PC 2005 04 19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 19, 2005
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Jerry
McDonald and Deborah Zorn
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Debbie Larson
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Mike Peka 6857 Manchester Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7 AND WEST OF HIGHWAY 41, SEVEN FORTY-ONE
CROSSING SECOND ADDITION, THOMAS HODORFF, APPLICANT. PLANNING
CASE NO. 05-13.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Any questions? Dan, you have a question?
Keefe: Sure. Cross access agreement. Just a couple questions. One is the cross access
agreement is for what, 8 spaces is additional spaces? Additional spaces. Is that what it is? Can
you just talk to that briefly.
Generous: For the cross parking.
Keefe: Cross parking, I’m sorry. Cross parking.
Generous: Access is just to get onto the site. They show 8 parking spaces on their property.
The balance of the spaces, 24 are on the surrounding property. But there’s sufficient availability
or capacity on the site to accommodate that. So we haven’t seen any issues with parking up in
the Seven Forty One Crossing.
Keefe: Okay. Then one other question in regards to you know currently I think there’s a
disposal or trash container I think on the site that they’re going to subdivide, which I think
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
supports the Movie Gallery property and Second Wind I think is the other tenant in there. Are
we going to keep that trash disposal on that site or what is that?
Generous: No, that would have to move to the other property and we’ll have to, we’ll make
them comply with the ordinance for screening.
Keefe: Okay. So we would have them erect a fenced in enclosure on.
Generous: Yeah. Or some are landscaping. Some in area that they can screen the trash
enclosure pursuant to city ordinances.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions? I’d like to pull up one question really. With that parking, and I
don’t know whether you can answer that Bob or whether that would be a question for the
applicant. I mean I don’t quite understand why they don’t include that first double row of
parking into this property and then they would be very close to accommodating the requirement
on that particular parcel. Has that been addressed at all?
Generous: I wasn’t advised of anything. That may be more appropriate for the applicant.
Sacchet: Okay, I’ll ask that of the applicant then. Thank you. You have a question Kurt?
Papke: Yes. The original application required a conditional use permit to allow multiple
buildings on a single lot. As a result of this subdivision, does that CUP go away or what?
Generous: It will be superceded by the plat so it becomes unnecessary, and I don’t know if
we’ve recorded it yet or not.
Papke: So you don’t know if the original one was recorded.
Generous: Recorded yet against the property.
Papke: So it could just be stricken from the application process?
Generous: Correct.
Papke: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright. With that, do we have an applicant? Does the applicant want to come forward
and if you have anything to add, please do so. Please get to the microphone please because this
does get televised.
Tom Hodorff: Hello. My name’s Tom Hodorff. I’m with Harry S. Johnson Land Surveyors out
of Bloomington. We’re doing this subdivision for PBK, a developer that just needed, we did the
original survey and they just came up with these some type of financing thing that they wanted
2
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
this as a separate lot. We’ve been working with the city to create a separate tax parcel for, you
know and that’s a little beyond a surveyor’s.
Sacchet: That’s their reasoning, right?
Tom Hodorff: Yep.
Sacchet: Can you address the question I was just asking staff? I mean it seems kind of awkward
that the cross parking agreement would be for just more or less what, that first double row of
parking would be to the east.
Tom Hodorff: I believe, you know if we added more, it had to do with the hard surface
calculations to get the hard surface percentages to conform and.
Sacchet: So there was a reason basically.
Tom Hodorff: Right. We couldn’t otherwise then we would have probably had to go for a
variance but doing this configuration we avoided that.
Sacchet: That’s an honest answer, thank you. Appreciate that.
Tom Hodorff: Yep. Yep.
Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Jerry, go ahead.
McDonald: Yeah, on this parking. It says agreement here but would that be a covenant within
the deeds on these properties so that this new lot has access to that in the future as it changes
hands and everything?
Tom Hodorff: I would assume so, correct. You know that it would be an ongoing thing.
Whoever owns those properties, those agreements would continue on with the properties to cover
that.
Sacchet: Is that it? Alright. Thank you very much.
Tom Hodorff: Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate your input. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come up and
has any comment to this item, this is your chance. Seeing nobody getting up, I assume there’s
nobody. I will close the public hearing. Bring back to the commission for discussion and
eventually a motion. Is there any comments, discussion necessary on this? Doesn’t seem so. If
not, let’s make a motion.
Papke: Okay, I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
preliminary plat 05-13 for the subdivision of 5.2 acres into 2 lots, as shown on the plans dated
received March 18, 2005 subject to conditions 1 through 4.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
McDonald: Second.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Preliminary Plat 05-13 for the subdivision of 5.2 acres into two lots, as shown on the plans
dated Received March 18, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
1. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $74,089.00.
2. Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing Second Addition is subject to a park dedication fee
as a condition of approval for subdivision. Park dedication fees for Lot 2 will total $5900
(25,749 square feet or 0.59 acres X $10,000 per acre).
3. The applicant shall provide a cross parking agreement in favor of Lot 2. The agreement shall
specify that Lot 1 will have access to 24 parking spaces located on Lot 2.
4. A cross access agreement shall be recorded across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, RR TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF; SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 40 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES; AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON
SITE, PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 62 ACRES LOCATED AT 6950 GALPIN
BOULEVARD, LAKE HARRISON. APPLICANT, PEMTOM LAND COMPANY,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jacqie Daugherty & Ray Alstad 2423 Highover Trail
Jim & Cheri Broughton 6927 Highover Court North
Julie Fuecker 6751 Manchester Drive
Kevin Finger 7052 Harrison Hill Trail
Lynn Eggers 6791 Briarwood Court
Cari Piatkowski 6833 Manchester Drive
John Moberg 6738 Manchester Drive
John Holcomb 6852 Briarwood Court
Judy Stretar 6801 Manchester Drive
Justin Larson Westwood Professional Services
4
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Daren Laberee Westwood Professional Services
Dan Cook Pemtom Land Company
Dan Herbst Pemtom Land Company
Ruoper C. 2135 Lake Lucy Road
Stacey Hurrell 7460 Bent Bow Trail
Gina Sauer 2244 Lake Lucy Road
Norm & Cleare Foster 2275 Lake Lucy Road
Jean Moore 6826 Manchester Drive
Mike Byrd Lundgren Bros
Dan W. JRG
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff, and I may add since we have so many people
here, and I would assume at least half of you are here for this item, maybe we can ask some of
the more important questions and maybe we can come back to more detail questions after that.
Jerry.
McDonald: I have a question for staff concerning Lots 11 and 12. Especially Lot 12. That’s
one of the ones you’re recommending that they eliminate. Would you explain why you think
that needs to be eliminated, what the problems are with that particular lot from a topography
standpoint?
Generous: Well it’s just adjacent to the top of a bluff area. While we haven’t strictly said
eliminate it, we did say that deny, we would recommend denial of the setback variances and they
would have to come in and prove that they could get a road in there and a house pad in on top of
the hill that would not encroach into that 30 foot bluff setback.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I have was again you’ve gone over that about the
grade elevations of the road coming in from the west there. That’s going to be quite a drop and
everything. What do you see being able to be done there in order to meet the requirements for
grade?
Saam: I believe you’re referring to the western cul-de-sac…
McDonald: The western cul-de-sac.
Saam: That’s 1 of the 3 areas where they’re proposing to use an 8% street grade. Basically in
that area, I did a quick calc from the existing elevation, or on the property line that they’re
proposing up to the cul-de-sac, you can easily get a 7% grade in there. It’s in the middle where
they’ve steepen it up to 8%. It’s not like it’s 8% everywhere. So that’s why we’re saying you
can easily get a 7% in there. Maybe we need to see some more information about what 7%
would do to the site. In our estimation it, at least from this, it won’t really hurt the site from an
environmental standpoint. When you’re varying a half a foot to 1 foot, I don’t see how that’s
going to wipe out a lot more trees.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
McDonald: Okay. And then as far as services for the city for snowplowing and those things,
what’s the impact there, if a lot, or if the elevation isn’t within the 7% grade?
Saam: Well sure, and that’s one of the reasons we limit it to 7% is you can get the ice forming
issues. I mean it’s easy to imagine in the winter there’s ice on a steeper grade. It’s going to be
harder for cars to navigate, so that’s one of the reasons we like to limit it to the 7%.
McDonald: And also, when do you expect the report from the DNR to come back as far as the
normal high water mark?
Generous: Lori’s initiated that. We think within the next 3 weeks they should have at least the
initial determination.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all I have.
Sacchet: Good questions.
Zorn: Bob, I have a question for you. You mentioned that street access from Galpin was
considered through Lot 5. Were there any other considerations and can you speak to those
considerations?
Generous: Besides the existing one? At one time we were looking at no additional access to the
east. Just the access off of Lake Lucy Road. However we had some concern that we were
creating a long cul-de-sac, even though there were only 29, 27 homes on that. We try to provide
two means of access into most neighborhoods when possible, and so we moved on this. Part of
the reason for the realignment was the amount of upland and the outlot A, the site that the city’s
looking at for the potential water treatment plant and the park, was being impacted by the road
getting shifted into the upland area. So it was just those two, but we did look at connecting it
into Highover, but coming down that hill was just too steep. We wouldn’t be able to do that.
We’d have switchbacks in there and we’d take out the trees that we want to preserve.
Zorn: Thank you.
Sacchet: Any questions this side?
Keefe: I’ll just ask one. In regards to, could you speak a little bit more to the parks and where
we are with the parks in terms of where exactly is the water treatment facility going to be and
when, you know what do we know in regards to the parks?
Sacchet: Is it a given that there’s a water treatment plant there? I mean the report seems to
assume so.
Aanenson: Yes, and the Park and Rec Director has commissioned a study design to see how that
could lay out and what amenities could go in that facility. With the water treatment, correct.
Keefe: So in terms of timing.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Aanenson: As far as a park?
Keefe: Yeah. You know.
Aanenson: Well this subdivision, the recommendation is for extraction of park and trail fees, so
that would be applied towards that. I think that the goal would be to try to get some of that in
ahead of water treatment, which would be a number of years down the road so. This is a park
deficient site, so we try to work together. Obviously the parking lot works with the water
treatment plant so we’ll have to look at that.
Keefe: Okay.
Sacchet: Mark, Kurt?
Papke: One of the issues we’re bound to hit tonight is the issue of the financial viability of this if
we trim back a lot or two. Could you clarify for myself and the other commissioners whether,
what the rules are in regards to financial hardship with the developer. Does that constitute, you
know one of the conditions for granting a variance, etc, because that’s likely to be an issue that
will be discussed tonight.
Aanenson: I’ll try to take that one. I think obviously there’s implications on any development,
they try to maximize the lots. It’s our goal to make sure that it’s a lot that’s viable in the fact that
whether or not it’s, this is a very complicated site in the fact that it’s wetlands, heavily wooded,
steep slopes. Even getting the access off of Galpin is compromised. Existing driveway snakes
around so it’s a very difficult site. So I think the balance is to say, if there’s some areas that we
can give a variance in principle because it is a tough site, but I don’t think that we want to
compromise a lot that’s substandard in such a way that it would be difficult to make it a
reasonable size home in that neighborhood.
Sacchet: Alright. Mark, you have a question?
Undestad: No.
Sacchet: Okay. I think with the number of people we have here, it makes sense to save the
detail questions for later. I have a ton of questions but to go through those would take quite a
while so I’d like to move towards the public hearing. Before we do that however I’d like to
invite the applicant to come forward. I noticed there was a letter from you that we just got
tonight so I assume you’re going to summarize what’s in that for us. Because I think it addresses
some of the concerns you may have based on the staff report. Because I know some of us had a
chance to look at it a little bit but certainly to absorb it we can use a little help, if you don’t mind.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, professional staff,
ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. I’d
like to introduce some people who are with me here this evening. This distinguished gentleman
here with the vest and the beard is Justin Larson. He’s a registered engineer and a planner with
7
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Daren Laberee, a landscape architect and planner
with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, a partner with mine at Pemtom,
and behind them is Matt and Patty Jo Herman from Edina Realty who are helping us market the
Jerome Carlson residence. As Kate indicated, it is a difficult site but it’s the kind I’ve been
thriving on for 35-36 years. It’s a wonderful site and has great opportunities to really create a
neighborhood here in Chanhassen like no other. As Kate mentioned, there’s great swings in
contours. Is this going to work this way?
Sacchet: Yeah, that’s just fine if you do it that way.
Dan Herbst: The site basically swings in contours by about 114 feet. It’s a heavily wooded site.
It’s got a substantial amount of wetlands. A road was stubbed in from Highover a number of
years back when Jerome and Linda Carlson platted that. We’ve acquired another access off of
Lake Lucy so that we can provide proper access off the site. And the main access for years has
been the access off Galpin Road. It’s a wonderful access and it’s a point that we wanted to make
a statement with. When you come into the site, you go down. You have a wetland on your left,
there’s a hill on the right. You have a 1911 windmill. You have the remaining farm site that’s
been there and you go into the site and when you get on top, the bluff is just beautiful. Mr.
Carlson and Linda and Jerome have built just a magnificent soft, contemporary home there.
About 8,800 square feet. It’s just a killer home with a swimming pool, totlot for kids, an office
in it. 8 car heated garage. It’s just a very, very wonderful home. So besides the land we need to
maximize the housing to compliment that great home on the site with beautiful trees on there. If
you’ve been on the site, Jerome and Linda have planted paths through the site. They’ve marked
trees. It’s a miniature arboretum. Jerome, like myself is a farm boy. He’s from Mora,
Minnesota and as Kate and Bob know, when he originally bought this site he wanted to make
sure he’s kind of self contained so berms, landscaping were put all around the site so when
you’re in the site you’re just in a perfect situation. You’re walking out the house is southwest
facing, overlooking Lake Harrison and the views in there so it’s a great site. A wonderful
challenge and we want to do something special with it. But I think so you understand where
we’re at tonight, you’ve got to understand a little bit of history. We’ve taken staff out there. We
started walking the site last year. At that time, I’m not sure all of staff was even aware that this
might be a good site for a water treatment plant so we were focusing on coming off of Galpin
Road, coming into the site. Creating a very, very special entrance, and we went through a whole
series of plans. The first plan had up to 52 lots on it and we were going to make…and we
needed another access so we picked up the lot off of Lake Lucy. Some of the earlier plans I
didn’t bring along but you a stage 2 plan was a plan that, after we were able to acquire the lot off
of Lake Lucy, we planned a cul-de-sac off of Highover, which has 10 lots and then 4 private lots
off in this vicinity. And then as I indicated our earlier plan, we wanted to make a magnificent
entrance off here. We wanted to do 10 lots off of Manchester. Preserve all the wetlands and
then have an additional street through the property here, and then a state 2 off of that was a spin
off where instead of having a main road off of Galpin, we looked at a fire and life safety type of
road with the lots up in this vicinity, where this would be the main cul-de-sac coming into the
home. Another cul-de-sac here with a turn around would be a fire and life safety road, but also
would be a trail that the public could use coming off Galpin to get into the site, get into the
wetlands and go through that. Then along came the water treatment plant. So we lost our
wonderful benefit of having this magnificent entrance off of Galpin Road. We lost 10 lots off of
8
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Manchester and so the plan then, and this is not the final version of the water treatment plant
because I understand the plat is going to be configured differently than that and possibly even
larger than that but, so then we had a neighborhood meeting about a month ago and this is the
plan we showed the neighbors with a potential water treatment plant or the balance of the site for
parks and then a fire and life safety access off there. And the neighbors had many, many
legitimate concerns. I think we had a pretty good meeting. They were concerned with all of the
access going off of Lake Lucy, and so we started looking at how can we accommodate splitting
that access off of the site, even though Lake Lucy is not even close to being at capacity. I think
the road is eventually geared to handle 3,000-3,500 trips a day. It’s only at 1,700 trips today and
we would be only adding 270 additional trips. We thought we would take that extra step that
came out of that meeting, and come up with a plan to gain another access off Galpin. Again, at
this stage in life we do not have the configuration final with the water treatment plant or the park,
so we’re showing that land as vacant. We’re trying to accommodate the needs of the city. We
worked hard, not only to develop a plan here that would be very unique, but to try and fit the city
needs for a park and water treatment plant which, if we had our druthers we would like to see go
away obviously. So anyway, our main road now, we would ask for a little split. Divided
boulevard off of Galpin with a main road coming into the site here. A cul-de-sac coming off of
Lake Lucy. A sidewalk system through the entire neighborhood. A trail connecting off of the
trail that’s currently under the utility lines there, and I believe there’s a sidewalk that comes off
of Highover that would connect and come down so there’d be a complete public trail system
through. We’re talking about all public streets with the exception of the street we’re proposing
here that would serve the 2 lots. So the current plan is from 52, a number of different versions
down to 39 home sites, 2 of which would be the swimming pool, that would be platted off later
with a home, and the other lot would be the existing home of Jerome and Linda Carlson. So we
are doing everything possible here to work with the contours to preserve the trees, to work with
the wetlands. It’s not a perfect site. Any time you have this kind of a challenging site with all
the variables we just talked about, you’re going to have to make some compromises but we feel
we have, we’re at a point now where it’s a wonderful plan. We’ve got a minimum amount of
wetland encroachment. As minimum amount of tree removal that will still accommodate the site
and minimum amount of variances. I think if I was in your shoes, and I was in your shoes in
Chanhassen a few years back. If somebody handed me a 54 page report and I found out that this
guy has been in business for 35-36 years I would have said, you sure in hell could do a better job
than this, but we have worked very, very hard on this site. And instead of going into all of the
details of the variances and stuff I’d like to cover those later to save you some time.
Sacchet: Yeah, and since we didn’t get into the detail questions, we’d probably call on you again
as we get into more details.
Dan Herbst: Any questions at this point?
Sacchet: Any general questions at this point for the applicant? Alright, thank you very much
Dan. With that I’d like to open the public hearing. So this is your chance to speak up as
residents. If you have comments, concerns to this proposal. I do want to point out that as a
Planning Commission how we look at these proposals is that we have to assess to what extent the
proposal conforms with the regulations and ordinances of the city. We’re not at liberty to change
those rules in the process, so I just want to make that clear because it’s not a free for all. We
9
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
have a basis in the ordinances and the regulations. The comprehensive plan of the city and so
our role as a Planning Commission is to assess to what extent does the application conform with
that. So with that, is there anybody who’d like to address this item? Please come forward and
state your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Is there
anybody? Yeah, first one always takes a minute you know. Please turn the microphone towards
you. If you can tell us your name and address for the record please.
John Moberg: Yes, John Moberg. I live at 6738 Manchester. Right on the corner of Lake Lucy
and Manchester. First I’d just like to clarify the existing road access, and from what I just saw it
appears that there will be access both on Lake Lucy and Galpin.
Sacchet: Correct.
John Moberg: Okay.
Sacchet: And then the access is pretty much where it is on Galpin now and on Lake Lucy it
would be just slightly west from that little well building, the way I understand it.
Generous: Yes.
John Moberg: Familiar with that, okay. And then as far as the water treatment plant. Is there,
has there been discussions around alternate locations or what makes that an ideal spot for a water
treatment plant?
Sacchet: Is that something you’d address Kate?
Aanenson: We did hold a neighborhood meeting on that. Again, there is a recommendation.
This is the primary site. I don’t want to encumber the subdivision with that discussion tonight.
We’d be happy to meet with anybody that has questions on that. The engineering staff would.
John Moberg: Okay, so that’s not set in stone by any means?
Aanenson: I think this is the primary site, yes. The City Council will be making that decision as
this plat goes forward. There is a recommendation to extract, as the developer has indicated, it’s
not his first choice but is the number one choice for the city. So we’re asking, in working with
the developer for the extraction of that.
John Moberg: Okay, so what would make that the number one choice, just give me a short
answer.
Sacchet: Go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: We’ve already been through this with water treatment and what I can tell you is that
it comes down to location to the wells. There’s 2 wells in the city. There’s one over here by
Lotus Lake and there’s one in your area. So the water treatment plant, the site is pretty much
judged by the location of those wells. That’s why you couldn’t take your water treatment plant
10
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
and put it down 41 someplace. It’s too far away to you know do it’s job so that’s why the
placement is where it’s at and any alternatives, it’s all based upon distance.
Aanenson: And again we did have a neighborhood meeting on that last week, and I just didn’t
want to get off track on water treatment because what we’re here to discuss tonight is this
subdivision itself.
Sacchet: It’s tricky. It’s a little bit intertwined but it’s not what’s in front of us tonight.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
John Moberg: Yeah, I was just looking for some clarification on that.
Aanenson: Sure, and we’d be happy to give you any information on that.
John Moberg: Okay, and then is there, would there be a park integrated with that?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
John Moberg: I’ve heard some, okay. So there’d be some, part of that plan.
Aanenson: Yeah, and both those would be separate review processes that would come back
before the Planning Commission for site plan review, as would, we’d show you, the park would
come back for review too.
Sacchet: Since it is obviously a concern, and I assume it’s not just your concern but other people
here in the audience as well with the water treatment plant, we just looked at the primary water
treatment plant by Highway 5, what was it 2 weeks ago. And one of the important, interesting
things was that really, I mean the tanks and everything is underground and I would assume that
would be the same in this case so it’s not like you’re going to have some ungodly structure
sitting around there. Really this stuff is underground so you’re going to have more green space
is what it boils down to.
John Moberg: Okay.
Sacchet: And the building, if it’s anything like what is planned for this water treatment plant is a
very attractive building. Very well designed so we don’t want to get into this, as Kate said, but
just to maybe help you be a little more at ease with the notion.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bob.
Generous: Paul is also planning on another informational meeting. They are looking at the
various sites and they’re showing what the differential would be for the cost for that. That was
one of the important things that came out of the last meeting.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: So there will be more discussion, public discussion that you could participate in on the
topic.
Generous: And it hasn’t been scheduled yet.
John Moberg: Okay, fair enough. And then would there be, what would happen with that end of
Manchester? Just short answer.
Aanenson: Cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: Matt, can you address that?
Saam: Oh Manchester’s just to the north of…
John Moberg: Correct. Right now it’s just kind of a blocked off.
Sacchet: We’d cul-de-sac it right?
Aanenson: Yeah, we’d cul-de-sac the end.
Saam: Yeah, right now we’re thinking we would just finish up a cul-de-sac. I believe right now
it’s like a temporary, just pavement behind the curb.
John Moberg: Yeah, yeah.
Saam: Yeah, we would basically clean that up and make it a permanent cul-de-sac. It would
probably be as a part of the treatment plant site.
Sacchet: Would become the access to the treatment plant and again there is very minimal, if any
traffic to the water treatment plant.
John Moberg: Right, nobody gets too excited about that. Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Alright, anybody else. Please come forward. Let us know who you are, where you live
and what you have to say.
Larry Marty: Hello there. Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. I guess my first initial concern
with regards to this development, I think Pemtom’s done a very good job of illustrating this and I
think doing a very good job as far as trying to make a development that fits within the various
neighborhoods around, as well as taking advantage of the property there. But my biggest
concern that we have at this point of trying to move forward on the development comes down to
the wetlands delineation and acceptance or assumptions at this point of where those borders are.
Wetlands are something that change. They vary year to year with the amount of water. Rainfall,
so for us to go out there right now and look at it and say, is the hydrology there? Is the plant life
there to support it? I have a lot of difficulty in just saying it’s a wetland or no, this is where the
12
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
line is because if you really truly want to assess a wetland you need to look at the area over time
and you need to really look at the high levels and the low levels to be able to then determine
where that border is. A lot of the development that has already been done around the Lake
Harrison area has already impacted these wetlands significantly already. As I back up on the
south side of Lake Lucy, we have a lot of wetlands directly behind my property and my
neighbors property, and we’ve already noticed that the land itself, when I had first looked at the
lot a little over 6 years ago, there was standing water down there. I literally couldn’t walk
through that area in a pair of tennis shoes without getting them soaked. There are areas in that
that are totally dry now. There’s no water there now. The ponding has been channeled to collect
the water but it’s also affecting the wetland areas. Even the stream on the north hand side of
Lake Lucy has been channeled and re-routed and that’s also impacted directly. There’s a
significant amount of wildlife that’s in that area. My son’s a nature photographer for
Minnetonka High School and has gotten permission from Jerome Carlson to photograph on his
land, the large species of animals that are supported in this area, and as much as I’m for
supporting the development, I’m also for trying to maintain green spaces for the wildlife and
supporting that. I’ve heard pheasant cackling and turkeys gobbling this morning at 5:45 this
morning. A large number of deer. Coyotes in that area, and I’m concerned about where that
wildlife gets forced by developing this as well. I’d also like to see a little bit of the tree area. It
is a heavily area, forested area so I’d like to see a little bit of discussion about what trees are
going to be impacted or removed by this development of the site. And then be able to
understand that, because it’s such a nice area, and it’s ideal for a site and I can see where it
would be very advantageous from a developer’s standpoint, but from my vantage point and
looking back on the Carlson property, I enjoy it just the way it is and I’d loved to see it you
know, stay that way.
Sacchet: We all do.
Larry Marty: My last point comes back to the water treatment facility and I know this is not our
hearing for this, but in a way it is. It is very closely tied to this and so for us to kind of make
some assumptions and decisions about this development without understanding what kind of the
general direction is for that, I think it’s very difficult for me to just accept that carte blanche and
say yeah, go ahead. At the meeting on Thursday, you know as Bob pointed out, there was
concern that this seemed very opportunistic for a development site for the water treatment plant.
I understand the wells are located there. That’s where the water’s coming from, so obviously it
makes sense for the water treatment plant to be there, but there was no you know cost elements
to understand what about the other options. What is the cost difference between this site and the
other sites? And it seemed like there was a lot of I guess some questions that were unanswered
with regards to the chemicals to be used for this facility. The design concept, all of that is very
well, you know enabled to make it look as low profile and berming and trees to hide that, that
this is still a 12,000 foot facility. Brick facility. It’s not something that you could just throw
some trees up there and it disappears from our sight lines, so it is something that I guess I’d like
to have a better understanding on so that I could truly bless a development like this as well.
Thanks.
Sacchet: Very good comments, thank you.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and I have one
comment and one question. My comment first of all is to thank the developer for having heard
us at the informational meeting that took place a few weeks ago. Those of us that live on and
around Lake Lucy Road and were concerned about the only entrance being off of Lake Lucy,
and our concern was not just about this development but in the aggregate. There are 3 new
developments going into our area over the next few months. Pinehurst which is directly north of
Lake Lucy. What used to be called Yoberry. I think it has a new name as of, Highcrest? Which
are the homes that are being added onto Highover. And then this development. Currently
between, on Lake Lucy Road between Galpin and 41 there are approximately 120 homes that
feed onto Lake Lucy Road, either who’s driveways back directly onto Lake Lucy Road, as mine
happens to, or who are on cul-de-sacs that feed onto Lake Lucy Road. Between the former
Yoberry, now Highcrest, Lake Harrison and Pinehurst, we’re looking at approximately another
112 homes added to 120 so that’s really almost doubling the traffic. I understand that Lake Lucy
Road is considered a quote, unquote collector road by the city, and that it is considered able to
handle the traffic but I think there is a difference between Lake Lucy Road and perhaps other
collector roads like Galpin. Namely the number of homes that again, back directly onto Lake
Lucy. We have 19 homes with driveways on Lake Lucy. We have our mailboxes that we’re
crossing the road to get to, and significantly we have a number of children crossing the street to
get to bus stops on Lake Lucy, so I do appreciate the fact that there has been consideration taken
into that and I looks like we will not have just one entrance on and off so I do appreciate that.
My second is a question and a follow-up to the environmental concerns that were expressed, and
again I think the concerns of those of us in that area with respect to the environment are because
of aggregately what is happening. Pinehurst, we have a lot of wildlife there. We’re losing 11
out of 18 acres of trees which the City Council approved at the end of 2004. It’s going to
displace a lot of wildlife. It’s going to change our environment in Chanhassen in that sector.
We’re looking at a significant amount of wetland change now and a significant amount of trees
across the street in the other area. This was a great area, or is a great area of Chanhassen and it’s
one of the places that makes our city very unique and makes us not look like, not to dis on any
suburbs but it makes us not look like Brooklyn Center or Richfield. There, I said it. It has some
open spaces. We’re losing them. We’re losing them in Pinehurst. We’re going to lose them
here. We’re going to lose a lot of trees in Highcrest, so I would ask perhaps the landscape
architect or the developer or the city, whoever has the figures readily handy to comment on the
amount of trees that we’re going to lose, and you had mentioned the city has to live by
guidelines. So if you could perhaps comment on the amount of trees that are planned to be lost
here and how that fits in with the city’s guidelines.
Sacchet: Would you want to address that Bob?
Generous: Yeah, I’m trying to do the math. It looks like they’re removing approximately 15
acres of trees on the 60 acre site, so that’s a quarter of the land area. If you look strictly at our
ordinance, we’re exceeding our tree removal but part of the issue that the developer has is a lot
of their trees are in the wetlands and on the bluff and we don’t give them credit for that as a part
of their tree removal calculation. So they are preserving a significant amount of the site. 20
acres of the site is, approximately 20 acres of the site is wetland. That will remain primarily as it
is today. They have for the road access, there’s a minimal amount of wetland impacts. It’s the 2
isolated wetlands that are the big losses in there but the wetland complexes themselves will
14
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
remain as an entity and so we’re very pleased about that. You know the developer has worked
hard and he has tried to look at alternatives to save as much as he could. The additional road
grade. The use of retaining walls. There’s an extensive system in there so if this was another
community like Anoka or someplace that was flat, we wouldn’t have all these issues but we have
a lot of changes.
Sacchet: If I can summarize that in a little for you, since you asked a very specific question, and
it’s important to understand what Bob just pointed out. Is that in the calculation that’s being
used in the staff report, we’re only looking at the upland. All the trees are being saved as part of
the wetland are not calculated in that. In terms of the, what we look at is what’s the baseline
canopy coverage for the upland, buildable part which currently is 76% of that is covered with
trees. And the proposed preservation is 30% of that. So you could say well, it’s 2/3 that gets cut
in the upland area. And by looking at that, that’s where the other part of the question comes in.
Well what’s the city regulation with it? By looking at that, they’re actually cutting more than the
city would let them cut without doing mitigation. So the city would require them to plant 269
trees in order to balance the scale, and what actually what the applicant is proposing to plant 319
trees, so they’re exceeding the requirement of planting, the way I understand it, and that’s just
based on the upland calculation without including all the wetlands, and it also doesn’t include the
bluff areas, does it?
Generous: That’s correct.
Sacchet: Which is a very significant wooded area as well, so if you factor all that in, it actually
is not quite as alarming as you might think at first glance. Does that answer your question?
Gina Sauer: That does answer my question and I appreciate the clarification and I guess I would
just encourage the Planning Commission as they are considering this development, I understand
that a lot of thought has gone into it, but again to consider, this is really our last pocket of
wildlife in that area of Chanhassen and anything that can be done to take that into account is
going to make a big difference for the quality of life in our area so thank you.
Sacchet: Well I share that. I live there too and I’m curious whether the deer are just going to
feast on all the hostas everybody plants and all that stuff. Alright, with that is there anybody else
who wants to address this item? Please come forward and let us know who you are.
Al Taylor: My name’s Al Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy. That’s the house that’s a little bit
west of the well house. About where the exit’s going to come out. I have a couple concerns.
First concern is where the exit’s going to come out on Lake Lucy. Besides the extra illumination
I’m going to get in my house from all the headlights, the concern I have is that it’s coming out on
a curve. If you do a traffic study in that area, you have about 2 to 3 seconds from pulling out of
2340, 2360 and 2380 Lake Lucy Road from the blind spots along that curve. Now you’re going
to put a traffic feeder coming out in that same area. So when you come from the 41 area, you
have about 3 seconds to a see a car. And I wonder if that was taken into account in your traffic
study.
Sacchet: Matt, can you address that in terms of sight lines and that type of concerns?
15
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Saam: Sure. The proposed location being just west of the well site. It is in what we call the, or
toward the center of the curve so you can see, I guess the example is if you’re in the center of the
curve you can see around the curve on both sides. This is just off set to the right, or to the east I
should say. So in our estimation the sight lines there for the speed on Lake Lucy being 30, you
know we’re not coming out onto a highway where people are supposed to be up on us very
quickly, so in our estimation that location will be fine.
Sacchet: So it’s relatively, in terms of the location in the curve, it’s actually at a relatively ideal
spot?
Saam: Well the ideal spot would be just to the west in the exact center of the curve. We’re just
off set so let’s say it could be worst. It could be a little better but it could be also much worst.
You wouldn’t want to be on the end of the curve where you couldn’t see around to the west at
all.
Sacchet: So in other words from a traffic engineering, city engineering viewpoint it seems like it
works.
Saam: Exactly, yeah.
Al Taylor: What about at 35 or 40? Which is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road.
Saam: Yeah, and people may be doing that. I was out there today and it’s posted 30 out there
so.
Al Taylor: It’s posted 30 but it’s not enforced.
Saam: We’re getting into speed. I mean we can’t design for a 50 when it’s 30, those sorts of
things. It comes down to enforcement.
Sacchet: The enforcement, it does have, I mean if, and I see some faces about the speed. Talk to
the sheriff.
Al Taylor: We have.
Sacchet: It will be enforced. I mean they do listen.
Al Taylor: He sits down at the well house about once every 2 months. That’s the enforcement.
Sacchet: It’s my understanding that they are receptive to requests like that and they do enforce
more based on complaints like that.
Al Taylor: Enforcement, if it was enforced I think you would get more adherence to the speed
limit.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Right, there’s still the exceptions but.
Al Taylor: The other question I have is in regards to dual access. There are currently 6 locations
that have single access onto Lake Lucy Road between 41 and Powers Boulevard. Can you
explain your process for going through and evaluating why you would require two exits versus
one exit and how those apply to this location and how they’re not applying to Highover.
Sacchet: That’s an awesome question that I share too so I refer to maybe Kate to try that one, or
Matt.
Saam: Well as Bob said we always, at least in larger type developments such as this, 20 plus
lots, that sort of thing, you always look for 2 accesses in and out. Some of the reasons are for
emergency access. If there happens to be something going on on the road, say construction and
there would be a fire, we want to have an alternate access, both for residents to get out and for
fire emergency type vehicles to get in. We always look for that. In addition to that, I mean ease
of convenience it provides. When you get into a long cul-de-sac situation, it’s something we
want to stay away from. When you only have the one access in and out, both for convenience,
emergency access, that sort of thing so.
Al Taylor: Can you explain the Highover situation then? Which is currently.
Sacchet: That would be a question for City Council sir.
Aanenson: Yeah, we recommended that connection.
Al Taylor: Okay, and we’re adding to that right with this?
Sacchet: Yes.
Al Taylor: Another 20 some houses.
Sacchet: It is part of our comprehensive plan that we want to connect neighborhoods. Now
when there are exceptions made, as I said in the beginning the final decisions are made by City
Council. So that would be a question for City Council.
Al Taylor: Okay.
Sacchet: As far as we’re concerned, we want to connect neighborhoods because that’s what the
comprehensive plan says.
Al Taylor: And then on the more personal note of the illumination of my house from the exit,
where do I address that?
Sacchet: What are the elevations there? I understand from the planting plan there is quite a bit
of buffer planting in that area planned.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Saam: Yes. I was out there like I said today and if you look at the plan, where the road is
proposed, it’s on what I would call the east side of your house and if your’s is the house I’m
thinking of, your garage is on that side.
Al Taylor: Yes. The one right where the mailbox is right next to the little dirt road.
Saam: Across the street from the well.
Al Taylor: Yep.
Saam: Yeah. So what I’m getting at is the people coming out of this development, if the street is
on the garage side of the house, the east side, the windows, the living area’s on the other side. I
guess in my opinion.
Sacchet: Shouldn’t impact it?
Saam: No, it’s not like the headlights are coming directly into the front, in the family window of
your home.
Sacchet: Maybe one thing if you were where the little well house is but being moved further,
you should be quite alright.
Al Taylor: I think it’s tougher to move east. You’ve got a grade there that you’ve got to
overcome.
Saam: The other thing is the elevations. Your house is higher in elevation and this will be
coming up to Lake Lucy so it’s not like the cars will all be coming down and shining on the roof
going down the side of the house, anything like that so.
Sacchet: Also, according to the landscaping plan there’s a double row of trees… Appreciate
your comments and questions. Who else would like to address this item? Please come forward
and state your name and address.
Cari Piatkowski: I’m Cari Piatkowski. I live at 6833 Manchester Drive and we over here it’s
just unclear maybe a little bit with what Bob you had said about there being a denial to one of the
requests and something to do with the access onto Galpin. And this is where we’re not clear.
We want to make sure that what, you know the developer is saying the road goes through and
what I heard from him is the road’s not going to go through.
Sacchet: Can you clarify?
Generous: I’ll clarify. We were looking at changing the alignment of the easterly access and
we’re not going to pursue that anymore. It will go as proposed on the plan.
Cari Piatkowski: Okay, so it will go.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: It does not affect the Lake Lucy access.
Cari Piatkowski: Not the Lake Lucy. I’m talking about the Galpin access.
Generous: Yes, it does not affect it.
Cari Piatkowski: So that will be there and we’re assured that road’s going to be in place.
Generous: Unless it’s killed by council.
Cari Piatkowski: Okay, and who knows huh. And the other question we wondered about is, this
water treatment center, if per chance somehow that disappears to a different site, what happens
then? Do we go back to one of these original plans for the?
Generous: They would have to come in for a separate subdivision review for that portion.
Cari Piatkowski: So we would re-address at that point?
Aanenson: More than likely, yes. If the council chose not to execute on that, more than likely
the developer would come back in, extend the street and propose additional lots.
Cari Piatkowski: Okay, on the end of Manchester…
Aanenson: Right. And that would be another hearing process just like tonight’s and go through
the same evaluation.
Cari Piatkowski: Will all that be decided before they start actually excavating and starting work
on the subdivision?
Aanenson: Well that’s the goal, to take it to the City Council and again what we’re
recommending is that be extracted for the park and for the water treatment. Ultimately that’s a
legislative, a City Council decision so, by the time we get up to the City Council for this, that
decision should be…
Cari Piatkowski: Should be made and they will address both of those probably at the same
meeting is what you’re saying.
Aanenson: Correct.
Cari Piatkowski: So we’ll know one before the other is started.
Aanenson: Yes.
Cari Piatkowski: Okay, thank you.
19
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Anybody else? Yes, you can come more than once. As long as you don’t keep saying
the same thing.
Al Taylor: This has to do with the water treatment plant, and I was at the meeting the last week.
The well pipe that comes from Well House No. 7 I think, it’s the one on Lake Lucy Road.
Sacchet: Yeah, that’s number 7.
Al Taylor: They had indicated this, that piping would go through this property?
Sacchet: Correct. I believe that’s right, right?
Al Taylor: So do you show an easement right now through here for that well pipe can go down
to the proposed water treatment plant?
Saam; It will be a combination of easements and then in the proposed street right-of-way also.
We’ll try to keep it in the street as much as we can.
Al Taylor: Can you explain that? What street?
Aanenson: The proposed subdivision.
Al Taylor: Okay.
Saam: The well’s right here. We’re basically proposing to bring a pipe down the street, then up
in here we’d have to go outside the right-of-way.
Al Taylor: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Alright. Anybody else like to address this item? Please come forward.
Kevin Finger: I have to write down what I’m going to say. I’m not like everybody else.
Sacchet: That’s alright. As long as you tell us who you are first and where you live.
Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger. My wife Teresa and I live at 7052 Harrison Hill Trail.
We border the southwest corner of the project. First I’d like to thank the staff for being very
helpful in giving me their time at the last minute this week. I appreciate that. I’d also like to
point out that I did call and leave a message with the developer about my concerns right after our
neighborhood meeting and I never received a call back or a response. I would ask that the
Planning Commission execute one of the following alternatives that I present. Two is what I’ll
present. My first proposal is most advantageous to me and I’m nervous, can you tell?
Sacchet: It’s alright.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Kevin Finger: Of course it’s advantageous to me but it’s also advantageous to the people to the
northwest of me in the Highover neighborhood. It’s also I think more advantageous to the
people of Chanhassen as a whole. I propose that you disallow the bluff setback variance that is
necessary to include Lot 12 in the project. I ask that you also then instruct the developer to
remove Lot 12 and just include Lot 11 in the project via use of the private driveway just to Lot
11. The developer would also have to request a variance for this private driveway but it’s my
understanding that’s a lot simpler than asking for a bluff variance. Why would the developer
ever be willing to give up one of the lots, in fact according to them probably one of the most
valuable lots? I believe one lot of this size, if you combine 11 and 12, with the amount of trees,
the amount of size, the privacy in Chanhassen, you could name your price and you’d probably
get it. I don’t think the developer would lose any money by doing that. Why is it good for me?
Well it’s obvious. I have more privacy, correct? Well, it goes beyond that. Lundgren developed
our development as you know. They were required to have a tree preservation. It’s about, in my
property it goes about 200 feet from my house back. Now I understand that you don’t want to do
that anymore because of other reasons, and that’s alright, but I believe that the idea of a tree
preservation is to preserve the trees. Everyone’s concerned. The only reason we’re going to add
Lot 12 is so they can put a very large house and tear down a large chunk of trees right through
here. Not granted I heard they were going to put in a lot of trees, but I know the size of trees
they’re putting in. We see them all the time. Takes a long time to replace a tree this size. It will
also benefit the people in the Highover area. These houses right here. They have beautiful
houses that have a great deal of privacy. You as a Planning Commission certainly do not
guarantee these residents total privacy within their developments but I do believe you owe it to
residents that live around new developments to maintain as closely as possible what they have,
and/or within reason. By only allowing 1 housing site on this drive you will be providing these
residents what they believe they would have for as long as they own their house. These
individuals would benefit by keeping the wonderful settings that they have become to know and
cherish. How does my proposal benefit all the people of Chan? Every time this commission
allows another forest to come down you set a precedent to allow one more. By keeping the tree
buffer that was required for those of us in Longacres development, you are telling everyone we
care about trees that are left and we will do everything we can to preserve them. Okay, so my
option one. Disallow the setback variance and combine Lots 11 and 12 and only allow the
housing lot for the housing pod for Lot 11. I believe this is fair. The reason I believe it’s fair
because I don’t think regardless of what they say, I don’t think it will cost the developer
anything. Okay. Alright, so you’re not going to take proposal one. I think proposal two.
Sacchet: Well actually that is staff recommendation is not to allow bluff impact. So you can
summarize your second one.
Kevin Finger: I know but he did add a but to that. He did say that if they could come back and
show that they could adequately support that, they would accept it. You know any good
engineer can come up with something in today’s world. So anyways, so my second proposal, at
the very minimum is if I have to have a 200 foot tree buffer, they only have 30 feet here. 30 feet.
If I have to have 200, they should have 100. Thank you for your time.
Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. I see somebody else coming up.
Let’s hear what you have to say.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Jim Broughton: My name is Jim Broughton. I live on 6927 Highover Court North and this
gentleman was… I live right adjacent to 11 and 12 back there and your staff report, if you look at
their report they talked about these two lots and there words were that if they were allowed to
build structures there, that there would be a lasting detrimental effect on the bluff and the
wetland and the Harrison Lake area so I think I understand what this gentleman is saying and I’d
also like to understand what they would do with the trees behind our houses there. I have the
very same concerns and so I want to hear what was going to happen with that small road that
they’re going to build and is that road going to, would the bluff setback that is being required
there, is that road going to have to move over onto the power line easement area or how does that
work?
Sacchet: I think that’s a fair question. I mean if you tell the applicant we’re not allowing the
bluff impact, does it or does it not work?
Generous: Matt and I had discussed whether or not they can provide a private driveway access
into there and it looks feasible. There’s 25 feet from the closest point of the bluff to the westerly
property line. We think it may be engineerable. We don’t know for sure.
Sacchet: So it might be, okay.
Jim Broughton: I guess I would be opposed to anything because a couple people back talked
about that area and there’s a lot of wildlife there and I think a lot of trees would be cut down and
the impact that would have on that area is, I don’t think you should allow those variances. I
know you aren’t recommending that you do that but I would be opposed to doing that. And I
think it’s part of what you were saying before. In order for you to grant a variance, in your
report here, one statement that you make is, it has to be, it can’t be based upon the desire to
increase value but only to facilitate wetlands being preserved, and if you look at the comments
that the staff made, they’re saying that there’s going to be a very high impact on those wetlands
so I think that’s an issue here we need to address carefully. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Kurt, you have something? Go ahead.
Papke: Since there’s a lot of interest in this bluff setback issue, I’ve been trying to search
through the staff report to find out what is the incursion? You know how big of a variance is
being requested and how much grading into the area you’re not allowed to grade in is being
requested? I think the comments are all well taken but it would be good to know how big the
impact is before we get too far.
Generous: The applicant is requesting that the variance be permit to eliminate all of the bluff
buffer zone so they would grade up to the top of the bluff. And then the setback would be 10
feet from that. From the top of the bluff. So that’s a variance request.
Sacchet: Across the bluff?
Generous: Yes.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Yeah, okay so that’s a lot. If you quantify it like that. Does that help at all? I mean
it’s not really specifically quantified.
Papke: That’s pretty quantified. Grading right up to the edge of the bluff as opposed to a 30 foot
setback, 20 foot setback, that’s.
Sacchet: That’s a lot of variance, yes. Definitely.
Papke: And the length of the incursion is how big? How long would this setback be in terms of,
is it you know, it’s going to go in in 1 foot? It’s going to be one little spot or is it 200 feet of
incursion or?
Saam: Well the length of the road where it goes into the bluff basically or the setback is
approximately 140 feet, but then where it would go the other way directly into the bluff, I mean
it’s basically the width of the road in some places so you’re 20 to 30 feet. Something like that.
At the worst point. I mean it goes in and out. If you could follow that.
Sacchet: Alright, public hearing is still open. Do we have, yeah we have other people.
Judy Stretar: Judy Stretar, 6801 Manchester.
Sacchet: You’re the one who sent e-mail right?
Judy Stretar: No, I didn’t send.
Sacchet: Oh, it wasn’t you. Sounded like you.
Judy Stretar: No… We’re with Woodridge Heights which is the development on Manchester
and Lake Lucy, and when we were built, when our houses were built we were surrounded on all
sides by basically forests. We had the tree farm across the street off of Galpin. We had the
Carlson property and then we had the other property and basically we were surrounded by
wildlife and forests and now we lost the tree farm to Ashling Meadows. And we saw what
happened at Ashling Meadows and I’m not sure about the tree, you know how many trees you
kept but as far as what we saw, and I witnessed it, every tree was taken out and then they put in a
few other trees. And they might have, you might have counted.
Sacchet: Yeah they left 1.
Judy Stretar: Well it went from a tree farm to nothing. I mean there’s nothing there now, and
maybe you know 20 years from now there’s going to be trees, but where we were put into this
lovely little community and it is great, it’s wildlife and it’s going to be gone and I think one of
our primary concerns is the Galpin access, and we greatly appreciate the road going through
from Galpin. We think that’s very necessary for traffic flow to that area, but we’re talking about
a water treatment plant and a park that we keep hearing is not settled on yet and it’s very much
attached to this plans of building this because if the water treatment plant is denied and is moved,
23
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
then his plans have to go back to another, you know putting another 10 houses down at the end
of my street or adding houses along the road that’s coming on an access road. So what I think
we’re concerned about is what is the timing? Is this the final meeting?
Sacchet: Well I mean the way this goes through the system is that we look at it. We hold the
public hearings as the Planning Commission. We may or may not make recommendation. I
mean our recommendation might be to table it, have a little more information but eventually you
make recommendation either tonight or maybe next time, whatever it is, and then the decision’s
being made by City Council based on the proposal that’s in front of us. That means for this
particular subdivision. Not the part that is not on it, like if something changes with that corner
that may be either development or maybe water plant and all that, that is not part of this proposal.
So you’ve got to look at that as separate tracks, which is a little bit tricky because they are
intertwined, and I share that same frustration a little bit with you.
Judy Stretar: And if this plan, as it stands, Plan number 3 I think it is with the Galpin Road and
all that is approved and that goes forward and Outlot 1 stays nothing right now, it’s like a little
prairie right now waiting for the water treatment plant which I believe is coming in 6 years or so,
2009, then when would the hearings start on making that aesthetically pleasing instead of having
a well house sitting there?
Aanenson: Sure, I believe I stated earlier that the park would advance and that the designs are
being done for that park right now to try to advance that as soon as possible.
Judy Stretar: So there’s going to be some public discussion on the park?
Aanenson: Correct.
Judy Stretar: And that’s going to be announced?
Aanenson: When the time table is for the Park Director on that but I’m assuming that would be
as timely as possible.
th
Generous: The Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing this plat next Tuesday the 26.
Aanenson: But that’s not the site plan for the piece...
Generous: Yeah, that won’t have a site plan but they’ll discuss the park location there and that’s
another opportunity for you to provide input into that out.
Saam: And whenever that park does come back you’ll get noticed on it, correct? Well I’m
sorry, the water treatment plant would, if that would go, there’d be a site plan and that would
have to come to a body like this and the council so there’d be another hearing on anything like
that.
Judy Stretar: So when is the next council meeting that’s going to be, this is going to be brought
to?
24
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well currently the time like for this is that if we do come to a recommendation tonight,
th
which is our goal, it would go to City Council on May 9.
Judy Stretar: That’s my concern.
Sacchet: Alright. Now I saw somebody else getting up there.
Ray Alstad: Hello. My name is Ray Alstad, 2423 Highover Trail. Kind of got a little panic in
my voice what I just heard about that road that could go in to the Lot 10, or 11, I’m sorry. I live
directly next to or to the west of 10. My house is a little unusual is that my walkout is to the east.
I’d be looking right at that driveway and right now I have the power lines there so that’s like a
trail. If that was turned into a road, that would very much hurt the property value.
Sacchet: It would not be the power lines. It would be past the power lines. At least that.
Ray Alstad: Okay, you know where the fence is?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Ray Alstad: It’s be approximately there?
Sacchet: I mean the property that they’re dealing with is all past the fence.
Ray Alstad: So it’d be on the other side of the existing fence.
Sacchet: East of the fence plus according to the landscaping plan, which I’m trying to find here,
there it is. There is significant amount of plantings, but you’ve got to be aware that under a
power lines you can only plant.
Ray Alstad: Yeah, I believe it’s 10 feet or 11 feet.
Sacchet: Right, right, but it has to, I believe the road actually is outside the power easement or
just slightly encroaching.
Ray Alstad: Okay. That wouldn’t be so bad. And I also would recommend or suggest the
abandonment of 12. I think we looked at that tonight and that’s a heck of a drop there. I can’t
imagine they could get a home in there so, thank you.
Sacchet: It’s a long shot, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Okay, who else? Debbie, are
you coming up?
Debbie Lloyd: I am. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. To the point of the staff report, I’m
sure you’ve noticed there is no variance request in here for a private street, which is required by
code.
25
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well there is the finding of fact part, which is a little bit convoluted I have to admit.
Debbie Lloyd: But it is not cited for a variance and it is required by code and it was not written
that way in the report. I just really want to point that out for the citizens who live there and have
pointed out their concerns about the private street. So needless to say. Also I guess my concern
about that private street, and I know they’re concerned about it going in their back yard but I
don’t understand why a private street has to go adjacent to an existing property owner. When
you have undeveloped land, why could not that private street be moved and be a burden to the
new development? So in other words move that over to the right and let the new lots deal with
it, not have it be a burden for the existing homeowners. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Anybody else like to address this item? If not, I’m going to close this
public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Now we got some good comments and
feedback. We do have to come to a conclusion at this point where we go with this tonight. I do
have a fair amount personally, a fair amount of detail questions that some of them have been
addressed to some extent. I’m not sure, I don’t think they’ve been addressed enough so in my
case, just speaking for myself, I would have to ask a lot of more questions to try to come to a
conclusion but let’s have some discussion here. Where do we stand with this and to what extent
do we want to get into detail questions with this thing?
McDonald: Mr. Chairman, can we ask some detail questions of the developer at this point?
Sacchet: Certainly.
McDonald: Because yeah, a lot of what I have right now after all the meeting revolves around
Lot 12. I guess I’ve got some questions as to exactly what you plan to put in there. In dealing
with that area it would seem as though you’re going to have to do quite a bit of readjustment of
property there in order to put a house there because of where the bluff is at. The distances
you’ve got to work with, and those types of things and what I’m wondering is, based upon what
the city has said we would like you to do, what can you do without the variance and if you don’t
get the variance, then does that mean Lot 12 could not be developed?
Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, Commissioner. I’m going to, if I may, answer that question and then go
through some of the others, is that alright?
Sacchet: Okay, please do.
Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize to Mr. Finger. We passionately answer every phone call at
our office, and I feel bad about that. We’ve had many calls from your neighbors. We have
answered them all. We’ve had many neighbors come into our office and gone through the
project so I really apologize for that. It fell through the cracks somehow but our cell phones, our
home phones and everything are available to anybody that calls us so. Should we deal with Lot
11 and 12 first?
Sacchet: Please.
26
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: Okay. I’ve done a blow up sketch, just so everybody can figure out what’s going
on here. The area they’re talking about is 11 here and 12 here. There’s the proposed private
drive, and this is, is this called Highover Drive?
Sacchet: Highover Way I think.
Dan Herbst: Highover here, private drive, little cul-de-sac, Lot 11 and 12. So that is the large
scale. This is a little blow up of the site. Okay, here’s the proposed road. Some lines I’d like to
explain to you. This is a, one of the reasons we’re asking for a variance, there’s a 30 foot power
line easement on each side of that, so nothing can be proposed down there.
Sacchet: So it’s 30 foot from the property line, like from the fence.
Dan Herbst: It’s 30 feet on each side of the center of the power line, right? A 60 foot easement?
35 each side? Okay, so it’s a 70 foot easement. I think we’re only showing 30 feet here, is that
correct? I guess maybe the geometrics are probably right. We took the description right off the
legal description of the power line easement so minus the red line that’s running, which means
no buildings can be placed within that. We are proposing, if you can imagine, if you’ve been by
Bearpath, we’re not allowed to put large trees under that but we’re proposing some very high
arborvitaes the entire length of our property. All of this is off of Highover property. This is all
of our property lines of Mr. Carlson’s here. So we’re screening this all with landscaping. There
will be no buildings on the easement whatsoever. These are both very large lots. We’re
proposing on Lot 11 that there would be a number of retaining walls, so there would be no
encroachments beyond those retaining walls. The lot that creates a question for everyone is Lot
12. This, if there was a building setback, this is where it would be at from your bluff line, and
you can see as Bob mentioned we are putting the home right within the proposed building. This
is your blue bluff line, and this is an open area within the lot that is also pretty flat that a
driveway could be down but.
Sacchet: If I may ask a clarification. That’s the edge of the bluff, not the edge of the bluff
setback, correct?
Dan Herbst: This is the bluff line itself.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be clear.
Dan Herbst: And Lot 11 is a very sizable lot. It’s 1.44 acres. And if what we are proposing is
approved, there would only be an area of about 14,854 square feet of that out of a total area of
62,896 that there would be any construction on whatsoever. Everything else would have
easements over it and would be protected. On Lot 12, which is the controversial one, it’s a very
sizeable lot. It’s 3.66 acres and there’s 1.92 acres that’s in the bluff, and of that the area we are
proposing that would be encroached upon is about .31 acres. And about 13,365 square feet. I
know you do not prefer any building on the bluff. You have a 30 foot setback, but both
environmental and economic sanctions can be put on place in this lot. Every home I’ve built on
Lake Minnewashta whether it was on Lone Cedar or on Crimson Bay Road, was built right on
the bluff. Right on Lake Minnewashta and if you put the proper erosion control measures in
27
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
place, as we’ve done on all the houses right on the bluff. Not 30 foot back but right on the bluff,
you can protect that. And I’m willing also to place economic security in place so that if there is
any encroachment but all of this area would be covered by an easement. It’s very difficult to
have an erosion event if you confine all of your construction to the area we’re proposing that
would ever impact on Lake Harrison. And I think to double that security you can add erosion
fences behind all the construction and you can also put another safety net at the end of the
property line. So I believe it’s a very doable development. We’re showing a very large house
there. I do not know if a home will be built that large. We are putting in all the landscaping that
we’re legally allowed to do to protect the homeowners to the west because obviously they’ve
lived there many years, and you want to appease, they’d prefer not to see anything but the woods
and the trails. But I would bet that there are very few lots in the city of Chanhassen that have a
home on them that will have the covenants and restrictions and easements placed on it that we’re
proposing here, and also to put separate environmental protection on those lots and economic
sanctions to make sure that nothing happens to that wetland down below. Any questions on Lot
11 and 12?
McDonald: If I can answer your question, around that bluff area where the elevation begins to
go down, which is just about where your green space is at, and then from there to the west you
know there’s quite a bit of drop off. Are you looking at using a retaining wall then in that area to
shore up that particular area?
Dan Herbst: This doesn’t drop off that fast, but here we do have some drop off’s and we’re
outside of the bluff but we would put retaining walls in here because the topography pretty much
demands that we want to keep that building pad up and we do not want to encroach into the trees.
This area here doesn’t drop off quite as fast and if retaining walls are necessary we would
definitely do that also. But it is an issue of dropping off as much as our encroachment upon your
code that says no building within 30 feet of the edge of the bluff. And we’re actually proposing
a house right on the bluff. But I think there is a hardship here. We are struggling to make this
property work with the loss of lots for the water treatment plant. We have a 35 foot easement
there which is pushing everything down the envelope. If we were allowed to move everything
up to the property line we’d have a different situation. We could easily, if you move this
building 35 feet to the property line, we could easily comply with your bluff ordinance.
McDonald: Is it possible to put a smaller house on that parcel that would then fit within the
requirements?
Dan Herbst: Yes. I’m always reluctant to put a little one on there because you’re saying…so I
wanted to show basically…
McDonald: Okay, well what that gets back to then is my question at that point, is it only viable
with a larger home on it. What happens if you do put a smaller home on it? Is it still viable at
that point to do something with?
Dan Herbst: You know the realtor can certainly answer your question better than I can but you
know there’s almost an over supply of larger homes. We’re actually proposing extremely
upscale neighborhood on the Sweat property in Wayzata right now, where we’re also proposing
28
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
that all the home sizes would be reduced down. Instead of having the very large boxes that are
being built around Lake Minnetonka right now. And I think the market is there for that also so.
Papke: What’s the size of the building pad that you’re proposing?
Dan Herbst: I don’t know if we scaled that out but it’s probably a typical home I guess…
different scale. You know there’s the Jerome Carlson home which is a very large. About 9,000
square feet. Daren, you have any idea of how many square feet that house might be?
Daren Laberee: About 5,000.
Dan Herbst: Up and down.
Daren Laberee: No, that’s the footprint…
Dan Herbst: Okay, so the footprint is 5,000 with the garage and the home.
Papke: Sometimes you see on a lot where you, if it’s along a lake or something like that you’ll
see a house constructed that’s very long and narrow. This looks very rectangular and it seems
like you could move a little further away back from the bluff by coming up with a design that
more accommodates that setting.
Dan Herbst: We just got him through landscape so now we’re going to work on… Yeah I agree
with you. First time I saw it that was my reaction.
Sacchet: Did you want to address some other aspects you said in the beginning?
Dan Herbst: The tree issue is you know, you’ve heard my speech before. I love trees. I’ve
spent millions of dollars saving them. Millions of dollars planting them. I get torn as you do and
staff does here. I live in Chanhassen but I think you really have to challenge what’s going on in
this town with 60 foot rights-of-way and 31 foot of road. And we’re getting Matt’s blood
pressure up but you know I would like to provide to you if I can legally do it a book, in it’s third
edition by the American Society of Civil Engineers and Urban Land...National Association of
Home Builders. We really on a site like this, my prize site of my whole career is Chimo in
Deephaven. I was able to talk the city into a 24 foot right-of-way and a 20 foot street. And it’s
on Minnetonka Boulevard and Excelsior Boulevard. It’s something I did in 1976 but I’d like you
to go look at that. We have 12% grades on the west side. We have 20 foot roads. A 24 foot
right-of-way and when you go into that site you know that all the trees have been saved. They’re
right touching almost the blacktop. You do not need a speed sign. You do not speed under any
condition on that narrow road because it’s bending, it’s rising up the hill. You know you’ve got
some very tough code restrictions that fight what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to cut down
on impervious surface here. If you were to go from a 31 foot street, which is proposed in your
code, to what you did at Settlers West, we could save almost 2 ½ acres of blacktop. And if you
were to cut those streets back from 60, for the right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet, or even to 48 and
put a 26 or 28 foot street in there, I think people, the reason people speed on Lake Lucy, unless
you’re going to have a sheriff there all the time, it’s a wide road. It’s open and you don’t get the
29
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
perception of speed. So I think if you really want to save trees, I think you’ve got to challenge
your street rights of way in your code. Highover Street has a grade almost approaching 9% at
the end and we’re just asking you to raise the grade by 1% slightly over and that’s going to save
grading and save some trees. We’re asking you to, oh some setbacks from 30 feet to 25 feet.
That will keep from pushing the house down the slope and save some grading and same some
trees. And we’ll do everything possible during our process to save as many trees as we can. But
when you start putting this size of road segment through there and you try and keep everything at
7%, you’re running with some conflicting goals here. So I think all of our variances are very
justified. I think there is a hardship that’s expressed here on Lots 11 and 12.
Papke: On the issue of the tree preservation on page 4 of staff report, you know one of the areas
of contention here, getting to the setback that you’re asking for, city standards allow 105 feet of
tree removal and you’re showing on Lots 3 and 5 105 to 115 and then you’ve got another 1, 2, 3,
7 or so lots where you’re clearing 115 to 140 feet. How do you reconcile that, and that’s one of
the major issues here and I haven’t heard an explanation of why you require to clear those trees
beyond the level of city standards.
Dan Herbst: I’m going to let Daren Laberee address that issue. I think it has to do with grading
and having the house set up with the road through there. Daren Laberee.
Daren Laberee: As Dan said, my name’s Daren Laberee. I work with Westwood Professional
Services. A landscape architect. I did the planning on this site. The reason why you see that
extra you know tree removal on the back side, it’s not right at the 105. 105 is what you have to
qualify to take out. You can actually save in the front of those trees and you can’t count it as
saved according to ordinance. Well that doesn’t really show it. You can see the dark lines here.
These are retaining walls that we are putting in the back sides of these sites. One of the things I
could do on site is provide back yards for families. With that 25 foot setback, 60 foot deep pad
and then the additional 20 foot, trying to maintain a slightly flat back yard for a family to have.
That’s where we start drawing the lines then to get, that’s where we put our walls and that’s
where we grade down as fast as we can to get to match that tree line. Other areas, you know
you’re talking about 8, 9, 10. There’s no wall. Well 9, 10 we’re not, probably back to 8. We’re
trying not to use walls as much as possible. We’re trying to match the existing grade. One of the
biggest problems and constraints with this site, we just did an overview looking, and if you look
at how this site lays out, Kate said in the beginning you know that it’s got a lot of, a lot of
opportunity or constraint, whichever way you want to look at it. There’s two major wetland
systems. One up here. Down here on the southern side. One up here on the kind of the northern
side. There’s a 20 foot drop inbetween these two wetland systems that most people don’t
recognize and that gradually makes it’s way around and they connect to this low area through
here. On top of that 20 foot connection, you know the existing home that we’re trying to save is
sitting up 30 foot above this wetland. It’s 20 foot above this one so this house is 50 foot higher
than this wetland system, and that’s one of the reasons why 8% grade in the road, we have to try
to come down from this part here. Get up to the house and then come back down to try to meet
you know the difference between this 20 foot, between the 2 wetlands and the grading downhill
here is down to this really, really low wetland is what’s kind of really hurting us on these back
yards, which is why we’re trying to force these houses along that street. See I’m pushing it 5
foot. The way to get the 5 foot on the front, that goes 5 foot on the back. We’re trying to do
30
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
everything we can to get out of that. Like Dan said, we’d like to do more. We’d like to go down
to the 50 foot right-of-way. We’d like to do everything possible but we tried to work with staff
as well.
Sacchet: Since we’re on that right-of-way and setback issue a minute. One of the variances
you’re requesting is that reduced front setback on what is it, Block 2. Or 1. And it seems like
staff is not quite agreeing with you on the benefits that are derived from that. If I understood the
staff report correctly, staff’s position is that you’re really not bringing the results you would
expect from that type of a variance. Can you address that?
Daren Laberee: Yeah, I think staff’s position is 5 feet is 5 feet and I think they feel that if we
push back the units back 5 foot then that’s just 5 foot more that it has to go into there and I don’t
think they see the concern for a waiver in this case. It’s kind of our job to put our best foot
forward. We would like to go 5 foot away. We’re doing everything possible. We’re trying to,
you know the reduced front yard setbacks. The increase in the road. Slopes to you know,
actually up to 10 in the tree ordinance. They actually suggested in the tree preservation
ordinance in the city and they’re suggested to stay away from trees, to stay away from wetlands,
to stay away from the natural things. It’s not like we’re pulling these numbers out of the air and
you know and just throwing them out to look at. We’re grabbing them out of ordinance to make
these work and the way I look at it is that we are in sort of…I’d like to prefer to say that I’m
conforming with ordinance because I’m trying to use the tree preservation ordinance part where
it suggests to do this type of stuff. Some of the staff disagrees with that, but that is their right to
do so. Which is why we have Planning Commission’s to sort through it.
Sacchet: Oh, we’ll see about that part. Do we have other questions from the applicant? Since
we have the applicant on the spot here. Otherwise I would suggest maybe have a few more
questions from staff and then if we need more applicant input we’ll ask you for that or if you
want to ask something, you’d certainly be welcome to do so. Did you want to add something at
this point still?
Dan Herbst: Well I just want to do a little summary here in case I don’t get another chance. I
think that since the water treatment plant came into play and the park and everything we are
making extraordinary efforts here, concessions in marketing, economics to try to make this thing
work. If I thought, as Mr. Finger represents I could sell one lot for a million dollars versus two
lots for $500,000, I would do it but I don’t think I can do that. So, and I think we are
encroaching so little on that bluff and for the compromises we’re making, and the hardships
incurred here, I think one lot, and the things I want to put in place, both environmentally and
economically to make sure nothing…we can handle that. I don’t believe there’s any
neighborhood in the city, when it’s all said and done you’ll have, if I can find my last little chart
here. I just want you to focus on this for a moment. Out of the 62 acre site, between what we are
giving to the city in right-of-way, which is in the buff color, which will be left as permanent
wetlands in the pink colors and putting the easements on it, which will be a benefit to the city,
and the land that we will be donating to the city, there’s over 62% of this whole land mass will
be under your control. Will be public and will be beautiful space, which doesn’t exist today.
100% of it is all private. And I do think that if you look at the big picture here, instead of
picking away at 5 foot setbacks here and the bluff ordinance here, I think if you look at the big
31
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
picture here and what we’re trying to create and how hard we’ve worked to do this, with the
limited time we have left to get this done, I need you to give me some direction tonight because I
don’t have the time frame to be able to be tabled. I need to get to the council to make some
decisions because the landowner has got other options with other developers so I want to put my
best foot forward. I want to create great neighborhoods for the city. I live here. I want to be
high class. I want you to be proud of it when it’s all done, as I am on every neighborhood I do.
And I think on a 62 acre, 39 lot, the 2 existing homes included, we’re looking at a very low
density, probably lower than Highover or anything around. I think the density is less and
protection of environmental features is better. I think the traffic access is magnificent now and
in the scheme of things it looks like we’re asking for a lot of variances, but if you’re really
looking at it.
Sacchet: If I may ask you a very straight question. I mean is this Lot 12 a make it or break it for
you with this project?
Dan Herbst: How I, you know nothing is over until I go back to the landowner and say this is the
deal you know so, but it’s a break point right now with, the deal was structured before we knew
about a park. Before we knew about a treatment plant and so I’m struggling to make this all
work within the time line because he’s got other vultures like myself that want to buy… But I
want to do the right thing, I really do and I know you’ll be proud of it.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Dan Herbst: You’re welcome.
Sacchet: Alright.
McDonald: Before he goes.
Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Jerry.
McDonald: I have one question and it’s because, you really haven’t answered this about Lot 12
for me. I’ve been out there. I’ve been all over that area. I understand the city’s concerns about
bluffs. What I haven’t heard is, how are you going to mitigate any damage to that area if we
allow you to go up to the edge where you’re asking for? What you’ve shown today is that you
could get by without a variance. You just couldn’t build as large a home on that particular lot,
which would probably be much more attractive, and I understand that. But what I can’t get past
is how are you going to, you haven’t convinced me to give you the variance yet.
Dan Herbst: Well let me go back to the graphic. If you were to go to the proposed building
setback line and then go back 30 feet from there, and that’s the width of the garage there, I don’t
think you can get the kind of house that’s warranted on that site, you know. Somebody’s not
going to pay that kind of money for a lot and want to put a 1,200 square foot ramble with an end
loaded garage on it.
McDonald: I agree with you.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: So we’re, we tried to exaggerate here. Show you a bigger envelope but in terms of
grading and tree loss, there isn’t much happening here, as I indicated in the numbers I gave you.
The only thing that we’re stepping on is your 30 foot setback from the bluff. Because as I
understand the private drive has to be incorporated as a variance into your, when we get to the
council… We’re talking about something that’s been approved before. 2 lots. Private drive,
and that’s acceptable I think.
Sacchet: Okay?
McDonald: Okay.
Dan Herbst: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Where do we go from here? I appreciate your being up front, that you do
want to move this ahead and I do want to acknowledge that you certainly make a very valiant
effort and your developments are awesome. There are a fair amount of issues in this and I mean
ideally personally I would like to see it again. Little worked out a little further than it’s worked
out right now. So the question that I have for fellow commissioners here is, do we want to jump
in and go through more detailed questions with staff at this point and try to wrestle this to a point
where we can make a recommendation and again our recommendation is meant to be how does it
apply to the rules and regulations. We’re not at liberty to change the rules and regulations as part
of this process.
Papke: I think we need to move forward, seeing what happens when we vote no and pass them
along so.
Sacchet: Alright, anybody have detail questions? Otherwise I start with some detail questions.
First of all we touched on the Highover, the termination. I heard you say that we were kind of
conservative so we’re not expecting much of a surprise there that could impact the development,
because that is a big variable.
Generous: Yes. When Lori and I walked the site we used their original map and we were uphill
of that.
Sacchet: So with the 150 foot setback we should not create more issues most likely?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Now in terms of the couple of lots, can you explain what’s riparian and what’s not
because I’m a little confused. The staff report says that 3, at least those, what is it, 9, 10 and 11?
On that Block 3, would have, that one of those lots would have to be eliminated because it does
not meet the riparian lot requirements in terms of width and surface.
Generous: Right. And that’s with them platting the lot lines out, all the way to the property line.
We believe the ordinary high water elevation is somewhere in here. That’s what the DNR needs
33
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
to determine. A solution to that is if they outlotted that, then these lots becomes non-riparian and
they’re upland lots and they don’t have to meet the 40,000 square foot and the 125 foot low
width.
Sacchet: So it’s my understanding normally we would include all the wetland part in the outlot.
Generous: Right. That’s one of the recommendations under.
Sacchet: And then therefore you would not have to meet the riparian size requirements.
Generous: Correct. Correct.
Sacchet: So they would be okay. They would not lose any lots.
Generous: They would work, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, because that’s not what, the understanding I got from the report. In terms of the
wetlands, I mean what kind of alarms is again with the wetlands that it requires further
investigation. I mean what I’m trying to establish is how solid is the data that we’re based on at
this point? I mean I can understand the urgency from the side of the developer wanting to move
forward. On the other hand for us to make a well founded recommendation we need to have
some solid data to base ourselves on so we’re not sure exactly where the high water line is. And
with the wetlands we say it needs delineation. And we had one pretty strong comment from one
of the residents. Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury to measure this over a couple years, but
at least we should measure it with some solidity.
Generous: As part of the determination though they do look at historical, aerial photography of
the site and look at it over time to help them make the determination.
Sacchet: So what’s missing, I mean I know the staff report says very clearly requires further
investigation and delineation. What’s missing?
Generous: We don’t have the final delineation report because of the timing. They need to wait
til spring basically.
Sacchet: So it is spring, so how close are we to at least, I mean in Minnesota you never quite
know for sure. You want to address that please?
Daren Laberee: Yeah, certainly. I think what we discussed with staff is that the approvals we’re
going for tonight are all contingent and that’s the risk that Dan’s put on himself is that if the
wetland delineation is significantly different, we would have to come right back forth to staff and
say hey you guys need to change you know, this doesn’t match what you guys showed before. If
it’s significantly similar, and there isn’t a large change and it’s you know minor tweaks here and
there, there would be no reason for us to have to come back. It’d just kind of be a staff say yep,
you guys met everything with your plan as is, and that was the reason why we felt that we put
very conservative lines on the plan when we went out this winter and did it. The growing season
34
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
st
I believe is going to be May 1 this year is when the first time that the, it’s all up to the agencies
which there’d be 3 different agencies on the site, to go out and look at it together
and…vegetations and they can get proper soil borings too to…
Sacchet: And those are people that have experience to see a little bit over a time frame, not just
where the water is at that very moment.
Daren Laberee: Exactly, and that’s.
Sacchet: And that’s where we get some reassurance.
Aanenson: …we have our own wetland person on staff to verify all that.
Daren Laberee: And the DNR one too for the.
Sacchet: Now the, okay, thank you. Now there are these two little wetlands that are being filled
for house pads. In the past having sat here on the Planning Commission for a while, there is
wetland impacts to build a road, and that’s one thing. But I think it’s another thing to fill a
wetland to make a house pad. Can you enlighten me how we justify that? Because it’s my
understanding from looking at the findings of fact or what we’re supposed to apply to this fact
that that doesn’t necessarily fit. Is that something you want to address Bob?
Generous: I think it’s built into the grading for that roadway and all that. But yes, they are
creating a house pad out into those wetlands.
Sacchet: I mean there’s two little wetlands. It’s not that huge a deal but I mean what’s our
framework?
Generous: I believe that we were looking at the preservation of that contiguous large site was
more important than these isolated wetlands.
Sacchet: Okay. So it’s a little bit of a give and take, which makes sense, yeah. It’s a balancing
act. Now, we have this approach here that says we have to, first step avoidance of wetland
impacts. Second step, minimization of wetland impact. Third step, rectification of wetland
impact and fourth, mitigation. And we’re, if I understand the staff report correctly, we’re stating
that those steps have not been followed sufficiently yet. That’s still something that the developer
has to do? Or where are we at with that?
Generous: Completely, yes because we first we need to find out, make the final delineation
determination and so we will know what the total impacts are.
Sacchet: Yeah, you see that’s where I’m getting a little uneasy you know.
Generous: We know we have made minimization. We’re looking at, at least for the roadway.
We’re trying to go with the existing alignment on the existing driveway to follow that to
35
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
minimize it on the east side. And then this coming down to meet city ordinances for the road
coming in on the right.
Aanenson: Let me just add to that a little bit, just for clarification so everybody understands the
process. So as the developer has stated, they’re proceeding at their risk. That they believe that
they’re pretty close. And that there might be minimal line changes which would affect buffering
and the like, but obviously if there’s a substantial change it would result in changing the plat. If
they drop a lot, typically we don’t bring that back. It happens often that a lot gets dropped
between now and final plat, but this process, as it moves forward, goes to the City Council for
preliminary recommendation. They still typically take anywhere from, up to 2 months to do a
final plat, and that’s where all the t’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted and work with the staff to
make sure that’s done. And that final plat again goes back to City Council and when all these
conditions are put in place, go back to the City Council and we itemize how they’ve been
addressed and it states that they have been addressed or been modified or, so they can all be
tracked to make sure it’s executed as stated in the conditions.
Sacchet: And I have to be honest, I mean if it wouldn’t be a developer that we know and we
know your integrity, I would think that would be a reason actually not to move forward at this
point because I mean we’re a little bit out on a limb with that. Now based on the fact that he has
a proven integrity of dealing with the city and I don’t think that’s…point but it’s certainly not a
point of warm and fuzzy. Alright, the building setbacks, 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips.
There are a couple lots that need to be adjusted according to that. That can be done without too
much. That’s trivial?
Generous: Yeah, it’s just they show some of their lots are back farther or the houses are back
farther.
Sacchet: Alright. And to come back once more to our favorite two lots, that 11 and 12 there on
the private, little street on the west, southwest side. When I read the staff report, it also implies
that Lot 11 has some, it might be impacted. Lot 11 also needs a variance from the bluff setback?
Generous: Just for a portion of the retaining wall.
Sacchet: The retaining wall’s encroach?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Now, retaining walls is another area where I’m very uneasy. I mean do
we know the height of these retaining walls?
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: There are a lot of them.
Saam: Yeah. Specifically Lot 11, the ones in the rear yard that Mr. Herbst was showing.
36
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: There are 4 or 5, is there?
Saam: Yeah. 4 I believe. 3 for the most part and then there’s a fourth. At the highest that I saw
it was 16 feet approximately.
Sacchet: 16 between the 4 combined?
Saam: Yeah. That’d be in the 4. Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay.
Saam: Then as you go, say to the south down the private drive, the retaining walls along the
west side it looks like they’re about 8 feet. Those would be holding back Highover basically.
Sacchet: So Highover would be higher than the private road.
Saam: Yes.
Sacchet: But then there’s also a retaining wall on the other side of that.
Saam: Of that cul-de-sac. That one’s 8 feet also. That’s where in the staff report we were
talking about it holding back both sides like a tunnel.
Sacchet: Both sides are higher, so the cul-de-sac is like set down into the ground.
Saam: Correct. And that’s, I guess that’s an area I want to clarify. That private drive does go in
the bluff in that area. No other area goes into the bluff. There’s a structure setback where they
go into but they are actually, they do go through the bluff in that area, just to clarify for
everybody.
Keefe: How deep are we going down into the bluff in that area, do you know?
Saam: How deep?
Keefe: Yeah. In other words I mean you’re saying you cut in but, to what, it’s a little piece right
and then how high will the wall, how high would the wall be?
Sacchet: It would have to be held up by a retaining wall that’s not shown right now, isn’t it?
Saam: No. Let me go up here. This is going to be hard to see probably but maybe we’ll zoom
way in Nann.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it.
Saam: This dark line right here is the actual bluff. So as you can see, the private street goes
right through that.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: But how, they need a retaining wall to hold it up?
Saam: The retaining wall is on this side because Highover over here is higher in elevation.
Sacchet: So we don’t need, we don’t need anything on the low side of the bluff?
Saam: Not in this area, but as you can see as you go to the south then you do start to get into
another knoll or high area, so they have to cut in that cul-de-sac and they need a retaining wall to
hold back that dirt.
Keefe: How high is that retaining wall? Any idea?
Saam: That one’s about 8.
Sacchet: And then on the opposite side you said it was, it’s a double retaining wall.
Saam: Yeah, this one’s about 8 in here. This is the 16 that I mentioned, you know
approximately give or take a foot or two. I just wanted to clarify that.
Sacchet: Alright, yeah appreciate that. So that’s why you called it a tunnel like access in the
staff report.
Aanenson: Can I just give…clarification to that.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Aanenson: One of the things that we talked about, and I’m not sure you understood that, but
when Bob made his presentation, as you look at that bubble that we were just talking about, that
one way to solve that additional retaining wall on the bluff side, where actually you pull that
bubble back and maybe you could just.
Saam: Yeah, why don’t I show that quick here. That’s fine Nann. So what we were mentioning
to get away from the need for the variance in this area is to move this bubble back into the,
basically out of the bluff area onto Lot 11 say. You may have to reconfigure the lot. Then you
hug a driveway for Lot 12 up in here and get it up away from the bluff.
Papke: How long would that driveway be?
Saam: Well I’ll scale it here quick. It’d be quite a long driveway, but it would be again for a
single house. It’d be shorter than the one that the existing house has.
Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution from your perspective or?
Saam: Now we haven’t looked at that in terms of grades. That’s something, I mean we’re
challenging the applicant to do but that’s an alternative to what they’ve proposed.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution?
Saam: It looks like about 350 feet maybe to the house they were showing.
Sacchet: So there is a possibility of an alternate solution.
Aanenson: Correct, just reduce the grading.
Sacchet: Alright. Jumping around here a little bit. We’re asking for a right turn lane on Galpin,
but not on Lake Lucy, is that accurate?
Saam: Yes. That’s due to the speeds on Galpin versus Lake Lucy.
Sacchet: With the lot, you said like in Block 1 lot size adjustments and with adjustments that’s
something that could just be shifted and adjusted easily. And we touched on the riparian thing.
Keefe: Go to Block 2, the setback variances. Lots 1 through 12.
Sacchet: Alright, let’s see what else. The ponds. Storm water ponds. Right now there are 3
planned. Can you point out where those 3 are because it seems like the conditions actually state
one of them should be eliminated. So if you could clarify where the two are and which one
needs to be eliminated.
Saam: Yep. There’s one right here in the north, just west of the Lake Lucy access.
Sacchet: Yep.
Saam: Then as we go to the east there’s another one here on what would possibly be the park
water treatment plant site. Then there’s also a very small one just south of the road off Galpin.
That’s the one we’re seeing, based on the design. It doesn’t meet our existing criteria and it
looks, what we’re recommending is just take this lot here and bring it back here.
Sacchet: Okay. In terms of wetland mitigation, I mean the staff report makes a point that
currently wetland mitigation is lacking. There’s not enough and I understand the applicant made
a request to possibly do off site mitigation rather than on site. Where are we at with that?
Aanenson: We’re still working on that. We believe that some of it probably could be on site,
maybe on some city property but in close proximity. We’re working through that too.
Sacchet: Okay. The, I mean those are type of things that to be honest I’d like to have some
clarity when we have to make recommendation. Now the real sticky thing I have is with the
findings of fact. I mean we have, the way I read them I get very confused because on one hand
you’re recommending, staff is recommending not to allow the variances, pretty much all of them
except the wetland impact. The findings of fact, I’m not sure I follow exactly what’s happening
there. The first finding, let’s see how this works. First there is actually, Deb you’d be happy to
39
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
hear, it actually does talk about private streets so that has not been forgotten. If you look at the
staff report it’s the part, finding of fact where, it’s page 2 but it’s not page 2 of the staff report.
It’s in the appendix, the findings of fact. It says that the private street will permit enhanced
protection of the city’s natural resources, specifically bluffs and forest areas. Now, how does
that fit together with pardon the expression, shoe horning in a house or a lot between a bluff
easement and a utility easement. Then it seems like that comes straight out of code that the
private street permits enhanced protection of city natural resources, specifically bluffs and
forested areas. Is that a reason to allow the private street or not?
Generous: Well, we believe you should allow the private street. We’re looking at the alternative
that we would shorten the cul-de-sac and they would have private driveways, individual
driveways.
Sacchet: Okay, so that’s how we try to mitigate it.
Generous: That’s, yes. What we were looking, I was looking at when I was making that finding.
Sacchet: And I understand the quandary of the applicant and we’re not really at comments but I
do want to make a comment that for me certainly the bluff setback restriction has much more
weight, is more significant to me than utility easement setback. I mean from a city viewpoint, in
terms of looking out for the welfare of the city. So that needs to be balanced there. Then we
have a variance from the subdivision ordinances. The setback, now we’re not really, the staff
report does not recommend that we grant the setback variance, correct?
Generous: Correct. The one option was for Lots 3 and 5 I believe.
Sacchet: Because the findings of fact lead me to believe that they sound like they’re conceived
to actually back up. I’m not sure, I’m confused about that part. And then the variance from the
bluff setback, which again staff is recommending not to grant it, proposed setback variance
enhances tree preservation. That doesn’t compute for me. I mean if we give this variance we let
them cut further into the trees. It’s not based on the desire to increase the value or income
potential. Well, if we grant the variance we make it easier to put a building in there which
definitely is at this point, since this is a development situation, an increase of the income
potential. And it’s not self created. Well it’s self created by wanting to put a house there. So
I’m not very clear about those findings of fact and I think they’re very fundamental because
that’s the legal foundation for the recommendation, ultimately for the decision that the city’s
going to make. I have a very hard time on that basis not to lean towards tabling to be honest.
Let’s see. Well I’ve talked long enough. I can add more in later and maybe let you guys, other
guys take a little bit, make noise here for a while. Anybody want to jump in please. Jerry.
McDonald: Well I guess the couple things came up. You know I’m not going to give up on Lot
12, but I’ll move off of that for a second. You said something during the reading of this that onto
Galpin it would be a right turn only.
Keefe: Right turn lane.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
McDonald: Okay, good.
Sacchet: Because I guess Galpin being a county road would require a right turn lane. Is that
accurate?
Generous: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. I guess from the city’s perspective, help me understand this thing about this
variance he wants on the bluff, because he’s right at that end of the property, yeah it’s not as
severe as it is. I always envisioned the home being more toward the high point and what he’s
doing is going past that down the low point, and it’s not as severe. What’s the impact of us you
know either granting or not granting that variance for that home on Lot 12. It doesn’t seem to
me, as I recall the property, to be that big of a deal.
Saam: Again we’re recommending denial of the bluff variance. We believe with some revisions
to the plan that they can stay out of the bluff and still possibly get a lot, on Lot 12. So as far as
where they’re coming from, you know the applicant stated his case. We disagree. We’re against
that.
McDonald: Okay, because I know there was a few houses in that area that they’re pretty much
on a bluff, especially the one on the corner down there. That’s close to Lake Lucy and 42 where
you first go into, I guess that’s Highover Drive. The house right there on that corner sits up quite
a bit. They’ve done a lot of terracing to create a lot on that particular house. In fact.
Sacchet: It probably doesn’t qualify as a bluff, does it?
McDonald: Well it doesn’t qualify as a bluff but I mean when we allowed some building on an
area there that you created a livable space which is, you know what the developer’s asking to do
here and I see in that particular area where he wants to go it’d be a lot less severe than a few of
the other areas in that general neighborhood that were granted.
Aanenson: If I can just refrain. I think you’re asking us to make the decision for you, which we
can’t. We’re just giving you our information but the bottom line is, there is some buildable area.
What the applicant is saying, to make it reasonable, reasonable use of that area, he would need to
go into the bluff. Because if he showed.
Sacchet: The bluff setback at least.
Aanenson: In the bluff setback. Because as he showed you on the plan, what he could get is a 2
car garage and a smaller home on there, and he’s saying for a large acreage lot, that probably
wouldn’t equate to the value. So that’s what he’s saying, I need a little bit more. There is some
buildable area but is that reasonable for that big of a lot and that’s.
McDonald: Again what I’m trying to do is get a balance here from both sides. I want to hear
both sides before I make a decision on this because there is an impact of what we’re being asked
to do here.
41
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: There’s a third element we can do Jerry. I mean we can discuss this as Planning
Commissioners. I mean we’re still, I was, we were jumbling a little bit our process here tonight
because this is such a complex thing in front of us but, so we’re still doing questions at this point
but at the same time I think we probably could discuss this Lot 12 amongst us commissioners
and then if additional questions come up, either to the applicant or the staff, we can ask those
questions. I mean that’s the type of discussion that needs to be taking place in public because
that leads to recommendations that we ultimately make. And I’m certainly willing to make a
statement where I stand with the Lot 12. Personally I think the bluff set requirement has a lot of
weight. I mean it’s like the wetland setbacks. The bluff setbacks are generally things that we
don’t monkey with. They’re important. They’re put in there and that’s one of the few places
where we can actually preserve sensitive nature. And we’ve heard several of the residents point
out that abundance of wildlife, the beauty of the nature in that area. I think it personally, I really
would like to see that area remain as natural as possible. And to grant a variance that helps
impact that further seems totally contrary to the interest of the city at large to me personally.
That’s my discussion contribution to this point.
Keefe: Well, he could still you know, they’re in the, if you didn’t grant the variance he could
still build something on there.
Sacchet: Potentially yeah, but we don’t know that. I mean and that’s one of the reasons I would
like to see what they can work out. I mean the ideal case I would like to see this come back a
little more cooked with the wetlands delineated, with this worked out in terms of what can be
done with it without a variance and so forth. And also with the grades of the street.
Aanenson: Otherwise ultimately until you see house plans you’re not going to know. So that
would be the other option is when he comes back with a house plan.
McDonald: Well okay, if we look at trying to preserve the area, I mean the house you’re looking
at preserves the vast majority of that area down there. It is unbuildable and it remains as is, you
know natural and everything.
Keefe: But I don’t think it is unbuildable. I mean it’s unbuildable as the plan that he’s proposed
but he could still get a house in there. You could still.
McDonald: Well yeah, what I’m saying is if we granted the variance, you’re still saving the
majority of that 3 some acres so I believe that we begin to meet more of the criteria’s we trying
to accomplish here of saving area but yet at the same time you know giving the developer an
opportunity to develop that piece of property into something that would be viable for the
community. I guess that’s all I’m saying on that point.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Papke: One of the things, this bluff area drains down into a wetland, yes?
Sacchet: Yep.
42
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Papke: So I think we not only have to take into account a bluff impact but also the
environmental impact of the construction along there. And we’ve looked at these sort of bluff
setback variances before. This has been in the city code since what, 1988? I believe somewhere
in that range? 88, 89. Somewhere is when the bluff setback went into play?
Aanenson: Probably.
Sacchet: Quite a while.
Papke: Quite a while, and we’ve been pretty much sticklers on this one and this one, the only
word that comes to my mind is this is an egregious violation of the setback and this is not 5 foot
incursion. This is right up to the bloody edge of the bluff right over a wetland. I don’t know, it’s
just egregious.
Undestad: I was just wondering if maybe Kate, can I ask you a question?
Aanenson: Yes, I’m sorry.
Undestad: On the bluff, I mean again going to the zoning lot 12 here but you know the bluff
ordinance. I know there is quite an extensive report that’s gone through and it covers much more
than Lot 12 through the City of Chanhassen. Can you just kind of give a little 2 minute summary
as to why that 30 feet is important and why it stretches along the entire bluff ordinance out there,
not just.
Aanenson: Sure. I mean the goal was to prevent, it used to just apply in the southern end of the
city and we started applying it city wide, just to prevent erosion. People that wanted to build
right to the edge, or to put their swimming pool or those gazebos, it was really an erosion control
kind of tying back into some of the other preservation such as the trees and wetlands that we
incorporated. Because I can just take a minute and go back to Lot 12. There is a buildable area
on Lot 12, so you can create a lot and not give it a variance. And somebody’s going to come in
and ask for one later. Because there is a buildable envelope on there. Outside the 30 foot
setback.
Undestad: With just the size issue…
Aanenson: Yeah, we’re just scaling off, correct. Is it to get the variance now and know that the
developer can get something pretty similar on there, which is what he’s seeking but it is a
buildable lot.
Undestad: Did you come up with a scale number on that?
Aanenson: Yeah, we just looked at that outside the bluff in the driveway, if you stop the
driveway short, you could have, outside the easement, 70 foot depth to the edge. The setback
edge by maybe 60. Little tighter than that.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Saam: It’s not 70 the whole width but there’s a width of probably 25 feet that’s 70 and then
like…
Aanenson: It’s got an anomaly to it, yeah. There’s a push out to it that, and that’s what makes it
more complex so if you approved it as a lot, which it meets a lot requirement for building on a
bluff, you may get somebody coming in and asking for a variance to, if you were to give it two
driveways off that street.
Keefe: Okay, so it’s kind of two questions. One, do we grant the variance. And then the second
piece is, do we allow the lots at all or just take the lot out?
Sacchet: No, I don’t think we, this is without our jurisdiction to allow or disallow a lot. If
they’re buildable…
Keefe: …one of their recommendations was to not allow that lot.
Sacchet: Some things went a little back and forth on that, yeah. But I mean our jurisdiction is
not to allow or disallow buildable lots. Our aspect is to look at does it meet ordinance and
regulations and in this case is there the justification for a variance how it is spelled out in our
code to meet it, which is, is it a hardship? Is it applicable to other properties in similar
situations? Is it self created? Is it detrimental? And aspects like that. About 5 or 6 items like
that.
Aanenson: Just to refrain it again, to get to the driveway to the back lot, number 12 you’d have
to get a variance on the first, on Lot 11 for a private street so the other driveway can come off it.
Sacchet: Yeah, and that’s where it does fall apart as far as I’m concerned because the private
street element says use of the a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city’s
natural resources specifically while it’s in forested areas.
Undestad: So on this lot again if the variance wasn’t, if it was denied tonight, the subdivision,
the preliminary plat was approved and the variance was not, the applicant would then come back
at another point in time with a more detailed plan as to how they’re plan to.
Aanenson: But there’s two things that need to happen. First, you need to give the street
variance, so there’s still the variance required. If you gave the street variance that allows a
second lot, and whoever bought that lot pursued, or the applicant chose to come back at a later
date with a specific home plan, you could approve or deny that. You could say it has to meet the
setbacks or you may grant some relief based on the design of the home. But it’s all predicated on
the first variance.
Sacchet: But then at that point the variance would be for a specific encroachment. It wouldn’t
be just blanket.
Aanenson: Correct. A specific design and you could attach.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Because right now it’s across the board to the bluff. All the setback basically waived.
That’s what I understand the applicant is asking for.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Let me ask one other question. If we deny the street variance, and we’re not even
dealing with the bluff variance right because they can’t build on it.
Aanenson: Right, because you wouldn’t be able to…
Keefe: Right, you couldn’t access the site, right?
Aanenson: That’s correct…
Keefe: So if we were to deny the street, right. Yeah.
Sacchet: And again, I mean I’m not trying to be difficult but I do have to assume that this comes
out of city code this statement here on the findings of fact, where it says use of the private street
will permit enhanced protection of the city’s natural resources, specifically bluffs and forested
areas. I mean if that is in our code, we’re not at liberty.
Generous: The specific, natural resources, I added the specifically the bluffs and forested areas
to that.
Sacchet: Okay, but the other part is code?
Generous: Yes. And Mr. Chairman, number 7 also deals with the private street. That’s part of
the findings.
Sacchet: Okay, so we have them both, side by side. Is that how it’s meant to be?
Generous: Because you have to find that it meets the criteria and also that it meets the variance
criteria under the subdivision variance. For a private street.
Sacchet: Yeah, I appreciate you made it relative by saying substantially. Not substantially
detrimental. This is a tough one. More discussion on this? Jerry, I mean you started back on
this Lot 12 thing and I do think it’s one of the pivotal areas here that we’re struggling with.
McDonald: It’s kind of the last one. I mean that whole thing about the wetlands is dependent
upon the DNR study. It sounds as though they put it up…in there. If it doesn’t work out, the
developer understands the risk so that problem could probably take care of itself. It looks as
though the only thing left is this one corner and how we’re going to deal with it.
Papke: There’s a number of other variances being asked for here. We really haven’t discussed
some of the other ones like the street grade. We’re 1% off. How do people feel about that?
45
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Well it seems like staff’s position is that it could be possibly mitigated and that they
would like to see whether that has an impact, which I think is a reasonable position to take. But
then where does that put us? I mean that puts us in front of a proposal that is just not fully
cooked yet. I hate to say that because I know you did tremendous effort as the applicant for this.
Keefe: Well we’ve also got the variance on the Block 2 as well, the 5 foot variance. 30 foot to
25 feet. Can you speak to that just a little bit in terms of you said that well if they were to clear
fewer trees you might consider it. I wasn’t clear on what.
Generous: Under the subdivision ordinance we state that in calculating tree removal, that we
estimate that every subdivision will remove the first 105 feet of trees. That’s our basis. Now.
Papke: Not the first 105, first 105 feet from the right-of-way.
Generous: From the right-of-way. From the front property line to 105 feet into the lot will be
cleared.
Sacchet: So that will be moved to 25 feet instead of 30 feet with this? But you’re saying that’s
not what’s happening.
Generous: That’s not what’s happening. What we’ve been doing is saying well we could, we
would support recommending approval of a setback variance if we could show that it pulls back
that tree clearance, instead of 105 feet it’s 100 feet, or it’s 90 or whatever the case may be. And
then in this instance it’s true, they were right at the threshold and you know Jill was giving them
the benefit of the doubt and the rest of them, they were grading even farther.
Keefe: Can you reconcile then the point that they were making that part of the reason why they
were asking for the setback variance was due to more grading issues than necessarily the tree.
Generous: Because the site’s on a slope, yes. They have to.
Keefe: Yeah, so it isn’t really driven necessarily by the tree clearing per se. It’s more due to the
depth of the property based upon the drop off of the land.
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: That’s the reason with the topography of the land is the reason why they’re asking for the
setback.
Generous: Right. It’s that 50 foot elevation from the existing house to that northerly wetland.
Keefe: Yeah, and that’s what I’m confused. I’m trying to understand why you were saying in
the report that if they were to clear fewer trees, but it doesn’t sound like that’s what, the reason
why they’re asking for the variance. The reason why they’re asking for the variance is for the
depth of the lot.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Generous: Well it allows them to pull up.
Saam: Yeah, I think the applicant added in there, they like to provide a little back yard. So in
order to do that, just from my review, and meet the 105, because it slopes off so much they
would have to put in retaining walls pretty much at the 105 foot point all the way down. So
instead of doing that they’re matching into the existing grade at a 3:1. That takes them beyond
the 105 foot, if you follow that.
Sacchet: Now there is still very significant retaining wall, like this it’s called a 4 tier retaining
wall. How high does that get, do you know?
Saam: Yeah, on Lot 5 that one gets up to 16. On Lots 5 and 6.
Sacchet: And is that dropping off? I mean that’s the retaining wall going up behind the
building, or going down?
Saam: No, it’s the back yard slopes down.
Sacchet: It goes down.
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: Going down, okay.
Keefe: So the setback variance, what we have to find in regards to that is the hardship as it’s
related to, would probably be related to the topography of wetlands in this case.
Aanenson: Correct. …it’s not for treatment. Understand their goal is to create a bigger back
yard, which is a legitimate goal. People want to have that but we’re just saying it wasn’t for
treatment.
Sacchet: Since we’re coming back to retaining walls, I mean in past developments I’ve seen
staff make an effort to try to minimize retaining walls. I mean there is more retaining walls in
this development that I’ve seen probably in any other development ever before and understand
it’s a challenging site. Has a lot of elevation changes and everything, and the natural value of it,
it’s certainly special.
Aanenson: As the developer stated, there’s a 50 foot change in grade.
Sacchet: So staff is in concurrence that those retaining walls are appropriate to this extent, which
is a…extent anywhere else?
Aanenson: Yep.
47
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Saam: Yeah, I think so. I mean it’s a balance. You know like I said, either you put in the wall
and stop the grading and filling pretty much, or you tie into the grades and you fill out another
whatever it is, 20 feet.
Aanenson: It’s an expense for them. It’d be cheaper to fill it, which we don’t want.
Sacchet: Okay, so it’s a value to the city, okay.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: Good.
Keefe: Can you address the 8% grade variance? Which roads are we talking about specifically?
One was the private street, as I recall.
Saam: No, the private streets can go up to 10%.
Keefe: Okay, so we’re okay.
Saam: Yeah. Let’s see, you guys can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe, maybe let’s zoom in a
little Nann, if we can. Thanks. One, I know this is hard to see but there’s a street here. That’s 7,
okay. Now I know this area’s in the 8%. Oh, I’m sorry. Somewhere in here it just goes over the
7 up to 8.
Sacchet: Both sides of the existing house? Yeah, I can see that where the lines are closer.
Saam: Yeah, which is right here. They go up to 8. And then the other area is way over on the
west which I stated earlier, this cul-de-sac. And again, my point is we don’t mind giving that but
we want to see some real proof and when I looked at it, think of it from our perspective. They’re
varying it by 1%, which means it’s going from a half a foot to a foot. Well, it would seem to me
you could do some modifications to gain that foot back and you’re not filling any more. You’re
not taking out more trees for that. If you go to a 3 to 1, 1 foot is 3 feet additional that you have
to fill so, I guess that we’re challenging them to show us how this is going to effect this site up
here. Where’s all the tree degradation that’s going to happen if you meet a 7%.
Keefe: Can I ask one of you to respond to his, just in terms of that?
Justin Larson: My name’s Justin Larson. I’m with Westwood.
Sacchet: Do you mind moving the mic to your neighborhood? Thank you.
Justin Larson: Justin Larson. I’m with Westwood Professional Services. We looked at that too.
As you know there’s a couple of areas that we’re looking for variances on. I did put a couple
exhibits together to help illustrate the point. First of all I think I probably should address the
existing home area. You can tell by the grading plan, give me a second to track it down there.
I’ve got too many exhibits. I tried to cover all the different facets… Okay, this particular
48
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
profile, if you can take a look at it here. This is the crest of this hill is where the existing home is
located and what we’re trying to achieve, as you can see we’re trying, this is a huge deep hole
that we’re trying to get down to as quickly as possible, and the only way we can achieve that is
to seek that 8% variance.
Keefe: Just so I’m clear. We’re looking at the elevation of the main road and you’re looking at,
to the right it would be the west, is that correct?
Justin Larson: Correct. Well, this is the west side. This is the east side.
Keefe: Okay, we’re looking north.
Justin Larson: So the existing home and the grade in front of this garage are really what sets the
high point or this crest elevation, and you can see, well you probably won’t be able to see it at
this detail but this house is located basically on top of a hill and it’s 20 feet or so in elevation.
With these deep ravines that we’re going down to. We’re just trying to limit the amount of fill
that would be required if he went at 7%, or whatever the grade is, and that fill would mostly take
place on the north side of this road here. Now when you go from 8% to 7% or vice versa, what
you’re really doing is you’re changing your vertical grade 1 foot for every 100 feet. So the
actual difference between a high point and our low point in this case, the pbi which is, and I
know these are kind of mundane details for many listeners but you know that’s 300 feet which is
3 vertical feet which would save us 9 feet in back. So 9 feet of horizontal distance we no longer
have to grade that far out into the trees or the wetlands. The other point I want to make is, the
transition that we have going from this pbi, which is basically an invisible point in space where
the surveyor could lay out the vertical curves for sight distances and things, but the pbi here and
the pbi at the high point, that’s where the 8% is computed but anybody driving on this road
would really never see an 8% grade because they’re coming up the hill, and as soon as they hit
the crest or where the 8% tangent would be, they’re actually be getting a different, if you can
imagine, they’re going up a hill and then it transitions immediately to going over the hill, so they
never really see 8% grade.
Sacchet: So it’s not 8%. It’s just, it comes and goes.
Justin Larson: Right. You’re not driving an 8% for any distance. It’s an instantaneous point in
the road where it transitions to a reverse vertical curve.
Papke: I’m not sure I’m following you. I mean if the overall grade over that whole 300 foot
distance is 8%, but they’re not seeing 8% over much of the distance, at some point they’re seeing
a heck of a lot more than 8% for it to average out, or I’m misunderstanding your math.
Justin Larson: Well I guess I’m not, the 8% is computed over the distance from some station in
your roadway to, in this case it’s not necessarily a low point but a pbi point so the transition from
2 different grades.
Papke: So the average over that entire distance is 8%?
49
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Justin Larson: No.
Papke: No.
Justin Larson: No. It’s an 8% from 2 invisible points in space to lay out your vertical curves.
So if going from this point in space to this point in space and you see the road doesn’t actually go
up, the different between that space and this point in space and the actual roadway elevation is.
Papke: So where is the roadway elevation depicted on your drawing?
Aanenson: I think if you can show it on the road itself and not the.
Justin Larson: This is the.
Aanenson: No, go to the road map. Now take that same translation.
Justin Larson: When you’re coming up the hill right here, it’s a constant. I guess, I hope I’m
answering the question here but when you’re going up this hill it’s the curve of the vertical, the
curve of the street never really reaches 8% because as soon as you, it’s transitioning from this
tangent, and it’s kind of a hard concept I guess maybe to illustrate but if you’re traveling along
the road at 2% and this is the 2% street grade here, and suddenly it starts, it’s like a parabola.
Papke: So the second derivative is positive.
Justin Larson: Right, it’s changing. So it’s always changing but that parabola is built on 2 points
in space and those points are different by 8%...
Sacchet: Yeah, I mean there’s a somewhat simpler way to look at this. If mean if you have the
grading lines close together, that means it’s steeper.
Justin Larson: Right.
Sacchet: And in those two places the lines are closer together. And then how close together
would be 7% versus 8%? I mean that might be making it a little more understandable for.
Justin Larson: Yeah, I got stuck with kind of the engineering.
Sacchet: With all the parabola part.
Justin Larson: It’s 1 foot in 100 and you know I heard the argument from Mr. Saam that there’s
an ice issue that we don’t want to be driving on 8% grades when there’s ice. Really when you’re
dealing with ice on a road, there’s not going to, the condition isn’t really any different from 7 to
8 percent.
Sacchet: Yeah, let me stop you here though because we have to be very clear about this. I mean
I keep saying this. We’re not at liberty to change the rules. I mean whether, if you’re making a
50
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
case that 8% is really not more dangerous than 7%, that’s not what we are tasked to look at. Our
task is to look how does it meet ordinances and regulations.
Justin Larson: Well I can say that the reason why we’re pursuing these 8% grades is specifically
to preserve trees.
Sacchet: Okay, that’s significant.
Justin Larson: And that’s, as Daren mentioned earlier, that’s permitted. That’s what your tree
replacement or your tree preservation code wants us to do.
Keefe: That would be our hardship? Giving a variance for that. I mean could be the additional
tree preservation for a 1% grade.
Saam: And Mr. Chair, and again I’m saying well that’s fine. We’ll look at that but we need to
see what’s being saved. Again when we look at this you can easily get a 7% and maybe a wall
has to come up a foot in the back. Well if you have a 16 foot wall anyways, what does it matter
if it’s now 17 feet? We want to see where these trees are that they’re going to be saving. I guess
that’s what our point was.
Papke: I think everyone would agree that we’re willing to trade off saving trees for giving a little
bit on the grade, but city staff doesn’t understand where that trade off is being made. I as a
Planning Commissioner, we just went through this long explanation and I still don’t bloody
understand how, where the thing comes into play here.
McDonald: My comment on this is getting back to something that you said is that, we’re being
asked to approve something without any details. You know we would like to see some details
but we can’t get the details until later. How can we grant variances on something we have no
details on? This whole thing on Lot 12, what I’m beginning to understand there is that yeah, you
don’t need a variance right now. When you build a house you need to come back and then you
may need a variance but we can’t just give you a blanket variance. On this whole thing with the
roads, that’s begin to become a blanket variance too. City staff has got a problem because you
haven’t proven your point to them that it needs to be 8% versus 7. They’re willing to look at it
but they need some more details. If we give you a variance, you don’t have to prove it to them.
You’ve got your variance. So I think going back to one of the things that you said, this may not
be ready yet. We just may not have enough details to grant some of this stuff.
Keefe: Let me ask him one more question. In regards to the tree saving, is that tree saving just
on the mail road? How about the cul-de-sac? Would you say that’s the reason why for both of
them or is that a different case in each one?
Justin Larson: It’s the same for both. The road, the cul-de-sac, what I did is I looked at it as 7%
and 8% and if you would I’ve got an exhibit here. Hopefully this will be somewhat more clear.
I have an 8% grade starting basically at this station, and it extends for 300 feet. You don’t see it
here but down to station 4. If you just look at the first 200 feet, I’m saving my house, these pads
can be 2 foot, this pad and specifically can be 2 feet lower than if I was at a 7% grade. And what
51
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
that equates to on the back of the pad, and that’s what we’re really trying to drive home is, by
setting these pads lower, in this case 2 feet, I can save an additional amount of grading off the
back of these houses and what I’ve shown here in this exhibit, and I’m thinking I may have 32.
I’m trying, basically my grading limits would extend all the way down to, I don’t know how
close you can zoom in here. But if this became 7% instead of my 8%, this road would come up 2
feet. This pad would come up 2 feet. This walkout elevation would come up 2 feet, and if that
elevation comes up 2 feet, that pushes my grading farther out, which means you know if you
have a slope here, you know when we draw our grading plans we’re drawing at 3, you know our
contours are at 3 to 1 slope but in this case this slope, these are 3 ½ to 1 or something, which
means we’re not going to daylight our proposed contours. We’re not going to match in until we
start creeping down the slope and the farther we have to creep down that slope, the more losses
that you’re going to have in trees. And that’s, again that’s what’s driving it. We’re saving 1 foot
for every 100 feet vertically in the street. Which equates to 3 horizontal feet in the back.
Keefe: So, and you haven’t had an opportunity to really study that at all.
Saam: This is the type of info that we don’t have that we didn’t have. I took their proposed
elevations from that cul-de-sac going to the west property line of Highover. That’s less than 7%.
So you can obviously get a 7% in there. Now we didn’t see the effects of what he’s presenting
now. That’s what we’re asking to see.
Keefe: Well I mean it’s possible that you could look at that and say well, we agree with that.
Therefore we agree with the variance versus deny the variance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: But we don’t know.
Justin Larson: Can I also add that, you know there’s a lot of different parts that were shown in
the plans. We have retaining walls as well as the variance hopefully we can get for the streets,
but you know this is all, it’s all interrelated and we’re employing it in the plan to save trees.
Sacchet: Thank you. There’s one key question that you brought up Jerry. I mean if we would
take the position that we’d like to see this one more time a little more solidified, what’s the time
line? Right now according to what I read here it’s that the deadline, the review deadline is the
st
21 of May. That’s what’s on the staff report. It’s currently planned to go from here to City
th
Council on May 9. If we table tonight we can see it again in 2-3 weeks? Potentially, yeah.
And that could still bring it to City Council before the May 21 deadline. However, that would
restrict the City Council to have any wiggle room, and I certainly heard the statement of the
applicant that they’re really not, they’ve got a specific request that they’d like us to make a
decision if at all possible, so what’s staff’s position on that in terms of the time line?
Aanenson: I’ll leave that up to the applicant.
Sacchet: Okay. Do you want to address that once more Dan, if I may please ask you.
52
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: Chairman, members of the commission. Dan Herbst. The deadline is not imposed
by asking for an extension with the legal. I’ve got a deadline with the land seller. It’s because of
all the things we’ve been doing since last fall with all the things I talked about earlier, treatment
plant, the park, moving things around and everything. Okay. So what I’d like you to do is what
I outlined in the letter to you and I outlined verbally, I would like you to approve what you feel
comfortable with tonight and if you don’t feel comfortable with it, I don’t have the liberty to
come back in 3 weeks to go to the council. If you don’t feel comfortable with it, deny what you
don’t feel comfortable with.
Sacchet: Now I’m not asking you to give us an extension. What I’m asking you is, if within the
st
current review deadline, which is like 21 of May, whether you can work with that because I’m
under the impression that, and staff please correct me if that’s unrealistic, that if we would end
up tabling tonight, which I don’t know whether everybody’s leaning towards or not at this point
but I think it’s something that has come up several times in our discussion that I’d like to have a
st
clear framework for it, that it could still go to City Council before the 21 of May. And I’d like
to ask you whether that would break your deal, your time line with the owner.
Dan Herbst: Again I’ll have to go back to the land owner and work it out you know. Tonight I
don’t have the liberty.
Sacchet: Okay, okay.
rd
Keefe: Our next meeting is what, the 3 of May?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: And it might be possible to get this back on then? If we were to table it.
rd
Sacchet: How is our agenda for the 3?
Aanenson: Yeah, just to be clear. There’s some information we’re still not going to have.
We’re still not going to have the wetland information. Okay, so the information that you’re
really asking for, you’re debating among yourselves is the street variances and the other lots.
rd
You’re not going to get the wetland stuff before the next, even if we met again on May 3,
st
which is the only meeting you can meet to still meet the 21 deadline. The critical information is
the street variances and the lot. The street with Lot 12.
Sacchet: The bluff and the private street, okay.
Aanenson: And let me just, you know maybe idea. What my understanding is what you’re
saying is that, if…couple of those variances you would just as soon as have them make a
recommendation yeah or nay on those?
Dan Herbst: Yes.
Sacchet: To have it move forward, yes I think we understand that.
53
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Dan Herbst: Specifically with the street variance. We can build this with 7%. There’d be no
problem. These kids are struggling to save trees, save grade and that’s the charge I gave them.
You want 7%, we’ll do it.
Aanenson: Right, just to be clear too, no matter what you recommend, the council can re-hear
those same items.
Sacchet: Right, absolutely.
Aanenson: Besides the additional information, correct…
Sacchet: Alright. Thank you for making such a clear statement Dan. Alright, back to us guys.
Where do we go with this? I think we have a proposal in front of us that a lot of effort went into
it. I think the point Kate made is that we still wouldn’t have the wetland information in 2-3
weeks, which is a significant variable. That leaves the variable with the street grade, which I
think we got ultimately pretty good explanation and insight once we got beyond the parabola.
And then the other thing is the situation with that Lot 12, which we discussed at quite some
length, and then we have the aspect with the private street. Would we want to go somewhere
with that? Deborah, are you itching to say something? You’ve been quiet here for a while.
Zorn: Digesting.
Sacchet: Yeah, there’s a lot to digest.
Keefe: Yeah I mean, look at the way it lines up in terms of the recommendation and the Lot 12
is in with the denial with the approval of the plat. So that variance, in terms of that bluff
variance and the private street variance is tied in to number B, or letter B on our
recommendation. The other variances and the other variances we’re talking about are the street
variance, the setback variance and those two are recommended to be denied and I don’t know if
we’re on comment time but those are the.
Sacchet: Yeah we are.
Keefe: Okay. My thinking on those is just based on their presentation. I might consider
allowing those versus B where I think on Lot 12, based on the discussion, I’m not very
comfortable with that so I would likely go, I would agree with the wording with Letter A, Letter
B. I would probably look at C and say, I might approve the front yard. Where’s the street?
Saam: The street grade is in B. That’s in denying it.
Keefe: Okay, so that’s why I’m trying to talk through this. See I might approve the street
variance. I might approve the street variance based upon what I’m hearing tonight.
McDonald: You talking about the private street?
54
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: No, the grade.
Keefe: No. No, I would approve, I would change the wording in B to approve the variance and
then C, I would approve the front yard setback but deny the bluff setback. The bluff variance.
And then lastly.
Sacchet: That’s wetland.
Keefe: Yeah.
Papke: I’m with you so far and then maybe move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 12 to Lot 11.
Sacchet: Where does it talk about the private street in the conditions, and the motion?
Generous: Well it doesn’t say it specifically. There’s a condition related to it which is
subdivision, 37.
Sacchet: See that’s part of what scares me too. We have like conditions that are as long as the
staff report.
Keefe: I’m trying to work the developer and to his wishes and also to try and get some
movement here.
Papke: The only thing that still makes me a little nervous here, if we go ahead with the private
street but we deny the bluff setback, and even if we move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 11, do we
still have a bluff setback problem with the private street if we trunk it at Lot 11?
Saam: I mean possibly. Just from us looking at it, we think. Let me clarify something. The
private street is not classified as a structure, so you can put pavement in the grading setback.
Papke: The grading setback.
Saam: But it’s where it’s in the bluff, I mean nothing can go in the bluff. No grading, no
pavement, no anything. So we think they can get the private driveway, they skinny it up to 10
feet just for Lot 12, by the bluff yeah, and stay out of the bluff.
Sacchet: I don’t see anywhere in the proposed motions where it actually gives them the variance
for the private street. Is that just implied or I mean that’s.
Generous: Yes. It should be as part…
Keefe: So we could add that.
Generous: Street grade and private street.
Sacchet: So Debbie Lloyd definitely did have a point about that part, okay.
55
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Keefe: So can we add that?
Sacchet: Or deny it.
Keefe: And then letter D, I guess I would agree with what they’ve got there.
Sacchet: Alright. Comments. Anybody else who wants to make comments? Kurt, you look
ready.
Papke: I’m ready to roll.
Sacchet: Alright. I’d like to make comment that I do agree with your point with the exception
that I really, based on how I read this justification that is required for private street, I don’t think
we can support a private street variance. That’s in the findings. If you go further back, it’s on
page 2 of the findings. The last bullet on bullet C on the bottom, and apparently the full first line
of that bullet C comes straight off city code and say, use of private streets will permit enhanced
protection of the city’s natural resources. I think on that basis we cannot make a variance for a
private street.
Papke: Why? Using a private street here instead of a public street you are protecting the natural
resources.
Sacchet: You could never justify a public street in that case and by allowing the private street,
you allow further cutting into the natural resources.
Keefe: But not as much as you would with a public street.
Papke: That’s the rationale for a private street, so you can make them narrower. You can
have…you work around those constraints.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Alright. Are we ready to roll?
Papke: I’ll take a crack at it. Okay. I make a motion. I’m sorry, did you ask for a motion?
Sacchet: Yes, I’m asking for a motion.
Papke: Okay. I would like to make a motion.
Sacchet: A whole collection of them.
Papke: A collection of motions, A through D. First of all A, I make a motion that the Planning
Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Single Family Residential District based upon the findings of fact attached to this report.
Motion B. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat
(Subdivision) to create 39 single family lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with, and
56
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
here’s where I differ from what’s written in the staff, approval of variance for a private street and
I will strike with denial of variance for street grade. Plans prepared by Westwood Professional
Services Inc. dated 03-18-05 based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to
conditions 1 through 62.
Keefe: Can I do a point of clarification at this point on B?
Papke: You’ll have to wait until I finish with the motion.
Sacchet: Let him make the motion first and then we get a second and then we get.
Papke: And then I would like to add condition 63 that the cul-de-sac be moved back from Block
1, Lot 12 and that private street be truncated at Lot 11. Okay. Motion C. The Planning
Commission recommends denial of the, strike front yard, so it’d be denial of only the bluff
setback variances based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, and motion D,
recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on the site
subject to conditions 1 through 5.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
McDonald: Well point of clarification on that one. It should be 1 through 13 on D.
Sacchet: D is 13.
Papke: Oops, I’m sorry. I have the other page on top of the second page. Yes, I stand corrected.
1 through 13.
McDonald: I will second the motion.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Now we can start weeding through
this. Dan?
Keefe: C you said, could you repeat what you said on C, I’m sorry?
Papke: In C I stated I recommend denial of only the bluff setback variance. So approval of the
front yard variance and denial of the bluff setback.
Sacchet: So did you say approval of the front yard?
Papke: Approval of front yard. Denial of the bluff setback.
Sacchet: So we do get an approval there and a denial of the bluff setback. Okay. Alright.
Keefe: Going back to B. Are we still creating 39 single family lots?
Papke: Yes.
57
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Keefe: Even with, if we’re not allowing access to 12.
Sacchet: Well we don’t disallow. I don’t think it’s within our perimeter to disallow that. That’s
the landowner’s right.
Keefe: And then, okay. Are we creating an additional outlot with.
Papke: It’s merged in. If you look at condition 14, it incorporates all the wetland into Outlot C.
I don’t believe you, the way you stated the conditions that it creates a new outlot, if I’m reading
it.
Keefe: That was my question.
Sacchet: Clarification and possibly friendly amendment. B, condition 3 reads Lots 10, 11, 12,
Block 3 must be reconfigured to meet minimum standards. This will result in the elimination of
one lot.
Generous; Not with the outlotting of the wetland.
Sacchet: So that’s understood?
Generous: You can delete that condition.
Sacchet: Well we can leave it in too if it doesn’t conflict with anything. Just want to be clear.
Papke: Then it’s going to be confusing about how many lots we ended up with.
Sacchet: So we want to get rid of this will result in elimination of outlot. Just the first sentence
stays then, that’s my friendly amendment.
Papke: Accepted.
Sacchet: I think condition 7, I don’t know whether my English fails me there. If the land is not
dedicated for park purposes then the development shall pay full park fees. I know we’ve talked
about that land in what is it, north east corner but the condition certainly doesn’t say that. So
maybe you could say what we’re talking about. Like the amendment would be, if the designated
land on the northeast corner.
Aanenson: Outlot something.
Generous: Yeah, it’d be Lot 1, Block 4. And we actually have 40 lots.
Sacchet: So we have to make it 40 lots, then we call this by name, that would help.
Generous: Lot 1, Block 4.
58
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Papke: So condition 7 reads, if Lot 1, Block 4 is not dedicated for park purposes?
Sacchet: Yep.
Papke: Okay, got it. And we go to 40 lots in motion B, yes.
Sacchet: And we actually have condition number 17 which makes it very clear about the bluff
setback already, which would have conflicted with the variance.
Keefe: If 14 is included, do you need the second sentence in 16? Because we’re not creating
any riparian lots if, we’re including it all in outlot correct?
Sacchet: That’s fuzzy at best. That riparian situation at this point.
Papke: Do you still have riparian lots though?
Sacchet: They may.
Keefe: You wouldn’t, would you?
Generous: You probably wouldn’t because the OHW would.
Aanenson: Just leave it in and…
Sacchet: Alright. Do we need to say something about the private street beyond what we said at
this point in order to be proper?
Papke: I added condition 63.
Generous: A variance for the private street and.
Sacchet: Is in there, okay. Alright. Condition 57, the second part of it sounds more like notes
than a condition. I had discussion with city engineer. That needs to go but that’s no big deal.
Anything else?
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that thePlanning Commission recommends approval of
the Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential
District based on the findings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 40 single-family lots, four outlots and public right-
of-way with approval of a variance for a private street and street grade, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 03/18/05, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report, subject to the following conditions:
59
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
1.The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
2.The lot frontage for Lot 3, Block 1, must meet the 90 feet standard at the building setback line.
3.Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards.
4.The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width.
5.Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot unless the
pool is removed or the platting of the lot is concurrent with an application for a building permit
for a principal dwelling on the lot.
6.Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall verify that acceptable building pads can be
accommodated on all lots that have lake setbacks.
Lot 1, Block 4,
7.If is not dedicated for park purposes, then the development shall pay full park
fees in force at the time of final plat approval.
8.Building Official Conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
d.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to
city sewer service when available.
g.The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in
accordance with City Code.
h.The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
9.A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
10.The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
60
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
11.All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
12.A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
13.Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
14.Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
15.The OHW determination shall be completed prior to final plat approval. All plans shall
illustrate Lake Harrison’s OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW.
16.All non-riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet
wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management
zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot area.
17.The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff
and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).
18.The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water ponding is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
19.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
20.MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes
near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately
sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel
61
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap
and geotextile or permanent turf re-enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls
shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence,
mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with
category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements
is needed on Pond 1.
21.Following storm water inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall
be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be
provided.
22.Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen-specification Type-1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside.
23.Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the
rock construction entrance.
24.Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
25.The “Inlet Sediment Filter” detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1 ½ -inch rock, 2 feet
wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal t-posts shall be used, not
wood stakes.
26.Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
27.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
28.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
62
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
29.All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass
grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement
such as wetland or creek crossing areas).
30.Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
31.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $135,285.38.
32.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
33.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In
no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone.
34.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
35.A total of 319 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on
landscape plans dated 3/18/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows:
Lot, Block Number of trees required
Lot 1, blk 1 5
Lot 2, blk 1 2
Lot 3, blk 1 1
Lot 4, blk 1 1
Lot 5, blk 1 1
Lot 6, blk 1 2
Lot 7, blk 1 2
Lot 8, blk 1 2
Lot 9, blk 1 1
Lot 10, blk 1 2
Lot 11, blk1 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
Lot 12, blk 1 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
Lot 1, blk 2 4
63
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Lot, Block Number of trees required
Lot 2, blk 2 3
Lot 3, blk 2 2
Lot 4, blk 2 2
Lot 5, blk 2 3
Lot 6, blk 2 1
Lot 7, blk 2 3
Lot 8, blk 2 2
Lot 9, blk 2 2
Lot 10, blk 2 7
Lot 1, blk 3 5
Lot 2, blk 3 2
Lot 3, blk 3 2
Lot 4, blk 3 3
Lot 5, blk 3 1
Lot 6, blk 3 1
Lot 7, blk 3 1
Lot 8, blk 3 2
Lot 9, blk 3 2
Lot 10, blk 3 3
Lot 11, blk 3 2
Lot 12, blk 3 3
Lot 13, blk 3 3
Lot 14, blk 3 3
Lot 15, blk 3 2
Lot 16, blk 3 1
Lot 17, blk 3 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
36.The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on
the landscape plan dated 3/18/05.
37.Any private street is required to have 20-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back-of-
curb, be built to a 7-ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30-foot
wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to
submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7-ton design.
38.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant
should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property
owner.
39.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
64
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
40.Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the
Building Department.
41.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance,
and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the
construction plans.
42.Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City’s
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City’s Type II
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately
after grading to minimize erosion.
43.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
44.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
45.The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
46.All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota.
47.Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall.
48.On the preliminary plat sheet show the street right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs.
49.Minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required over the sanitary
sewer and watermain that is outside of the right-of-way.
65
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
50.On the grading plan:
a.Show the benchmark.
b.Add a note to remove all existing approaches.
c.Show the retaining walls top and bottom elevations.
d.Revise the street grades to comply with the 7% maximum requirement.
e.Eliminate Pond 1 and bring the drainage to Pond 2.
f.The proposed grading for Lots 4-6, Block 3 needs to be revised to prevent the garage
elevation of Lot 4 from being lower than the street.
g.The garage elevations of Lots 5 and 6 need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency
overflow for the street.
h.Install a culvert under the proposed street connection at Galpin Boulevard.
i. Show the 1036 contour around the housepad of Lot 2, Block 1.
j.Show the proposed storm sewer on the plan.
51.Label the existing and proposed street names on all plan sheets.
52.On the utility plan:
a.Revise the note to say "All storm pipe shall be Class 5…".
b.Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road,
Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Drive.
c.Revise the location of the downstream sanitary sewer from MH-15 so it goes between Lots
4 and 5 versus Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
d.Show all utility and storm ponds easements.
e.Sanitary service must be 6-inch PVC and water service 1-inch copper type K.
f.The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard.
53.Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for
future connection to the City’s second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw
watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer
will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and
to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction.
54.Since the applicant is now proposing more units (39) than what the property has been assessed
for, the additional 38 units (39-1=38) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral
connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording.
55.As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right-turn lane into the site
will be required to be constructed. The turn lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
56.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
66
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
57.Two additional fire hydrants are required. I had discussion with Assistant City Engineer Matt
Saam as to their location.
58.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such
protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction
except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
59.Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the
new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
60.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
61.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
62.Create a Lot and Block on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E.
The private street cul-de-sac shall be moved back from Lot 12, Block 1 to Lot 11, Block
63.
1.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the front yard variance and denial of the bluff setback variance s based on the findings of fact
attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
6 to 0.
Papke moved, McDonald seconded that thePlanning Commission recommends approval of
the wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following
conditions:
1.The wetland alteration permit is contingent on final plat approval for Lake Harrison.
2.A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
3.The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
67
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
4.All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
5.A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall
be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The
applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before
construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
6.Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
7.Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
8.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
9.Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for
Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1
slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket.
10.Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
11.Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
12.Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
68
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
13.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Well we wish you luck with this and I got to be very honest. If it was a different
developer I would have had a very hard time going along with this. So we’ll take a 5 minute
recess and we’ll try to briefly address the remaining items.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION
WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE
UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN
BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK,
APPLICANT, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff & Jenny Silus 2662 Shadow Lane, Chaska
Rick Dorsey 14215 Green View Court, Eden Prairie
Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska
Dave Zelinsky 2886 Ironwood Blvd.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions. Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: Yeah we’re, if my math is correct we’re losing about 3% of our office industrial space.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: What’s our feeling in terms of tax base? In terms of the market for office industrial right
now? You know is this lost?
Aanenson: Well that’s the question that the council has. When, in the process of looking at the
AUAR they spent some time saying that maybe this should be predominantly industrial, this area
down here. What you have to remember is when we updated the comprehensive plan in 1998,
we put this land use together. Projections were made. People made other economic decisions
69
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
based on ultimate population of significant developments that we’ve had recently. So those, all
those things had to be played into balance. Right now, I guess I would ask maybe Commissioner
Undestad if he would have any additional comments on the office industrial market right now,
but you know we don’t always make decisions for today. You have to think long term in
holding it but that was one of the questions that the council said too. We can zone it office
industrial. It may sit there for quite a while, you know as opposed to getting taxes today so the
council did discuss that.
Undestad: I don’t know. I mean again you’re looking farther down the road. I think as the
city’s probably seen too in the last few years, the industrial’s probably slowed down a little bit
around here. We’ve got some large projects out here. Lifetime, things like that but the office
warehouse or industrial stuff has been a little slow at catch up again. It’s, we’re starting to see
more activity now but long term, 3% and stuff.
Papke: Is that a consideration though. I mean if you look at where this property is, it’s all farm
land right now. So there’s really nothing to compare it to in Chanhassen. There is adjacent,
Autumn Woods in Chaska. There’s a Chaska single family housing development to the south. I
mean you know, it’s not exactly an office warehouse area right now so I have kind of mixed
feelings about it. On one hand I hate to lose what it’s next to, it’s next to homes.
Aanenson: And that was a lot of the rationale when we put the recommendations for land use.
There’s industrial across here in Chaska is why we gave that. Could it be, could more of this
that’s closer to Powers possibly be industrial? Yeah. We looked at this as industrial, kind of in
the convergence of that triangle there. You know what this eventually is the frontage road
making it’s way down through here, so you’re right.
Sacchet: In terms of designation, I’d like just to clarify one thing. Since it’s designated office
industrial or medium density, that doesn’t mean if somebody comes and uses it for one use that
then we have to make up for the other use somewhere else in the city because we’d be basically
say anybody coming with one of those two uses has to, if it’s the right thing for this, right?
Aanenson: Well that’s how I would say it. I think the council kind of wants to do a check and
balance. If we take it here, you have to give it somewhere else but I’m not sure you can always
do that, but that’s the challenge and certainly everybody in this area, if they could do multi
family high density or medium density…because they can make that happen today. But again
we’d be responsible for that mix of different land use choices. Housing types. And I glossed
over that which I do want to go back to really quickly. And I apologize. That’s one of the things
too that’s important is the different, you know we just approved a lot of subdivisions in the
600,000 plus. Over the last 150 that we’ve gone lots, single family lots. So in this project it’s
proposing some price point under the 200,000. As I indicated in the staff report, we are…and by
today’s dollar anything under $193,700 would qualify for affordable owner occupied housing, so
and they do have that proposed in this project so again that will meet some of our housing goals.
Sacchet: Okay, and that’s always something that the Met Council is pushing us to do right? And
we’re kind of behind with that aren’t we as a city?
70
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Aanenson: Yeah, we have, the biggest challenge we have is the rental. That’s the toughest to do
and this again is market rates. There’s no incentive. It’s being all, it’s market rate driven.
There’s no assistance from the city or any other agency. Again we’ve had Carver County HRA
buy some units and work with the developer and rent those out and then move people in a
different, more permanent housing.
Sacchet: I didn’t mean to derail your questioning Kurt. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Now you
did mention that staff is recommending tabling and there’s a considerable collection of lists I
should say from the different departments of what could be done. However this is advertised as
a public hearing for tonight so I’d like to follow through the steps with the understanding that if
we, as the Planning Commission go with the recommendation from staff and do table this, that
this will come back. That we will address this at a later meeting again and I want to just make
clear that I would also extend the public hearing to that meeting as well, but with that, if the
applicant wants to summarize this under that aspect, without maybe going into real excessive
detail. If you want to make some statements, that would be appreciated please.
Krista Novack: Good evening. My name is Krista Novack. I’m the Community Planning
Manager for Town and Country Homes and I have with me tonight Kevin Clark, who is our
Director of Development. Ron Fuchs is our Entitlements Manager and Rick Jansen is our V.P.
of Land Acquisition. We also have Ed Hasek and Chris Moerhl from Westwood Professional,
planners and engineers of the site here to answer questions but first we’d like to thank staff and
they’ve worked very hard on our property and also to thank Planning Commission for the
opportunities to present our proposal and get feedback from you. Kate was very thorough in the
presentation and I guess what I wanted to address is just the biggest impact was the re-
delineation of the primary overlay district and how that’s going to affect our plan and Kate kind
of alluded to that. We can go to the site plan. It’s hard for me not to be able to point to it but if
you can go to the northern portion by the primary and then include the pocket park area and the
two connections to the eastern. As Kate mentioned, first of all with the Majestic architecture,
which is our rear loading garage, we are increasing the size of the driveways from 10 feet to 20
feet so that area, where you see that, those buildings is going to be shifted along with the areas to
the north with the premiere walkout units along the primary zone. That’s going to squeeze that
pocket park area and so that pocket park area that originally was planned is going to get smaller
and shrink up and then also we wanted to do is connect those two streets so we have more of a
loop and the buildings on the east side of that loop would be connected by a private drive, so
there’s more going to be of a loop, a circulation with that road. That’s one of the changes that is
going to happen that is significant but it’s not going to compromise the intent of our plan.
Another thing too on the south portion of the site with the primary overlay district and the
shifting of that, the southeast corner with the retaining walls, we understand that is an area that
we need to address and we are working towards the best possible solution for the retaining walls
and the grades. Maybe it’s re-adjusting the product or how they lay out but we understand that’s
a hurdle we have to jump and we’re looking into that. As well as parking, and overall, generally
parking. I think we hit the numbers but we are focusing more on the proximity of the parking
area.
Sacchet: Do we have any questions for the applicant? Not at this point? Alright, thank you.
That was definitely key points you addressed, I appreciate that. Getting right to the point. Now
71
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
this is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come up and address this item at this point, this is
your opportunity. Please state your name and address for the record.
Rick Dorsey: My name’s Rick Dorsey. I have property on Lyman Boulevard and I just, I guess
at this point in the evening, this is a pretty detailed or big plan. I just would like to say I do have
comments and to get into them in detail would not be timely here this evening. I just want to
make sure that there is in fact an extension of the public hearing to let you know that there is.
Sacchet: Yes, I already mentioned that we would do it that way. And I mean, I would think we
need a more finalized proposal in front of us to get into the detailed discussion of it so we
definitely will extend the public hearing to that point.
Rick Dorsey: Even to the point of some of the other issues that you’re looking at, besides just
the detail of this plan. Change of land use, that type of thing.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Anybody else?
John Chadwick: My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Ryan Circle. I’m here
representing the Peterson family. I’m glad to say good evening instead of good morning. It’s
getting a little bit late.
Sacchet: We’re not going to be here that long.
John Chadwick: Sounds fine. But thank you for the chance to get together here. We have
worked quite a bit with staff and have enjoyed that. The Peterson property shares a number of
similarities with the Town and Country or slash Bernardi property and that is definitely we
would, we share the exact same zoning. We share a couple thousand feet of contiguous
boundary. Their east boundary, our west boundary. We share a great desire to have residential
on this, on the Peterson property as well, being that we share all of these commonalities. The
question before you this evening…how does this plan fit in with your overall community goals?
How does it fit in with the land use and the whole 640 acres? How does it fit in on this particular
parcel, and I guess by definition how does it fit in with the neighbor? So we would ask you to
consider that as you move along. I don’t know if this is, if there’s still room for possibilities on
this.
Aanenson: It’s not going to show up on this but you can see it on your monitor.
John Chadwick: Again the same, the same considerations. There’s 120 acres sitting there, of
which 29 acres is going to be in the primary Bluff Creek. Another 49, almost 50 acres going to
be in the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay. Just so, there’s an awful lot of detail but it’s part of
this overall global community AUAR neighborhood area. We would also support staff
recommendation. There’s a lot of things that have gone into this and careful deliberation and
Kate’s words are well taken in terms of land use as it applies to the entire area so in brief that’s it
and thank you for the opportunity.
72
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody else would like to address this? Seeing nobody
else getting up, I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for brief
discussion and comments.
Audience: I just want to know when the next public hearing will be?
Sacchet: When will the next public hearing be? It will be published. It will be in the Villager
and I don’t know, do we send a notice out if we have a continued public hearing? So it’s not
really a different public hearing. I should make this very clear. I did not close the public
hearing. I leave this public hearing open. Okay, correction. This public hearing remains open
til this item comes back and then we continue the public hearing.
Aanenson: I just want to make for the record, if you want to track an item you can go to the
city’s web page and then check the agenda. They’re tentatively posted and then you can also
download the staff report by going to the date of agenda. If you’re still not sure then you’re
welcome to call the city staff where we can help you on when this is.
Sacchet: Okay, comments. Discussion.
Papke: Lots of houses. Lots of impact on the schools. It is, is the school planning taking, are
they aware of this? Are they taking this into their account?
Aanenson: Yep. Bob just met with the School District 112 as they updated their, yes. Their
population projections. Yep. Again it’s under the, if you look at where they’re at for density,
which we pointed out there too, it’s come down from what the original was. The 459 and the
overall density which I think they’re going to at 5.81. For net. As opposed to the 8. So it may
go down a little bit more.
Sacchet: It’s an interesting comment that came up in terms of looking at the whole area as much
as possible as a whole. I mean which is somewhat difficult because I mean the proposal they
brought in front of us are market driven and we don’t have the liberty to say well, we want this
proposal and don’t want the other. But nevertheless it creates a context. I mean if we have one
use going in, it certainly has an influence of what is going to be an appropriate mix to it and so
forth, so I think that’s definitely something to look at. I think all the critical aspects have been
touched on. I think you were here, as we went through our earlier deliberation here and I want to
point out we do take our bluff setbacks and preservations quite serious so with wetlands and as
such, primary zone, I think that’s been pretty clear of what staff already said so I’m going to
reiterate that to be really clear about it. The concern about parking, bringing it closer to the
residents, we had that in our discussion session already. The aspect of the retaining walls. I
mean they’re all pretty clearly defined and then you have tons of specifics from staff to work on.
I don’t know whether we need to belabor this or if not let’s make a motion.
Keefe: Just make a motion to table.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
73
Planning Commission Meeting – April 19, 2005
Zorn: Second.
Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second.
Keefe moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Liberty on
Bluff Creek, Planning Case No. 05-11. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: We look forward to see this moving forward and appreciate all your efforts with this.
Papke: Which of these materials should we preserve for the future?
Aanenson: I don’t think you need any of that.
Sacchet: We’ll get a whole new set. We don’t need to keep the blueprints either.
Aanenson: Hold on to these.
Sacchet: Just the glossy, okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 2005 as presented.
Aanenson: Before you adjourn, you do have a work session with the City Council. I meant to
get you out, what we’re going to talk about is the goals that we did last year and the one we did
for this year. I was going to remind you of those and send that to you tomorrow via e-mail. I
believe it’s 5:30 next Monday, but I’ll e-mail you on that.
Sacchet: Yeah, that’d be a good reminder.
Papke: Of course I won’t be there. This will be the last semester. I might be giving it up.
Sacchet: I hope we’ll talk about cul-de-sacs versus dead end streets.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
74