
shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after installation until
final stabilization is met.
7.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection.
8.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the
proposed pond (905.0’).
9.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher.
10.The plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
11.Ten-foot drainage and utility easements are required over all public utilities.
12.An existing topography plan sheet must be included in the plan set.
13.The grading plans must be amended so that no slopes exceed 3:1.
14.The developer’s engineer must submit a soils report and boring log for this site indicating the
soil conditions, permeability and slope.
15.The plans must show the elevations at the corners of the proposed building and where the
building foundation is acting as a retaining wall.
16.The plans must identify any stockpile areas that will be used during construction.
17.The developer’s engineer must call out the 6-foot retaining wall around the “outdoor space”
in the plans and include top and bottom of wall elevations.
18.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured-
in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or
timber. Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
19.The developer’s engineer must adjust grading at the face of the east retaining wall to create a
swale so water will flow away from both the wall and the building.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
20.The retaining walls shall be privately owned and maintained.
21.All retaining walls over six feet high and within 10 feet of a sidewalk or other public way
must have a fence or other barrier. This condition includes the areas where the building
foundation will act as a retaining wall.
22.Before vehicles enter Pioneer Trail, the driveway must provide a landing area that starts at
least 50 feet back from the crosswalk and is at a 2% maximum grade.
23.The parking lot aisle must be 26 feet wide.
24.The turnaround must allow enough room for a fire truck to turn and exit the parking lot
without going through the parking spaces. Approved turnarounds include a 100-foot
hammerhead and a 70-foot diameter cul-de-sac.
25.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per 1987
Corps Manual.”
26.The 894’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer and
setbacks.
27.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage 2
wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet.
28.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to
Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff.
29.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no greater
than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the applicant is
strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff.
30.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and approval
and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond.
31.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such
that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894’
contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland
buffer area.
32.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention”.
33.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments, underdrain
(if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review and approval.
34.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration rates.
The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city.
35.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours.
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
36.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall be a
grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip pre-
treatment sizing”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth.
37.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff condition
into Pioneer Trail, and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the proposed catch
basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer to capture this
event.
38.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.
39.The developer’s engineer must show the detailed lift station design and location in the plans.
40.The City of Chaska must approve the sanitary sewer plans.
41.The sanitary sewer and watermain shall be privately owned and maintained.
42.A plan sheet is required to show the watermain extension from the driveway to the
connection to Chanhassen’s watermain system.
43.The watermain that is parallel to Pioneer Trail must be 8 inches for fire flow conditions.
44.The developer’s engineer shall model the watermain extension for fire flow demand to the
development to ensure the watermain pipe size is adequate.
45.Fire hydrants are required every 400 feet, and gate valves are required every 800 feet.
46.This property has outstanding assessments from previous improvement projects that were
deferred due to the property’s Green Acres status. Altering the zoning for this property will
cause the assessments to come due.
47.Water and sewer trunk and hook-up fees are to be collected with the development contract.
48.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT or Carver County right-of-way.
49. A temporary construction easement will be required for the installation of utilities within
road right-of-way.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY;
REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND MIXED LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R);
SUBDIVISION OF 13.22 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS WITH VARIANCES; SITE
PLAN REVIEW; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. APPLICANT: J & S VENTURES
1, INC., PLANNING CASE 2013-12.
th
Al-Jaff: The subject site is located south, at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86 Street,
north of Highway 212. Staff would like to briefly go over the existing conditions of this specific site. It
22