PC Minutes 06-17-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
4.Silt fence shall be installed using metal t-posts.
5.An erosion control escrow in the amount of $1,500.00 shall be provided prior to commencing
grading operation.
6.The interim use permit shall end with the substantial completion of the Lyman Boulevard
(CSAH 18) project from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VISTAS AT BENTZ FARMS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
(A2) TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW & MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR; AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES CREATING 15 LOTS, 4 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 25.65 ACRES LOCATED AT 7280 AND 7300 GALPIN BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT: HOMESTEAD PARTNERS, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-18.
Aller: And we’ve received the report and before we get going on that we have received a letter dated
June 12, 2014 from Homestead Partners signed by Tom Strohm, the Project Manager of Land
Development and we just received this. We’ve done the best we can to read it and incorporate it and
we’d love to hear about it during the presentation. So with that we can move forward.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This is, the project is Vistas at Bentz Farms,
Planning Case 2014-18. Homestead Partners is the developer of this project. Property is located on
th
Galpin Boulevard, just north of West 78 Street on the west side. It actually consists of 3 parcels.
There’s a vacant parcel in the northwest corner of the property and then the farmstead site on the south
side and then homestead site in the central, north central portion of the property. The request is for a
rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District to Residential Low and Medium Density. A
condition use permit for development within the Bluff Creek corridor and preliminary plat with a variance
for use of a private street creating 15 lots and 4 outlots with the dedication of public right-of-way. The
Homestead Partners letter, memo that I provided to you is their response to the staff recommendations in
the report. Most of this is technical details that will be resolved between preliminary and final plat. They
have to provide us with additional information and so he’s trying to clarify that. They are working on the
private street has an island area within it and they’re looking at whether or not they can continue to have
that or because the design wasn’t clear as part of their submittal and so they’re asking if it’s a sunken
design would the Fire Marshal allow that so we’re working that out with him. I did submit that to him for
review and he hasn’t gotten back to me on that as of yet. The one item that I can clarify is the applicant
was requesting some type of hybrid credit for the parks and recreation. I did contact the Parks Director
and he said there’ll be no credit involved with this because Sugarbush Park is located a quarter mile north
of this site and so the City has park facilities available. Also under the residential low and medium
density, part of the intent is to preserve large areas of permanent open space. Upland areas of open space
and that I’ll show as part of the review that they are providing that. In exchange they get smaller lot sizes
for some of their development and so that’s the exchange we were looking at. So those were the two
major issues. The areas currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, it’s really a holding category. To the
north of it is the Fawn Hill development and that is zoned Single Family Residential. To the west,
northwest is the Longacres development which is a Planned Unit Development Residential. Both of those
are single family homes and then to the southwest is the Vasserman Ridge development and along that
specific edge there are both single family homes and a twin home development. To the south is approved
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
th
site plan for an apartment building on the south side of West 78 Street and then the land immediately
th
north of West 78 Street would be preserved as permanent open space. Across Galpin Boulevard to the
east you have the Walnut Grove development which are single family homes on the, immediately
adjacent to this project. The area is guided for residential low density uses which permits densities of 1.2
to 4 units per acre. This development comes in just under 2 units an acre on a net basis so it would be
consistent with that. Also as part of the development they’re preserving the open space. The Bluff Creek
headwaters area and that is another area that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is looking at preserving.
There are several zoning categories that would be consistent with the low density. The RLM allows
smaller lot sizes but we get the, again the permanent open space upland areas that are, the development
are preserving so we are recommending that they rezone the property to RLM. The conditional use
permit, it’s a little hard to see but the primary corridor follows the property line here and then along the
Bluff Creek which is just on the south end of this development. It’s 50 feet out and includes some of the
treed areas and so that whole area is the primary zone. It requires a 40 foot setback for structures from
that. Conditional use permits are a way to preserve natural features in this corridor. We’ve been working
on protecting Bluff Creek corridor from Highway 41 all the way down to the Minnesota River valley so
as developments come in we take through this process and review it for consistency with that ordinance.
We are recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to dedication of Outlot A to the
City for permanent open space. The subdivision request. Again all of Outlot A is on the west side of the
property and includes two areas of upland. This northern area has areas of bluff within it and then the
southern area is surrounded by wetland on three sides and then the Bluff Creek itself comes along the
south side so it’s an isolated area. There is an old farm road that they use, the farmer used to get out there
and hay the area but there’s no development in that. The Bluff Creek corridor requires that this, the
primary zone be preserved as permanent open space and no development except for the City has put some
trails in the corridor but other than that it’ll remain natural. They’re creating 15 lots and 4 outlots. Three
of the outlots are for potential future development when the, if the property to the north would ever come
in they could through some kind of contractual agreement include portions of those outlots into their
future developments to create full size lots. And they ghost platted the one lot to the north of this that
would connect this development to the Fawn Hill development so long term when that area develops we
want a continuous road system within that. The 4 southern lots, 1, 2, 3, 4 are served via the private street.
Staff supports this because there’s a significant soil issues due to the wetland located in his back yard and
they, we’re trying to force the houses farther away from that so they work out better for the future owners.
And then they have the regular single family lots, the smaller, it’s about 75 foot average lot frontage. 50
is a minimum requirement so they’re exceeding all the minimums on each of these lots. And yes, future
development. When they come in for a development they will be mass grading this site to put in the road
system up to the end to create the building pads on both sides of the street and they’re looking at a berm
along Galpin Boulevard here for these 4 or 5 houses that will be on this end. They also have two
stormwater treatment areas for the development. This one is primarily, will be for the northern part of the
site and this one will pick up the private street area in some of their rear yards. Utilities will be extended
as part of this project. They go to the property line. They show how they would eventually link up at the
end of Fawn Hill if this new property to the north ever comes in. Stormwater’s provided. Sanitary sewer.
Water services. We did as part of our submittal process we did send a copy of the proposal to the Carver
County Historic Society to get their input. They responded that while this house is not designated on the
National Register that they wanted to come out and they actually went out and photographed the site to
document it. I did talk with Wendy Biorn with the Historical Society. The significance of this is Henry
Lyman was a, well he was the first postmaster of Chanhassen and he also was into propagating winter
hardy plants. And then his son came in later and he was promoting agri-business within Carver County
and Minnesota and specifically Grimm alfalfa. I did find out that Grimm’s farm house was actually
preserved and restored and it’s at a Three Rivers Park now and was preserved through the use of State
money. But there’s no specific proposal to preserve this site. Staff is recommending the Planning
Commission adopt motions recommending approval of the rezoning, the conditional use permit and the
preliminary plat with variances for 15 single family lots within this development and then we’re being
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
specific on the single family lots because under RLM it permits other uses and so we want it within the
development contract. And adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
Aller: Bob with the RLM are we still within that 1.2 to 4?
Generous: Yes. And I calculated it.
Aanenson: Yeah it was under 2, correct? That’s what you said?
Generous: Yes.
Aller: Questions?
Undestad: Comment for Bob. So this that came in now, the red line and the answers to a lot of the
conditions on there, you’ve had. You guys have had communications with the applicant through all this?
Generous: Yes I have.
Undestad: Some of the issues he had on here were offering up something other than what was
recommended so.
Generous: Right. And as my discussions with staff members were a lot of them are technical details that
we resolve later. They have to show that they’re doing the water treatment requirements or explain why
they can’t do that and that takes a little more work on their part. It’s something that you usually don’t
resolve at the preliminary level.
Undestad: Okay.
Aller: Any other questions from commissioners?
Hokkanen: Bob so at this stage we don’t need to worry about the cul-de-sac? Or the island in the cul-de-
sac at this stage? Isn’t that what you’re saying, we’re too early.
Generous: (Yes).
Hokkanen: Okay. Alright.
Aller: That’s been submitted to the fire to take a look at.
Generous: Correct.
Aller: So the conditions right now would stand as in the report unless modified by the council. Any
further questions?
Hokkanen: I guess I do have another question Bob. With the road ending or the street, where is it? I
don’t know where the page is. Where that ghost property, so the street, so it wouldn’t connect to Fawn
Hill for years or, I mean is that property the ghost plat, is that the current farm that’s up there now?
Generous: The horse stable, yes.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Hokkanen: Yes, so I mean they may never.
Generous: Correct.
Hokkanen: So this may never or we’re talking 30 years never connect to Fawn Hill. Or until they.
Aanenson: I guess the example I would give on that one would be Mr. Jerome Carlson’s property off of
Kings Road. That plat went through and probably 10 years later we just did the southern part of that. We
also ghost platted that and just kind of gave a layout. We wanted the street to go through so it’s not
uncommon that we do that. Again you always try to plan ahead so you could lay that out.
Hokkanen: Right.
Aanenson: It may not come to fruition but we asked that they do that so they’ve accommodated that with
this project.
Hokkanen: If it ever could happen.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: Good questions. Okay, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Please state your name
and address and representation for the record sir.
Jeff Schoenwetter: Good evening. My name is Jeff Schoenwetter and I am with JMS Custom Homes and
JMS will be the builder if this plat’s approved of many if not all of the homes. We have a brief power
point that’s on your screen and I assume that if I push that, yep. One of these buttons will get it to move
forward. First I want to thank your staff. They’ve worked very hard. We are the third or fourth
developer that’s tried to bring this site forward. It’s a very challenging site due to several conditions that
ironically we developed what you call Fawn Hill. The plat is actually Forest Meadow and the last time I
had the privilege of being in front of the Planning Commission here in Chanhassen I think was 18 years
ago. I didn’t have any gray hair then so here we are tonight. Our development entity is Homestead
Partners and that’s an entity that the next generation of my family is doing land development with. We
also have Charlie Wiemerslage, and Charlie I apologize for that, with Sather-Berquist with us tonight so if
there’s any engineering questions, we can try to answer those. Braun has done all our soil studies out
there and they’ve been extensive and as some of you know JMS Homes has been building in this
neighborhood and other neighborhoods in your community for just about 30 years next summer so kind
of fun to be back. At any rate, well that was the wrong button. Let’s try, that was definitely the wrong
button. Well try again. There are only two left. Okay, we’ll use that one. So the, let’s see. How come
that works for you? There we go. So there are 3 parcels here and they’re owned by 3 different related
parties and we’ve been able to put all 3 together. We’ve blended the zoning because there were multiple
zonings on the site and there are 2 existing homes and several out buildings that we intend to remove and
we also are going to constrain curb cuts on Galpin significantly. That there will be one point of ingress
and egress with very good sight lines. Should improve safety and visibility quite a bit. The site you saw
earlier, and that is our previous plat there, Fawn Hill Court which is our cul-de-sac to the north and it may
take me another 10 or 20 years if I’m back but I don’t know that we’ll ever get these street connections all
put together but at the request of staff we did conceive a ghost plat. There’s a lot of wetland on the site as
you’ve heard. The engineering of both water table and soil conditions I think presented significant
challenges for the previous developers. We seem to have had a little bit of success in working through
that by reducing our density by over 5 units from what otherwise would be a conforming plat. So by any
measure this is a very low density project and naturally as you can imagine we wish we could as a
practical way put more home sites on here. We just don’t think that it’s practical to do all the soils work
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
that it would take and it really would change the character of the site which we’re very excited about.
They’re going to be very special homes looking out over very large vistas and I think they’re going to be
some very lucky families that enjoy living here. As you can see the vast majority of the ownership of this
site is, as I said there were 3 owners, is going to become dedicated open space and that’s a big deal and
you’ve read in our staff at Homestead’s rebuttal to some of the park and park fee issues, we’ll continue
working that out and I’m sure we’ll have it resolve with staff before we get down field. The other issue
based on the setback from the creek is the size of the cul-de-sac. You are the only city that I’ve
experienced that has a 60 foot radius standard city street radius cul-de-sac design on a private driveway
and we’re trying to be creative and we’re trying to find some ways to not create a lot of hard cover. A lot
of rain runoff. It doesn’t really make sense but our engineers and the staff at Homestead are working
diligently with your staff following the rules. I’m hoping that we can find something that’s more
aesthetically pleasing for the residents of this neighborhood because as a practical reality it’s our opinion
that cul-de-sac is ridiculously large. We look forward to a great project. You can look forward to some
great homes with a high quality builder and a very low density neighborhood so if there are any questions
I’d love to answer them. Otherwise I was upstaged by a very thorough report from your staff.
Aller: Great, any questions? Thank you for the presentation.
Jeff Schoenwetter: Thank you kindly.
Aller: And we appreciate you coming in and working with staff because it’s very important that we’re all
on the same page as we move forward so thank you.
Jeff Schoenwetter: They’re very well informed and very helpful. Thank you.
Aller: Okay with that I’ll open the public hearing portion of the meeting regarding this matter. Anyone
wishing to come forward and speak either for or against this item can do so or ask questions. Welcome
again sir.
Tim Paine: Thank you.
Aller: Could you state your name and address again for the record please.
Tim Paine: That was my first question. Yeah, Tim Paine. 2345 Fawn Hill Court.
Aller: Thank you Mr. Paine.
Tim Paine: A number of my questions were alluded to at least for answers in the preceding presentation
one of which, I don’t know if you can see it with that camera or not. It’s actually part of one of your
slides. As you noted that Outlot A. I saw A, B and D I believe were some of the outlots that were noted
here. One that we pointed to but it’s not noted on this here is this portion right here. It’s known as
preserved open space. It doesn’t say anything about permanence and it doesn’t say anything about it
being part of an outlot. Is it contiguous across here or how is that being…?
Generous: The plat shows it all as Outlot A.
Tim Paine: This whole portion here?
Generous: Everything, yes. Everything that’s not in the lots is in that Outlot A.
Tim Paine: Okay. It’s not bounded by this portion here?
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Generous: No, that’s just the underlying ownership pattern.
Tim Paine: So could you define that for me a little bit. It’s preserved wetland. To what extent, of what
permanence does that have when it comes to that sort of thing. Was that, never be developed?
Generous: With the City taking ownership.
Tim Paine: That’s the way it sits?
Aanenson: (Yes).
Tim Paine: Okay. Considering that my neighbor and I live right behind there, that was our first biggest
question. The other question I had was you mentioned, the Chairman mentioned a letter to the Planning
th
Commission on June 12. Will that be part of the record on the website that we’ll be able to see?
Aller: You will.
Tim Paine: And will that nice presentation be part of that too from the developer as well?
Jeff Schoenwetter: Here’s a copy of the letter and on the second from the last page there’s…
Tim Paine: Okay. I’ll share this with the folks there because that’s the questions I have. I think most of
the rest of them, considering that this meeting is to focus on the rezoning of this areas here and the trade-
off I was looking for was that permanence that you’ve already talked about. That’s fine. The other
questions I have deal more with traffic flow and things like that but that’s best left to the City Council
meeting I take it?
Aller: Okay, or if you have questions I’m fine with a dialogue today so that you can present, we can have
a record that’s built so the City Council can have an opportunity to hear concerns. That’s what we’re here
for.
Tim Paine: The question I would have and the concern I would have with regard to traffic flow in that
area is that the speed at which traffic comes by there, the rise and drop of the hill that is Galpin from the
th
stop sign down to 78 Street and where that will be positioned, which at this point appears to be right
about where there’s a fire hydrant at that location. Leaves a significant blind spot, and especially to the
north. As far as any traffic existing from there, unless there would be a significant change to the contour
of the grading at that point you’d be looking at people inching out and inching out before they would be
able to zip out there. That’s my belief from having walked there quite a bit. Yeah right there. That’s a
question I would have is just that someone would take that into consideration in that, in looking at that
and literally sitting there at rough grade anyway, what you would think would be in a family sedan as
opposed to a pick-up truck that’s got a lot higher sight lines. Something that you’re looking out to that
north side out your left hand window. What kind of view do you have for oncoming traffic? That would
be the only other question I had that I noted on there with regard to that because it’s a question that I think
that should be addressed as far as I like the commentary earlier about planning ahead and making sure
that that’s taken into consideration. The only other point I wanted to make, I had some pictures that I
unfortunately did not get a chance to move from my phone to the, to a stick so I could show them but the
degree to which the water builds up in there, especially early in May when we had the significant rains.
The drainage system that’s in place right now would have to be very robust to hold what we saw, we
witnessed there as far as flow from Bluff Creek that filled in that wetland area. It is very well used by
Mother Nature if you will with regard to that containment. All the flow from the rain gutters, or the storm
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
drains in our neighborhood goes right to the back side of that current horse property area so any sort of
drainage that’s coming off and into that area is significant and is going to need to be handled aggressively
I guess is the best way to put it so that’s my concerns and my considerations I’d like to ask the council to
look into.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Tim Paine: Thank you.
Aller: You want to address the permit?
Fauske: I’d like to thank Mr. Paine for his very thoughtful questions. First with regards to traffic, I’m
quite certain the sight line at Galpin was taken a look at but we will certainly clarify that and get that
clarified for council as they consider the preliminary plat application. With regards to stormwater runoff,
we did have a very wet spring and as the developer alluded to there’s quite a bit of soils in there that are
saturated. When a development is, the ponding is designed for a development they do take a look at the
off site drainage as well so it’s not just taking a look at the runoff from the site but looking at the runoff
from the whole area as well and making sure they have provided enough storage in the stormwater ponds
to accommodate that runoff both within the development and off site.
Aller: Great. And it’s my understanding because of the reduced density we have a much better chance of
making sure that there aren’t problems out there. There’s less hard cover.
Fauske: Correct, there would be less hard cover under this scenario than if they added additional lots.
Aller: Great. Thank you. I see someone else coming forward. Please state your name and address for
the record.
Myron Marcotte: Hi. Myron Marcotte, 7240 Galpin Boulevard.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Marcotte.
Myron Marcotte: I’m the owner of the ghost plat. Just a number of small questions. There’s currently a
shared driveway on the, and the boundary of one of the lots in our property. There was some discussion
in here about potentially vacating that easement that exists today and just curious as to whether that can
happen with a permit or not down the road.
Aller: I don’t think, is it, it’s not intended at this time is it to vacate it?
Aanenson: I’m sorry I was just looking through your easement. If you could clarify what your, so the
fact that you’re sharing the driveway?
Myron Marcotte: The driveway that heads to the horse barn.
Aanenson: Correct.
Myron Marcotte: Right to the, I guess south of that there’s an easement between the two of our properties
where I think it’s 30 feet on each of our properties so that to the extent that down the road anything was
ever built in the upland that they had access to it. So my question is, if the upland is being dedicated
down the road let’s say to the City, would the easement be vacated so that that property in essence. I’m
not saying we would ever build on the 30 feet but if you know what I mean.
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Aanenson: We can certainly look into that. If there was no purpose for it, it could be vacated but we’d
just verify that. That’s something we’d follow up between now and City Council.
Myron Marcotte: Okay.
Aanenson: So thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may ask for clarification on page 10 of the staff report there is mention of a
driveway easement. Is that the one that you’re referring to sir?
Myron Marcotte: Yes.
Fauske: Okay, thank you. Alright.
Myron Marcotte: Secondly I know that there’s, and I didn’t follow it completely but there’s a lot of trees
in the properties we’re talking about. There’s a number of them along the road but there’s some
additional trees in the areas that would be built upon. Is it contemplated that those trees all go away or is
there any way to tell which trees would stay and which ones would go away in the areas that would be
built on?
Aller: And I think it’s on page 10.
Generous: It’s one of the attachments shows the area of tree removal and basically yes. All the middle
part of the site where the homes are going to be built would lose their trees. There would be the buffer
preserved along Galpin Boulevard that would remain and the stuff in the Bluff Creek corridor.
Myron Marcotte: Okay, that’s sort of what I contemplated from looking at it but I guess is that typical
where there’s quite a large number of mature trees in those areas and they would all go away is what
we’re saying?
Generous: Yes within the grading limits they would all go away, yeah.
Aller: I think the City itself, it’s our policy and the commission has always pushed to maintain any
mature vegetation, trees, landscaping that’s out there. So that’s taken into consideration by staff when it
looks at these plans and that’s why on the previous item we had the drip line and there were movements
and changes based on the fact that there were existing, there were existing tree lines and that’s done here
too. The trees from what I’m looking at, look like when they grade they’re going to have to remove the
certain vegetation and certain trees to grade but those that can be left are being left.
Aanenson: Yeah. Mr. Chair for clarification.
Aller: And it’s set out in the plan.
Aanenson: You can see what’s in red there. Those are, most of those are on the northeast corner adjacent
to Galpin will be the trees to be removed. You can see there’s a few around the farmstead, which there
hasn’t been many but those would be the ones removed. So you can see the existing on the left. On the
right would be the ones to be removed so you can see where, can you see where your barn is on there?
Myron Marcotte: Yes.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Aanenson: Yeah, so it’s.
Myron Marcotte: I’m sorry are there any on the right, from the new lake to the right in that picture that.
Aanenson: That will be preserved.
Myron Marcotte: Okay, but nothing to the right of that right now looks like it’s preserved other than the
line out by the road.
Aanenson: Correct.
Myron Marcotte: Okay. Last question.
Aanenson: Let me just clarify there too. So there is a replacement plan that’s required too and that is in
the staff report. So there’s a requirement to ratio when you remove trees that there’s a tree replacement
plan and that is a condition in the staff report too.
Myron Marcotte: Are they located on those same lots or where would they be located?
Aanenson: Yes. They would be located.
Generous: Well each lot would get their own tree and then any additional trees would be provided
throughout the site. Actually I think that came in later.
Aller: So on page 10 of 17 of the staff report I show proposed that there are 22 existing trees on the north
half of the buffer plus 30 overstory in a row and 2 overstory trees, 4 understory trees, 11 shrubs, plus 6
existing preserved trees and the applicant will construct berms. Okay. I don’t know whether that answers
your question but we make an effort to make sure that it’s repopulated.
Myron Marcotte: Okay. Last question. The trail that runs along Galpin, crosses the road at the stop sign
on Brinker Road and our driveway is one of the 4 stops at corners there. Is there any contemplation that
the trail would ever move to the other side? I know it’s kind of dangerous there but whether it crosses
over and continues on and then actually crosses back over. This was one of the points in the discussion
on the previous development but this, from what I read didn’t contemplate moving the trail back to the
south side. I guess the west side of the road right? It didn’t.
Generous: Not as part of this development, no. We are providing internally they’ll have a sidewalk
system to bring them up to the back side of the park. Sugarbush. Potentially with Galpin Boulevard
upgraded in the future, you know it’s Carver County that will have to determine that.
Myron Marcotte: Okay. Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any further public questions or comments? Yes sir.
Tim Paine: Mr. Marcotte brought something to mind. There is an existing trail that’s in the dedicated
area that’s going to the City that comes off of Moccasin I believe and on around the back side over there.
It goes part way into the open area. I was wondering if there’s any plan to dedicate that even further
because to Mr. Marcotte’s point also on the trail that’s on Galpin there is a portion that comes up from
th
78 and it kind of stops so it would be a good idea to maybe make that contiguous because there are
people crossing going back and forth to do that whole loop around that area.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Generous: Correct. Mr. Chairman, if you would, we did discuss that with the Parks Director and he
looked at it and they decided not to continue that because of the open channeled areas out there. They’d
have to put a bridging system in place and so it really didn’t make sense to continue that.
Tim Paine: Because it seems like they bridged some of it with culverts already, or at least to an extent. I
was just curious what it would take to get it to whatever that other terminus is on that other side to the
southwest I guess it would be.
Generous: Yes but that’s something we brought up and he said that they didn’t want to pursue that any
further.
Tim Paine: Okay, great. Thank you very much.
Aller: Yes Ma’am.
Wendy Peterson Biorn: Hi. My name is Wendy Peterson Biorn. I’m from the Carver County Historical
Society.
Aller: Welcome.
Wendy Peterson Biorn: And I just wanted to thank the City and Bob especially for taking us into
consideration and consulting with us and it’s been a real pleasure working with Bob and allowing us to
document the property. I suppose I should be thanking the builder for allowing us to go out there and
document the property before everything is gone so basically I’m here just to thank everybody for that.
And also I’m not sure if a federal agency’s involved because of the wetland but if it is Section 106 would
kick in and I am certified there so I can probably help with that and be more than willing to help with that.
As you have open land and trail, if it’s possible we would love to put up a, some type of a sign
commemorating Lyman’s contribution to the Grimm Alfalfa project because he really did do a lot in
bringing it public by contacting the University of Minnesota and otherwise so, but that’s the reason I’m
here. Just basically to offer that and thank Bob.
Aller: Thank you and thank you for all you and your association do for us.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair I just wanted to add. We didn’t put this in the staff report but our latest
Comprehensive Plan we did add a Resource Protection section and in that section we do talk about
recognizing those properties so, putting a marker on there or something we think would be appropriate
and we can work with the developer on that but again the City’s process for this is that we would work
with the Carver County Historical Society as our agency to do that so we did, Bob made that contact and
worked to that to get all the documentation but I think that would be something that our plan encourages
to just somehow just mark that property and for further information they can go to the other Grimm
property to get the details.
Aller: Anyone else? Seeing no one come forward, I’ll close the public hearing portion. Open it for
commissioner comments. Lot to digest.
Hokkanen: I would like some clarification on this easement between the horse property and the
developer’s property and what this little paragraph essentially means. I can’t quite understand what could
or could not happen. So they may apply for vacation of it or they’re not intending to?
Aanenson: Oh the easement you’re talking about.
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Hokkanen: The easement.
Aanenson: Yes, yes. Right now it appears that it’s a private easement between the two parties.
Hokkanen: Okay.
Aanenson: So really for them to negotiate. We would look to see if there’s any public interest in that
easement.
Hokkanen: Oh, okay.
Aanenson: But if it’s to get to the back of the property I think the concern was that, would that continue
that someone would try to get back there using that easement so we would look at how, what the terms of
that would be with this plat. And if I may I just want to make one other clarification. Bob kept saying
smaller lots. These are rather large lots. They’re 15,000. There’s only one that’s under 15,000 and the
frontages, the frontages are smaller and that’s in order to accommodate the complexity out there but again
this developer came in with the least amount of lots that we’ve seen. As he said we’ve worked through 3
or 4 different developers so, and in meeting the intent of the ordinance was preservation. Getting the
smaller frontages but still meeting that 15,000. Again there’s only one lot that’s under that and that’s in
excess of our standard RSF zoning district so I just wanted to clarify when he kept saying smaller lots, he
meant smaller frontages because they’re actually, to get the size house that the developer and the price
point the developer is going for you would need a much larger lot to accomplish that.
Aller: Great. Thank you for the clarification and I think Bob did mention the smaller to me meant the
decrease in the number for the density and not the size of the lot but. Sir please if you have something
additional to say.
Jeff Schoenwetter: Yeah Jeff Schoenwetter.
Aller: We’ll re-open the public hearing portion so that you can do that.
Jeff Schoenwetter: The easement in question is a, there’d be no reason that we would show that on our
plat because when we record the plat we’ll be extinguishing that benefit and the easement’s not a
reciprocal easement. The easement is the parcel to the north, the horse property is burdened by that
easement and I can’t imagine why that property owner would object to us vacating that easement. If they
do we’ll leave it in place but it’s of no benefit to us and it really serves no public purpose and it isn’t a
public easement at this time so from our standpoint our engineers and surveyors would contemplate that
that easement be extinguished at the time that the plat’s recorded. I hope that brings clarity.
Aller: Thank you. Okay once again I’ll close the public hearing. Any further comments? Questions?
Discussion.
Hokkanen: One more question.
Aller: Yes.
Hokkanen: Do we know the price point of these development of these homes?
Aanenson: He did show it on one of his slides but he didn’t elaborate on it.
Hokkanen: Oh, I missed it. Sorry. Okay.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
Yusuf: I think it was $500,000 to $750,000.
Aanenson: $500,000 to $750,000, yes.
Aller: Alright, any other conversation, communication. Discussion.
Hokkanen: Very thorough report.
Aller: Yeah it was a great report. Very thorough. Good questions from the audience and the individuals
that were involved so brought a lot of issues that can be looked at and examined before City Council
makes it’s final decision and with that I’ll entertain any motions.
Yusuf: Okay, I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council
approve rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Residential Low and Medium Density
(RLM), the conditional use permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek corridor, and
preliminary plat approval for 15 lots, 4 outlots, and public right-of-way with variances for the use of a
private street for single family detached subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts
the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion before me. Do I have a second?
Campion: Second.
Aller: I have a second. So a motion by Commissioner Yusuf, seconded by Commissioner Campion.
Any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approves the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate (A-2) to Residential-Low &
Medium Density (RLM); a Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek
Corridor; and Preliminary Plat for 15 lots, 4 outlots and public right of way with Variances for the use
of a private street for a single-family detached subdivision subject to the following conditions; and
adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
Rezoning
1.The rezoning shall apply only to the platted lots within Vistas at Bentz Farms and exclude the
outlots.
Conditional Use Permit
2.Dedicate Outlot A to the City.
Subdivision
Building Official Conditions
1. Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
2. Demolition permits are required for the removal of any existing structures.
3. Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
5. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
6. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
7. The applicant and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Engineering Conditions
1.The title survey must show all existing easements on Parcel 3.
2.The developer’s engineer must check the accuracy of the scale shown on the plan sheets.
3.The final plan submittal must show the proposed elevation at the proposed building corners.
4.Proposed lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations.
5.The grading plan must show proposed elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at
the curb line.
6.The grading plans shall be revised to show the elevation of the Emergency Overflow (EOF).
7.The nearby building openings must be a minimum of one foot above the EOF elevation.
8.The plans must identify proposed stockpile areas.
9.The developer’s engineer must work with City staff to revise the grading plan to either divert
or collect the runoff at the northeast corner of the property.
10.The developer’s engineer shall work with City staff to evaluate the condition of the culverts
in the Galpin Boulevard ditch and their capacity to carry additional stormwater runoff from
this property.
11.The grading must be revised such that water is not directed to run over the top of the
retaining wall.
12.The retaining wall must be designed by a professional engineer registered in the state of
Minnesota.
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
13.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured
in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber.
Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock.
14.A Homeowners Association (HOA) must be created to take ownership and maintenance
responsibility of the retaining wall and any drain tile that will cross property lines.
15.The final set of plans must show the proposed name for the private street.
16.The plans shall be revised to show the center of the private cul-de-sac as paved street, not a
raised center island.
17.Curb and gutter are required for the private street.
18.At the intersection with Fawn Hill Road, the curbs must have a radius for vehicle turns
instead of the 90-degree angle shown.
19.The engineering department’s preference would be to remove the farm drives and the
culverts underneath them. The developer’s engineer shall work with Carver County staff to
accomplish this.
20.The proposed watermain pipe shall by C900.
21.The developer’s engineer will ensure that CBMH-A4 does not conflict with the nearby
watermain.
22.An assessment for the Lake Ann Interceptor improvements from 2003 is outstanding for this
property. The principal of $187.50 must be paid or reassessed to the individual lots at the
time of final plat.
23.An assessment for water and sewer improvements from 2002 is outstanding. The principal
of $38,922.00 must be paid or reassessed to the individual lots at the time of final plat.
24.Water and sewer partial hook-ups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hook-up fees
will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time.
Fire Marshal Conditions
1.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants.
2.Prior to combustible construction, fire hydrants must be made serviceable.
3.Temporary street signs shall be installed prior to and during construction.
4.Prior to combustible construction, fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the
weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees, brush that is removed.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
6.The center island in the proposed cul-du-sac is not allowed.
7.Submit proposed private street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Building Official for
review and approval.
8.An additional fire hydrant will be required at the northwest corner of Galpin Boulevard and
Fawn Hill Road.
9.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the east side of the private drive/road.
Spacing shall be 75 feet, wording on both sides of posts. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for more information if needed.
Natural Resource Specialist Conditions
1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits near any preserved
trees. It shall be installed prior to grading.
2.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the types and locations of proposed
bufferyard plantings.
3.The applicant shall remove all hazard and diseased trees in the bufferyard area prior to final
acceptance of the completed development.
Parks Conditions
1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected at the time of final plat recording.
Planning Conditions
1.The applicant shall revise the lot width of Lot 2 to meet the 100-foot lot width at the building
setback line, which is 25 feet from the private street easement line.
2.The applicant needs to calculate the lot areas of Lots 1 through 4 excluding the lot area
encompassed within the private street easement.
3.Lots within the development are limited to single-family detached homes.
Water Resource Specialist Conditions
1.The developers engineer shall work with staff to provide more clear and concise demarcation
of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the setback from the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
2.The Bluff Creek Overlay District boundary shall be demarcated with appropriate signage at
all points of intersection with lot lines and at all major angle points.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 17, 2014
3.That portion of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and applicable setback disturbed for site
grading shall be vegetated in native vegetation and a planting plan and schedule shall be
provided.
4.Outlot A shall be dedicated to the City.
5.The 2% swale behind Lots 13 and 14 shall have a drain tile installed as part of the site
grading and utility installation. This shall be included before final plat approval.
6.The pond designs shall include either the installation of forebays as described in the City’s
Surface Water Management Plan or provide for the installation of environmental manholes or
4-foot or deeper sump manholes with a SAFL baffle at the last CBMH at station 21+00 and
at the CBMH located at the end of the private road.
7.A comprehensive stand-alone SWPPP document with all elements required by Part III of the
NPDES construction permit shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and
comment before final plat approval.
8.The applicant must demonstrate the feasibility of alternate methods of volume reduction to
justify the absence of any volume reducing management practices as is currently proposed
before final plat approval.
9.The applicant must comply with the requirements of all other jurisdictional agencies with
authority over the project area.
10.Surface Water Management connection charges are estimated to be $54,172.00. This
connection charge will be due at the time of final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated May 20, 2014 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
th
Aanenson: On Monday, May 27 the City Council approved the revocation of the conditional use
permits. The three that we had. They also approved Next Step Learning Center. I think that permit’s
underway and they’re out working on that project. Also the Black Walnut Acres, the one lot split with the
outlot. And then they approved the, oh they tabled, actually tabled the.
Aller: Rezoning.
Aanenson: Rezoning, yes. And actually in hind sight, they’re going to withdraw that rezoning. They’ll
th
plat that property for West 78 Street. You’ll see that coming back. That was left off in order not to hold
up the subdivision to the rear so that action was actually tabled. Other action for you, for your future
stth
Planning Commission items. We do not have a meeting on July 1 because that’s the 4 of July week and
th
I know that’s hard to get a quorum so, but we do have an item on for July 15 and that is a variance. In
addition to that we’re going to give an update on the stormwater management plan. Looking what the
watershed districts are doing so we’ll have our Water Resources Coordinator here for that. We do have
19