PC Minutes 04-01-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
PUBLIC HEARING:
BOULDER COVE – PLANNING CASE 2014-09: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH
VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE 13.39 ACRES INTO 31 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY
ZONED RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM) AND LOCATED AT 3670
HIGHWAY 7. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION. PROPERTY OWNER: PREMIER
BANK.
Al-Jaff: Chairwoman Tennyson, members of the Planning Commission. Just briefly the site is located
nd
north of Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62 Street. Some of the basics of the site
that need to be pointed out. There used to be a landscape business on this site for a number of years and
you will notice that there are some existing trees, primarily the ones that are located around the perimeter
of the site. The intention is to save the majority of those. Also you will notice that there are boulders
scattered throughout the site. Those will be utilized as part of the landscaping for this development.
Currently there are 4 access points. The, off of Highway 7. The access points that are the most westerly,
the two most westerly, those two will be closed off with this proposed development. The access points
that are to the east, the two to the east, those are private. Those are private property that the applicant has
attempted to contact to see if they would be interested in having a private street and closing off their
access off of 7. The property owner to the far east has indicated that at this time they are not interested
and the applicant has not been able to connect with the property immediately to the east of the subject
site. The intent is at some point in the future is to have this private street available to them and currently
there is a cul-de-sac bubble that actually connects to the property that’s immediately to the east of the
subject site so access is available. The 2030 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development
as low density residential and the zoning of the site is mixed low and medium density. With that type of
zoning and with the land use, one of the applications that had appeared before the City in 2006 and was
actually approved was a request to put in single family homes, duplexes as well as three-plexes for a total
number of units of 39. The application was approved and up til 2012 they requested extensions and the
City granted those extensions until 2012 we said we need to look at other development options. Also
there were a few ordinances that had been amended so we wanted to insure that the application complies
with current ordinances and that’s why it was allowed to lapse. So with that said, now we have an
application before us that is looking at 31 single family homes to be placed on these 13.38 acres and 3
outlots. The outlots will contain ponds as well as a totlot and a third outlot will have a sign identifying
the development. The density of the proposed subdivision is 2.32 units per acre. The net density is 3.99
units per acre. Under the low density designation you can have up to 4 units per acre so they are within
the low density development guidelines. All lots within this development meet the minimum area, depth,
width requirements of the zoning ordinance. One of the things that we asked the applicant to provide us
with was the type of homes that they intend to build in this development. They gave us a number of
samples and one of them was a product that is labeled next generation. It’s a home within a home. Under
the City ordinances and the definitions within our code, these units would be classified as a two family
home. In cases such as these, our city code requires a variance to be granted for such use and it’s specific
to a certain individual. Typically it’s an elderly and it’s on a temporary basis. Right now we are
evaluating this ordinance and looking at it in more depth. As proposed by the applicant we cannot
approve such a unit so at this time they will not be allowed to have these units within this development.
And however the city code is amended, if it was amended they would have to meet the guidelines and
regulations that are set by the City. Okay? Other than that the, there is a variance attached to this
application and that deals with the length of the cul-de-sac. The city code requires a minimum length, a
maximum length for a cul-de-sac of 800 feet. This cul-de-sac has total length of 1,200 feet. Staff is
recommending approval of this cul-de-sac for safety reasons because it will eliminate access points off of
Highway 7. At this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson, Assistant City Engineer to address.
Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Planning Commissioners, it’s my pleasure this evening to talk to you a
little bit about some of the background work that’s gone into this development proposal. One thing that
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
we wanted to discuss and give the commission some background is on the Highway 7 corridor as it exists
today. This exhibit which is also included on page 6 of the report, of the staff report shows some of the
development work that’s occurred within this corridor within the last 10 years. It also indicates where
access points exist within the corridor so moving west to east there is, there used to be an access point
here on Pipewood Curve. Due to sight distances, when the Hidden Creek development was developed
over to the east, that access, the old Pipewood Curve access was, the old Pipewood Curve access was
closed and a new one was constructed on Highway 7 so that was, that was MnDOT’s way of improving
the corridor by providing a better intersection with better sight distances. As we move further along to
the east there’s Hidden Creek Meadows which did not have a new access to Highway 7. The Boulder
Cove development, which is before you this evening, and then on the very eastern part of the exhibit
shown here is Boyer Lake Minnewashta which constructed, extended streets through the existing local
system. So the Highway 7 corridor, it is govern by MnDOT and MnDOT when they look at providing an
access for development if there’s, they look at the corridor. The sight distances and if there’s a viable
access from a street system other than the state highway they say you need to get your access from the
local street system and not from the state highway. That being said we wanted to discuss some of the
concerns that have come up with some of the traffic in the area. This is also in the staff report on page 7
and the Boulder Cove site is indicated for the area shown with the red star there and the path outlined in
purple indicates a route that is taken by some to drop the children off, either passenger vehicles or buses
to Minnewashta Elementary school on the north side of Smithtown Road. Church Road is a Chanhassen
nd
city street. It is 31 feet wide. That is the city standard for a local street. West 62 Street, the south half
lies within the city of Chanhassen. The north half is within the city of Shorewood. That street is 22 feet
wide as is Strawberry Lane which is a city of Shorewood street. Staff did meet with the City of
Shorewood to discuss this development proposal. They are aware of resident concerns with the traffic in
the area as well as pedestrian traffic and they’re starting to look at the corridor, ultimately what would
happen with the street widths. Their standard they indicated to us was 24 feet so 2 foot widening.
Narrower than the Chanhassen standard. They were also going to take a look at the trail system
requirements within this area but they don’t have it identified currently in their capital improvement plan.
They anticipate it might be 5 to 10 years out. So any improvements within the corridor, particularly as
nd
the City of Chanhassen is concerned with West 62 Street, we would do a joint venture with the City of
Shorewood because for Chanhassen to go ahead and look at improving half of one street, it doesn’t make
sense. We need to be working with Shorewood to do that and they’re starting their process internally and
then they’ll come back to Chanhassen and say this is what we anticipate seeing within the corridor and
then Chanhassen will start looking at our street system and how that affects us. One of the things that we
also talked about with the City of Shorewood is the existing intersection between Strawberry Lane and
nd
West 62 Street is a curve. As indicated in this exhibit there’s a curve here so there’s no stop condition
nd
for those that are traveling on West 62 Street up to Strawberry Lane and Shorewood, when we had our
discussion with them there was a discussion about making that a T intersection so that the proposed street
nd
within the Lennar development would T up with 62 Street. Since it came up so late in the review
process and since we’re also waiting for Shorewood to give us some direction as far as where they
ultimately anticipate Strawberry Lane lying within the right-of-way, where ultimately they anticipate
having a sidewalk. Whether it be on the west side or the east side. Those are things that we need to have
clear direction on before we give the developer’s engineer the go ahead to start taking a look at how that
intersection could be reconstructed to a T intersection and that’s why we don’t have that shown for you
this evening. As part of that analysis we’ve directed the developer to get a traffic engineer to take a look
at whether a T intersection at that location would warrant a stop condition. There are recommendations
and guidelines when to use a stop condition and so we rely on a traffic engineer to provide us with that
information and that recommendation and part of that process would get, would be to get traffic counts in
the area. Traffic counts, Chanhassen, neither Chanhassen nor Shorewood have any traffic data in this
area. The reason being is that traffic count data is taken on a state aid route and neither of these streets
are a state aid route in the Chanhassen or the Shorewood system so we want to get an indication of what
the vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic is in the area and then the traffic engineer can use that in his or
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
her analysis of the intersection to see if a stop sign is warranted. The other thing that we wanted to talk to
you a little bit about this evening is the traffic generation. I wanted to provide an analysis of what was
proposed back in the 2006 development. This is also shown on page 8 of your staff report. The current
proposal is the Lennar 31 single family homes. In my analysis I just included the two single family
homes just to show an ultimate development pattern should those two homes connect to the cul-de-sac
and then I compared that to the 2006 development proposal which also included those 2 single family.
The difference in the total daily trips, because single family homes generate higher traffic per unit than a
twinhome or townhome so we did see an increase in the total daily trips as well as the a.m. and p.m. peak
trips and the a.m. and p.m. peak trips are what traffic engineers will look at when looking at like for
example here where it’s a school corridor where there’s buses so they look at the peak a.m. and p.m. trips
in their analysis. So an increase of 6 1/2 trips in the morning and 10.8 trips in the evening. Statistically
it’s, we don’t have a number of the existing counts through the street system there but it’s, we’ll have a
better idea of what that number is when we get the traffic counts through the area. It’s to provide more
guidance. One of the other items that we wanted to bring to the Planning Commission and to the public’s,
to educate the Planning Commission and the public about some of the surface drainage because there are
some surface and ground water drainage concerns that have been brought to our attention. The map
shown on the west side, on the left side of the screen here is the existing drainage area map and it’s color
coded to give you an indication of where the site drains to. The area in yellow goes to the north. The
area in the green goes to the west and the area in pink goes to the south to the MnDOT right-of-way. So
the proposed drainage system is shown on the right hand side of the screen with the yellow area going to
the north so they’ve decreased the area that’s directly discharging to the north. The area in purple goes to
a filtration system that they’re proposing to build on site that ultimately would drain to their stormwater
pond which is located in the area shown in blue. And then ultimately discharging to the right-of-way.
They would have to work, the applicant would be required to work with MnDOT for a drainage permit
because they would be draining to the Highway 7 right-of-way. And one of the other things that was
examined quite extensively several years ago when the first development proposal came in and we’ve
been talking about it again this time around is ground water. The City is aware of a few residents to the
west of this site that have sump pumps quite a bit and water intrusion so we wanted to identify that with
the 2006 proposal which after an analysis done both by the applicant and by Barr Engineering, the final
recommendation was to include a draintile system just to, just to the west side of the proposed pond here
in Outlot A in the south corner of the site. And the intent there is to provide some mechanism to attempt
to drain some of that ground water out of saturated soils and get it into the MnDOT right-of-way to help
alleviate some of the drainage issues with some of the folks to the west. One of the other things that staff
has been working with the applicant on is the ground water elevation that was encountered in one of the
soil borings. The area, the dots shown in green indicates some of the soil borings that were taken on the
site back in 2005, which was a wet year. And then the two locations shown in orange are some
piezometers that Lennar’s soil engineer has installed to monitor some ground water elevations. The area
that we’ve been talking to the developer about is right here in this area of Outlot A. The soil boring did
show a higher ground water elevation than what the anticipated normal water level is in the, the designed
normal water level is in the pond at this location so we’re working with them to get some more data to see
if, if the ground water elevation observed in 2005 was simply because you’ve dug a hole in the ground
and the saturated soils just drained into that hole. 2005 was a wet year. Or if there is a sand lens in there
that is carrying some water and so we want to try to get an idea of what’s happening there. What’s, from
an engineering standpoint what’s the best solution to this? And in this case it affects the design of the
stormwater pond. It’s not an indication of putting more ground water, you know re-saturating the ground
water. It’s a question about the design of the storm pond so we’re going to continue working with the
applicant on that to get that issue resolved.
Al-Jaff: Just wanted to add that the applicant has held a neighborhood meeting. That meeting notice was
posted on the City’s website. Also there has been a sign on the site for almost a month indicating that
there is proposed development on this site, as well as public hearing notices that went to people within
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
500 feet as required by city code. With that said we are recommending approval of the Boulder Cove
subdivision with a variance for the length of the cul-de-sac and we are recommending the Planning
Commission adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation that are attached to your staff
report and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
Tennyson: Do you have any questions?
Undestad: Yeah, a couple here. I guess, I’ll go over to Alyson first. So the soil borings they have are
from 2005?
Fauske: Yes that’s correct and then they did some additional soils investigation with the Lennar proposal.
Undestad: Okay, so more current borings that they’ve done out there?
Fauske: More current borings but when we looked at the ground water elevations, when we have a soil
boring taken at some point in time that showed an elevated ground water condition, we want to do our due
diligence to make sure that, was it an anomaly because of the wet season that preceded that or is that
really where this ground water is sitting at, at that location.
Undestad: So and their new soil borings?
Fauske: They had a new one, they did a new piezometer installation just to the north of that but when we
start graphing where, there’s like a sandy, silty sand layer that’s between two clay layers which tends to
move the water through so we want to get an idea within that Outlot A where that pond is, where is the
ground water normally at at that location? Is it, is it below the normal water level? We’re okay or is it
above that normal water level where it’s actually now feeding into the stormwater pond and affecting the
removal efficiencies of that pond.
Undestad: Okay. Then you mentioned about the drain tiles too that I read somewhere there might be
some existing drain tiles in the area?
Fauske: Correct.
Undestad: Do we know about any of those or?
Fauske: We did get some back in 2006 one of the residents did give us some information with some of
the existing drain tile that he knew of in the location and they, the developer is proposing quite a bit of
storm sewer in the rear yards throughout this development so any drain tile encountered would be
connected. Investigated and connected where possible.
Undestad: Okay. And then the last one, the traffic study that is going to happen or?
Fauske: An analysis.
Undestad: I mean it’s giving you more information.
Fauske: Correct. More information will be coming forward.
Undestad: So would that, the potential of that traffic study, when that is done, would that potentially have
an impact as to the number of trips versus the number of lots and homes and whether or not it’s a stop
situation at that intersection?
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Fauske: To answer your question about the trip generation. The trip generation that’s included in the
staff report is, it’s based on empirical data that’s been monitored so as far as the estimated trips, we don’t
anticipate that that would change. What we’re looking at from a traffic engineer is to go ahead and get
vehicular traffic counts as well as pedestrian traffic counts. Take a look at what the ultimate design of
that intersection will be by T’ing it up. Is a stop condition warranted? And if so, what are the impacts
nd
that would happen? Any delays on West 62 Street. That east/west street as a result of that traffic, of a
stop condition.
Undestad: So that traffic study wouldn’t necessarily go right back to say okay, 25 lots are you know, for
traffic control.
Fauske: It’s an existing condition where you have a lot of vehicles traveling to the school in the morning
and in the afternoon so it’s, taking a look at what’s existing right there and what can be done now to help
alleviate that and to make it, where the proposed street connection is a safe connection.
Undestad: Okay.
Tennyson: And there are a number of conditions already in the report. Are these, it sounds like these
new investigations related to the stop sign and the possible change in the curve, all of that, those are
additional conditions?
Fauske: Correct.
Tennyson: And they’re included?
Fauske: Correct.
Tennyson: Okay. And just so, for purposes of review, the 2006 proposal was very similar. It was more,
it was a higher number of units with one outlot and maybe this is more for Sharmeen. And now it is
fewer housing units with 3 outlots.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Tennyson: And a variance. There’s one variance. It’s not related to this proposed dual housing kind of
situation. It’s just about the cul-de-sac.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Tennyson: Okay. Thank you.
Al-Jaff: Which was also a variance with the original proposal.
Tennyson: Okay.
Al-Jaff: Same length cul-de-sac.
Tennyson: Anybody else?
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Hokkanen: I have the same question. Maybe the applicant can address whether they can meet all these
conditions because I have questions about, similar questions with the drainage and the traffic. I mean
should we have had the traffic study first?
Fauske: Ultimately that’s what we would have desired and the applicant I think would echo that. That
sentiment. Unfortunately the discussions and trying to get into the same room with the City of
Shorewood didn’t happen until the applicant had made their application and given the fact that
nd
Shorewood is now taking a step back so to speak and taking a look at the Strawberry Lane/West 62
corridor in it’s entirety and ultimately what they want to do with that, we felt that the details of that T
intersection and the stop condition, it’s not generated by the addition of these 32 single family homes.
It’s, there’s an existing traffic, the existing traffic out there is already, it’s already there.
Hokkanen: It’s already in now.
Fauske: So with the new street connection there, what’s the best way to approach this? What’s the best
geometric intersection? Geometry of the intersection and what are the impacts of that?
Hokkanen: Okay.
Weick: Would the, the two existing properties to the east, it looked like in one of the pictures that if the
homeowner to the far east chooses to be connected to the cul-de-sac, which it sounds like that’s a choice.
There would be, it looks like a new driveway that would cut across the neighbor’s property? Is that how
that works?
Fauske: There’s currently in place. Thank you Sharmeen.
Weick: Down here. Well this is a home though right?
Fauske: Correct.
Hokkanen: So with the far east one.
Weick: How would the far east connect to the cul-de-sac?
Fauske: This area dashed out right here, there’s currently an easement for a private street.
Weick: There is? Okay.
Fauske: Yes. So that was put in place, it actually preceded the 2006 application is when that easement
was put in place is my understanding. That would provide the eastern most single family home access to
the local street.
Weick: And that would not extend the length of the cul-de-sac correct? That’d be considered?
Fauske: That would be considered a private street and would have to go through an approval process at
that time. If the western, if this property that’s currently adjacent to the cul-de-sac right-of-way wanted to
make the connection to the cul-de-sac, it would be considered at that point a driveway.
Weick: Okay.
Fauske: It’s when you have two homes where it’s a private street.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Weick: Yep. Okay. Okay.
Hokkanen: I have one more question. The length of the street for the variance for the cul-de-sac. How
long? I can’t remember what it was.
Fauske: They’re proposing 1,200 feet and the city code limits it to 800. The reason staff is supporting
that, and thank you for bringing that up. I should have mentioned that in the review, is the geometrics of
the site, as it goes, and it’s only frontage to public street is on the very northwestern corner. It extends
you know further to the east here. A connection to Highway 7 is not possible. Looking to the west here,
a street connection through here, ultimately redevelopment of this area it’s, would a street connection
through here really serve a great purpose? That’s questionable so as staff we supported the street, the cul-
de-sac length variance because of the geometrics of the site and the fact that we’re removing some access
points off of Highway 7.
Hokkanen: And not to put you on the spot but Highcrest Meadows. We did longer cul-de-sac in there.
Do we know how long? Do you remember?
Fauske: Highcrest Meadows, if I’m correct preceded the cul-de-sac, maximum cul-de-sac length did it
not?
Aanenson: Correct. I think some of those might have been closer to 1,200, 1,100. But I think there’s
some places where based on topography like Settlers West where it’s only possible servicing. And we did
look at, or at least engineering looked at every possible alternative including connecting to Church Street
and what that would do to traffic as Alyson had already stated coming up off of Highway 7 and potential
back-up’s that way too.
Hokkanen: Thank you.
Weick: And as a point of clarification, there are no variances for lot sizes correct? They fall within the.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Weick: The guidelines.
Al-Jaff: Yes they do.
Weick: Acreage per lot. Okay.
Tennyson: Okay. With that we’ll close this portion of the meeting and open the public hearing.
Aanenson: We may, you might want to ask the applicant first and then maybe we could.
Tennyson: Certainly. Would the developer like to come forward and state your name and address for the
record please.
Joe Jablonski: Good evening Madam Chair. Members of the commission. My name is Joe Jablonski.
th
I’m representing Lennar US Home Corporation at 16305 36 Avenue North, Suite 600 in Plymouth,
Minnesota. I appreciate staff’s presentation. They did a good job kind of laying out the background of
the site. Obviously our general site planning hasn’t changed a great deal from what was approved before.
The big reason behind that really is constraints of what you can do with it. It’s fairly oddly shaped.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
You’re locked in by Highway 7 and existing neighborhoods. One of the considerations on the length of
the cul-de-sac too to take into account is, you know we could have potentially shorten it and wrapped
homes around the back of it but that would have also severed the opportunity for the two eastern parcels
to at some point connect because part of this, as I understand is that MnDOT is really eager to get the
access points eliminated along that corridor and by not having the length of the cul-de-sac it would make
it that much more difficult to do that, which is why we had followed the previous precedent set there.
There are a few of the other things that I wanted to kind of elaborate on a little bit. There’s a number of
conditions in here that as staff had gone through their presentation kind of noted that have potentially
changed and they were related to the elimination of the access points on, it would be condition number f,
g, h and i. Maybe not g but f, h, i and k actually is the other one and those were all related to the two
eastern parcels and how connections were made to those under the previous proposal. They were kind of
part of the plat. Under our proposal they are not so we’re not asking them to provide easements. The
easement that Alyson mentioned actually was not ever recorded so there’s not a driveway easement
across the western property to the eastern property. It was prepared but it was never recorded so we
would prefer to keep all that kind of out of here so, and I think staff acknowledged that in conversations
earlier that those items could be removed or. To get into a little bit more of the geotechnical things and
some of the ground water that the Assistant City Engineer mentioned. We have gone out and done
additional testing and data collection knowing that it’s something that we wanted to understand as well.
Just to maybe give a little bit more background. Our analysis has shown that typical ground water in the
area would be Lake Minnewashta which is approximately 20 feet below this site. There are potential for
veins of other ground water but the actual water table based on our geotechnical recommendation is that
Lake Minnewashta area. We have had additional conversations and we will continue to work with staff
on that item. I think that we can get that addressed in a way that we’re comfortable with and staff will be
comfortable with as well. Traffic. You know I think that Alyson was correct in saying that if the item
had been presented to us early that we could have addressed the traffic concern. The concern isn’t that
the amount of trips that the new project is going to generate as much as what’s there already and how you
can maybe take a not very good situation and make it better. We’re willing to do that and help in that
process knowing that if we weren’t doing anything in this area that that probably wouldn’t happen so it is
an opportunity for you know some more data collection and we can support that and assist with that and I
think that we can get that done fairly quickly. I don’t know how much data you want to collect or how
long you want the data collection to occur but we can, we should be able to get that lined up and done
pretty quick I think. Other than that I’d be more than happy to answer any questions if you have anything
else that you would like to discuss with me or anyone from back?
Tennyson: Does anyone have any questions for the developer?
Weick: Assuming that, and we touched on it briefly before but the entrance to the subdivision. I’m
assuming because of what’s around this property that that’s really it, right? As far as street access and all
that kind of stuff.
Joe Jablonski: It is and I think the Assistant City Engineer will also attest to the fact that you try to line
roads up as much as you can. Putting an extra access point somewhere else really doesn’t work. The
only other place would be through onto Church Street through a small connection point but there again
then you have to potentially deal with back up’s on Church. And there’s just not, because of the existing
houses there it’s just very difficult to get through there and MnDOT obviously wants elimination of
nd
points on Highway 7 so the whole north boundary, everything east of where Strawberry Court and 62,
the entrance to the neighborhood is already developed and has homes on it so there’s no opportunity
there. So it is pretty close to locked in. We can work with more of a T arrangement or rearrange it but
the general area there is kind of where it’s got to be.
Tennyson: Anyone else? With that we’ll open the public hearing.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Laurie Sacchet: Well thank you very much Planning Commission. My name’s Laurie Sacchet. I’m at
6175 Strawberry Lane. Approximately 3 homes away from the entrance. Just like to invite any of you to
be at my house at between 7:00 and 8:00 in the morning and see 3 large buses sitting there with you know
10 cars waiting to get through and the reality of living in a 22 foot Strawberry Lane. You know it’s a
country area back there and I think speaking on behalf of my neighbors, having 60 plus vehicles you
know coming through there, considering everybody might have 1 or 2 cars is a really serious concern.
nd
The street isn’t designed for that at all. Or 62 Street. Right now cars kind of whip around there as it is
and there’s really not room for 2 so you know it’s amazing there haven’t been more collisions there but
you know people slow down so just the reality is that that access point is, in reality a very, very poor
choice. The angle of it and everything about it so maybe a miracle can change that but the other option of
adding one on Church Street would alleviate a tremendous situation and share some of the load and if that
possibility exists I would strongly encourage that that be looked at because right now it’s inviting a mess
in that area with the number of children living there. I don’t have any. All of my neighbors do. There
are no sidewalks. There are no stop signs. It’s rural. So anyway 10 years is an awful long time to wait
on something like that so thank you for considering all that.
Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak?
nd
Leah Schneider: My name is Leah Schneider. I live on 26420 West 62 Street. I’m directly across the
street from the proposed entrance. My husband’s a Chanhassen fire fighter. He’s here as well so he
nd
frequents Strawberry and West 62 and understands the safety concerns that we have. My kids who are
also here, since it’s spring break and we don’t have a sitter, ride the bus every morning and I stand in the
driveway and watch them go to the bus stop because it is extremely traffic laden in the morning and I
think that was noted in some of the, well I guess the empirical data but not, not like no traffic study has
been done I guess to this point. And this isn’t new information. This is something that we brought up in
2006 and we are the same owners so I still have this concern. I can speak, people whip around that corner
pretty fast. This winter it’s been a bad winter, I’ll give you that but our neighbors have actually had about
I think 4 or 5 cars run into their property on that turn so it’s very dangerous as is. I’m not confident a stop
sign would help. It depends on where you put the stop sign but I do think that adding 31 or 62 new
drivers, you know cars will impact it regardless of how you look at that and I do think it’s important to do
a traffic study ahead of time before you start working on this because there is not, I walk on that road to
go to the parks, the trail system, because all of those exits have been taken off of Highway 7, people use
that as a through road to get back into Lake Minnetonka neighborhoods. Any road along Smithtown so
it’s already pretty, there’s a lot of traffic going back there so I do think that would impact that, the traffic
on that road. I also have concerns about drainage. I did see the proposal. I saw the ponds but my sump
pump runs all year long and we have standing water if it rains and it’s, so I’m concerned. We’re actually
on the north so it sounds like something’s going to be done to the west but I haven’t heard anything about
the north side so that’s another concern of mine. And so I mean mainly for me it’s the traffic and the
safety. Providing sidewalks or something. Improving the roads somehow. They’re just too narrow and
school buses actually don’t take those corners. They have to stop if another car is coming around the
corner. They have to completely stop and that happens pretty much every morning. So that’s pretty
much it. Thanks.
Tennyson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Jason Schneider: I’m Jason. I’m Leah’s husband. I’ve been a Chanhassen fireman for 22 years. I have
seen the redevelopment of Highway 7. All the closures of all our exits and entrances onto 7. Most calls I
go to are not from those entrances or exits. They’re from people going too fast on Highway 7. Stuff like
that so I guess what I’m proposing is a MnDOT access to this during construction. After that they can
come onto our street. Our street is not prepared for this traffic. There is a lot of safety concerns. I’ve had
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
4 cars in my yard in the last month. We had development by the railroad and the dump trucks that go
through there a day, I mean they’re done now but they were horrible and I even chased one of them down
one day to slow him down. And I know Laurie’s significant other was with me. He was there and these
two roads are not able to handle this so as public safety I just, I know it’s going to happen. You know the
development can go through but we can’t have that traffic on these two roads. It can’t be done. If my kid
gets hit, I’ve seen a lot, I’m not going to, I can’t do this so. Yes, it is emotional because I do see a lot and
this road is not prepared for this. I do want them to develop. I know it’s going to develop but we just
need a different access to this development and that’s all I have.
Tennyson: Thank you.
Ryan Johanson: Madam Chair, commission, Lennar, thank you for letting us come here today to speak.
Tennyson: Could you start with your name and address.
Ryan Johanson: Yes. Ryan Johanson, 6070 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota.
Tennyson: Thank you.
Ryan Johanson: I understand this is a unique situation because you have a development kind of going in
at the intersection of two communities. Shorewood and Chanhassen so we’re here tonight obviously to
talk to Chanhassen about what’s going on and speak our minds a little bit. We’re also doing that with
Shorewood. We’ve talked to Shorewood. We’ve talked to Larry Brown. Brad Nielson. They know our
concerns. We just kind of found out about this. I know it’s kind of hard to believe that members of
Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane are kind of just finding out about this. There was rumors and
rumblings in 2006. I built in 2003 and I don’t know if you can see. I’m just a few houses to the north of
Leah and Jason on Strawberry Lane. There’s been a lot of development. Yeah you can kind of see.
Where 62 and Strawberry yep, I’m just up there just a little bit on the left hand side up there so. There’s
been a lot of development since I built in 2002. Around me within 500 feet of me there’s been 13 new
homes in the last 10 years and that’s great. Development’s good. I had the privilege of sitting in the
work session with you guys earlier and there was talk about preservation. Watershed. The balance
between development and sustainability and I appreciate that you are looking at your community from
that viewpoint and that’s necessary so we’re not as members of Shorewood Oaks and Strawberry Lane
opposed to development. We all built our homes. We needed homes to live in so development is a good
thing. It just has to be done the right way and everybody has a chance to communicate and speak on this.
The biggest issues we had and have, one was the next gen homes and my understanding is that’s off the
table now. Those next gen homes are not going to be built or are you going to go forward with a potential
code amendment and discuss that issue?
Aanenson: The current ordinance doesn’t allow them. We are going to talk about potentially some code
amendments. That doesn’t mean that every house in here could be next generation. We’re just talking
about in general how we approach the variance allows for 2 homes in one dwelling so it’s not our
intention to have every house in there go to next gen. We understand the traffic implications. That’s
some of the things we’ll be talking about so.
Ryan Johanson: Okay.
Aanenson: And even if we did process something it would take a while to get through, to draft an
ordinance. Go through the public hearing. There’s always a public hearing also on all code amendments
and then the City Council would also have to approve that so it’s a little bit of a process.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Ryan Johanson: Okay. And I understand that and that’s clear to me and that’s why I think this is
premature. Approval of this plat without the traffic studies. Without the soil samples that we’ve been
talking about. Without knowing if there are going to be next generation homes in this development, how
can we make an educated decision to pass approval onto the City Council? There’s no way you can do
that because next gen homes do affect the traffic study. They do affect watershed. They do affect
everything so not having those studies and that data in front of us, we can’t make informed decisions.
This has been a proposed development since 2006. The original development, Roger Derek Cottage
Homes that had an extension for like 6 years. He kept asking for extension, extension, extension. I
understand the need for Lennar to, and Premier Bank to get this development conducted and to do it fast.
But again like what I heard in the work session, let’s do it the right way. Let’s do it after we’ve had a
chance to look at sustainability. To look at preservation. To look at all the data that we need and we
really do need to know if there’s going to be code amendments that allow these types of homes because
that’s going to increase a single unit from let’s say 2 parents and 2 kids. Potentially 2 parents, 2 kids. A
renter. Maybe 2 renters. Maybe 2 college kids that are going to use this one bedroom, part of these next
gen homes. That’s 2 cars for the 2 parents that own the home. Maybe a 16 year old lives in the house. 3
cars. 1 or 2 rents in that unit. 4 or 5 cars in that development. That is going to affect the traffic study that
hasn’t been done yet. All these things are kind of built upon one another. We need to know if those
codes are going, amendment’s going to go through. If next gen houses are going to be allowed and then
nd
the traffic study needs to be done because the way it is right now with access on 62 and Strawberry
Lane, like Leah and Jason said, like you said, it’s impossible. You guys talked about going out to sites in
the work session program and how valuable that was. I know you’re busy. I know you have lives. I
would ask that you go out before you make any decisions and look at that area. I just stopped over at
Jason and Leah’s house on the way home from work to come here and I had to make a 10 point turn in
my truck in that roadway just to go back to my house. It is narrow. It is rural. Does part of that lei with
Shorewood? Definitely and that’s, we’re addressing that with Shorewood for road improvements to that
road. I would suggest that if this development goes through, and if there is a T section there, that it is
stopped and then with Shorewood we’re also asking that at the intersection of Shorewood and Strawberry
Lane, there’s a stop sign. And then at the crossing where the trail goes through, that there is one.
nd
Currently where Church Road goes up to 62, there’s a stop sign there at Cathcart Parkway. There’s no
stop signs until you get to Minnewashta school. None. So people go 45-50 miles an hour cruising down
that road. There’s more development. Shorewood did development right by there, like I said 13 new
homes including mine in the last 10 years so we can’t say one community can develop and one can’t but
at an intersection like we’re talking about, we have to do it the right way. You have to make an informed
decision so I think it’s premature to grant this. To approve this. To pass it onto City Council when there
are so many questions. That’s with the next gen houses. I know I’m being long winded here but with the
variance also requested for the cul-de-sac, it was 800 feet in 2006 when it got approved. Now it’s 1,200.
60% increase.
Aanenson: …it was 1,200. Well the reason again it was extended out there is to accommodate, through
no fault of the developer, which is why the staff supported it, is to accommodate those 2 extra driveways
if in time in the future wanted to be. The developer could have shorten that up and got some different lot
configurations in there.
Ryan Johanson: That’s perfect and that’s again is if those 2 homes want to be part of it and that’s another
question that we don’t know yet.
Aanenson: But again yeah, well that’s good planning though to provide that opportunity. That would be
short sighted not to provide that opportunity in the future. There have been deaths with people turning
onto, making those turns on Highway 7. Alyson didn’t show on the south side but we also
accommodated some removals on the south side. Pipewood, just on the other side of Landings.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Minnewashta Landings, we took out streets on that side too there, so the staff is the one that requested the
additional length on that one to make the cul-de-sac longer. I also just want to speak again about next
generation. We’re just starting that discussion. That may, this development may be built out by the time
we move forward with that so the development as it comes in today, meeting city ordinance so it does
meet and it cannot go forward with next generation as it is today. We don’t know what the timeline is for
studying that. It came to us now. We just want to make sure that the council understands how we
interpret it today. That’s why we’re having it in a work session. A discussion whether or not a cul-de-sac
is even an appropriate place to put some of those so there’s a lot of discussion that goes on before we
would say it’s not a rush to try to get something approved so they can accommodate them. That’s not our
goal so.
Ryan Johanson: Okay.
Aanenson: I just want to separate those two. It came forward with this and we want to make sure the
commission understands it and we’re more deliberate in how that would be applied and where it would be
used in the city.
Ryan Johanson: Okay, wonderful. And I just want to point out, if by chance you drive over there and
nd
you take a look at it, drive down 7 going west. Go up Church Road. Go down 62. Go on Strawberry
Lane. That’s going to be access for these homes. Or before the two lots, before the two arrows, you can
barely see it in the upper corner there. That’s Shorewood Oaks. The entrance to the Shorewood Oaks
subdivision. It kind of wraps around like this and intersects with Strawberry. That’s going to be the other
entrance for this development. They’re going to go up Shorewood Oaks. Go down Strawberry Lane and
go right to the top of the development. These are residential, single family residential homes on mainly
acre lots. Tree preservation policy in Shorewood mirrors and mimics the one in Chanhassen. They love
big trees. The Comprehensive Plan for Shorewood is large lots, single family homes, lots of tree
coverage. Almost every single family in Shorewood Oaks and on Strawberry Lane have multiple
children. 2-3 children. You drive your car through there, there’s kids playing in the street. In their, not
in the street I hope. In their front yards, all that kind of stuff. Diverting now 62 to 120 new vehicles
through those side, small streets is going to be a huge impact and we talked about safety several times. A
huge safety implication. I just think when you look at every single possible scenario, and like you said
we’re not trying to push this through fast but look at everything before we make any judgments. Any
decisions. If there is a way to have an access on Church Road, that cuts that variance for that cul-de-sac
down and it cuts a lot of traffic from being diverted through all these subdivisions. Shorewood Oaks and
Strawberry Lane. Go down 7. Go up Church Road right into here. I haven’t heard any good argument
yet on why that’s not feasible. Why that’s not possible so I would just say thank you for letting me speak
and just really make sure we have all of the information we need before we make any decisions.
Tennyson: Thank you.
Aanenson: I’d just like to address the Church Road issue, and maybe Alyson wants to comment on it too.
The developer themselves looked at that as an opportunity as did the City and there was no property
willing to, that could be acquired or accommodated for this development. We did try to take that
approach and it was explored at a considerable length of time and that was eliminated as a possibility so
that was explored.
Tennyson: Thanks for the explanation. That does help. Anybody else?
Mark Diede: My name is Mark Diede, 16996 Hanover Lane in Eden Prairie. You might wonder why
Eden Prairie. Well like they said. A lot’s changed since 2006 with open enrollment in the schools and
we’re one of the people that drive by their houses each day. We open enrolled at Minnetonka schools
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
because you know what, you know they’ve just, it’s been tremendous so the issue there is it’s, I’ve said
nd
my concerns to the principal and the Shorewood City Council saying 62 and Strawberry Lane, there’s
kids walking on snow banks trying to get to school every day. It’s horrible with you know, you’re driving
on that and like I said, people are going 45 down, it’s very dangerous. And ironically we, the State
requires that if you live within a half mile you have to pay money to take the bus so you’d think that they
would provide safety on very busy roads through, with sidewalks and whatever that are around schools so
that’s, this is a touchy subject because it’s kind of Shorewood and it’s Chanhassen and it’s, so that’s one
aspect of it. So what I’d like to see before, you know obviously the traffic patterns now, today during
nd
school sessions of course. Not during spring breaks, etc, to see what’s the proposed streets for 62 and
Strawberry Lane. What are they going to do? They’re going to make it, instead of a rural, those two are
rural roads. Are they going to make it bigger with sidewalks, street lights, stop signs, whatever. I think
that has to be done before you put, it’s truly a medium density housing when you figure in all the houses
going in there so I think those two plans have to be decided between Chanhassen and Shorewood to say
what’s the future, but can’t wait 5 to 10 years. That has to be done before any more homes are done in
there. The second thing, beyond those two. Beyond that plat is to show a plat of what it looks like for the
City Council to see an 800 foot cul-de-sac. There’s no reason why it can’t be done. You can just extend
that private drive out more to those houses. You know they might have a 200-300 foot driveway but so
be it. Everything’s still fine and I just think that they should see the options. That’s the legal option.
What the builder can do so why not give them that option. I know you guys probably want to force, you
know give them your best choice but I would think that they should see some other configurations of that.
That plat. Beyond those two things, I mean obviously you know half acre lots would be ideal you know
for the density around the area so, anyway thanks.
Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone else.
nd
Wade Navratil: Hello. I’m Wade Navratil. I live at 3751 West 62 Street. I’m in the property just west
of the proposed development right there. The house. I echo everything that my neighbors say to the
north. Absolutely. I think it would be premature to do this without a traffic study. I think it’d be, you
really need to look at that entrance into Strawberry Lane because there is a row of cedars there that if you
don’t put a stop sign there, you are really asking for a lot of trouble because it is very hard to get onto
nd
West 62 Street right now. I should know, I’m the only driveway on the south side so you know I’ve got
to come out of cedars every day to look out there. And then you know my other concern is drainage. If
they’re going to raise it up and put 6 to 8 lots along that western border, you know how high are they
going to raise it up and then it’s going to end up in my lot. And I know there’s talk about doing you know
French tiles there. French drains and stuff but you know I echo my neighbors to the north. My pumps
run 24/7, 365. Trouble with them freezing up you know at this time of the year. So there is a lot of
ground water out there that needs to be accounted for and it’s very flat so, you know can say it kind of
drains this way but it’s very flat and it sits out there. But those are you know the big concerns. I think
there does need to be a traffic study handled for that. School buses can’t go down there. We all agree to
that. There’s no place for the kids to walk. And actually has anybody talked to the school and are they
going to change the school bus stops because right now the only stops are on Church. On Church and the
nd
corner of 62 at Cathcart there. And at Church and I forget the road off to the west. I actually got a
nd
variance so my kids could walk across my neighbors yard so they wouldn’t have to walk down 62. So I
had my kids being picked up off Church Road. I figured that road was a lot safer to cross. You know a
lot clearer sight lines. A lot more open for them to cross to get picked up by the bus so has anybody even
talked to the school district about bus pick-up if we’re going to put in 31 single family homes there for the
safety of the children. Those would be my concerns. Thank you.
Tennyson: Thank you.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Dan Peso: Hi. My name’s Dan Peso. I live at 6125 Church Road and I just wanted to piggyback up what
my neighbors had said. Concern for kids. I have a first grader and I have a daughter that will be entering
in kindergarten in 2 years so just the traffic that will be coming down and just like no sidewalks and that 2
buses, they can’t fit on that road. And then the other thing I was kind of curious about was with the
addition of 31 new houses was that entrance from Church Road, taking a left onto Highway 7. That’s
very difficult at all hours, especially in the afternoon but especially in the morning and I was just
wondering if there’s any talk about stop light. Just something to try to help that out. I know further west
on Highway 7 way out they’re putting roundabouts in but I don’t know if there’s anything to address that
issue so thank you very much for your time.
Tennyson: Thank you. I see someone standing.
Fauske: Chair Tennyson?
Tennyson: Yes.
Fauske: If I may just to Mr. Peso’s question about the intersection of Church Road and Highway 7. We
do communicate with MnDOT on probably an annual basis as far as taking a look at the Minnewashta
Parkway intersection at both Highway 7 and Highway 5 every, it was every year and I think it still is
every year and they keep coming back and saying that the counts, the traffic counts just aren’t high
enough to do a signal at that location but we do communicate with them constantly about analyzing those
intersections so I appreciate the question.
Tennyson: Thank you. I see he’s coming back. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen.
Jason Schneider: Say just to piggyback. Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway/Church Road is a
problem. I get called a lot. I try to cross the highway to get to that station. Sometimes I sit there for over
5 minutes trying to get across Highway 7. That’s where a majority of our accidents are is Highway 7 and
Church Road right now. You guys can probably have access to our sheets. That’s where we do get most
of them. Also I walked across the road today to the proposed development area and there is standing
water at ground level throughout the property. I live on the lowest lot area so I get the water and I just, I
can’t get any more water. Some of our drain tile takes it. 10 years ago when you could do stuff I’ve
actually taken little float pumps and pumped it across the road because I had a foot of water in my garage
so water, the water issue for me is real. I have water problems. And I just wanted you guys, safety is
number one. Our road isn’t for this. I know MnDOT probably could do something. You know even if
you just take a right hand turn. All the time trucks pull in. They take a right hand. They’ve got to take a
right hand to get out. I know it can be done. Our road is not made for the traffic that is proposed so that’s
all I got. Thank you.
Tennyson: Okay. Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing portion of
the meeting and open this for discussion among the commissioners. Questions for staff.
Undestad: I have a question for Alyson first. The construction entrance option, I mean dealing with
MnDOT, is that something that’s possible to get the right-in/right-out just during construction?
Fauske: That would be a MnDOT call and I think that that was something that the applicant has maybe
perhaps had a discussion and can maybe answer that question.
Tennyson: Can you answer that question?
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
Joe Jablonski: Madam Chair, members of the commission. To address that specific question, we have
applied for a construction permit off of MnDOT right-of-way. They’ve already told us and have told the
City before that there’s not going to be a permanent access and we did this fairly recently and it will take
them some time to review but we recognize that that’s probably a good idea for us as well. Whether or
not they’re going to grant it, you know that’s not, it’s a little difficult to do and they don’t, from my
experience they don’t do it a lot but they may. But we have taken that step to at least apply for it.
Undestad: Thank you. Well I have a few comments.
Tennyson: Do you?
Undestad: Yeah, you know there is a lot going on here but I think what I’d like to just clarify is you
know what we’re bringing up here is the, you know the plat. The preliminary plat, they’re bringing the
project through. We’re not approving the traffic, the roads. We’re not, you know this stuff, there’s a
number of conditions that the applicant has to deal with on here and a lot of the concerns I heard, you
know that the traffic problem. Currently there is a traffic problem there so potentially this could be
solving a traffic problem by bringing in. There is a condition in the report that makes the applicant come
up with his you know analysis on the traffic and whether or not we need T. Where or not that would be a
stop conditions you know so that needs to be done before this project can go anywhere. There was
comments about the water issues out there. There’s a condition in here that requires the applicant that all
the recommendations related to subgrade improvements and drainage and that kind of stuff, from a Braun
report that that be adhered to so you know there are steps in there that are taking care of that. Staff has
made the comment, there are no next gen homes. That’s again in the condition of approval down here so
the cul-de-sac is really a function of MnDOT trying to get rid of all accesses off of Highway 7 and we’ve
seen that a number of times. The applicant could easily shorten that up a little bit, maybe get 3-4 more
lots in there if we ignore the 2 houses to the east out there but you know again I think at the end of the day
it’s still a MnDOT call saying we want to eliminate as much as we can out of there and the cul-de-sac
does that so. So I think again I hear the concerns out there and there are a number of them and I
understand that we want to know what kind of traffic this is going to do and what it’s going to resolve but
all the conditions in here are going to require the developer to get these answers before they go put a
shovel in the ground out there so.
Tennyson: I completely agree and as far as the variance and the length of the cul-de-sac, it’s exactly what
a variance is for when there are no other options and those options have been explored so I, I would
support this.
Hokkanen: Well I agree with everything that both commissioners said and thank the public for their
comments and concerns and they are addressed in these conditions that the developer will have to address
to move forward. And the next gen homes, it’s a condition in here and we haven’t even addressed that
with the City yet so I’d like some clarification on that at some point but otherwise I think that all these
conditions once met will probably improve that street and that intersection with the city of Shorewood.
Weick: Just a couple comments. As far as the variance. Actually I appreciate the work that the
applicant’s done to include those 2 homes either now or into the future. I think that’s necessary so I am in
support of that. I also believe in looking at the homes, and thank you for sharing some of the homes in
here as well. I do think this is a beautiful addition to the area from a neighborhood standpoint and so I
think that’s a good thing. I have similar concerns over the next gen and I’m glad that that’s not going to
be part of this, at least out of the gate and the, I personally can’t get over the traffic issue and I know
there’s verbiage in here to address it. I’m just not sure exactly what that means and I would be concerned
that you know we do a traffic study that says that you know maybe we’re not, there’s not going to be a
significant impact and they make a T and then you know everything goes through as planned. I share
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
those concerns and would like to see all of that information. That’s just the biggest, you know I just think
the road is an issue today whether you build one more house there or not and it just feels like the
responsible thing is to fix that before we add to the issue because I think it is an issue today so those, I
have difficulty getting over that in my mind. Even though I mean it fits the code and it fits the acreage. It
fits everything and it is beautiful. I mean it really is. I think it’s a great, it’s great value to the
neighborhood. I’ve never been so concerned over a road before but this one just really doesn’t feel right
to me.
Tennyson: Anyone want to entertain a motion for approval or denial?
Undestad: I’ll make a motion.
Tennyson: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Yusuf: Has he made it?
Undestad: I’ll make the motion.
Tennyson: Oh, he hasn’t made it yet.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Boulder Cove Subdivision with a variance subject to the conditions of the staff report and
adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Tennyson: Thank you. Do we have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #2014-09 for Boulder Cove for 31 lots
the
Council approve
and 3 outlots with a Variance to allow a 1,200-foot long cul-de-sac as shown on the plans
received March 4, 2014 subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
1.Park and Recreation Conditions:
a.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected as a condition of approval for Boulder Cove. The park fees will be collected in
full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current
proposed lot count of 31 homes and the city’s 2014 single-family park fee of $5,800 per
unit, the total park fees for Boulder Cove would be $179,800.
2.Environmental Resources Conditions:
a.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the drip line for tree #71. A layer
of woodchips shall be installed over the root zone to a depth of 3-4 inches. All other tree
preservation fencing shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
b.No trees shall be planted within the public right-of-way. Front yard trees shall be located
inside the setback area.
c.Additional tree species shall be added to the plant schedule in order to reduce the
percentage attributed to spruce so that no more than one-third of the trees are from any
one species. Additional trees may not be from the maple family and must be overstory
species. Minimum total number of trees to be planted is 166.
d.There are overhead power lines along Highway 7. Only ornamental trees shall be
allowed to be planted in the bufferyard between the property line and the proposed fence.
e.Evergreens shall average seven feet in height when planted.
f.Any tree removal outside the parameters of the subject property shall require approval of
the property owner where the tree is located.
g.Applicant shall correct the tree inventory for the following trees:
Tree #38, sugar maple: shown on the plan as saved, shown in the inventory as
removed. The applicant shall resolve the discrepancy.
Tree #72, spruce: shown on plan and inventory as saved. Tree is noted to be in poor
condition. Tree shall be noted as REMOVE.
Tree #96, red oak: shown on plan at the very edge of the grading limits. Tree
appears to be in a position for a possible save. It is in fair condition. Staff
recommends that applicant work with staff to preserve tree if appropriate.
Tree #205, #206, ash: shown on plans as saved. These trees are within the grading
limits and have proposed grading shown on top of their locations. Trees shall be
noted as REMOVE.
3.Building Department conditions:
a.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four
feet in height.
c.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
d.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures.
e.Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on-site septic systems, wells,
etc. required. Permits required, as applicable.
f.If applicable, existing home(s) affected by new street will require address changes.
4.Fire Marshal conditions:
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
a.Three feet of clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
b.Fire hydrants must be made serviceable prior to combustible construction.
c.Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction.
d.Fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be
made serviceable prior to combustible construction.
e.No burning permits will be issued for the removal of brush, trees.
5.Planning Department Conditions:
a.The “Next Generation” homes are not permitted under the current city ordinances.
b.A high-tension power line exists along Highway 7. Any work or landscaping must be
approved by Xcel Energy.
6.Engineering Department Conditions:
a.The developer must work with the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood to
nd
revise the plans to incorporate a “T” intersection at 62 Street, Strawberry Lane, and
Strawberry Court.
b.The developer shall provide an analysis to determine if the “T” intersection would
warrant a stop condition.
c.If a stop condition is warranted, the developer shall have a traffic engineer collect and
analyze traffic counts on 62nd Street to determine the queuing effects at the intersection.
d.Other details such as transitioning from a 31-foot wide street in Chanhassen to a 22-foot
wide street in Shorewood shall be addressed with the final plan submittal.
e.The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council
(sewer connection permit) and the City of Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and
the street must be restored.
f.The septic tank and mound system that services 3530 Highway 7 is within the project
boundaries. These items must be removed and disposed of at an approved facility in
conjunction with the site improvements as proposed.
g.Based on the proposed preliminary plan the developer must provide a sanitary sewer
service to 3530 Highway 7. The developer shall ensure that sewer service to 3530
Highway 7 is maintained throughout construction, which will involve pumping the septic
tank after the septic mound is removed and before a sewer service is installed to serve the
property.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
h.Water main for the project will be directionally bored under Highway 7 and will wet tap
into the existing 12-inch trunk water main on the south side of Highway 7. A portion of
this water main extension lies on 3520 Highway 7; the developer must acquire the
necessary easement prior to final plat submittal. The easement must be 20 feet wide
centered on the pipe.
i.Water main will extend between Lot 5, Block 1 and the tot lot to the existing water main
in the southwest corner of 3751 62nd Street. The water main alignment shown on the
utility plan is not within the existing easement; therefore, the developer must acquire the
easement necessary to install this water main prior to final plat submittal. The easement
must be 20 feet wide centered on the pipe.
j.A water main interconnect will be required to the Shorewood water main at 62nd Street
and Strawberry Lane.
k.The developer proposes to extend 6-inch water main to the east to provide service to
3520 and 3030 Highway 7. The developer must acquire the necessary easements to
complete this work.
l.All existing and proposed off-site drainage and utility easements must be referenced
accordingly.
m.Existing off-site easements must be referenced by document number or the plat in which
they were dedicated.
n.Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans
and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
7.Water Resources Coordinator Conditions:
a.Show the extent of the shoreland overlay district for Lake Minnewashta on the plan set
before final plat approval.
b.The applicant must demonstrate the extent of tree preservation for stormwater volume
reduction credit by overlaying grading limits on a current aerial photograph before final
plat approval.
c.The applicant must recalculate the volume reduction credit from new tree plantings
without the use of ornamental trees before final plat approval. The current best
information is that elevation is at least 969.5 to approximately 972.
d.The filtration feature shall be moved so that the bounce within the basin remains entirely
within the outlot before final plat approval.
e.A homeowners association shall be created and shall be responsible for the maintenance
of the filtration feature. The outlet pipe shall be the responsibility of the city.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 1, 2014
f.An operations and maintenance manual shall be developed for the filtration feature
indicating how the HOA will maintain the feature and assure its proper function.
g.The landscape plan shall be updated to include the planting schedule for the infiltration
basin and the outlots and to provide shrubs or other buffering measures between the rear
yard lines and the filtration feature before final plat approval.
h.The pond in Outlot A shall be redesigned such that the likely seasonally high water table
is at or below the modeled normal water level.
i.Additional hydrogeological data provided and attested to by a licensed professional in
hydrogeology or similar may be used to show that the above condition is met.
j.All recommendations relating to subgrade improvements, preparations and drainage as
well as dewatering and drainage control from the March 3, 2014 Braun report shall be
implemented.
k.The swale behind lots 4 through 10 of Block 2 shall have a drain tile installed as part of
the site grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval.
l.Environmental manholes or 4-foot sump manholes with SAFL baffles shall be installed at
CBMH1 and CBMH3.
m.A concerted effort shall be made to combine the outfall into the Pond in Outlot A such
that there is only one outfall. If it is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, then
documentation supporting this assertion shall be provided to city staff prior to final plat
approval.
n.A comprehensive, standalone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of
the NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review
and comment before final plat approval.
o.Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $84,146.45. This
connection charge will be due at the time of final plat.
p.In the event that wetland characteristics are observed on the site during field visits during
the growing season, steps will need to be taken to assure compliance with the MN
Wetland Conservation Act, the Federal Clean Water Act and other applicable federal,
state and local regulations.
All voted in favor except for Weick and the motion carried 4 to 1.
th
Aanenson: This item then will appear at the City Council meeting on April 14.
th
Tennyson: Yes, if you’re following this agenda item it will be with the City Council on April 14 and all
of the materials in our packet are available on the City website.
21