PC Minutes 07-16-2013Chanhassen 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
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
is located north of Highway 212. The site has an area of 13.2 acres and it contains multiple bodies of
th
wetlands. Access to the site is gained via 86 Street. Another existing condition with the site is the fact
that it falls within the shoreland overlay district of Rice Marsh Lake. This is Rice Marsh Lake. The
entire area that is within 1,000 feet of this, of the ordinary high water mark of the lake is considered
shoreland. And as you can see the portion of the site that is highlighted, shaded in this light blue in it’s
entirety falls within the shoreland overlay district. Every single parcel proposed on this site is within this
overlay district with the exception of Lot number 1 but even then it, the overlay district touches it. The
existing land use for this development is low density residential. That type of development would allow
for single family homes as well as attached townhomes. Attached single family homes as long as the
density does not exceed 4 units per acre. The current site has two zonings. The portion of the site to the
west is currently zoned RSF while the eastern half is zoned R-4 which allows up to 4 units per acre. And
briefly the property to the north of the site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Property to the west
contains townhomes and has an 8 unit per acre density. Property to the east is actually open space and to
the south is the Highway 212. So the proposal before you will, has multiple components. The first one is
a land use map amendment. There’s a rezoning, a subdivision, a couple of variances, a site plan review as
well as a wetland alteration permit and staff will briefly go through these different items. One of the first
things that we looked at was, what was it that the developer was trying to achieve. The reason I went
through, staff went through the background and features of the site is just to give you an idea of the
environmental sensitivity of the site. With all of these items that we detailed, development becomes
constrained. There are certain setbacks that the different ordinances, different agencies that have
jurisdiction over this site would, that the applicant would need to meet. One of the main constraints was
the fact that the applicant wanted to develop this site as a single family development and it would be a
total of 16 lots. The lots were, that the applicant is proposing, typical parcel would have a 25 foot front
yard setback, 30 foot rear yard and then as far as setbacks, the garage would have a 5 foot setback. The
other side, living space would have a 10 foot separation between homes. Any two homes would have to
maintain 15 feet so that’s what they are trying to achieve. If we look under the, I mentioned this is in the
shoreland overlay district. If we look at the shoreland overlay district requirements, they require that each
parcel maintains a 90 foot frontage. 90 foot rear width. Each parcel has to maintain a 15,000 square foot
minimum. With all of these requirements, plus we have the existing wetland setbacks. With all of these
things we no longer have the flexibility that we were hoping for. We attempted to find some ways to
meet the intent of the ordinance as well as facilitate this development and do our best to preserve the site.
One of the options that worked best for the site would be to rezone the site to a medium, a planned unit
development with an underlying zoning of medium density. A planned unit development would give us
all the flexibility that we need. If we went with a planned unit development low density. Again we’re
back to the 15,000 square feet and our hands are tied. We don’t have this flexibility that we are trying to
achieve. We contacted the DNR, Department of Natural Resources and we tried to explain the situation.
Familiarize them with the constraints of the site and one of the solutions that the City recommended to the
DNR and talked about with them was re-guiding the property to medium density. Under our ordinances
there is no minimum lot size under the medium density. If there is no minimum lot size, that will give us
the flexibility that we need but at the same time we needed to make sure that we don’t exceed the 4 units
per acre. In order to achieve that we went with a planned unit development which allows us to draft an
ordinance that dictates how many parcels you can have. What is the minimum lot size and the City will
be able to achieve what this, what the intention was to develop this site. So with the subdivision, again 16
single family lots. Setbacks will be 25 feet front yard and 30 feet minimum in the rear. All of the parcels
and the structures will have to maintain required setbacks from wetlands as well as have a wetland buffer.
Minimum lot area on these, or minimum hard surface coverage on these parcels is actually 30%. The
applicant submitted some house plans that could potentially be developed on these parcels. Not all of the
house plans would fit on each parcel. Some of them such as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, there’s only one
house pad from what the applicant gave us that would fit on those. One of the other concerns was, as the
developer builds the home and then the City is continuing to deal with homeowners, will they ask for a
large patio than what the parcel can handle so to get to, to address this point staff listed under the
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
ordinance, the planned unit development ordinance which will govern this development, we listed the
maximum hard surface coverage permitted on each parcel. These are the homes that the applicant is
proposing. Two car garage and they range, the homes range in size. In width between 50 and 60 feet
depending on the type, depending on the parcel that we will be looking at. The setbacks currently under
our planned unit development ordinance requirements, this development would need to maintain a 50 foot
setback along the perimeter and the applicant would be able to meet all of these requirements with the
exception of the area along Highway 212. There will be a wall that will separate this development from
Highway 212 and that will be an adequate buffer. This setback is a buffer so it’s a double buffer if you
will in this case and staff is recommending that the setback variance be approved. Another variance that
is requested with this development is the length of this cul-de-sac. The city code limits the length of a
cul-de-sac to 800 feet. This one exceeds that, that length and typically we look at situations like this and
say, will this road, if connected, how will it connect and we really have no way of reconnecting it.
th
Looping it with 86 Street nor with Tigua Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the length of this
variance as well. We address the rezoning of the site and explained why we are recommending approval
of rezoning it to planned unit development. We also went over the guidelines and the ordinance that will
govern this site. In order to allow this site to be a planned unit development with a medium density, the
underlying zoning medium density, the zoning has to be consistent with the land use plan. The current
land use plan guides this site for low density residential. The only, the planned unit development
ordinance under the medium density specifically states that it has to, the land has to be guided medium
density to allow that type of zoning so in order to stay consistent between the zoning ordinance and the
land use map, and the land use we would need to amend the land use map. One of the benefits of
rezoning the site to a planned unit development will be an extension of an existing noise wall and it will
currently all there is, is a chain link fence and it is immediately next to a noise wall that is located
between Highway 212 and the development to the west of the subject site which is Mission Hills. So
again that wall will be extended along Highway 212. It will be within MnDOT right-of-way and there
will need to be some agreements with MnDOT. All approvals would have to be granted in order for the
wall to be built. At this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson with our engineering department to
address drainage, grading and, before we go any further I just wanted to apologize. There was a section
in the staff report addressing the grading that I failed to include. I have handed it out. It will be on the
website and it will also be included in the staff report that will appear before the City Council.
Aller: And for the record we have received a copy of the drainage and grading consisting of three pages.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Aller: And it has been reviewed.
Al-Jaff: The conditions will remain as is. They have been included. It’s the discussion of the item that
was omitted from the staff report.
Aller: So again for everyone present or watching, this will be down on the website shortly so you can
take a look at the discussion with regard to drainage and grading, if that’s important to you. I know it’s
important to us so thank you.
Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Staff just wanted to let the, show the Planning Commission what the
drainage patterns are doing on this site. Under the current conditions as shown at the top here of the
screen, the area outlined in purple currently drains to the north via the wetlands on the site and the area in
blue here on the east side that drains to the east through the MnDOT right-of-way area and then to Rice
Marsh Lake. Under the proposed development patterns the area in purple still drains to the north via the
wetlands. This area, and I apologize if it’s not really clear. This area where the arrow is going, they do
show a proposed bioretention area. At this point they show it on the plan. Whether or not there’s
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
adequate separation from the proposed bioretention basin to the wetland elevation, we’re unsure of if that
would really function as that so for these purposes I did show it as draining to the wetland but that might
change to a stormwater management facility. The area in pink indicates all the area on the site that drains
to a pond that will be constructed with the development. There are two ponds proposed. One is a small
pond on the southwest corner of the site and then the larger pond over on the east side of the site. And
there again there’s this area on the east side that would drain to the east side. Also of note is just the way
the lay of the land and unfortunately we’re not able to change the grades enough to be able to get this
small sliver here. It’s about 200 feet of street that would drain onto Tigua untreated and within the
development ponds and one of the conditions in the staff report states that we need to get an analysis of
that because there’s, the current stormwater system on Tigua, from our observations and from what we’ve
heard is at capacity and so we want to see if there’s something that can be done to provide something like
an inline treatment. Some kind of inline attenuation to prevent that peak discharge from going to the
existing storm sewer system. Also in the staff report, with the hydrology analysis that was done, a section
of the city code requires that the peak discharge rates for a proposed development cannot exceed the
current conditions. In the discussion that we’ve had with the developer is that it’s at each discharge point.
So for example on the proposed condition here there’s an existing peak discharge point at this location
and at this location and under the proposed development conditions, depending on the type of event
you’re looking at, whether it’s a 2 year event or a snow melt event, there is some peak discharge rates that
will be exceeded. That being said there are some, in our review of the hydrology calculations that were
done on the site, the developer’s engineer had assumed 32% impervious on the home sites so taking that
down to the 30% maximum that’s allowed, we’re not sure if that, it will certainly help. We don’t know if
that will bring it into compliance but that remains a condition of approval for the proposal. And in
addition to, where those discharge points lie is there’s a 12 inch culvert at this location and an 18 inch
culvert at this location that would need to be included in the model because again there are concerns about
the existing drainage patterns through that site. There’s a ditch along the northern property line that is,
after the rainy season that we’ve had this year has been flowing full so we want to make sure that, that
there’s some capacity there under the proposed development conditions. Additionally we talked to the
developer about some concerns with some of the ground water. When the soil borings were taken there
wasn’t any ground water encountered at that time but with the way the drilling operations go, they put the
drill down. They get the samples of the soil. They tell us what kind of soil they’ve encountered. They
look and see if there’s water present and then they back fill. The developer at these, these are the
approximate locations but has installed pedometers to provide us with some ground water elevations and
so he’s provided between 4 and 5 readings for the site and so we have seen some ground water elevations
come up and stabilize and so the developer’s been working with us to adjust the low floor elevations of
the adjacent homes so that there’s 3 feet of separation. The reason we want to have a separation from that
ground water to the lowest floor is, even if you do have a sump pump, draintile system, power failures,
your sump pump fails, we want to provide that extra assurance for a property owner that there’s some
separation through there so that’s why we’re so closely monitoring these ground water elevations.
Additionally one of the things, and it’s just the nature of soils, we don’t know what will happen but the
area on the east side of the site here where the proposed pond is, is in close proximity of this boring 14
which has shown some higher ground water elevations. The pond area is actually will be about 12 feet of
cut so I’m not sure if the ground water that’s present in boring 14 will find it’s way to that cut area.
We’re not sure but we did include that as a point of discussion in the staff report that if that’s the case the
pond design would not function as it is because it’s not assuming a ground water flow into the system. So
that’s another element that unfortunately with the nature of soils is kind of a wait and see situation. The
other element I would like to talk to you a little bit about is the wetlands. As Sharmeen had indicated
there’s a wetland alteration permit application along with this subdivision request. The area shown here
in red is at the roadway location and that impact is shown at a location that the roadway design situated so
that it would minimize that wetland impact. There’s just due to the site constraints unfortunately that’s an
impact that we just don’t see as avoidable. Another impact that’s shown on the proposal is that the cul-
de-sac there on the very tip of the wetland here on the east side of the site. That impact, as indicated in
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
the staff report, is avoidable if the trail moves to the north side of the street. The grades coming off of the
road there could be adjusted so that that impact would go away. The trail would also move onto the side
of the street where the homes are. There would be some snow storage provided at the cul-de-sac there
next to the wetland so those are some reasons, some other reasons besides the wetland impact to look at
relocating that trail to the north side. Additionally when you look at having that trail on the south side of
the road, I apologize this isn’t working. The future trail extension, there we go. The future trail extension
to the east would also have an impact at this location. You know there’s an opportunity to put, if there
was a boardwalk in that would minimize the impact but that’s an additional cost. There’s also the high
flows through the wetland, will that impact so those are all things that through the analysis, that was why
the wetland application was denied based on the trail location so the condition of approval as stated in the
staff report is to move the trail to the north side.
Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending approval of this application to include a land use plan amendment, a
rezoning, a subdivision, variances, site plan review and a wetland alteration permit with conditions.
Again this has not been an easy site. We have been working on it for a very, very long time and I’m
going to back track just one moment. There is a possibility, there is a way to achieve the 15,000 square
foot lot area but that would mean extending lot lines into the wetlands. That is not what we want to end
up with. Often we have seen people say, well I own the wetland and I can make some alterations so our
intention is to preserve the site and again staff is recommending approval of the application and with
conditions and we’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: I think that report was very thorough for my purposes so I don’t have any questions.
Withrow: I have a question with regard to the comprehensive park plan. Is that an open issue to
compliance? I’m just reading the staff report it indicates that the site is too far away.
Al-Jaff: Correct. One of the, we talked to the Park Director about this item and one of the things that
they suggested was there is no place for an actual park within the immediate area. The trail, the sidewalk
will connect to a trail and that trail is a regional trail. It will go underneath Highway 212 and will connect
with the park along Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley. I know I’m not answering your question but
there isn’t a park within the immediate area or a place to have one.
Aller: I think that answers.
Hokkanen: Well I have a couple questions. Are we trying to squeeze too much into one space? What if
we had one less lot in that span, would that create some of the, I mean there’s so many conditions in,
would that help?
Al-Jaff: Any time you reduce lots, yes it will but it’s a matter of can they meet the conditions of the
ordinance that the City would be adopting and it’s up to the applicant to demonstrate that they can do that.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? We went through this in the preliminary. To get to medium density
zoning you meet the minimum which is 4 units an acre which also is the maximum for low density so
when we went through this in the preliminary process, because some of the size actually are four, four
does allow for twinhomes which is a minimum lot of 10,000 square foot lots so we probably could do
some twinhomes in there so looking at that, those are some of the factors that we went into…4 units an
acre but that was the goal.
Al-Jaff: As it is right now we are exactly at 4.002.
Aanenson: Yeah, so then you weren’t meeting density requirements.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Hokkanen: Another question. The variance for the 800 length of the cul-de-sac, do we have another long
cul-de-sac or multiple ones in Chanhassen?
Aanenson: Highover. There’s a few of them.
Hokkanen: Right. Okay and then the curve with the 40 miles an hour, can you explain that?
Fauske: Certainly. At this location the street design would not meet a 30 miles an hour design curve and
so we just would require an advanced warning sign. The yellow caution sign so that drivers would know
that it’s not 30 miles an hour and they would have to slow down. And again that design is dictated based
on the constraints of the site with the wetland and then the proximity to the 212 corridor.
Aller: The cul-de-sac, has it been determined that that will safely handle the fire truck if needed?
Fauske: The cul-de-sac is our standard diameter cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac length, the reason we had
included a limitation on the length in the city code is to limit the number of units on a cul-de-sac so that if
there was an emergency where the access was cut off you would limit the number of residents that were
inconvenienced by that. In this situation there is a…supporting the variances. You have the first, I think
it’s 500 feet of the street does not have any homes on it and then you have a one sided benefit to the street
for another 500 feet or so, so that’s why we support that variance.
Yusuf: So how long does this cul-de-sac end up being?
Al-Jaff: 1,300.
Yusuf: Did the staff consider having two accesses here? Maybe like a ring road with an access to, is it
Tigua Lane?
Fauske: When we look at that then we, there would be additional wetland impacts and we would not
meet the sequencing requirements of minimizing impacts so that’s a very good question. That was one of
the reasons we didn’t look at looping the street back.
Yusuf: Thank you.
Aller: Okay, which leads to the conditions as stated in the report and that we approve tonight would
mandate that those sequences be met. Anything else? The applicant said he would like to come forward.
Welcome sir.
John Knoblauch: Good evening. I’m John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Chanhassen. We’re the
applicant and developer and this project, we started I think sometime in April or May of last year and very
many drawings have been done. Staff has worked diligently to try to put their best foot forward to
develop this parcel. We feel this is the best use of this parcel. A couple of pluses, we have hired Shirley
Walker, an engineer that did the sound walls for 212 and she is working with MnDOT on the sound wall.
Noise wall and that will be a huge asset for all the neighbors in that Mission Hills area and everybody to
the north and also to the west. Part of the sound wall in what we call the hole is going to be about 20 feet
high and there’s a lot of noise that rides through that hole on the south side so that’s going to dramatically
help many of the neighbors far reaching from this development. The wetland, you know the main
wetland is a Type 3 wetland. The two wetlands on the southeast there are Type 1 wetlands and both the
wetland delineator and Terry, the LGU here in Chan has said that both, well especially the one next to Lot
1, Block 2 there, it’s a very poor quality wetland. It’s a seasonal wetland. It’s got sumac in it and so we
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
have a recent drawing that was just delivered to the City here I believe maybe 2 days ago where we’ve
moved that cul-de-sac just a little bit and we’ve tweaked it to the north and we’ve also put a very small
retaining wall, about a 35 foot retaining wall along the sidewalk. It’s 2 to 3 feet high and that will
completely eliminate that little red, what we call the point impact so we will actually not have any impact
on that wetland and where you see the orange stripe for the, when it turns into a trail. By the way I’d like
to define the, Alyson referred to it as a trail. I just want to make sure that the, on the drawings that are out
there right now, all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac is a regular sidewalk so it’s a regular 5 foot
sidewalk. The 8 foot blacktop trail would start at where the road would, the cul-de-sac. So we’re able to
have no impact there. With a boardwalk we can cross that area between those two wetlands and have
zero impact. Totally allowable with the LGU. I talked to him today and that would be an application that
would be totally allowable and have zero impact. What I would like to see which would be smarter for
the city of Chanhassen, and unfortunately we can’t get to our laptop up right now but these two wetlands,
the delineators that worked on these two wetlands, I’ll go over and talk over here louder. In this area,
right in here, this is basically, when this wetland has a bump it eventually flows over into this wetland and
then eventually it goes through this area and dumps down into here and then goes north into Rice Lake.
We are proposing the trail to go here. I know staff has talked about trying to put it on the north side to
avoid this impact. We have not come up sequencing wise with a good way to get the trail to come
through this area. Between this wetland and the ponding we need to do it’s become very, very difficult to
lay out. If I have pictures of this and really if you go out there, this has trees in it. It literally does not
look like a wetland. It was really delineated, in my opinion as a convenience because the two were so
close but if you walk out on the property this is very, very high ground right here. In my opinion, and
also my wetland delineator which is Mike Gram from Wenck and also my engineer has said that if the
trail were to go through this way, we would deal with a lot of ice and this is about a 6 foot drop that
would go inbetween this V and then come back up. So in other words we either deal with a culvert, a
much more problematic here or we deal with a much smaller culvert here and my suggestion just for
maintenance is that somehow staff works, that we just try to avoid this wetland as much as we can. That
staff tries to work it out that we’re able to bank this area and put a culvert in here and have this blacktop.
8 foot through this area and the reasoning for that is maintenance so that your crews can get a snowplow
back here and so forth so that’s just some of my suggestions. We don’t really know any other way to get
the trail over to hook up to the new 3 mile connection which is the parks department’s main goal. I
wanted to show the National Wetland Inventory Map around Rice Lake Marsh. If you go to the National
Wetland Inventory and you goggle it, right now the existing trail that goes around Rice Lake Marsh,
there’s about a mile and a half that’s finished on the north side, as most of you maybe have walked it, and
we’re going to be, we would be a final link on the south end of Rice Lake that will eventually go through
the MnDOT property. Right now about a mile of that trail goes through a PEMA wetland area according
to the inventory. According to the National Inventory, there is no wetland between these two and so I
would like, if you get a chance to pull that up and get a grip on the 3 mile trail because the wetland
impacts that have been done on that existing trail are unbelievable. It’s beyond what I could ever
imagined. When I started to look around and really see what this trail was to do to this project, I just
think it’s miniscule in the realm of the overall trail system that’s going to be put in. So we would like to
see the trail stay where it is on our drawings. And the other thing is, most of the reasoning is that the trail
will be just that more enjoyable. Walking between houses, we have a trail over at Knob Hill like that.
You know it’s looking in people’s windows and you know up against a fence on a trail versus you know
walking along a beautiful wetland, it’s just a much more pleasant experience. And also the ground on the,
along the MnDOT right-of-way is higher. I think there’ll be a lot less maintenance issues on that ground
versus the ground that’s to the north so our trail’s all busted up right now from the heavy clay that we
have in Chan and I’m pretty convinced that the soils are better the closer you get to the MnDOT right-of-
way for that trail. So those are a couple of my comments as far as the trail location if this came to fruition
and got approved, I’d like Planning Commission to look hard at that and possibly would be willing to
visit the site and walk it to show you what we’ve got in mind with the trail. Thank you.
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Aller: Thank you. Questions? Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to
speak for or against the item, please step forward. Welcome sir.
th
Troy Kakacek: Thank you. Troy Kakacek, 380 West 86 Street. I am right across the street from where
the development’s going. I guess I only have one clarification or question is, so as part of the, because
there’s multiple variances being requested here. So as part of the change, the zoning change from the
single family, or residential single family to the, what’s the zoning? Sorry.
Al-Jaff: Planned unit development.
Troy Kakacek: The planned unit development. So as part of that and changing it from low to medium it
all kind of, it’s a package deal is kind of what I’m getting at so if we approve, if it’s approved to do the
plan and then the PUD eventually falls through like the plan itself, is it now considered medium density
property for other uses outside of this current PUD?
Al-Jaff: There is, as a condition of approval we have made a contingency so approval of the rezoning is
contingent upon approval of the subdivision.
Troy Kakacek: The subdivision, okay. And then okay, perfect. And then the subdivision currently sits, I
couldn’t see the current plans for the homes but they’re all, the 16 lots are all single family detached
homes?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Troy Kakacek: With, I don’t know what the square footage approximately was but I think they were all
included in there and I couldn’t read it, it was too small but so with that I’m very much for the single
family homes. My only, you know my concern with how much is going into this approval. There’s a lot
going on so it is just no more townhomes in that area because it’s all single family to the north and
through Mission Hills so it’s really, and it’s a very quiet dead end road so with townhomes that would
bring in significant traffic and also with the drainage that we’re already kind of talking about. That would
add to the drainage problems in that area through, because all of the current townhomes to the, it’d be the
west drain down to that holding pond so everything, if it rains hard now it’s kind of like a river going
through my front yard. So I’m fine with single family, or for single family. Not for any change if this
PUD does not go forward. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Welcome.
Karen Blenker: Hi. I’m Karen Blenker and I live at 405 Rice Court and that backs right up to the road.
The proposed road and the reason I bought my place was because of privacy and because of that wooded
area and the wetland and you know I paid $5,000 more for that townhome compared to the exact same
thing on the other side of the road so what is that going to do to the property values? And then also what
is it going to do to the wildlife out there? And the wetlands and you know people putting chemicals on
their lawn and it’s draining into the wetlands and I guess I, I think we should preserve these areas,
especially with all these wetlands and you know get back to the way of life and give back to nature and
you know keep these areas the way they are so I guess that’s my opinion.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: Two comments I thought about was the one is that Knob Hill Lane where I live in the
north part of Chanhassen, we’re at 1,250 foot on our cul-de-sac. This is about 50 foot longer than Knob
Hill. Secondly, we own about, how maybe wetlands do we own Joe out in western Minnesota? You
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
know we have no intention of doing any damage to these wetland areas. All the wetland areas have a 30
foot buffer on the Type 3. Is it 25 or 30?
Al-Jaff: It’s a 30 foot setback plus 16 1/2 foot average buffer.
John Knoblauch: Okay so, we’re hoping that there’s a lot of filtration there before any lawn issues would
come up and so we’re pretty confident that with these buffer areas that are set up, and the rezoning
provides for that, that these yards won’t have a ton of impact. You know the nice wetland that’s there, I
think the wildlife will not change that dramatically. There’s a few deer that live in there and the areas to
the, especially to the east because that whole property to the east is actually going to be left fairly wild
from the cul-de-sac to the east where the pond is and then over to the MnDOT property. Unfortunately
this drawing really makes it look like we’re, I don’t know if there’s another drawing but it looks like
we’re kind of building some lots inbetween a lake on an island. If you walk out on the parcel, this was a
farmed parcel for years. They farmed right through those two blue wetlands to the southeast and he has a
cattle walkway where the road is now and we encourage anybody to go out and take a walk back there
and I think it will be a really nice site. One thing that I would also mention is that the homes that I’ve
built in Shakopee for the last 17 years, we’ve been building on lots from 8,500 to 9,200 square feet and
those homes are 2,700 to 2,900 square foot, two stories and these pads are actually bigger, believe it or
not than those at 10,000 square feet and so if you think about it, the buildable area in this, on this drawing
up here is 4 acres. It’s an even 4 acres. Now keep in mind this site is 13.62 acres. Okay so that gives you
a perception of really what’s out there. I think this is the best thing that could come along rather than
twinhomes. There was a couple twinhome plans that were looked at, that we looked at trying to do, and
we still think this is the best scenario. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to step forward? Yes ma’am.
LuAnn Markgraf: I’m LuAnn Markgraf. I live at 401 Rice Court. I would be the first townhouse unit
that would be impacted by the entrance, and there’s lots of trees and oaks right in the back of my unit and
how much of that, is all of that going to disappear? And is it going to be looking at a sidewalk? Is there
going to be a retaining wall? What is going to happen with that area? I noticed that there is going to be a
street sign that is going to be going in that corner. In relation to that map, where is the sign going to go?
So those are my biggest issues. Because it is a very quiet area and it’s going to be impacted by you know
more cars. They’ll be having that speed limit sign up for people to show how fast they’re going through
th
there because people speed through there on 86 now as it is. So there’s a lot of issues, and granted they
live in a townhouse. Don’t live in a single family home which I think John kind of, the last meeting last
winter it was like oh the real estate market for the townhouses has just gone down the tubes. We don’t
really care about townhouses. What we care about is getting as much, as many units in that area as
possible and not care about the townhouses that face the entrance and the only one entrance to this
development, which is a big issue. So that’s my comments.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: May I address one?
Aller: Sure, that would be great.
John Knoblauch: Yeah, I’ve been well aware there’s about 6 significant oak trees.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry but we’re having a difficult time hearing…
Aller: Why don’t you come up.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
John Knoblauch: Okay.
Aller: Thank you.
John Knoblauch: Yep, and backing up to their four, I believe it’s a four isn’t it?
LuAnn Markgraf: Four units.
John Knoblauch: Yeah the four unit, there is some significant, in the tree survey, I believe there’s about 6
oaks there and my understanding is those will not be touched. They’re pretty tight to the townhome
property. One plus that I heard from one of the townhome owners is that right where the road is proposed
there’s 3 huge cottonwoods that basically clog their air conditioners every year and those 3 big
cottonwoods would actually come down but the intention is the berm that’s there now, next to the town,
there’s kind of a natural berm that comes up and the oaks that are on that are going to remain. Thank you.
LuAnn Markgraf: What about the sign?
Al-Jaff: There is a sign that is shown on the plans that is proposed to be located at this corner, which
th
would be a southeast corner of the intersection of West 86 and the proposed road. Staff is
recommending that it meets all ordinance requirements pertaining to wetland setbacks, wetland buffer,
property line setback, which would be 10 feet. It cannot be within sight distances and the area of the sign
cannot exceed 24 square feet nor 5 feet in height.
Aanenson: I just want to make sure we’re talking about a development sign, not a stop sign.
Al-Jaff: Correct. Yes.
John Knoblauch: We would like to do a stone for a sign. It’s very, very small spot. It’s a very small
window on that front corner. I want to call it the southeast corner of the intersection. It looks like it’d be
doable to get a stone, you know engraved stone. We don’t have any intentions of having any large, you
know some kind of a monument or anything. It would be pretty minimum for signage but it looks like
there’s a small spot there. We would like it on that side. Opposite of the townhomes. Thank you.
Aller: Any other individuals? I will close the public hearing. Comments, questions.
Hokkanen: Very thorough report.
Yusuf: I don’t have any questions.
Aller: If we were to look at the, is there a way to leave open alternatives? I don’t think there is.
Aanenson: Well what I would suggest Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission is that you direct
your motion and but maybe you can also direct staff to work between now and City Council to consider
some of those alternatives to present to the City Council. You could word it such that…if you wanted to
approve it going that direction but consider the following things between now and then.
Aller: Okay, and this is now…to the commissioners. We’ve got the potential application of the sidewalk
which I’m fully in favor of and the whole idea of a PUD is that the City gets certain things out of a PUD
that it normally wouldn’t under the zoning and that’s the purpose of changing it. And so that would be
one of my goals is to make sure that the City and the desires of the City to protect that wetland and those
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
buffers is effectuated so I’m all for going ahead because I think there are enough protections here to vote
in favor of moving forward the way it has been presented by staff but my thought is that if Terry and
Water Resources and staff come up with a better plan, I don’t want to forestall that and I don’t want to
have them need to come back so that would be my thought.
Hokkanen: No, I agree.
Aller: Because there are a number of conditions that we will be waiting for to be met as far as numbers to
be crunched and water tables and things that would impact that specific requirement. So with that any
other questions or comments?
Withrow: No.
Aller: I’d entertain a motion. And you add that in there…
Hokkanen: Okay. Okay, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use
Map Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low and Medium Density. Rezoning from
Single Family Residential and Mixed Low Density Residential to Planned Unit Development Residential.
Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and two outlots with variances. Site plan review and Wetland
Alteration Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoptions of the attached Findings of
Fact and Recommendation including further review of the location of the trail within the wetlands. Or
future recommendations of proper placement.
Aller: That being a motion, do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: Any further discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the land use map amendment from Residential – Low Density to Residential – Low
approve
and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the attached Findings of
Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the rezoning from Residential – Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density
approve
Residential (R8) to Planned Unit Development – Residential (PUD-R) with the following
condition; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and
attached ordinance rezoning the property.
1.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the
development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in
approve
plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions, and adoption of the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1. All lots must comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Maximum
Area Width Depth
Hardcover Notes
(square feet) (feet) (feet)
(square feet)
60 at
PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent
setback
L1 B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland
L2 B1 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland
L3 B1 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland
L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland
L5 B1 10,011 69 146 3,003
L6 B1 10,622 62 130 3,198
L7 B1 10,017 62 120 3,005
L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland
L9 B1 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland
L10 B1 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland
L11 B1 72 (building Wetland
12,936 121 3,880
setback)
L12 B1 75 (building Wetland
10,089 118 3,026
setback)
L1 B2 Wetland, * area of neck
96 (building
12,723* 128 3,817 (5,580 sq. ft.) excluded
setback)
from lot area calculations
L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot
L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029
L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001
Outlot A 6.46 acres open
281,352
space/wetlands
Outlot B 1.1 acres open
48,043
space/wetlands
ROW 72,309 1.66 acres
TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres
Wetland setback:
20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure.
Front:
25 ft.
Rear:
30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft.
Side:
10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
2.All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or
dying within that time period.
3.The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape
materials on state right-of-way.
4.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along the south property line to meet
minimum requirements.
5.Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than
30 mph.
6.The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments:
a.Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations:
i.Runoff leaving the overall site for the two-year (2.8-inch) rainfall and snowmelt
events.
ii.Runoff leaving the wetland located on the western portion of the site for each design
event.
iii.Runoff leaving the site to the north for the snowmelt event.
b.Use a pond in the model at the 18-inch culvert located north of the site.
c.The analysis should reflect any overtopping of the driveway or other overland flows that
may occur.
d.Due to the increased velocities through the12-inch culvert leaving the western wetland,
the developer must provide a design to address associated erosion at this location. Any
required improvements outside of existing easements shall require additional easements.
e.The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the
Drainage Area and Curve Number Table.
f.Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in
the composite Curve Number computation.
g.The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city’s
requirements for water quality are satisfied.
i.If the event-based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8
or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies.
ii.If an iron-enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be
provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed
plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations.
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
iii.The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load.
This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either
an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular
rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency.
7.The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30%.
8.If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be
adjusted so that there is a minimum three-foot separation.
9.The developer must provide additional information showing how the proposed
“Preservation/Stormwater Volume Reduction Area” between the large wetland and the back
of Lots 4-7, Block 1 will meet the minimum requirements.
10.Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with the final plat application and shall
include the existing storm sewer at Tigua Lane (approximately 280 feet east of the proposed
street intersection). The existing 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe north of Lots 7 and 8,
Block 1 shall also be included in the analysis.
11.The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments:
a.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the
MnDOT right-of-way.
b.The grading plan must be revised at the slope down from the street to the wetland at
Station 3+00, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 so the slope does not exceed 3H:1V.
c.The lowest openings of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 must be at least one foot above the
emergency overflow elevation.
d.The minimum floor elevation of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be 897.6’.
e.The building envelope for Lot 3, Block 2 must not encroach into the drainage and utility
easement.
f.The side yard drainage and utility easements between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 must
match what is shown on the plat.
g.The building pad shown for Lot 1, Block 2 cannot accommodate any of the house styles
provided and must be revised accordingly.
h.It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The
developer’s engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights.
12.A building permit is required to construct the proposed retaining wall. Plans must be
submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
35
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
13.Some homes may choose to install a privately-owned and maintained booster to provide a
higher water pressure.
14.The watermain shall be 8-inch PVC (C-900).
15.Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain the necessary easement to install the
sanitary sewer off-site, to the north.
16.A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in
the rate in effect at that time.
17.Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat.
18.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone
document and submitted to engineering for review and comment. This SWPPP shall include
a narrative, plan set and applicable details.
19.The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater
Associated with Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA
SWPPP checklist.
20.A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and
approval per the requirements of Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES
Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary
and permanent best management practices.
21.There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off-site discharge locations. Rates must
be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge
points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting.
22.A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed for all areas preserved
as open space including those areas graded for the construction of stormwater management
practices that are above the normal water level.
23.Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way is outside of the City of Chanhassen’s
WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen’s review of wetland
boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals
from MnDOT for work on the sound wall.
24.The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue
their concurrence to this effect.
25.Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are
$67,483.50. Provide area of wetland buffer after development to accurately calculate credit.
Fifty-percent (50%) of shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of
26.park fees
Outlots A and B.
The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
46,400
submission and approval. At today’s rate these fees would total $(16 lots X $5,800 per
/2
lot).
27.Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a neighborhood
trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail shall be further reviewed for proper
placement through the wetland.
28.Construction of the 8-foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the
southeast corner of the property.
29.The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right-of-
way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul-de-sac that
approve
exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following
conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment,
Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received
approve
June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact
and Recommendation:
1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
2.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and
design standards.
3.Execution of the Site Plan Permit.
4.Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with
approve
the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
37
Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013
1.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site.
2.A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs
shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control
BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location.
3.The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed
road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1.
4.A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the
Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects as well as a signed
and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder.
5.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage
report and wetland replacement application.
6.Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan
Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN
ALTERNATIVE TO A SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS) ON PROPERTY ZONED
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES D. WILSON, ET. AL,
PLANNING CASE 2013-14.
Aanenson: This is the Wilson Nursery piece. This is a request for a variance in the City Code to allow
the installation of a sewage…on property zoned Agricultural. The subject site is 38, I mean 39 acres and
is seasonally used as a nursery site. It’s guided low density in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the
location of the subject site. Again it’s almost 39 acres. It abuts Highway 101 where it just so happens
that the City is doing an improvement project. This is kind of the engineered drawing of the improvement
project. …but as they were working in the, what they believed was the easement, existing septic site was
in that easement area and was not…so it was accidentally hit so if you look at this map, which would be a
little easier to read then the engineering plan…it’s right on the easement area so it was hit. …so the
resolution that we’re proposing with this variance request is to put a holding tank in there. The City has
adopted Carver County’s ordinance for holding tanks and that’s what we’re referring to here so the
recommendation would be to replace it with a holding tank so it has to be pumped regularly. We feel
comfortable with this use as this, the Wilson Nursery property because it is a seasonal use. So no one’s
living there. It’s used as part of the operation. The reason why another septic site could not be placed on
this site is that the entire area’s been compromised through the activity that’s taken place with the
landscaping business and then the ultimate grading of that right-of-way for the City’s… There wasn’t a
good site to put that so this is in a future growth area. We do believe that within the next number of years
they could potentially redevelop. Basically a lift station built off of Powers Boulevard immediately to the
west of this property bringing sewer up…but we do believe that is coming in in the near future so the staff
38